Gay marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman. Full Story
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5264 Sep 7, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You say the strangest things.
Don't start whimpering when the people you are harming fight back. That IS the American way, after all. And why would you thinking that only "liberals" believe in equal protection under the law?
I think you might be insulting a lot of conservatives with that. It's a core concept of our government and way of life in America.
Don't start whimpering when people decide that you're "fighting" back against democracy.

The United States considered Communism illegal. When you decide that democracy "hurts" you, you've fundamentally rejected our form of law. How many people have told you that:

1. You can't cherry pick the laws that you are willing to obey.
2. You can't change the law by illegal means.

Now, here is the choices that you WILL have to make. Are you going to go on inventing "hurt" when you know darn well that it's an imperfect world where people get "hurt" every day? Are you going to choose that path of illegality in an effort to put a minority in charge of a majority?

Everyone has choices. They WILL pay for the choices that they make. Yes. You CHOSE to be gay. EVERY single thing proceeds from there.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5265 Sep 7, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Demands like equal protection under the law?
Who gets to decide which 2% of law-abiding taxpayers will be marginalized at any given time, and can you lay out the frameswork for that as it appears in our Constitution?
Apparently YOU seem to think that it's OK to further marginalize about 43 percent of the law-abiding population in favor of less than 2 percent.

...and don't get me started on that self-important "law-abiding" compost! Suffice it to say that "law-abiding" and "marginalized" tend to be opposites, but some people go out of their way to appear marginalized. I wonder what other behaviors they actively pursue?
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5266 Sep 7, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You say the strangest things.
Don't start whimpering when the people you are harming fight back. That IS the American way, after all. And why would you thinking that only "liberals" believe in equal protection under the law?
I think you might be insulting a lot of conservatives with that. It's a core concept of our government and way of life in America.
Oh, yes. I'm quite aware of our tippy-tap, bathroom stall dancers in Washington. The politically active tend to have private agendas and well... my personal observation is that certain types of people are far more used to lying than others. But we won't go there if you don't want to talk about it.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5267 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>really? your club is famous for aiding and abetting sexual predators...
Yeah. Lots of gay priests too! I guess it goes along with that silly celibacy lie.

BTW - Check your facts. The "authorities" that you claim have total dominion over the truth are almost exclusively those of West European origin or colonial states of particularly English origin.

This isn't science. It's politics.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5268 Sep 7, 2013
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>Good, then don't expect the rest of us 98% to put up with your piss ant 2% demands. We aren't listening and the pendulum will swing back to the right sooner than you think. Besides, we don't have any use for sexual predators in our "club."
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20...
KANSAS CITY -- A Missouri man was arraigned Thursday on charges that he recklessly infected a sexual partner with the virus that causes AIDS, and a prosecutor said he potentially could have infected 300 more people in two states.

David Mangum, 37, faces a felony charge in Stoddard County Circuit Court in southeastern Missouri accusing him of exposing a 29-year-old man to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes a life-threatening failure of the immune system commonly known as AIDS, according to court documents.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/30/98...
Original post: A Michigan man has been charged with felony sex offenses after he told police he was HIV-positive and had set out to intentionally infect as many people as he could, police said. Health officials have issued an alert warning that "possibly hundreds of people have been exposed to HIV."
Advertise | AdChoices

The man, identified as David Dean Smith, 51, of Comstock Park, north of Grand Rapids, was arraigned Wednesday on a second count of "AIDS-sexual penetration with an uninformed partner" after police said they had identified a second possible victim.
Largely bisexual males infecting females and is reported as heterosexual spread. More accurate would be heterosexual sex with bisexual males. No protection. Seems some get angry because HIV will put a hamper on their multiple partner perverted sex life so they don't care about infecting others. Disgusting.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#5269 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Lots of gay priests too! I guess it goes along with that silly celibacy lie.
BTW - Check your facts. The "authorities" that you claim have total dominion over the truth are almost exclusively those of West European origin or colonial states of particularly English origin.
This isn't science. It's politics.
your meds seem off again, anonymous...

you seem to be having whole conversations in your head and then posting only parts of it to include others...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#5270 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20...
<quoted text>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/30/98...
<quoted text>
Largely bisexual males infecting females and is reported as heterosexual spread. More accurate would be heterosexual sex with bisexual males. No protection. Seems some get angry because HIV will put a hamper on their multiple partner perverted sex life so they don't care about infecting others. Disgusting.
so monogamous same sex marriage would be a good thing then, wouldn't it?

your prejudice and fear is getting in the way of clear thinking...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5271 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
HEY DUMMY! GROW A HEAD! HEU! HEU!
I've already read the definition. It doesn't apply to gay marriage.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
No law protecting gay behavior means no compelling governmental interest and no Strict Scrutiny.
Tell us all how you know how to interpret that better than than the Supreme Court does.
Looks like someone missed their nap. Not to mention a course on logical thought.
Marriage is a fundamental right, the US Supreme Court has held as much on 14 separate occasions.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
So, can you indicate a state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional? If you can, you had best contact the legal counsel of those defending traditional marriage, because they have not been able to come up with such an argument to justify their position.
Simply put, no such reason exists, and allowing same sex couples the right to legally marry does not infringe upon anyone else's rights.
Thanks for playing.

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#5272 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't start whimpering when people decide that you're "fighting" back against democracy.
........
So, democracy means that a majority can, for any reason or no reason at all, decide to strip basic civil and human rights from a tax-paying and law-abiding minority?

When did this start? There seems to have been a great many laws and SC court decisions that are telling me just the opposite of what you are.

Why, our Constitution and it's amendments even don't agree with you. Can you tell me when it was revoked, and what replaced it?

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#5273 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently YOU seem to think that it's OK to further marginalize about 43 percent of the law-abiding population in favor of less than 2 percent.
...and don't get me started on that self-important "law-abiding" compost! Suffice it to say that "law-abiding" and "marginalized" tend to be opposites, but some people go out of their way to appear marginalized. I wonder what other behaviors they actively pursue?
"Law-Abiding" is compost?

That's a sad thought. but par for your course, I guess.

And, unless you can prove that one person's marriage "marginalizes" another person, you might want to think about it for awhile, and come back when you have a better argument.

You see, most people just aren't that insecure. At least, I would hope not. If you are, and you believe so many others are, then you are to be pitied. If hurting other Americans and their families is what makes you feel validated and secure, then expect to feel a bit marginalized.

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#5274 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yes. I'm quite aware of our tippy-tap, bathroom stall dancers in Washington. The politically active tend to have private agendas and well... my personal observation is that certain types of people are far more used to lying than others. But we won't go there if you don't want to talk about it.
So now you are fantasizing about gay males in restrooms, when everyone else is talking about marriage law and family life.

Why do you do that? It's creepy.

Marriage certainly isn't a 'Private Agenda". It's valued and engaged in by a large percentage of the American population, and for good reason. The only thing you should be thinking about here is formulating the reasons - if there are any - that gay folks and their families won't benefit from the legal recognition of their marriages, and if straight folks or society will be harmed if MORE people legally marry.

Good luck with that.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5275 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your meds seem off again, anonymous...
you seem to be having whole conversations in your head and then posting only parts of it to include others...
Heh! Pot, meet kettle?

Or perhaps a better way of saying it:

woodtick.....

You seem to be saying something without a tangible link to associate it with, then you grammatically fall off a cliff.....

No. I think you just wanna be an aroused monkey and insult people! Hue! Hue! Hue! ;)

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5276 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so monogamous same sex marriage would be a good thing then, wouldn't it?
Yes it is good for society and children who need both male and female parents as role models assuming healthy adult parents.
your prejudice and fear is getting in the way of clear thinking...
Personal attacks as a substitute for logical argument. It is not about me. Besides i do not fear perversion. More disgust. There is a difference. Your average multiple partner homosexual has nothing really to fear from Christians. They should fear their homosexual partner. Assume they are infected with HIV and will lie to cover up so they can engage in unprotected sex with whoever is willing. Same with females who engage in sex acts with bisexual males. They should also assume they are infected. Typhoid Mary types who will infect them with HIV which will bring about drastic health consequences and all but eliminate their sex lives with healthy male partners. What healthy male will want to have sex with an infected female? HIV is a true relationship breaker and brings on a whole new meaning to the term lifetime celibacy.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#5277 Sep 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yes it is good for society and children who need both male and female parents as role models assuming healthy adult parents.
<quoted text> Personal attacks as a substitute for logical argument. It is not about me. Besides i do not fear perversion. More disgust. There is a difference. Your average multiple partner homosexual has nothing really to fear from Christians. They should fear their homosexual partner. Assume they are infected with HIV and will lie to cover up so they can engage in unprotected sex with whoever is willing. Same with females who engage in sex acts with bisexual males. They should also assume they are infected. Typhoid Mary types who will infect them with HIV which will bring about drastic health consequences and all but eliminate their sex lives with healthy male partners. What healthy male will want to have sex with an infected female? HIV is a true relationship breaker and brings on a whole new meaning to the term lifetime celibacy.
off a little non relevant rant, huh?

your previous post, as i pointed out was clearly illogical and based on your clear fear and prejudice.

fear and prejudice usually prevents clear thinking, it clearly does in your case.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#5278 Sep 7, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Heh! Pot, meet kettle?
Or perhaps a better way of saying it:
woodtick.....
You seem to be saying something without a tangible link to associate it with, then you grammatically fall off a cliff.....
No. I think you just wanna be an aroused monkey and insult people! Hue! Hue! Hue! ;)
your post drifted far from anything being discussed. you clearly have some serious issues with staying on a logic thread, or using logic at all. as you pointed out again in this post...
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5279 Sep 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like someone missed their nap. Not to mention a course on logical thought.
Marriage is a fundamental right, the US Supreme Court has held as much on 14 separate occasions.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...
So, can you indicate a state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional? If you can, you had best contact the legal counsel of those defending traditional marriage, because they have not been able to come up with such an argument to justify their position.
Simply put, no such reason exists, and allowing same sex couples the right to legally marry does not infringe upon anyone else's rights.
Thanks for playing.
No. Individual judges of the Supreme Court have claimed that marriage is a right. The question is whether or not it's a compelling government interest.

There are no laws defining marriage other than DOMA, the one saying that it is only between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court may have decided that law to be unconstitutional but they cannot make a law of any kind. None whatsoever!

Invalidating DOMA only demonstrates that the Feds have unfair tax and benefit laws and that is largely because the states have unfair marriage laws. The 14th Amendment obligates the Feds to treat all citizens the same but it is the states that don't all treat their citizens the same.

You've got a legal quandary between State's Rights and Federal Socialism. I've already stated two legal solutions. Either support civil unions that have no basis on sexual relationships or stop giving tax breaks to people based on the supposition that the country needs to subsidize breeding.

You don't matter. The selfish, lying Liberals matter. They are one form of organized crime, just as the robber barons of the Conservatives are organized crime. Both problems have to be fixed.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5280 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your post drifted far from anything being discussed. you clearly have some serious issues with staying on a logic thread, or using logic at all. as you pointed out again in this post...
No, you have problems with paying attention to anything other than what you want to hear. Kind of childish, but you won't learn if I just throw labels at you the way you do with others, don't you think?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#5281 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>off a little non relevant rant, huh?
your previous post, as i pointed out was clearly illogical and based on your clear fear and prejudice.
fear and prejudice usually prevents clear thinking, it clearly does in your case.
Just noting that this pattern isn't just about me.

Nope! It's all about Woodtick, isn't it?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5282 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>off a little non relevant rant, huh?
your previous post, as i pointed out was clearly illogical and based on your clear fear and prejudice.
fear and prejudice usually prevents clear thinking, it clearly does in your case.
Accusations and or reaction is not an argument. Is a logical argument to difficult for you? You cannot defend your position logically? I posted a valid factual information and all you have in return is BS.

Private acts of vice when they become widespread affect important public interests. This includes behaviors which spread diseases which include drug usage and perverted sex. People who engage in this type behavior are enslaved to their sex drive almost like a drug addict needs drugs. Because they are enslaved they have to have it and will lie and put innocents at risk in order to get it.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#5283 Sep 7, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are fantasizing about gay males in restrooms, when everyone else is talking about marriage law and family life.
Why do you do that? It's creepy.
Marriage certainly isn't a 'Private Agenda". It's valued and engaged in by a large percentage of the American population, and for good reason. The only thing you should be thinking about here is formulating the reasons - if there are any - that gay folks and their families won't benefit from the legal recognition of their marriages, and if straight folks or society will be harmed if MORE people legally marry.
Good luck with that.
Hmmm. OK. I'll bite!

Are you not familiar with any of the recent Republican Congressmen gay sex scandals? Never hooked up in airport bathrooms, have you?

OR... are you just doing what gays do many, many times a day? Lying!

Lying is not a culture. Lying is not a community. Lying is something that has become the norm in Congress, and I'll be honest. That's primarily because the Liberal order has broken down, allowing the Conservatives to do what they have always done without restraint.

I blame it on the Baby Boomers. The eldest sons and daughters of that generation always get their way with Mom and Dad by lying. The balance was lost and now it's going to take some very confrontational actions to get the balance back again.

...but that doesn't concern you. It's all about you and gay marriage. Yell it out LOUDER! IT'S ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!! AAAUUUGGGGHHH!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min OzRitz 50,440
Bad Parents 1 hr paulw33 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Rogue Scholar 05 183,882
Mr. Incredible Guilty of Assault 3 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 25
California Wants to Allow Illegal Aliens to Com... 15 hr whenagendapeoplea... 2
Exclusive: California DMV Ordered to Overlook I... Wed Judge Roy Bean 2
California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Tue Barack the Yellow 5,134
More from around the web