SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[zinfamous]

People tend to find arguments for and against whatever they want to happen.

There is virtually no objectivity.

All you are doing is inventing other people's arguments because you are unhappy about something that affects you in no way.

This is pathetically juvenile.

 

[Paratus]

There actually is a scientific argument against incestuous marriage based on higher incidents of birth defects. There is also an argument to be made against incestuous marriage based on historic patterns on power abuse. All the gay marriage ruling means is that such groups are free to make their cases as to why they should be allowed to redefine marriage to include them, and have those claims evaluated on a rational basis with the understanding that government should not be able to infringe on individual liberty without a compelling societal reason. "Eew" is not a compelling societal reason. Tradition is not a compelling societal reason - we are certainly not where we were on marriage two hundred years ago. Nor should we be - a society which cannot change is doomed to become irrelevant and outdated. And in any case, those forms of marriage present complications that gay marriage simply does not.

As far as it eventually affecting me, I am already married and my wife assures me that bigamy and polygamy will NOT eventually affect me, and I've never known her to lie.

God damn it Werepossum everytime I'm convinced you're a hopeless wingnut you go and say something reasonable.

And funny.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't know why you guys think werepossum is a wingnut--he's always struck me as rather moderate; right-leaning, but moderate. At the very least, he is generally quite progressive when it comes to social issues.

He's one of the few conservative types that I can still read around here and expect that some real thought went into his comments before posting, whether or not I agree with them.

 

[Paratus]

I don't know why you guys think werepossum is a wingnut--he's always struck me as rather moderate; right-leaning, but moderate. At the very least, he is generally quite progressive when it comes to social issues.

He's one of the few conservative types that I can still read around here and expect that some real thought went into his comments before posting, whether or not I agree with them.

We argue about climate change.


A lot.


I mean a lot.

So it's nice to be reminded that you don't necessarily disagree on every issue.

 

[MongGrel]

Soap theme music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVffO-mNLdE

 

[MongGrel]

All in the Family Theme Song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV5LQcmuGg8

Then Reagan and trickle down landed.

 

[Retro Rob]

All you are doing is inventing other people's arguments because you are unhappy about something that affects you in no way.

This is pathetically juvenile.

Listen up, Einstein, many things don't affect me "in no way' -- ISIS beheading Christians "affect me in on way", kids getting molested in alleys "affect me in no way"...

...what kind of moral moron bases his moral or intellectual barometer on what affects him personally or financially?

This is why I think gay activists are short-sighted, pea brains.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You could have just said "No, I cannot see even the tiniest difference between a private party and a public street, parents should read the paper and carefully plan routes any time that kids must be taken outside the vault, and excuse me but I really must get back to counting my pills again because I'm pretty sure the toaster is stealing them."


This, exactly. Except I really don't want to even know Shriners do that.

Last time I'm touching one of those peanut logs, I tells ya. Who knows where that thing has been?

Here's five bucks for sick children, now please keep that thing away from me!

The point is, and you damn well know it, to be offended at what goes on at a pride parade, you have to really, really, really work at it.

btw, the Shriner incident happened in a public hotel.

 

[MongGrel]

Listen up, Einstein, many things don't affect me "in no way' -- ISIS beheading Christians "affect me in on way", kids getting molested in alleys "affect me in no way"...

...what kind of moral moron bases his moral or intellectual barometer on what affects him personally or financially?

This is why I think gay activists are short-sighted, pea brains.

I guess they don't need to be actvists any more, other than being persecuted.

To be honest, I' still not real conformatable with it in certain situations and it can be skewed as a new "Someone is violating my rights thing"

I know a few gay people I think are cool as hell.

Get used to it I guess.

Is just a fact of life these days.

 

[zinfamous]

Listen up, Einstein, many things don't affect me "in no way' -- ISIS beheading Christians "affect me in on way", kids getting molested in alleys "affect me in no way"...

...what kind of moral moron bases his moral or intellectual barometer on what affects him personally or financially?

This is why I think gay activists are short-sighted, pea brains.

what kind of pee brain attempts to inject their bronze-age morality into secular legislation?

why don't you understand this? You've made countless arguments in here abotu how this affects Christians, or how it doesn't, how no one truly understand what Christians feel about this....you've been all over the place trying at once to claim this isn't a big deal, it is a big deal, it's wrong, it's maybe right, so what the fuck is it?

Why does this affect you so strongly? Why do you want your version of god in this country's constitution?

 

[zinfamous]

We argue about climate change.


A lot.


I mean a lot.

So it's nice to be reminded that you don't necessarily disagree on every issue.

oh yeah...that one. I tend to stay out of those threads....the dissonance that goes along with those arguments, and it's always the same.

It helps me to at least think that I can continue to chat with some people on at least some issues.

 

[K1052]

Listen up, Einstein, many things don't affect me "in no way' -- ISIS beheading Christians "affect me in on way", kids getting molested in alleys "affect me in no way"...

...what kind of moral moron bases his moral or intellectual barometer on what affects him personally or financially?

This is why I think gay activists are short-sighted, pea brains.

People of your Christian bent who would see the government reflect their theology have a lot more in common with ISIS than they probably want to belive.

 

[Retro Rob]

what kind of pee brain attempts to inject their bronze-age morality into secular legislation?

why don't you understand this? You've made countless arguments in here abotu how this affects Christians, or how it doesn't, how no one truly understand what Christians feel about this....you've been all over the place trying at once to claim this isn't a big deal, it is a big deal, it's wrong, it's maybe right, so what the fuck is it?

Why does this affect you so strongly? Why do you want your version of god in this country's constitution?

I'm critically analyzing your logic of "it's affecting you in no way", so why should I worry about it?

This is backward logic, and you know this.

Explain the logical and moral consistency of your assertion.

When republicans pushed to end slavery, they could have reasoned; "it doesn't affect us in no way...hell, we're BENEFITING due to the free labor, so why end it?"

Of course, they didn't have to be harmed by it for it to offend their moral sensibilities.

Damn I cannot see how you can be so stupid and actually keep a straight face with this.

You're embarrassing your base. Just leave.

 

[etrigan420]

There actually is a scientific argument against incestuous marriage based on higher incidents of birth defects. There is also an argument to be made against incestuous marriage based on historic patterns on power abuse. All the gay marriage ruling means is that such groups are free to make their cases as to why they should be allowed to redefine marriage to include them, and have those claims evaluated on a rational basis with the understanding that government should not be able to infringe on individual liberty without a compelling societal reason. "Eew" is not a compelling societal reason. Tradition is not a compelling societal reason - we are certainly not where we were on marriage two hundred years ago. Nor should we be - a society which cannot change is doomed to become irrelevant and outdated. And in any case, those forms of marriage present complications that gay marriage simply does not.

 

[werepossum]

God damn it Werepossum everytime I'm convinced you're a hopeless wingnut you go and say something reasonable.

And funny.

Glad you approve. Personally I go by Neil Boortz' wisdom - if two people agree on every issue, then one of them is redundant.

I don't know why you guys think werepossum is a wingnut--he's always struck me as rather moderate; right-leaning, but moderate. At the very least, he is generally quite progressive when it comes to social issues.

He's one of the few conservative types that I can still read around here and expect that some real thought went into his comments before posting, whether or not I agree with them.

Awe, thanks.

The point is, and you damn well know it, to be offended at what goes on at a pride parade, you have to really, really, really work at it.

btw, the Shriner incident happened in a public hotel.

Or one could just say "Ooh, look kids, a parade!" And then be aghast at what you have found a vantage spot for your kids to watch. That actually happened to my wife and I in New Orleans, but as we both hate parades we said "ooh, look, a bazillion people" and left without even knowing it was a Gay Pride Parade until the next day. (Instead we went to tour some old grave yards and, when we told Mr. "Youhavetostaywiththegroup" that we weren't with the group but were on our own, we were told that it wasn't safe to be in a freakin' New Orleans grave yard in the middle of the afternoon because people would climb over the wall and rob tourists. Now THAT was offensive.)

The Shriner event happened in a booked ballroom in a public hotel. There are tons of things that happen behind closed doors in public hotels that I don't want my grandkids to experience until they are old enough to process them in a healthy, adult way, at which point I'm perfectly happy for them to find someone they love to use, abuse and misuse to their mutual hearts' content. Disney's Gay Days is a similar thing - many people show up without any inkling that this is going on, and people are acting in ways that should absolutely not happen in public. I suspect most gay people here would agree. If you have no respect for yourself, at least have some respect for other people.

For the record, I spent a fair amount of my teen years in private S&M clubs and at "parties", so I've seen a lot of naked people in, um, unusual situations and garb, in pretty much every possible permutation. I'm not at all personally offended by anything I might see in a Gay Pride parade or in a Shriner's, um, fundraiser. I am disturbed that it included Shriners - I mean, ew, there's an image I really didn't need - but I am not offended. Even though you have pretty much ruined public hetero cunilingus for me.

 

[werepossum]

Glad you enjoyed it.

 

[WelshBloke]

Listen up, Einstein, many things don't affect me "in no way' -- ISIS beheading Christians "affect me in on way", kids getting molested in alleys "affect me in no way"...

...what kind of moral moron bases his moral or intellectual barometer on what affects him personally or financially?

This is why I think gay activists are short-sighted, pea brains.

You're equating murder and rape to marriage?

And you're calling someone else pea brained?

 

[werepossum]

I'm critically analyzing your logic of "it's affecting you in no way", so why should I worry about it?

This is backward logic, and you know this.

Explain the logical and moral consistency of your assertion.

When republicans pushed to end slavery, they could have reasoned; "it doesn't affect us in no way...hell, we're BENEFITING due to the free labor, so why end it?"

Of course, they didn't have to be harmed by it for it to offend their moral sensibilities.

Damn I cannot see how you can be so stupid and actually keep a straight face with this.

You're embarrassing your base. Just leave.

So just read "it's affecting you in no way" as intended - "it's not harming you OR ANYONE ELSE." Sheesh, dude.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse, denying another equal rights for one's own material benefit or denying another equal rights for one's own sense of decorum. Granted, banning gay marriage isn't in the same ballpark as slavery, but in principle I can at least understand greed, which carried to an extreme leads to slavery. Denying gays the right to marry simply for one's own satisfaction seems at the least terribly petty beyond understanding, like anti-miscegenation laws - I shall deny you practical access to what I most value simply because it pleases me that you be forced to at least superficially behave as I do, even though there is no practical advantage to me or to our society other than that's the way I think it should be. Why in G-d's name would I ever choose to do that to anyone, let alone to perfectly decent people I don't even know?

The only other thing I find similar is the lady that had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to win the right to be addressed by a judge as Miss rather than by her first name. Even though they benefitted not the least by her mild degradation, many white people ferociously defended the practice, as though by degrading her they were somehow lifted up. And already our millennials, to their credit, find our banning gay marriage equally as silly, archaic and evil as that practice.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're equating murder and rape to marriage?

And you're calling someone else pea brained?

No, liberals are just so hypocritical...begging the government and conservatives to "stay out of their bedrooms" while at the same breath asking SCOTUS to legislate what can legally happen in their bedroom.

The amount of liberal double-talking is so astounding that I can fill an encyclopedia with it.

 

[WelshBloke]

No, liberals are just so hypocritical...begging the government and conservatives to "stay out of their bedrooms" while at the same breath asking SCOTUS to legislate what can legally happen in their bedroom.

The amount of liberal double-talking is so astounding that I can fill an encyclopedia with it.

What's hypocritical about wanting to be able to get married?

And what's that got to do with the bedroom? Gay sex is already legal.

 

[DrDoug]

No, liberals are just so hypocritical...begging the government and conservatives to "stay out of their bedrooms" while at the same breath asking SCOTUS to legislate what can legally happen in their bedroom.

The amount of liberal double-talking is so astounding that I can fill an encyclopedia with it.

Pray tell how allowing people to marry is legislating what can legally happen in their bedroom? What is happening in the bedroom is no different now than it was last week. They are going to do those things that make you squeamish and feel dirty when you imagine them doing it. The problem is yours and not theirs. It's not their fault that you can't stop imagining what they are doing during sex. What the SCOTUS decision did was grant them legal status as couples and you can't accept that.

Because of the bedroom...lol!

 

[JD50]

I'm critically analyzing your logic of "it's affecting you in no way", so why should I worry about it?

This is backward logic, and you know this.

Explain the logical and moral consistency of your assertion.

When republicans pushed to end slavery, they could have reasoned; "it doesn't affect us in no way...hell, we're BENEFITING due to the free labor, so why end it?"

Of course, they didn't have to be harmed by it for it to offend their moral sensibilities.

Damn I cannot see how you can be so stupid and actually keep a straight face with this.

You're embarrassing your base. Just leave.

It's sad that people have to spell it out for you. It doesn't affect you in any way, and it harms no one. I know this has been explained to you countless times in this forum.

 

[JD50]

No, liberals are just so hypocritical...begging the government and conservatives to "stay out of their bedrooms" while at the same breath asking SCOTUS to legislate what can legally happen in their bedroom.

The amount of liberal double-talking is so astounding that I can fill an encyclopedia with it.

huh?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No, liberals are just so hypocritical...begging the government and conservatives to "stay out of their bedrooms" while at the same breath asking SCOTUS to legislate what can legally happen in their bedroom.

The amount of liberal double-talking is so astounding that I can fill an encyclopedia with it.

wow, you just went full on stupid here.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm critically analyzing your logic of "it's affecting you in no way", so why should I worry about it?

This is backward logic, and you know this.

Explain the logical and moral consistency of your assertion.

When republicans pushed to end slavery, they could have reasoned; "it doesn't affect us in no way...hell, we're BENEFITING due to the free labor, so why end it?"

Of course, they didn't have to be harmed by it for it to offend their moral sensibilities.

Damn I cannot see how you can be so stupid and actually keep a straight face with this.

You're embarrassing your base. Just leave.

now you're making up things I never said. This is very interesting. I never said this affected me. I only ever said this really doesn't effect the people that need to make this right.

And they did make it right.

what the hell is your problem and why does this make you so angry? The frothing from the mouths and strawman-building from all the homophobes over the last 4 or 5 days is now enough to feed our nation's cattle stock.