Homosexual "marriage"

Salinsky wrote:So, is it your opinion that infertile people and people who do not want children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

...

EmeraldGhost wrote:I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

You'll have to ask Hillary Clinton.   Those are her words from 2004.

boards of FL wrote:It is highly unlikely that gay marriage will be overturned at this point.  We're living in the information age and are evolving forward, not backwards.  

This is true regardless of how many quotes one can dig up.  We are as likely to return to segregated schools as we are to see marriage rights revoked from the LGBT community.

My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with this fact would be to either 1) evolve on the issue or 2) free free sit helplessly with your thumbs up your ass.  Either way, it isn't going back to the way it was before.  You were - are - on the wrong side of history.  Your mode of thinking is an ignorant, religious scourge that society is in the midst of purging - and no one is sympathetic to your side of this issue.  History will not be sympathetic to your side of the issue.

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:It is highly unlikely that gay marriage will be overturned at this point.  We're living in the information age and are evolving forward, not backwards.  

This is true regardless of how many quotes one can dig up.  We are as likely to return to segregated schools as we are to see marriage rights revoked from the LGBT community.

My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with this fact would be to either 1) evolve on the issue or 2) free free sit helplessly with your thumbs up your ass.  Either way, it isn't going back to the way it was before.  You were - are - on the wrong side of history.  Your mode of thinking is an ignorant, religious scourge that society is in the midst of purging - and no one is sympathetic to your side of this issue.  History will not be sympathetic to your side of the issue.

Wow, intolerance of any opposing opinion (including HRC's until she saw the political winds shifting), clairvoyance, and a complete dismissal of reality (regardless of whether you agree or disagree with religions) - all in one mind-numbing comment. You outdid yourself. E/G didn't even state an opinion but in your rush to condemn HRC's statement without realizing it I guess you overlooked that significant fact.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:It is highly unlikely that gay marriage will be overturned at this point.  We're living in the information age and are evolving forward, not backwards.  

This is true regardless of how many quotes one can dig up.  We are as likely to return to segregated schools as we are to see marriage rights revoked from the LGBT community.

My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with this fact would be to either 1) evolve on the issue or 2) free free sit helplessly with your thumbs up your ass.  Either way, it isn't going back to the way it was before.  You were - are - on the wrong side of history.  Your mode of thinking is an ignorant, religious scourge that society is in the midst of purging - and no one is sympathetic to your side of this issue.  History will not be sympathetic to your side of the issue.

Wow, intolerance of any opposing opinion (including HRC's until she saw the political winds shifting), clairvoyance, and a complete dismissal of reality (regardless of whether you agree or disagree with religions) - all in one mind-numbing comment. You outdid yourself. E/G didn't even state an opinion but in your rush to condemn HRC's statement without realizing it I guess you overlooked that significant fact.

I haven't overlooked anything here.  I made a broad comment directed towards anyone who still supports the idea of a gay marriage ban.  I even clearly state as much when I say "My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with (gay marriage)..."

Seeing as how you're clearly "a supreme court justice shy of an upheld gay marriage ban" - if you know what I mean - perhaps you should try reading my comment a few more times?

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:It is highly unlikely that gay marriage will be overturned at this point.  We're living in the information age and are evolving forward, not backwards.  

This is true regardless of how many quotes one can dig up.  We are as likely to return to segregated schools as we are to see marriage rights revoked from the LGBT community.

My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with this fact would be to either 1) evolve on the issue or 2) free free sit helplessly with your thumbs up your ass.  Either way, it isn't going back to the way it was before.  You were - are - on the wrong side of history.  Your mode of thinking is an ignorant, religious scourge that society is in the midst of purging - and no one is sympathetic to your side of this issue.  History will not be sympathetic to your side of the issue.

Wow, intolerance of any opposing opinion (including HRC's until she saw the political winds shifting), clairvoyance, and a complete dismissal of reality (regardless of whether you agree or disagree with religions) - all in one mind-numbing comment. You outdid yourself. E/G didn't even state an opinion but in your rush to condemn HRC's statement without realizing it I guess you overlooked that significant fact.

I haven't overlooked anything here.  I made a broad comment directed towards anyone who still supports the idea of a gay marriage ban.  I even clearly state as much when I say "My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with (gay marriage)..."

Seeing as how you're clearly "a supreme court justice shy of an upheld gay marriage ban" - if you know what I mean - perhaps you should try reading my comment a few more times?

Your use of the word “those” - Plural:  pertaining to or involving a plurality of persons or things

Then your use of the word “You” and “your” - Singular: being only one; individual

boards of FL wrote:My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with (gay marriage) would be to either 1) evolve on the issue or 2) free free sit helplessly with your thumbs up your ass.

gatorfan wrote:I don't even have a dog in this hunt (except I find it unseemly when I see you belittling HRC over some of her old comments) since I don't care who marries who, makes no difference to me. Everyone deserves to be happy regardless of their lifestyle. That includes those who you consider ignorant because of their beliefs. But then you are a well-documented hypocrite and bigot.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:It is highly unlikely that gay marriage will be overturned at this point.  We're living in the information age and are evolving forward, not backwards.  

This is true regardless of how many quotes one can dig up.  We are as likely to return to segregated schools as we are to see marriage rights revoked from the LGBT community.

My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with this fact would be to either 1) evolve on the issue or 2) free free sit helplessly with your thumbs up your ass.  Either way, it isn't going back to the way it was before.  You were - are - on the wrong side of history.  Your mode of thinking is an ignorant, religious scourge that society is in the midst of purging - and no one is sympathetic to your side of this issue.  History will not be sympathetic to your side of the issue.

Wow, intolerance of any opposing opinion (including HRC's until she saw the political winds shifting), clairvoyance, and a complete dismissal of reality (regardless of whether you agree or disagree with religions) - all in one mind-numbing comment. You outdid yourself. E/G didn't even state an opinion but in your rush to condemn HRC's statement without realizing it I guess you overlooked that significant fact.

I haven't overlooked anything here.  I made a broad comment directed towards anyone who still supports the idea of a gay marriage ban.  I even clearly state as much when I say "My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with (gay marriage)..."

Seeing as how you're clearly "a supreme court justice shy of an upheld gay marriage ban" - if you know what I mean - perhaps you should try reading my comment a few more times?

Your use of the word “those” - Plural:  pertaining to or involving a plurality of persons or things

Then your use of the word “You” and “your” - Singular: being only one; individual

What point, exactly, are you trying to make here?  Are you honestly trying to tell me that the following statement is written in such a cryptic way that you simply can't understand the message that is being conveyed?  I mean, I just pointed out that you're a little slow on the uptake.  I think everyone here would agree with that assessment, so there is no need for you to explicitly tell us that the following written words are confusing to you.

boards of FL wrote:My suggestion to those who are struggling to come to grips with (gay marriage) would be to either 1) evolve on the issue or 2) free free sit helplessly with your thumbs up your ass.

gatorfan wrote:I don't even have a dog in this hunt (except I find it unseemly when I see you belittling HRC over some of her old comments) since I don't care who marries who, makes no difference to me. Everyone deserves to be happy regardless of their lifestyle. That includes those who you consider ignorant because of their beliefs. But then you are a well-documented hypocrite and bigot.

Everyone deserves to be happy until their idea of "happy" involves oppressing others.  If the religious can't be happy unless they're allowed to legislatively oppress gay people...well...that is the point at which I would declare that religious people no longer have the right to be happy.

gatorfan, let's say that Person A is happy when he is punching strangers in the face.  Does Person A deserve to be happy?  Would I be considered intolerant or a bigoted if I showed absolutely no sympathy towards Person A for the fact that punching people in the face is legally prohibited?

You call me a "hypocrite" and a "bigot", but I disagree.  Further, your underlying reasoning for calling me those words and your inability to effectively read suggests that you are "stupid".

gatorfan wrote:This statement merely proves your hypocrisy and bigotry since you don't care if those who oppose religious beliefs conflicting with their beliefs are able to legislate laws that religious folks find oppressive. You can't have it both ways in a free society.

gatorfan wrote:Since this is simply another of your weird questions it hardly merits comment.

gatorfan wrote:Yes child. You may think I'm "stupid" but you simply have me confused with someone who cares about your infantile reasoning skills.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:This statement merely proves your hypocrisy and bigotry since you don't care if those who oppose religious beliefs conflicting with their beliefs are able to legislate laws that religious folks find oppressive. You can't have it both ways in a free society.

How so?  When we ban gay marriage due to religious belief, that is in fact oppressive.  That is in fact bigoted.  Any attempt to undo that is not itself bigoted.   Quite the opposite, in fact.  To use your terminology "you can't have it both ways."  Let's say I support gay marriage bans.  Well, that would make me bigoted wouldn't it?  Let's say I support gay marriage.  Well, in gatorfan-land, that would also make be bigoted, wouldn't it? It would seem that in gatorfan-land, it is impossible to not be bigoted.  Fortunately, gatorfan-land doesn't exist but in the mind of gatorfan.  

There is absolutely nothing hypocritical or bigoted about opposing bigoted policies or points of view.  

gatorfan wrote:Since this is simply another of your weird questions it hardly merits comment.

It's a perfect illustration of exactly how idiotic your line of reasoning on this subject is.  You're saying that it is in itself oppressive if we don't allow religious people to oppress others.  OK.  If that is your line of reasoning, let's apply it to other scenarios and then see if you still hold that same view?  Instead of using the idea that religious people can only be happy if they are allowed to oppress gay people, let's apply your line of reasoning to the idea that Person A is only happy if he is allowed to punch strangers in the face.   Now, does Person A deserve to be happy?  If you ask me, I'll quickly reply with "Of course not!" because Person A's happiness necessarily rests on random people being punched in the face.  I ask myself, whose rights are more important there?  Is it more important that people have the right to not being punched in the face?  Or is it more important that Person A has the right to "be happy" - which occurs when he punches strangers in the face?

This is a fairly straightforward scenario that anyone with an inkling of common sense could answer almost without thought.  But not gatorfan.  If anyone dares to say that Person A should not be allowed to pursue happiness by punching people in the face, they're a hypocrite and a bigot!  Right, gatorfan?  I mean, that is in fact the faulty logic that you employ, right?

gatorfan wrote:Yes child. You may think I'm "stupid" but you simply have me confused with someone who cares about your infantile reasoning skills.

Well, you're leaving me no choice but to assume as much.  Clearly you care.  You care so much that you felt compelled to respond to this thread, even though you apparently have nothing substantive to add.  Here you are three posts in and you haven't even added anything to the discussion at hand.  All you have done is shift the dialogue directly to my "infantile reasoning skills." - which, oddly enough - you claim to not care about.

"Hey everybody!  I don't have anything to add here but I just want to say that I don't care about board's infantile reasoning skills!  Do you hear that!  I absolutely do not care! I just want to make that clear!  Does everyone get that?!  Huh?!  Huh!?  


And in closing:

EmeraldGhost wrote:There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote: the LBGT movement is a militant one, and once a right is granted, they surely will reach out for one that is even more provocative. When will we see male couples giving each other slobbery French-kisses in PG-13 movies and serialized on TV shows? Those may be in the works.

boards of FL wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Bob wrote:

I'm a card carrying member of the "LGBT".  I was born with the card.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Bob wrote:

I'm a card carrying member of the "LGBT".  I was born with the card.

There's no real evidence of that .... it just suits you to believe that you were "born" that way.

Salinsky wrote:So, is it your opinion that infertile people and people who do not want children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

I've had the privilege of knowing a few gay couples who adopted, and they are fantastic parents, putting the parenting skills of 90% of the heterosexual couples I know to shame.

Bob wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Bob wrote:

I'm a card carrying member of the "LGBT".  I was born with the card.

There's no real evidence of that .... it just suits you to believe that you were "born" that way.

I was sexually attracted to both sexes at 12 years old.  Before that,  like you and teo and everybody else,   I wasn't into sex. 
It's not that it "suits me" to believe that.  It's just what I lived.
What would "suit me" is to be able to pinch myself and wake up from that dream and then be normal like the other 95% of you.

EmeraldGhost wrote:
And supposing since you were 12 years old you had been sexually attracted to stuffed animals .... would you consider yourself to have been "born that way?"


My point being ... it's just a kink.  Like a lot of other kinks.  And a shared kink does not a marriage make.  There are more biological evolutionary gender specific factors than that.