SCOTUS Refuses review of opinions striking down gay marriage bans

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Are you implying that Rio has some similarity to this guy:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/09/22/...ed-homophobes/

Fok you too old Tranny

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Magic 8 Ball says: Signs point to yes

Magic 8 ball ?
So that is where you got your education and brillance.
I am not suprised to find that out. You god Odoofus governs the nation with the same. A chip off the old piece of shit !
So long douche bag and 8 ball of course !

[WTF]

Originally Posted by rioseco

Don't begin to compare sex between a man and a woman the the same as between two homosexuals.
Words can not describe your desperate ploy to manipulate my review as something other than a heterosexual connection. !

To gay folks , sex between the same sex is the exact same as sex between the opposite sex for heterosexuals. They can not imagine having sex with the opposite sex just like you can not imagine sucking a dick or getting butt fucked....or can you imagine getting butt fucked? And for the record....it would have been really hard to ban gay couples from saying they are married. Words do not belong to certain groups of people. Words evolve all the time.




.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

Words do not belong to certain groups of people.
.

You mean like bar mitzvah, jihad or baptize?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

You mean like bar mitzvah, , jihad or baptize?

Yea ....you were just able to use them all, are you Jewish, Muslim and Christian?

Even an Atheist like myself can say those words.

Do you want to ban Christians from saying bar mitzvah.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by boardman

You mean like bar mitzvah, jihad or baptize?

Those three words describe three different things.

The word "marriage" is being used by gays and straights to describe the SAME thing - the union of two people. Do you not see the difference?

Also bar mitzvah describes a specific Jewish ritual for teenagers, baptism describes a specific Christian ritual for becoming a Christian, and Jihad is a specific Islamic term that Muslims use to describe a war against non-believers. People OUTSIDE of those faiths do not really have a reason to use those terms.

What would a Christian use "bar mitzvah" for? Did you even think before you wrote that post?

Marriage on the other hand is used by all demographics in society. Christians, Jews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists ALL have a reason to use it and all DO use it to describe the union of two people.

So why can't gays use it also? Because some Christians and Muslims say they cannot?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yea ....you were just able to use them all, are you Jewish, Muslim and Christian?

Even an Atheist like myself can say those words.

Do you want to ban Christians from saying bar mitzvah.

You beat me to it.

He clearly did not think it all the way through.

[boardman]

The only argument I was making was against WTF's statement that words do not belong to certain groups of people.
Do those words not belong to those groups of people? I'm not trying to co mingle them you are. You both just admitted yourselves that they describe certain acts or rituals belonging solely to a particular group.

Think before you post. LOL

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

The only argument I was making was against WTF's statement that words do not belong to certain groups of people.
Do those words not belong to those groups of people? I'm not trying to co mingle them you are. You both just admitted yourselves that they describe certain acts or rituals belonging solely to a particular group.

Think before you post. LOL

You might wanna think too. Here is what I said:

And for the record....it would have been really hard to ban gay couples from saying they are married. Words do not belong to certain groups of people. Words evolve all the time.


You selectively cut out my context. The context being...That you can not ban Gays from saying they are married. They could have their Civil Unions and then say they are married. So I'm not sure what all the brewhaha was over the meaning of the word. To many it would still mean man/woman, to gays it would just mean they had a legal Civil Union and could then say they were married.






This is no different than say blacks saying that they are the only people that can use the 'n' word.

[boardman]

Let's say that Jews decided that bar mitzvah and bat mitvah were too complicated for outsiders to understand and they want to become more accepted. They decide to use the word baptism to signify a "coming of age" ritual because more people worldwide understand, erroneous as it may be, that a baptism means "basically the same thing".

Would Christians have a right to be upset? Yes or no?

Don't get hung up on the words I used. Instead focus on the idea that certain groups of people have words peculiar to their religion, political structure, common societal beliefs, tribal traditions, etc. They are a personal characteristic of that group of people.
Could it then be argued that the changing of the meaning of that personal characteristic, despite or perhaps in spite, of the coining group is discrimination?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by rioseco

Fok you too old Tranny

Originally Posted by rioseco

Magic 8 ball ?
So that is where you got your education and brillance.
I am not suprised to find that out. You god Odoofus governs the nation with the same. A chip off the old piece of shit !
So long douche bag and 8 ball of course !

Well done, Rio.

Since you can't (or won't) answer the very simple question I posed, you instead resort to homophobic insults. And not even original ones. The more you rant about those evil, bad gays, the more you DO resemble one of the (many) homophobe "preachers" who are the biggest hypocrites on earth.

But your reply to SOTF really exposes you. You just have to bring up Obama when the whole gay marriage thing has been around a lot longer than that. Happen to catch the news out of the Vatican today, by the way?

You eating a pretty lady's pussy is just peachy keen--but another woman doing it is evil and disgusting. Why? You afraid your DATY skills won't measure up? You lusting after someone's ass is something to brag about--but why as ass fixation on your part and not a pussy? Is it easier to pretend it is a guy's backside?

Tell me again what "extra" rights and privileges gay marriage or gay civil union or gay ..... would provide? How would heterosexuals like me and you(?) all of a sudden become a disadvantaged group. Explain that, please.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Ignoring a millennium of historical tradition and custom is frequently a good thing.

That's how we got rid of slavery and guaranteed equality to women.

When an obviously intelligent and thoughtful man such as yourself cannot discern a reason to maintain the traditional marriage and understand and remain emotionally connected to keeping it between a man and a woman, and you cannot convince yourself that the threads of this society are barely holding marriage together, and that the institution of marriage, while clearly imperfect, is a foundation of a successful society, and when many other successful and intelligent people join you in your folly, then the Muslims, and their many babies per family, will teach you by force or by numbers someday, or teach your children/grandchildren.

The violent Muslim religion and its adherents have declared war on the west, and through their population growth are conquering it slowly but surely. We are killing ourselves with feminism, affirmative action, homosexual marriage, welfare, lack of parental responsibility and a failure of real marriage between a man and a woman. These are the elements of liberalism responsible for the eventual destruction of America and the West, and the ascendancy of Islam.

I choose to fight it until my death.

[Yssup Rider]

Holy shit! Stop Islam. Shoot the queers! Make babies!

What a fucking asshole!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by boardman

The only argument I was making was against WTF's statement that words do not belong to certain groups of people.
Do those words not belong to those groups of people? I'm not trying to co mingle them you are. You both just admitted yourselves that they describe certain acts or rituals belonging solely to a particular group.

And you are taking his comment out of context.

He was talking about a SHARED word of people that speak the same language - i.e., "marriage".

"Avion" is the French word for plane. English speakers already have the word "plane" and they have no need to appropriate "avion" for some other purpose. But, if, for some bizarre reason, English speakers wanted to use "avion" to replace the word "fountain", the French have no say in the matter.

Bar mitzvah is a Hebrew word. Others could re-purpose it in a different language, but why?

And, for what it is worth, baptism is used to mean things other than an actual religious ceremony - as in "baptism of fire". So, even that isn't a good example.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

When an obviously intelligent and thoughtful man such as yourself cannot discern a reason to maintain the traditional marriage and understand and remain emotionally connected to keeping it between a man and a woman, and you cannot convince yourself that the threads of this society are barely holding marriage together, and that the institution of marriage, while clearly imperfect, is a foundation of a successful society, and when many other successful and intelligent people join you in your folly, then the Muslims, and their many babies per family, will teach you by force or by numbers someday, or teach your children/grandchildren.

The violent Muslim religion and its adherents have declared war on the west, and through their population growth are conquering it slowly but surely. We are killing ourselves with feminism, affirmative action, homosexual marriage, welfare, lack of parental responsibility and a failure of real marriage between a man and a woman. These are the elements of liberalism responsible for the eventual destruction of America and the West, and the ascendancy of Islam.

I choose to fight it until my death.

I won't - can't - reply to all that rambling gibberish, but your basis notion that the "traditional" institution of marriage will somehow be destroyed if gays can do it to is simply wrong. Expanding it to include gays does NOT mean that straights are excluded or make it any less important to society.

And the proof of that is that many who oppose extending marriage to gays say that they support civil unions that essentially are the same as marriage EXCEPT IN NAME.

They can give gays basic marital rights, they just can't bear to call it marriage.

It is a sham in the same way that "separate but equal" was a sham.

They implicitly regard gay unions as inferior to their own, so they cannot give it the same name. It must have a separate name.