SCOTUS Refuses review of opinions striking down gay marriage bans

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by rioseco

S.O.T.F
I call bullshit on your response. I know what all the crying whining variety of minorities want, and that is attention, pity and more allowances than any other group. I did not know you were a homosexual, good luck with that. At the same time you will not find me sympathetic for you or your cause. You will not find me supportive of any freedoms at all for you soley on the basis of your lifestyle choices. If it happens so be it, out of my hands. You maybe a homosexual, you may want to marry same sex or perhaps your sister for that matter, but that does not devalue or exclude my perception of you.

Ah yes! We have here another Hillbilly Thumper who soils the flag of Texas by wrapping himself in it to proclaim his hate for anyone different than he is. Of maybe to protest too much and divert attention from who he actually is. Are you Ted Haggard in disguise Rio? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

But to your point: Hey idiot, please start listing those "freedoms at all for you soley on the basis of your lifestyle choices" you speak of. Bet you can't name them. You never could. You just listen to you Grand Dragon tell you what you should believe, and your local self-anointed "reverend" who pounds the table and says anyone who is "different" is a subhuman to be scorned and subjugated. What is it that gay marriage would take away from YOU? What benefits are THEY getting that YOU wouldn't get if you were married? Be specific here--I am tired of hearing bigots like you spew generalities like "special treatment", and then you backtrack, equivocate, and lie as soon as you are called on it. You must be reading a lot of IB's posts to learn all that. So tell me in very simple terms: YOU have sex with a woman and it's great, proper, and worth bragging about in a review. SOTF has sex with the same woman and all of a sudden it becomes vile, evil, and worthy of your hate & ridicule. Yea, THAT makes a lot of sense. Is it because you are afraid the woman might have enjoyed it more with SOTF than she did with you? Is that your problem?

By the way, since when did homosexuality become the same thing as incest? Maybe I missed it, but did SOTF or anyone else here advocate marrying their sister? YOU brought it up as far as I can see, so if YOU married your sister would that be OK since it would be heterosexual incest? Is that your point?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Old-T

By the way, since when did homosexuality become the same thing as incest? Maybe I missed it, but did SOTF or anyone else here advocate marrying their sister? YOU brought it up as far as I can see, so if YOU married your sister would that be OK since it would be heterosexual incest? Is that your point?

There are some on here who equate gay marriage with marrying their sibling. I never knew so many on here had a hard on for their sisters!

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Should have never let gay's marry, should have civil unions with the same benefits as marriage .

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Yes, exactly - that would have been a reasonable compromise.
Instead, conservatives are forced to accept a fundamental redefinition of something profoundly important to our future and our country, something we feel will eventually destroy it.

I essentially agree with both of you. Unfortunately the problem started when we wrote laws using religious terminology. Had the initial laws been written as "civil union" or whatever term you wish, and "marriage" left for the religious ceremony and implications, then this would not be the lingering issue it is. But when issues of property rights, medical coverage, inheritance, etc., are tied to something that is intermingled with religion, it is inevitable that serious differences of opinion occur. That is the same reason I don't know if there can be common ground on abortion, because that issue is inherently both civil and religious. Unfortunately because the legal system took the short sighted route of using religious terms, we have created a second polarizing topic where none should have existed.

Compare the "gay marriage" dichotomy--where it was done very wrong--to the "coming of age" dichotomy where it was done much better. Most religions have some ceremony where a member officially becomes an "adult". Some event or process by which they accept the rights and responsibilities of being a non-child in the eyes of their congregation. The age differs, the rights & responsibilities differ, but it is typically there in some form. There is also a LEGAL mark from "child" to "adult", be it 18, 21 or other. A point where you register to vote, you can sign contracts for yourself, you can get married with no "approval", be tried as an adult without special circumstances, etc. But because we do not use religiously tinged words for secular meaning (Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, Rumspringa, Na’ii’ees, etc.) we don't have the vehement arguments about what age, what specific rights, etc.

Since we cannot go back in time and find a new word for the legal/civil rights and responsibilities we are stuck with the problem of multiple uses and intents of the word "marriage", people talking past each other (sometimes intentionally it seems), and a guarantee that not everyone will be happy.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Equal rights are not special rights. Legally recognized marriages provides more than 1,000 rights, protections, and privileges. Heterosexuals have full access to these rights as soon as they say "I do". To deny these same rights to homosexuals makes them specials granted only to heterosexuals..

This is the key to the whole debate for me....grant gay marriage the exact same right you give straight marriage and then you are not discriminating against Gay people. If boardman then wants to fight for the discrimination against marrying your sister then so be it but to say you are against Gay Marriage because you can not marry your sister or a Goat. Those are separate issues. Those are separate issues.

IMHO those that are against Gay marriage are much like those that fought school segregation or white and blacks being able to marry. You are just on the wrong side of History.

Maybe in 100years I will be on the wrong side of brother/sister marriage or boardman/goat marriage but I doubt it.

Has the world come crashing down since we let blacks and whites marry?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I essentially agree with both of you. Unfortunately the problem started when we wrote laws using religious terminology. Had the initial laws been written as "civil union" or whatever term you wish, and "marriage" left for the religious ceremony and implications, then this would not be the lingering issue it is. But when issues of property rights, medical coverage, inheritance, etc., are tied to something that is intermingled with religion, it is inevitable that serious differences of opinion occur. That is the same reason I don't know if there can be common ground on abortion, because that issue is inherently both civil and religious. Unfortunately because the legal system took the short sighted route of using religious terms, we have created a second polarizing topic where none should have existed.

Compare the "gay marriage" dichotomy--where it was done very wrong--to the "coming of age" dichotomy where it was done much better. Most religions have some ceremony where a member officially becomes an "adult". Some event or process by which they accept the rights and responsibilities of being a non-child in the eyes of their congregation. The age differs, the rights & responsibilities differ, but it is typically there in some form. There is also a LEGAL mark from "child" to "adult", be it 18, 21 or other. A point where you register to vote, you can sign contracts for yourself, you can get married with no "approval", be tried as an adult without special circumstances, etc. But because we do not use religiously tinged words for secular meaning (Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, Rumspringa, Na’ii’ees, etc.) we don't have the vehement arguments about what age, what specific rights, etc.

Since we cannot go back in time and find a new word for the legal/civil rights and responsibilities we are stuck with the problem of multiple uses and intents of the word "marriage", people talking past each other (sometimes intentionally it seems), and a guarantee that not everyone will be happy.

Yes, you make a very good post here. The citizens of the USA are stuck in an awkward situation that has no easily agreed upon solution, if you look at it from a Federalist point of view. If you have to have one solution imposed by the Feds, not everyone will be happy. However, take the freedom argument to a states rights level, and you can have one state, say Massachusetts, that legalizes the term and intent of gay marriage.
In Texas, you can preserve marriage for a man and a woman, and give gays civil union, with the same rights but not the same name. Does that work for you?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Yes, you make a very good post here. The citizens of the USA are stuck in an awkward situation that has no easily agreed upon solution, if you look at it from a Federalist point of view. If we have to have one solution imposed by the Feds, not everyone will be happy. However, take the freedom argument to a states rights level, and we can have one state, say Massachusetts, that legalizes the term and intent of gay marriage.
In Texas, you can preserve marriage for a man and a woman, and give gays civil union, with the same rights but not the same name. Does that work for you?

I would completely agree with "civil union, with the same rights but not the same name". I think there IS a different religious meaning to "marriage", and it actually varies by religion. In our current era of political polarization I don't think the left would accept that, but I think it is the right answer.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why do you care if same sex couples marry? On the surface, and this is one of my objections, it appears the LBGT community is redefining -- imposing their definition on the greater balance of society -- the word "marriage", which has been historically (for about 1000 years) defined as a bond between a man and a woman. This is part and parcel to the LBGT community's effort to define their lifestyle as normal and impose that definition on the greater balance of society. While I accept the notion that they have a right to be treated equally under the eyes of the law, I will never accept their lifestyle as being normal. They're "deviant" from normal in ever sense of the word.

Also of note: when I researched the institution of marriage, I found that the word "marriage" has its origin in Latin; thus, predates Christianity.

I've made this comment before, but it's worth repeating. The Roman Catholic Church inherited the functions of the state when the Roman Empire collapsed. It did not "usurp" those functions. The Church was, merely and quite literally, "the last man standing." Thus, to the Church, fell the religious -- and legal -- task of governing marriages.

It does not affect you. In lib-retard word play it will "cost" everyone because it will reduce taxable income: the government will be "subsidizing" (another instance of lib-retard word play) homosexual couples by allowing them to take tax deductions that were previously denied to them and entitle them to other government programs and amenities for which they were not previously eligible.

It has no effect on anything, except in cases where one is hospitalized. Now their significant other can be present without interference, and cases like that.

It is none of the government's business who you love or what you want to call it. Incorrect.

For thousands of years, the wife was the property of the husband.
"Property"! This is why it is, and has been, the government's purview, but the term "civil union" in lieu of "marriage" should suffice.

That's a traditional marriage. Let's see how well that is received these days. For the sake of the majority, the traditional definition of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman should be allowed to endure (even though in a 'legal sense' that definition has no basis), and "civil union" should suffice for the LBGT community.

Originally Posted by Old-T

You must be reading a lot of IB's posts to learn all that.

Hadn't even posted in this thread, Old-THUMPER. So get a life, Old-THUMPER, or go screw yourself, jackass.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I . In our current era of political polarization I don't think the left would accept that, but I think it is the right answer.

Gays would have five years ago , hell they would have a year ago but the cocksuckers now think they have the upper hand!

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hadn't even posted in this thread, Old-THUMPER. So get a life, Old-THUMPER, or go screw yourself, jackass.

Stop. Read. Think.

Did I say you had posted in this thread? Why, no, I did not.

But you DO have some 13,359 (and counting) posts that demonstrate your abundant ability to "spew generalities like "special treatment", and then you backtrack, equivocate, and lie as soon as you are called on it." Thus my very apt reference.

Now, do you care to join the discussion the adults were having on this thread, or are you only on here to snivel and distort again?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Stop. Read. Think.

Did I say you had posted in this thread? Why, no, I did not.

But you DO have some 13,359 (and counting) posts that demonstrate your abundant ability to "spew generalities like "special treatment", and then you backtrack, equivocate, and lie as soon as you are called on it." Thus my very apt reference.

Now, do you care to join the discussion the adults were having on this thread, or are you only on here to snivel and distort again?

It's your distorted attribution that prompted response, Old-THUMPER; so, you're the one that needs to stop, read and think, jackass. BTW, Old-THUMPER, how did that post count thread pan out for your stupid-ass, Old-THUMPER?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

how did that post count thread pan out for your stupid-ass, Old-THUMPER?

Quite well, thank you. It has kept you in a apoplectic state for weeks now, with minimal effort on my part. I'll post on it again soon, to encourage you to work harder.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Quite well, thank you. It has kept you in a apoplectic state for weeks now, with minimal effort on my part. I'll post on it again soon, to encourage you to work harder.

Yep, it's time for you to go back to your naked, lotus position where you focus on small things, like your dick, wherein you imagine such small things are greater than they really are, Old-THUMPER.

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey IB! Thank you for the thoughtful and well reasoned response to my post. I simply disagree.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yep, it's time for you to go back to your naked, lotus position where you focus on small things, like your dick, wherein you imagine such small things are greater than they really are, Old-THUMPER.

Hey no balls have you and your longtime companion AKA : boyfriend tied the knot yet?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hey IB! Thank you for the thoughtful and well reasoned response to my post. I simply disagree.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Hey no balls have you and your longtime companion AKA : boyfriend tied the knot yet?

Keep bobbing and sucking for that Odumbo Kool Aid just like Odumbo taught you, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.