Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 163

Thread: Gay Marriage ruling

  1. #101
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So...I wonder if "my marriage is reduced" folks plan on getting divorces now since their hetro-marriage is now corrupted by this ruling, and hence they can no longer enjoy/tolerate being int he same civil class as gays?

    Maybe Chuches could replace Marriage with "Holy Relgious Unions" for the faithful and then bar all not of the faith (including gays) from getting them?

    This is a great example of how faith-based Republicans have cut off their own noses to spite thier faces (and Conservatives who care more about Governmental Authoritarianism than if gays get to have weddings).

    By standing so vehemently against marriage Equallity (civil) they directly helped create the events that this ruling is the end result of, where State executives have now been granted power to over-rule the democratic process and duly passed legislation by simply not enforcing it and not defending it in court. Same way those same Republicans, who march in line with their party when it comes to Amnesty, helped create that mess too.

    Hey, next up abortion in Texas. Wonder what THAT eventual ruling will give to Government in terms of new powers to screw the people.

    If Democrats didn't have Faith-based Republicans, they'd have to invent them. They win because of them. We may be a Conservative nation, but we're a liberal social nation today and will be for as far as I can see going forward, more so with each passing day and passing old (R) voter.
    Posts like this are why I will always read what you write and respect your thoughts whether I agree or disagree.

  2. #102
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Quiet freak, an ambulance chaser like you who can't get elected dog catcher and thinks its bad for a DB to run an INT in for a TD, among other idiotic beliefs amd notions has no G-d damn business making ad hominem attacks on me.

    Please limit your asinine comments to doling out quack legal advice to your fellow crypto-liberals who wouldn't know a knish from the Knesset, thanks.

    Now back to the bottom of the barrel you crawled out of.
    LOL. You poor poor thing. I'm not the one who said it. You are.

    So, which is it? Does your marriage include "immoral, idiotic, and unnatural qualities"? Or not?

  3. #103
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    LOL. You poor poor thing. I'm not the one who said it. You are.

    So, which is it? Does your marriage include "immoral, idiotic, and unnatural qualities"? Or not?
    Hold on. He's gotta run upstairs and get his Thesaraus of Insults.

  4. #104
    Mod Friend to JI Legends
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Common, Jungle - you can hold two opposing ideas in your head at once. Shake it off.


    Back in the game with you.

  5. #105
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Funny. This strikes me as a conservative ruling limiting the fed.

    I think states should make their own way with gay marraige and the fed should have to recognize those marriages.

    I think the evolutionary argument is thin. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction.
    Last edited by piney; 06-27-2013 at 01:46 PM.

  6. #106
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,371
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So...I wonder if "my marriage is reduced" folks plan on getting divorces now since their hetro-marriage is now corrupted by this ruling, and hence they can no longer enjoy/tolerate being int he same civil class as gays?

    Maybe Chuches could replace Marriage with "Holy Relgious Unions" for the faithful and then bar all not of the faith (including gays) from getting them?

    This is a great example of how faith-based Republicans have cut off their own noses to spite thier faces (and Conservatives who care more about Governmental Authoritarianism than if gays get to have weddings).

    By standing so vehemently against marriage Equallity (civil) they directly helped create the events that this ruling is the end result of, where State executives have now been granted power to over-rule the democratic process and duly passed legislation by simply not enforcing it and not defending it in court. Same way those same Republicans, who march in line with their party when it comes to Amnesty, helped create that mess too.

    Hey, next up abortion in Texas. Wonder what THAT eventual ruling will give to Government in terms of new powers to screw the people.

    If Democrats didn't have Faith-based Republicans, they'd have to invent them. They win because of them. We may be a Conservative nation, but we're a liberal social nation today and will be for as far as I can see going forward, more so with each passing day and passing old (R) voter.
    (Most insults redacted)

    My marriage as a personal relationship is not affected or reduced, let's get that straight. Within the public institution of marriage, labelled as such, by having gays forcibly crowbar their way in to get the societal approval they crave, it certainly is diminished.

    What are you talking, get a divorce because I cant tolerate...herf derf. That's a little dramatic even for you. I strenuously object to the term "marriage" being extended to gay civil unions, and the kicker is despite your anti-religious over-concern, it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Try, Natural Law of a biological basis. (No, not just reproduction, pinkos). If I extend my objection to include tradition such as my formal religion, (which is "lapsed" for "reasons", nothing to do with this issue) even more so. No, God does not "tell" me to object.

    Me personally, I am not a "faith-based", whatever that means, Republican. Rather, I happen to be a Republican who has faith in God, something different. I vote Republican most of the time because their platform and candidates represent my views most of the time. I have voted for "extreme" TP types and moderates and RINOs alike when the opponent, as is the case almost 100% of the time in my realm, is an odious (D) Commie freak. Sometimes I have common cause with the RR, sometimes not. Im certainly not like the 3M RR idiot single issue voters who would not vote for Romney because of his Mormonism. Pro-amnesty RINO as you well know from my views I am not. Party or not, they don't represent me at all. Again in my realm, the GOP is more moderate and as the libertarians always caution, dont dwell on social issues. Yet (D) makes social issues front and center, always. In a crap economy with millions out of work the top priorities are somehow, Gay Marriage and Illegal Aliens.

    If a wise path to satisfy all concerned is for states to call all marriages Civil Unions and have Church marriages be called Marriage you can bet, that Churches that do not do so currently will be forced to wed gays.
    The Ken who wants to marry another Ken but have Barbie's dream wedding reception after Church will not be denied...

    Anyway, if I feel my marriage, called as such, as an institution is cheapened by this cheesy redefinition, that's my opinion, too bad for you and others who don't like it. Is my or others refusal to give a personal moral approval too doubleplusungood for comparative social libertines? Too "old"?

    Another thing, how can you assert that GOPers en bloc "created" the CA Prop 8 situation where the SCOTUS weighed in and seemingly nullified a refererendum (which may still be the law) Who pushed to have teh SCOTUS address the case? I think you are placing blame where it doesn't belong. A gay judge on the liberal 9th Circuit Federal Court inserted his personal views along the way to block it after passage-wheres his blame?

    What TX is voting about is late term (20 weeks) abortion. Did you enjoy the putsch the left atttempted to conduct in their legislature-B. Hussein tweeted his delight! Screw the people? Most people in TX and in the USA dont endorse Gosnell style meatgrinder abortions etc.

  7. #107
    Mod Friend to JI Legends
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by piney View Post
    Funny. This strikes me as a conservative ruling limiting the fed.

    I think states should make their own way with gay marraige and the fed should have to recognize those marriages.

    I think the evolutionary argument is thin. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction.
    Just to be clear, reproduction HERE means

    a) 9 months gestation
    b) 60 months intimacy and careful training
    c) 60 months weaning by schooling
    d) 60 months constant advisement
    e) 60 months helping them prepare for society

    about 20 years, all in.

    So I don't know for certain if a homosexual CAN carry out raising a family. Nothing to say they cannot, but the point the conservative voices make is that families have duties to be fulfilled - if it's not your child...how long will you stay in the game? 99.6% of birth mothers will stay the course.


    Okay; rant over

  8. #108
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,371
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    LOL. You poor poor thing. I'm not the one who said it. You are.

    So, which is it? Does your marriage include "immoral, idiotic, and unnatural qualities"? Or not?
    *sigh*

    No, mouthpiece, my marriage does not, it is breathtakingly normal to the point of banal.
    I don't need more than 1 marriage to figure that out and get it right.

  9. #109
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,371
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Hold on. He's gotta run upstairs and get his Thesaraus of Insults.
    For unctuous, noisome dunces spewing spilth trying to gainsay my luculent erudite conclusions regarding the usurping of my rights via legal usufruct,
    I only need the abridged version.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-27-2013 at 02:19 PM.

  10. #110
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,371
    Post Thanks / Like


    As a public service, just trying to keep a few of you from switching sides.

  11. #111
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Among the Cheyenne, homosexual males were the most daring warriors in the tribe, engaging in high-risk attack. A version a altruism seen in many areas of nature that could actually serve to protect the males who are most viable for procreation. .
    Unless you have a link to a respected source, I call bull****. Same type of crap from a few years ago where "gay historians", in order to further acceptance, were claiming that Lincoln and most of the Founding Fathers were gay.

  12. #112
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    My marriage as a personal relationship is not affected or reduced, let's get that straight.
    My thoughts exactly.

    Within the public institution of marriage, labelled as such, by having gays forcibly crowbar their way in to get the societal approval they crave, it certainly is diminished.
    In what specific way is it diminished? Certainly the civil contractual right has been expanded (new people qualifying for the same rights/benefits), but in what way has your benefits/rights of marriage been diminished, specificly?

    Do you get less back on your taxes now? Are you now burdened with new responsabillities preiously not required? What material diminishment are you citing here, or is it a purely mental, a perceptive diminishment?

    What are you talking, get a divorce because I cant tolerate...herf derf. That's a little dramatic even for you.
    More tongue-in-cheek obvious I would have said. Of course I am not making the statment that my own marriage has been reduced/diminished or befouled by what others can now have.

    I strenuously object to the term "marriage" being extended to gay civil unions, and the kicker is despite your anti-religious over-concern, it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
    So your objection is one of words then?

    Sadly, we live under a constitution that guaranteed equal rights under the Law for one and all. Marriage, CIVIL marriage, is nothing more than a contractual agreement validated and enforced by the State.

    If Religion is truly not your basis, you have no basis. There is no other form of civil contract that would be denied to someone purely for their sexual preferences other than this one.

    Try, Natural Law of a biological basis. (No, not just reproduction, pinkos).
    As well covered elsewhere, I agree that it's an deviancy from evolutionary norms, aye, but just like other deviancies, that is not a basis to deny civil contract rights to someone simply for being blind, having MS or being gay.

    If I extend my objection to include tradition such as my formal religion, (which is "lapsed" for "reasons", nothing to do with this issue) even more so. No, God does not "tell" me to object.
    And the wonderful thing about the U.S. is you have the freedom to worship however you wish, and exclude from your religion anyone you wish, gays included.

    The Government does not have that power, rightfully so. They cannot exclude on these grounds, making those grounds irrelevant to the decision.

    Me personally, I am not a "faith-based", whatever that means, Republican. Rather, I happen to be a Republican who has faith in God, something different.
    You are a strong social conservative, yes?

    Yet (D) makes social issues front and center, always.
    Why do you think that is, would you say?

    Is it perhaps becuase those issues are how they win enough of the middle/moderate/undecided vote to win elections?

    In a crap economy with millions out of work the top priorities are somehow, Gay Marriage and Illegal Aliens.
    They are only "top issues" because (R) refuses to give ground to the change in society on those issues.

    Abandon them, and you'd have a far more open field to compete on the issues you feel are legitimate top issues.

    Continue to have (R) whose top priorities are abortion and gays, and this is what you get.

    If a wise path to satisfy all concerned is for states to call all marriages Civil Unions and have Church marriages be called Marriage you can bet, that Churches that do not do so currently will be forced to wed gays.
    Cross that bridge (constitutionally, in court) when we come to it.

    The Ken who wants to marry another Ken but have Barbie's dream wedding reception after Church will not be denied...
    I think they would, actually. It being an unquestionable and non-debatable issue of 1st Amendment Religion freedom of that Church.

    Anyway, if I feel my marriage, called as such, as an institution is cheapened by this cheesy redefinition, that's my opinion, too bad for you and others who don't like it.
    Not bad for me at all. I enjoy engaging with you most days, you express yourself very well and require critical thinking to respond to generally speaking.

    Another thing, how can you assert that GOPers en bloc "created" the CA Prop 8 situation where the SCOTUS weighed in and seemingly nullified a refererendum (which may still be the law) Who pushed to have teh SCOTUS address the case? I think you are placing blame where it doesn't belong. A gay judge on the liberal 9th Circuit Federal Court inserted his personal views along the way to block it after passage-wheres his blame?
    No fight against civil marriage equality = no referrendum with very questionable constitutionality = no Governor refusing to uphold it and defend it = no S.C. case to overturn it, thus giving the State a new Authoritarian power of "ignore the Law if the executive chooses to" codified into S.C. precedent.

    Certainly (D) bears responsabillity as well of course, they WANT that power.

    (R) simply set up the bowling pins to give it to them, on a silver platter.

    What TX is voting about is late term (20 weeks) abortion. Did you enjoy the putsch the left atttempted to conduct in their legislature-B. Hussein tweeted his delight! Screw the people? Most people in TX and in the USA dont endorse Gosnell style meatgrinder abortions etc.
    Nor do I particularly.

    But just like in War, it's best to know when you're beaten, and I assure you, the (R) and Social Conservative right is well and truly beaten on the issues of gay rights and abortion. Germany circa early 1945 style beaten. You may still be fighting in the streets of Berlin, but the War is lost (I should point out, thsi is a simple historic reference, NOT equating the right with Nazi's, just for the record).

    Sometimes it's best to fall back, reorganize, restrategize, and counter-attack with issues that can win in the current society.

    Abortion and gay Rights are not it.
    Last edited by Churchill; 06-27-2013 at 02:48 PM.

  13. #113
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,371
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    Unless you have a link to a respected source, I call bull****. Same type of crap from a few years ago where "gay historians", in order to further acceptance, were claiming that Lincoln and most of the Founding Fathers were gay.
    His far less celebrated predecessor Buchanan was said to be gay.
    I think he's on the $3 note.

  14. #114
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    His far less celebrated predecessor Buchanan was said to be gay.
    I think he's on the $3 note.
    is that where "queer as a $3 bill" came from?

  15. #115
    Mod Friend to JI Legends
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    is that where "queer as a $3 bill" came from?
    yeah...youse guys are on opposite ends of the kaleidoscope, there.

  16. #116
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    Unless you have a link to a respected source, I call bull****. Same type of crap from a few years ago where "gay historians", in order to further acceptance, were claiming that Lincoln and most of the Founding Fathers were gay.
    I've never seen this scanned to the web, but I learned this from the American Museum of Natural History's Ethnographic Studies Series... a series of monographs by noted anthropologists on tribal culture in both North and South America. I have the Cheyenne monograph at home and will get the name of the author for you. These are pretty old pieces of scholarship, but cross-dressing, effeminate males were pretty well documented in the role of "reverse warriors" in battle, seen as the most daring of all.

    I'm not making any other claims, but was just using an example to reflect that we don't really understand or can easily explain the phemonemon of homosexuality from an evolutionary of sociobiological perspective. From a population perspective (not individual organism level) it MAY serve some selective purpose. Again, in nature, there are numerous mechanisms that are genetically wired to curtail procreation as well as increase it. We don't even know fully where genetics/biological factors in the womb/or nurture balance out to produce homosexuality, particularly in males. The balance may be entirely different for female homosexuality.

    My point here has been that it's an open question and that attempts to define it from a strictly evolutionary perspective (not moral or cultural) as abnormal or normal cannot be done with what we know. It's totally speculative.

    It will be interesting to see the trajectory of homosexuality as a statistical percentage as it is legitimized by law (and to a large extent by cultural acceptance). As it becomes more transparent, we should be able to understand it better.

  17. #117
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Does your marriage include "immoral, idiotic, and unnatural qualities"? Or not?
    Mine does, but only once a year on my birthday.

    Mrs. FF2 is a sport.

  18. #118
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,867
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    cross-dressing, effeminate males were pretty well documented in the role of "reverse warriors" in battle




    -

  19. #119
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,371
    Post Thanks / Like
    My objection is the label, because for me as a heterosexual, a married person, and a parent, it entails more than just companionship. More than a desire for acceptance. A uniqueness that is truly unique and not a turkey-baster splattered similacrum. Why is blackness a black thing i wouldnt understand but marriage is for anyone who signs up for it? Can't that uniqueness ^^^ be respected and not downed as exclusionary etc.?

    I have circumstances that make a longterm lineage and any tax revenues from my only child a near-impossibility, but back in the day I thought that natural parenthood and its potential made me, like any other parent, the most deserving of any tax code benefit, if that was a priority to me (not). Yes I do believe the duties of good parenting are deserving of a lower tax rate, my expenses are greater, certainly the future is dependent on our issue growed up and payin the tab that all of societys burgeoning population of leeches (subtracting of course in utero murders) that accrue today.

    Unlike a lot of the SSMers on parade yesterday, taxes were the least of my concerns going into marriage. All I heard about from them was inheritance taxes and benefits.

    To me, SSM is like a planet, let's say Uranus, that's clearly not Earth, jealous of the appellation, wanting to be called Earth, because it entailed moist, fertile lushness and not arid gassy rings around Uranus. Or a Golf Course wanting to be called a Farm. It's got green grass, is watered, but doesn't yield crops naturally other than through extraordinary means. Yet, demands to be called a Farm.

    Can't people be happy with a certificate of companionship?

    I dont really like your blind/disabled analogy to SSM and gayness though.

    It victimizes gayness, something that pingpongs in the philosophy du jour between a choice and a hardwired state (cant be called a disease anymore but the physiognomical cause also can't be ever be analyzed, because then gayness could be corrected or eradicated, in that case it wont be a "choice" of something that is "good" as or "equal" to hetero-ness)

    Where in contrast the truly disabled would probably never choose to be disabled, unless they disabled themselves purposely, and that was by a state of mental impairment/passion. (Cue your choice of fictional work of art here) Society sometimes logically understands the limits of disability, blind people don't get drivers licenses (yet) yet have jobs, can be married, have families, have access to the outside world, and yes even be gay.

    Please, I'm not one of these all or nothing RR people who want to ban everything SSM related. Of course sodomy between consenting adults is legal. Not advocating benefits be taken from or not granted to same sex partners. Just dont like the label. See above. Youd think from the keening rhetoric that inheritance patnership rights and healthcare proxy could never be assigned without SSM-not so!

    You have to understand also, sometimes the scorched earth take no prisoners gay militancy is a bit much to take. I had a butch female co-worker who had no problems blabbing to everyone she met about how she was "married" to another lady (went up to MA to do so) and when giving presentations to customers (she was an expert in a certain IT/accounting related field) loved to prop up projectors with her dog-eared copy of "The Rubyfruit Jungle" with the title on the spine prominently displayed (yuck) Yep, you're gay, everyone in creation knows, we get it, now GTFO!

    Gubmint power, you have "faith" in its limits, but B. Hussein and (D) could care what non-Muslim religious institutions yield to it. Clearly seen by the Catholic hospital contraception power play. My take, the Catholics should just bail out of the SP business even if that means a 20% minimum reduction in services and let the anti-Catholics / irreligious try an' fill the void. They don't need the $ or the persecution. But they have some genuine altruism so they won't.

    Again, the last election should have been about the economy as #1 priority. IMO, Romney was scrupulously avoiding all social issues and limited conversation about them.

    Yet, he was attacked on all fronts, social, economic, overtly, covertly, rightfully so in some instances, and outrageously falsely in others. (D) & the lib cheerleaders puzzled endlessly whether we could really have a Mormon in the WH (but we had (D) Senate majority leader Mormon Reid, no problem), war against women, oh dont forget Illegals, neer mind theyre unskilled, depress wages...

    Took the high road like a big dope and now the country has to plod along, in general, at 0-1% growth for another 3+ years. Oh well. At least we can look forward to B. Hussein's eldest daughter in Maxim or some such afore we know it. Maybe even out and about as a GLBT American.

    Oh yes. The question about social issues. (D) playbook: Divide, conquer. Discard the stepping stones to power when no longer needed (e.g. Blue Dog (D) dupes for 0-care; (D) White Ethnics)) Split (R) along racial/ethnic/gender/sexuality/religious/age fault lines, lying at all times (The "benefits" of illegals becoming insta-citizens and the imaginary back taxes owed windfall)
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-27-2013 at 04:33 PM.

  20. #120
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,180
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet View Post
    Good luck FF... I looked for a greeting card that imparted "Here's hoping your marriage survived DOMA". Couldn't find one.
    Really? It was right next to the "Sorry your talented TE is a psychopath" cards.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us