Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[Badger]

only surprise here is it was 5-4. despite his recently overblown undeserved rep as a "moderate", i figured Rooberts would want to ensure being on the winning side for posterity/textbooks, etc. not to mention a 6-3 vote would put it out of the Court's hands with no hope of a do-over with a conservative replacing one of the majority. though i doubt even the stronges. SSM opponents would realistically hope for that now considering how strong the tides of public opinion have changed.

[Badger]

The Supreme Court of the country formerly known as the United States of America has overruled God, usurped their authority as impartial jurists, and rewrote three laws this week to match with their ideological crusade.  

It is APPALLING that two justices who are ACTIVELY supporters of the entirety of the gay agenda, and have PERFORMED same-sex weddings, were able to cast a vote today.

There is no hope - it is all over. We no longer have a republic, or even a democracy. We are ruled by black-robed ideological radicals, with support from corporate America, Hollywood, and the "news" media.

I'm afraid that very soon, they will soon go after the churches and start imposing penalties on those who refuse to perform unions they have a moral disagreement with. Justice  Alito warned of pending vilification.

country class. You have finally played your hand. Some people in the moderators cave have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt despite severe questioning, such as by myself, that you are actually gay as opposed to merely a troll. You claim to be a gay person, and yet your argument is the Supreme Court just ruled against the will of God it's himself.!??? Please! There is nothing gay conservative about your post. Do you expect us to truly believe that you RK and simultaneously believe that the will of God opposes homosexuality.?? Whether one believes that or not, it is incredulous to believe that someone who is actually gay would believe that. Even the most self hating gay on the planet, even though one who screams about conservatism is a supposed to justification for their opposition to gay marriage, wouldn't pull that. I'm calling you out of this. Answer. Stand and deliver. Complete an hour, explain how you genuinely believe that God is opposed to being gay and get our gate yourself. This isn't about gay rights, this is about you trolling.

[Badger]

I think the bible clearly does not encourage same gender marriages.  On the topic of homosexuality, I think it's ambiguous and difficult to decipher.

You're asking me to prove that I am gay? What would you like me to do exactly?

You're equating my opposition to gay marriage to automatic opposition to homosexuality.

I can not under any circumstances comprehend anyone truthfully saying the Bible prohibits gay marriage, but is ambiguous on homosexuality itself. I am aware of the Scriptures you were saying, and that is borderline impossible to believe. I would love to hear your rationale how.
or perhaps you merely overstepped in your outrage over this decision, and finally let your mask slip that you're simply trolling about actually being gay. Let's look at the evidence shall we,?first, yes opposition to gay marriage is a bit of a red flag. While not utterly and absolutely impossible, it is in fact you must concede almost unheard of. Even among gay conservatives it is almost unheard of to oppose gay marriage.next, you have on FreeRepublic referred to gays as if I recall correctly deviance and similar terms. Try claiming you meant merely the deviance in the gay movement, whatever the hell that means, but the language from Europe FreeRepublic post, in contact, make it quite clear you were referring to gays as a whole. could a gay person actually be so self hating that they that only oppose gay marriage, but actually consider themselves, quite legitimately, to be deviance and the like? Almost impossible to any rational person. Now this decision was against God because the Bible, whilst obviously a marriage, is only, & I quote, ambiguous on gate relationship and homosexuality in general.if I ask any tree in the country to find beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not, nearly and arch conservative who happens to be gay, and now he opposes gay marriage but believes thatgays are deviants and the Bible opposes homosexuality, or excuse me, just gay marriage. Or on the other hand but you are simply rolling in yohat the verdict would, I have little doubt what the verdict would be. At best, you are one seriously seriously messed up dude who hides pinea bearhug embrace - - no pun intended - - of conservatism as a means of justifying the fact you live everyday of your life orderly and completely uncomfortable in your own skin. I would say that I pity you, but I just don't believe any more that you are gay as opposed to just a troll.

[Badger]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

Please straightsplain to me what a gay person should say. Yes, I'm not out at FreeRepublic because yes, they don't accept out gays. Happy?

The question is, are you putting on a show there or putting on a show here? I think you are putting on a show here.

He is "putting on a show" in both places. And that isn't going to change. No one except the most pitiful of low-information people changes their personal viewpoint on a political issue according to the whims and moods of the courts. Opponents have and will continue to admit that SSM is settled and unchangeable law now, as I have already done. But that doesn't mean mine or their personal opinion is affected.

you are factually incorrect. When the Court struck down segregation, or when the Civil Rights Act passed and broke it down, opinions notably even dramatically changed to a weakened opposition of segregation very soon afterwards. The law in the US Army sorry I mean legitimacy that holds, does create social norms and expectations. It will may not eliminate opposition, but it totally transforms societal standards. Whether you oppose or support this ruling, that cannot be denied

[Badger]

In this post from FreeRepublic, CountyClassSF said this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't seem like something a gay person would say.

Please straightsplain to me what a gay person should say. Yes, I'm not out at FreeRepublic because yes, they don't accept out gays. Happy?

The question is, are you putting on a show there or putting on a show here? I think you are putting on a show here.

He is "putting on a show" in both places. And that isn't going to change. No one except the most pitiful of low-information people changes their personal viewpoint on a political issue according to the whims and moods of the courts. Opponents have and will continue to admit that SSM is settled and unchangeable law now, as I have already done. But that doesn't mean mine or their personal opinion is affected.

you are factually incorrect. When the Court struck down segregation, or when the Civil Rights Act passed and broke it down, opinions notably even dramatically changed to a weakened opposition of segregation very soon afterwards. The law in the US Army sorry I mean legitimacy that holds, does create social norms and expectations. It will may not eliminate opposition, but it totally transforms societal standards. Whether you oppose or support this ruling, that cannot be denied

What does the US Army have to do with any of this? They don't create laws or define norms for all of society, they are not a governing body.

It's called voice recognition technology and not having hands free to correct typos.

[Badger]

Should we allow an open advocate for the slavery of blacks on this forum? Forced child labor? Explicit advocacy for the repression of women?

No, because society evolves, and some views are abhorrent and have no place in the market place of ideas. But this probably doesn't even matter to you, because you're a troll.

Are you seriously advocating banning people who disagree with you on gay marriage? Why do "progressives" like you get to determine what has a place in the marketplace of ideas.  There is nothing "progressive" about censorship.

Society evolves, and denying rights, marginalizing, or repressing minorities is unacceptable; especially when these arguments evolve out of antiquated and misinterpreted religious texts from the Iron age, and many of its adherents have been conditioned not to question the dogma. Secular arguments against marriage as an institution (under which gay marriage falls under) in general are fine, as we are a secular society. Religious arguments have no place, and that is what this debate has always been about.

Fortunately, we still have a First Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion - at least for now.  Intolerant "progressives" like yourself, though, would like to get rid of that and force religions to tow the new bigoted, intolerant "secular" official state religion.  No thanks.

Straw man arguments don't do us blue avatars any good.

[Badger]

How far can I go with my language before being banned? I feel like tonight would be a perfect night for tip-toeing right up to the line. Can someone give me a quota or something?

7.

[Badger]

Badger, I feel that continuing to explain would thus do nothing for you since you have yourself convinced of these things.  I'm happy to have a full discussion about it, but in order to have that discussion, the other person has to be willing to have it. If there's no way I can change your preconceived notions, it would be a waste of time for me and for you.

Are you willing to at least discuss how you interpret the Bible to forbid gay marriage but only being "ambiguous" regarding gay marriage? On the surface that seems ludicrous to me, but I'm willing to genuinely listen with open ears and mind.

[Badger]

Are you willing to at least discuss how you interpret the Bible to forbid gay marriage but only being "ambiguous" regarding gay marriage? On the surface that seems ludicrous to me, but I'm willing to genuinely listen with open ears and mind.

Yes, of course I'm willing to discuss it. But I think somehow proving (to mods only, if I need to give my name, etc) that I'm gay first will be helpful. If you'd like me to explain the marriage vs homosexuality thing, I can try to do that here if it will be permitted to.

I've PMed both you and another mod offering to give my name or preferably something else. Let's get this myth out of the way once and for all.

Dude, there's no need to give your name to "prove" anything (not to mention it'd be near impossible to verify and would hardly prove your sexuality )

[Badger]

Yeah...CCSF has horrid views on gay marriage and religion...but you cant blame carrion for messing up your street when the crows have had a feast and spread everything everywhere.

Let me clarify before ernest censors and infracts:

CCSF put his opinion in here.  People responded negatively, so he responded back and on and on we go.  Torie and Badger are no doubt getting ready to pounce on him for being the contrarian.

Badger is the one who brought up not believing CCSF is gay.  But surely CCSF must be punished for responding.

[Badger]

CCSF, have you ever considered getting on the "gay to straight conversion" speaking circuit?  You might find it to be a lucrative venture, and you seem to have the skillset for it.

I don't believe in conversion being a possibility - but if I could, I would

gee, and why do people doubt your really gay and not just trolling?

in the off off chance you aren't, you are a deeply deeply disturbed man in desperate need of therapy to address serious self-hate issues you mischaracterize as conservatism.