Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[DrScholl]

A ban is in order. Obvious trolling is unacceptable.

Let's start by banning "progressives" like you.

I wasn't even addressing you. Stop trying to start arguments.

Well, every time you and the rest of the intolerant "progressives" on this board suggest banning conservatives for daring to disagree with you, you ARE addressing me.  Because like many conservatives here, I fear that I am going to be next.

Uhm, I said CountryClassSF should be banned because he is obviously trolling, not because he is a conservative. It's a message board, it's not even that serious, so calm down. This is not life and death.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So when do you think MS, LA, and TX will finally be forced to join?

[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.

[CountryClassSF]

The definition of trolling to some is having a view that you find unfathomable, or an unconventional view. And when that person attempts to make their case and defend themselves against the onslaught, they get attacked further.

My response on this thread was  about the ruling and the role of the courts, and said nothing about gay people.  Sorry for those who are trying to find bigotry that doesn't exist.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

A ban is in order. Obvious trolling is unacceptable.

Let's start by banning "progressives" like you.

I wasn't even addressing you. Stop trying to start arguments.

Well, every time you and the rest of the intolerant "progressives" on this board suggest banning conservatives for daring to disagree with you, you ARE addressing me.  Because like many conservatives here, I fear that I am going to be next.

calm down

[cinyc]

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.

[CountryClassSF]

Let's assume CCSF is lying about being gay, in order to give his opposition to gays and SSM more "bite" or whatever.

With the reaction I get here from it, wouldn't that be the polar opposite of what I would do, if I had some grand strategy to try to convince people to be against SSM?

My opinions are my own. I have time and time again cited polling data that there are others who identify as LGBT and share them with pollsters.

[Torie]

Let's assume CCSF is lying about being gay, in order to give his opposition to gays and SSM more "bite" or whatever.

With the reaction I get here from it, wouldn't that be the polar opposite of what I would do, if I had some grand strategy to try to convince people to be against SSM?

No, it makes opposing what is in your own interests for the larger public good seem just more noble. Yes, I know, there is the "self hating" rap, but that jab, is way, way overused in my opinion, in this day and age. No, odds are CCSF that you are a mere liar. You aren't gay, but more importantly, I don't think you are getting laid enough. You worry, way, way too much about what gays do. It's just not healthy for you. You need to get over it - for your own good really.

[Likely Voter]

It seems to me that one poster finds a way to turn threads into being just about him. That to me seems to be trolling and I wish people would ignore such a poster. You go through a thread hoping to read an interchange and then it just becomes page after page of one poster and those who respond to him.

Is that the kind of person that makes this place interesting or someone who ruins the whole point?

[CountryClassSF]

No, it makes opposing what is in your own interests for the larger public good seem just more noble. Yes, I know, there is the "self hating" rap, but that jab, is way, way overused in my opinion, in this day and age. No, odds are CCSF that you are a mere liar. You aren't gay, but more importantly, I don't think you are getting laid enough. You worry, way, way too much about what gays do. It's just not healthy for you. You need to get over it - for your own good really.

I'll take it one by one.

First, it's not in my interest to have a marriage. Not everyone wants their relationship called that if they don't believe in it, whether for personal, religious reasons or both.

Secondly, I have offered repeatedly to somehow "prove" that I am gay, but I don't see what it is that I can do to do that.  Even if I somehow did that, there'd still be unsatisfied people.

I'm sorry that you think I'm a liar - but again, I'm happy to put the meme to rest.

It's obvious that to those who think I am a troll, my saying that I am gay *hurts* my cause. So where would the benefits be of saying something that you claim is false?

[Torie]

It seems to me that one poster finds a way to turn threads into being just about him. That to me seems to be trolling and I wish people would ignore such a poster. You go through a thread hoping to read an interchange and then it just becomes page after page of one poster and those who respond to him.

Is that the kind of person that makes this place interesting or someone who ruins the whole point?

You didn't find this thread "interesting?" But that reminds me, CCSF, don't go "gay" on threads that are not about gay. That's impolite. And if done enough, it's a violation of the terms of use.

[CountryClassSF]

It seems to me that one poster finds a way to turn threads into being just about him. That to me seems to be trolling and I wish people would ignore such a poster. You go through a thread hoping to read an interchange and then it just becomes page after page of one poster and those who respond to him.

Is that the kind of person that makes this place interesting or someone who ruins the whole point?

See this is what I  spoke about above. I state my opinion on a court ruling, people instantly attack me and claim I'm not gay, I respond to the posts, and I'm accused of the thread turning into something about me.
No, that'd be YOU making it about me.

[CountryClassSF]

You didn't find this thread "interesting?" But that reminds me, CCSF, don't go "gay" on threads that are not about gay. That's impolite. And if done enough, it's a violation of the terms of use.

This thread is explicitly about gay marriage. I guess you can go on a fishing expedition for the past 2 years of commentary in  threads, but I think it obviously hasn't been 'done enough' otherwise there wouldn't be all that future tense in there.

 

[eric82oslo]

It seems to me that one poster finds a way to turn threads into being just about him. That to me seems to be trolling and I wish people would ignore such a poster. You go through a thread hoping to read an interchange and then it just becomes page after page of one poster and those who respond to him.

Is that the kind of person that makes this place interesting or someone who ruins the whole point?

See this is what I  spoke about above. I state my opinion on a court ruling, people instantly attack me and claim I'm not gay, I respond to the posts, and I'm accused of the thread turning into something about me.
No, that'd be YOU making it about me.

If you were gay, you would not hate yourself. Thus, you're not gay. Or if not, at the very least you're into S/M.

[Torie]

You didn't find this thread "interesting?" But that reminds me, CCSF, don't go "gay" on threads that are not about gay. That's impolite. And if done enough, it's a violation of the terms of use.

Sounds like you're on a fishing expedition.  This thread is explicitly about gay marriage.

Indeed it is, but one the raps against you, is that you bring gay issues into discussions out of the blue that are not about gays. I don't know the merits of that rap, but my best advice is not to do that.

[CountryClassSF]

If you were gay, you would not hate yourself. Thus, you're not gay. Or if not, at the very least you're into S/M.

You have got to get out of the groupthink mentality. So, I guess all the self-ID'd LGBT folks who oppose SSM and voted as such in California just pretended ?

Not liking an aspect about yourself doesn't equate to hating yourself, your disgusting last sentence aside.

[CountryClassSF]

Indeed it is, but one the raps against you, is that you bring gay issues into discussions out of the blue that are not about gays. I don't know the merits of that rap, but my best advice is not to do that.

Except I don't do that, so...great.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It seems to me that one poster finds a way to turn threads into being just about him. That to me seems to be trolling and I wish people would ignore such a poster. You go through a thread hoping to read an interchange and then it just becomes page after page of one poster and those who respond to him.

Is that the kind of person that makes this place interesting or someone who ruins the whole point?

See this is what I  spoke about above. I state my opinion on a court ruling, people instantly attack me and claim I'm not gay, I respond to the posts, and I'm accused of the thread turning into something about me.
No, that'd be YOU making it about me.

If you were gay, you would not hate yourself. Thus, you're not gay. Or if not, at the very least you're into S/M.

people have been fighting against their own rights for over a century. that alone wouldn't make ccsf a troll.

[CountryClassSF]

people have been fighting against their own rights for over a century. that alone wouldn't make ccsf a troll.

thanks I think.....

Just keep in mind not everyone has the same idea of what is a right to them and what's not.  But appreciate it anyway...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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?

[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.

[Likely Voter]

It seems to me that one poster finds a way to turn threads into being just about him. That to me seems to be trolling and I wish people would ignore such a poster. You go through a thread hoping to read an interchange and then it just becomes page after page of one poster and those who respond to him.

Is that the kind of person that makes this place interesting or someone who ruins the whole point?

You didn't find this thread "interesting?" But that reminds me, CCSF, don't go "gay" on threads that are not about gay. That's impolite. And if done enough, it's a violation of the terms of use.

Interactions with fictional personas are best left to role playing with the gf and fan fiction. I like this forum for enlightened (or at least entertaining) political discussion.

[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.

[Torie]

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?

Pushing the edge might get your post deleted, so it will be lost in cyberspace, rather than stay for all to savor for posterity as it were (the death points being a side issue). You can make your point within the rules. Heck I just did, I think, positing that I think CCSF is probably lying based on the evidence.

[CountryClassSF]

Interactions with fictional personas are best left to role playing with the gf and fan fiction. I like this forum for enlightened (or at least entertaining) political discussion.

No you don't. You like one sided discussion, and if someone has a view you find to be out of the mainstream, you make personal attacks against them and who they are.