Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[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.

[cinyc]

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.

[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.

[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.

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

What straw man argument?  Nagas all but said that people who oppose gay marriage should be banned from expressing that view and specifically said "Religious arguments have no place".

[cinyc]

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.

Okay, that's it. I'll ask one final time, how can I prove to you that I am gay? my name? something from a long time ago that has me stating that I'm gay?  Just tell me now.

P.S. Don't serve on a jury.

It really doesn't matter whether you are lying or not, so that would be wasting "the court's" time to litigate that. If you are not lying, may God have mercy on your tortured soul, but I digress.

One other thing. Is it at all possible that there can be a thread discussing gay issues, that does not devolve into being all about you?  That is what really angers folks, and incentives them to find a way working their way through the evidence and rule book to get you banned. Think about it.

Look at how this all started.  CountryClassSF didn't make anything all about him.  He just expressed his opinion on the Supreme Court's decision.  One of the moderators attacked CountryClassSF and others piled on, making it about CountryClassSF.

[cinyc]

Once again: should we allow open advocacy of slavery on the forum? After all, it does fall under biblical purview.

What does slavery have to do with same-sex marriage?  How often does it even come up on the forum?  And why should I care if someone openly advocates slavery on this forum, anyway?   I'd rather know who the pro-slavery folks are so that I know to question their judgement on other things than ban them for holding an unorthodox view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Religious arguments are just as valid as secular ones when crafting public policy.  Freedom of religion doesn't apply in some vacuum where you have to give up your religious beliefs in the public square.

What are your supposed boundaries on someone's ability to practice their religion?  Do churches that believe marriage is only between a man and a woman still have the right to preach that, or do they now have to give that up because it violates your "progressive" world view?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is a reaction to "progressives" who are quick to throw out the "intolerant" label and attempt to ban those with whom they disagree for having the gaul to stray from the "progressive" line.  Their views are the only settled, appropriate views, and everyone else is an intolerant bigot who should not be able to hold their opinion.  And some "progressives" insist everyone must be tolerant of their beliefs but are anti-religious bigots who hate Christians.