Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I shoot from the hip.

After the blow? That would be A facial, yes?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Big Dog: 1

Homophobes: 0

gay lovers: 0 unless you count "feelings". Those were some seriously piss poor responses, not grounded in reality or historical perspective. Is it considered analytical these days to disregard anything other than how you want thongs to be when considering a question?

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Wyld Blu 35]

gay lovers: 0 unless you count "feelings". Those were some seriously piss poor responses, not grounded in reality or historical perspective. Is it considered analytical these days to disregard anything other than how you want thongs to be when considering a question?

Really? I have seen your posts exude comments related to your feelings that society will crumble, and somehow having the government affort the same benefits to everyone is trying to make you change your beliefs or religeous dogma or something, but when we are talking about constitution rights given across the board in a equal fashion...we are talking about our feelings on the subject? So far, I have seen one argument given (that somehow asking for the same benefits for everyone will force you to change your beliefs) and that has been shown, repeatedly, that it is simply not a true statement, on your part. What are your other reasons?

-Blu-

[Dan J 277]

gay lovers: 0 unless you count "feelings". Those were some seriously piss poor responses, not grounded in reality or historical perspective. Is it considered analytical these days to disregard anything other than how you want thongs to be when considering a question?

Right, history has shown that the definition of marriage has changed and will keep on changing it has also shown that it does not belong to one culture, religion or otherwise. You are ignoring history and reality, if you think that people are going to always see marriage the way you see it.

[Fandango 1,440]

Marriage can be defined spiritually and personally as the individual sees fit. As far as the gov't is concerned, it should be contract-partnership only...much like a business deal. A creation of a partnership, period.

I am religious, I believe marriage is much more than just a 'creation of a partnership' business-esque deal. But that's my choice, and not for the gov't to sanction or define for me.

[Wyld Blu 35]

I am SO very curious about something.

The assumption that society will crumble if the government equates gay marriages to hetro marriages in terms of benefits afforded, must have come from somewhere. Can you please cite instances where societies or civilizations have fallen based on gay unions? You seem to speak with certainty that this is a definate conclusion, so please enlighten us again, with your references as to the history of your supposition.

0-Blu-

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Marriage can be defined spiritually and personally as the individual sees fit. As far as the gov't is concerned, it should be contract-partnership only...much like a business deal. A creation of a partnership, period.

I am religious, I believe marriage is much more than just a 'creation of a partnership' business-esque deal. But that's my choice, and not for the gov't to sanction or define for me.

See what happens here? Teh gheys have already fcuked you up. Or so some would see it.

[Fandango 1,440]

See what happens here? Teh gheys have already fcuked you up. Or so some would see it.

Well, I did grow up on South Beach

I think if people were being honest, those who are anti-gay marriage are secretly anti-gay period. They don't understand it, they don't like it, therefore, it's not 'on par' with them. Once people realize banning gay marriage will not make the gays go away, I think we'll get somewhere.

[Susita 175]

I think if people were being honest, those who are anti-gay marriage are secretly anti-gay period. They don't understand it, they don't like it, therefore, it's not 'on par' with them. Once people realize banning gay marriage will not make the gays go away, I think we'll get somewhere.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The repeated insistance that I am posting from "feelings" is merely a matter of transference on your part.

Really? I have seen your posts exude comments related to your feelings that society will crumble, and somehow having the government affort the same benefits to everyone is trying to make you change your beliefs or religeous dogma or something, but when we are talking about constitution rights given across the board in a equal fashion...we are talking about our feelings on the subject? So far, I have seen one argument given (that somehow asking for the same benefits for everyone will force you to change your beliefs) and that has been shown, repeatedly, that it is simply not a true statement, on your part. What are your other reasons?

-Blu-

[Wyld Blu 35]

The repeated insistance that I am posting from "feelings" is merely a matter of transference on your part.

And yet...you continue to do nothing towards proving your assumptions about the welfare of society if gays were allowed to marry.

I have now asked you repeatedly to list your reasons for the benefit and/or amusement for all the readers of this thread and you have only listed on thing...which was shot down mercilessly. Can you list more? Can you cite historical references? Or are your assumptions only that, based on your religeous and/or prejudcial thought processes?

-Blu-

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Right, history has shown that the definition of marriage has changed and will keep on changing it has also shown that it does not belong to one culture, religion or otherwise. You are ignoring history and reality, if you think that people are going to always see marriage the way you see it.

World history isn't relevant to this discussion, so the only reason to insert it is so you can ignore American history. In American history, legitimizing gay marriage would be a major redefinition of marriage and a substantive culture shift.

I wish you folks would stop ofuscating; it's so gauche.

[Dan J 277]

And yet...you continue to do nothing towards proving your assumptions about the welfare of society if gays were allowed to marry.

I have now asked you repeatedly to list your reasons for the benefit and/or amusement for all the readers of this thread and you have only listed on thing...which was shot down mercilessly. Can you list more? Can you cite historical references? Or are your assumptions only that, based on your religeous and/or prejudcial thought processes?

-Blu-

It will go no where, as its often in the eye of the beholder. A more free society which moves away from legislating morality is consider a decline in society by some.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That's as stupid as saying people who support gay marriage really wish they were gay themselves

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It will go no where, as its often in the eye of the beholder. A more free society which moves away from legislating morality is consider a decline in society by some.

Morality cannot be legislated.