SCOTUS Refuses review of opinions striking down gay marriage bans

Again Rioseco,

"please start listing those "freedoms at all for you soley on the basis of your lifestyle choices" you speak of."

Typical Thumper propaganda and lies--what special treatment do most gays want? Give some of those numerous examples. YOU are the one who says you are glad they are denied equal treatment--I don't hear the same from most the gays I know.

I'm waiting. Second time I have asked.
Originally Posted by Old-T

Listen here old Tranny dipshit. I am not going to draw out the freedoms here for your dumb ass. If you do not know what freedoms I speak of then consult the "Bill of Rights" Do you even own a copy of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights ? Most liberals just use it for cat litter anyway. Where is yours ? Next to the door mat ??? I would no more endorse freedom of any sort for anyone based on their beliefs or sexuality. I am telling all for the second time as you put it, The founders did not have fags like you in mind when they drew up the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
I am telling you that for almost as long as human kind marriage has been between a woman and man. What is it so hard for you to get it ? Are you that fucking dim ?
Now since fags want more and more.......let them have something but not marriage !
So that is my answer to you. Talking to you is like talking to a very sharp rock or a really stupid person so I rest here.

And you are taking his comment out of context.

He was talking about a SHARED word of people that speak the same language - i.e., "marriage".

"Avion" is the French word for plane. English speakers already have the word "plane" and they have no need to appropriate "avion" for some other purpose. But, if, for some bizarre reason, English speakers wanted to use "avion" to replace the word "fountain", the French have no say in the matter.

Bar mitzvah is a Hebrew word. Others could re-purpose it in a different language, but why?

And, for what it is worth, baptism is used to mean things other than an actual religious ceremony - as in "baptism of fire". So, even that isn't a good example. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Somewhere along the way, I'm admittedly to lazy to go back and look it up, I believe some context got added to my thoughts by someone trying to tell me what I think. That's how this shit gets distorted. Let's just say I was trying to keep it simple.

Yes, In your example "avion" could be used to describe something other than a plane in English. Because we do that, does that mean that we can force the French to change the meaning in French or accept our meaning?

To gay folks , sex between the same sex is the exact same as sex between the opposite sex for heterosexuals. They can not imagine having sex with the opposite sex just like you can not imagine sucking a dick or getting butt fucked....or can you imagine getting butt fucked? And for the record....it would have been really hard to ban gay couples from saying they are married. Words do not belong to certain groups of people. Words evolve all the time.




. Originally Posted by WTF

No I can nor will not imagine getting butt fucked or sucking cock.
So these things take up a great deal of your time WTF !
I guess you find it interesting, perhaps you will feel the need to act on that soon.
You know, scratch that itch !

Let's say that Jews decided that bar mitzvah and bat mitvah were too complicated for outsiders to understand and they want to become more accepted. They decide to use the word baptism to signify a "coming of age" ritual because more people worldwide understand, erroneous as it may be, that a baptism means "basically the same thing".

Would Christians have a right to be upset? Yes or no? Originally Posted by boardman

Putting aside the ridiculous premise that Jews would jettison "bar mitzvah" because outsiders didn't understand it (why would Jews care?), the answer is "No".

Not that it would ever happen. When you start getting into ludicrous examples, you have lost the argument. Just like the opponents of gay marriage have lost when they start talking about bestiality.

Don't get hung up on the words I used. Instead focus on the idea that certain groups of people have words peculiar to their religion, political structure, common societal beliefs, tribal traditions, etc. They are a personal characteristic of that group of people.
Could it then be argued that the changing of the meaning of that personal characteristic, despite or perhaps in spite, of the coining group is discrimination? Originally Posted by boardman

NO.

Because "marriage" isn't an example of a "personal characteristic" of any one group. it belongs to everyone - except, apparently, gays.

Even atheists and agnostics use it. And it is also a civil ceremony, not just a religious one.

So, why do religious people get to take ownership of it and declare who can and cannot use it?

And don't say that heterosexuals own the word, because even the majority of heterosexuals (in many if not most places) are in favor of gay marriage.

Language is not static. Existing words fall out of usage. New words are added to our language. Definitions and common usage of words change over time.

When was the last time anyone said "Soft! You forgot the condoms!"

When was the last time you asked someone for a faggot?

Have you ever asked to borrow a classmate's rubber? If so, did they hand you an eraser, or did they slap you?

When was the last time you asked "Wherefore do you persecute me?"

Has anyone ever wondered exactly what kind of cookies your computer likes best? Chocolate chip? Oatmeal? Peanut butter? When you found out your computer had a bunch of cookies on it, did you pour a glass of milk in your hard drive?

If "marriage" is such a sacred word, why doesn't anyone insist that pinochle players start saying they have a civil union in hearts?

Just as language it not static, neither are traditions.

Why don't those who are so dedicated to the tradition of marriage arrange the marriages of their offspring?

When was the last time a father paid a dowry?

When was the last time a father betrothed his infant daughter? Why isn't it normal practice to betroth a 10 year old girl to a 40 year old man anymore?

Why do couples get married in churches? Why don't couples post banns before wedding? Why don't couples simply inform their clergy that they decided to exchange vows, without witnesses, without a ceremony?

But it is a personal characteristic of a particular group. Heterosexuals.

Take a look at the Etymology of the word. It comes from Latin. It's actually not religious in nature as the religious would claim. But the concept is recorded as God's plan in the earliest known literature referring to such things. So the religious have taken the word to mean the same as the Romans intended.

Romans were not opposed to homosexuality. On the contrary they believed homosexuality was an acceptable role of active masculinity. The passive male however was a slave, prostitute or someone in a different social strata.

Although "homosexual" and "heterosexual" do not have direct latin translations. "Active" and "Passive" are the closest translations.

The latin root of "marriage" is generally acknowledged as a heterosexual(man and woman) union for the purposes of procreation. That is impossible with two "actives" or two "passives"
To translate for WTF. Somebody has to be the one to stick his dick in the other one's ass.

Now, your next move is to tell me that words evolve. No, words are distorted and redefined by those who don't like the original meaning. If that were not true we etymologists would not be concerned with the roots.

We grow up differently. We are taught things by our parents our elders, our cultures and our social surroundings. They shape who we are and how we think. Is that inherently wrong? I don't think so.

I used to think homosexuality was wrong. Now that I'm older and wiser, I don't give a shit as long as it doesn't affect me.
I and the majority of people today grew up believing that marriage was between a man and a woman. I still believe that. Is that inherently wrong or just personally disgusting to you? Would you treat me differently based on my belief as opposed to someone who believes a more contemporary definition of marriage as you. If your answer is "Yes" then you have just practiced discrimination. If your answer is "No" then I'd say the chance are you're lying. By the same token, allowing the minority to force government and thereby the people to accept a different definition is also discrimination.

So here is my solution. Again, Do away with recognizing marriages by the state. Call it a civil union, or call it an "Avion" for all I care. Define it, shape it make it work for anyone and also define it's dissolution. If a social circle wants to use the word marriage as they see fit then so be it. That circle can define how a marriage is "dissolved" This way a civil union can be dissolved without judgement by the state on the definition of "marriage". Judgement is left to the circle. If that circle is determined to keep a marriage in tact then the parties of the marriage can choose to stay in that circle and accept the judgement of their people who originally recognized their "marriage" or they can leave without affecting their status as citizens of the state.

Because we do that, does that mean that we can force the French to change the meaning in French or accept our meaning? Originally Posted by boardman

Nobody is forcing you to accept gay marriage as a phrase. Just as you can not force gays not to use the word marriage as it pertains to their Unions. It is just a word/phrase.

This reminds me of the Dutch cartoon incident where radical Muslims protested a fucking Cartoon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jylland...ns_controversy

Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic, racist, or baiting and blasphemous to Muslims, possibly intended to humiliate a Danish minority. Others saw them as a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism, double standards, and stereotyping. Supporters said that the publication of the cartoons was a legitimate exercise of free speech regardless of the validity of the expression, that it was important to openly discuss Islam without fear or that the cartoons made important points about topical issues. The Danish tradition of relatively very high tolerance for freedom of speech became a focus of some attention. The controversy ignited a debate about the limits of freedom of expression in all societies, religious tolerance and the relationship of Muslim minorities with their broader societies in the West, and relations between the Islamic World in general and the West.

Nobody is forcing you to accept gay marriage as a phrase. Originally Posted by WTF

Plenty of people are. Just look back through this thread. If I or someone else doesn't accept it, or in other words defends it's meaning, we are pigeon holed, insulted, and determined to be homophobes. Is that not a form of coercion?

The latin root of "marriage" is generally acknowledged as a heterosexual(man and woman) union for the purposes of procreation.
. Originally Posted by boardman

So only couples having kids are to be considered for marriage according to the root meaning of marriage?

Plenty of people are. Just look back through this thread. If I or someone else doesn't accept it, or in other words defends it's meaning, we are pigeon holed, insulted, and determined to be homophobes. Is that not a form of coercion? Originally Posted by boardman

Such is life Grasshopper.

Me getting speeding tickets is a form of coercion to slow the fuck down.

All I am saying is that heterosexuals do not own the word marriage. Just like nobody owns the n word.

All I have ever wanted was for them to have the same rights and responsibilities as any other married couple.

But I am wise enough to realize you can not legislate words. Shit I thought you were too!

If you want to bitch and moan about gay marriage....go ahead. That is your right. Just be willing to accept the blowback

So I'm not sure what all the brewhaha was over the meaning of the word. Originally Posted by WTF

For the same reason the LBGT community wants to claim that Abraham Lincoln was gay: it's part of their "thumb to the eye agenda" wherein they falsely screech that they represent "normal".

FIFY Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are a stupid student, Ekim the Inbred Chimp; it's your bobbing and sucking motions that your Master Odumbo wants you to fix, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. You need to study that video and those chickens assiduously, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. BTW, how's that **Hope and CHANGE** tasting, Ekim the Inbred Chimp?

For the same reason the LBGT community wants to claim that Abraham Lincoln was gay: it's part of their "thumb to the eye agenda" wherein they falsely screech that they represent "normal".



? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Abe was gay? That explains a lot!

So only couples having kids are to be considered for marriage according to the root meaning of marriage?


Originally Posted by WTF

According to the root meaning it is just as I stated; a union for the purpose of procreation.
Catholics and Mormons still officially adhere to that.

I'm giving some leeway, I guess, to those who can't or chose not to.

Such is life Grasshopper.

Me getting speeding tickets is a form of coercion to slow the fuck down.

All I am saying is that heterosexuals do not own the word marriage. Just like nobody owns the n word.

All I have ever wanted was for them to have the same rights and responsibilities as any other married couple.

But I am wise enough to realize you can not legislate words. Shit I thought you were too!

If you want to bitch and moan about gay marriage....go ahead. That is your right. Just be willing to accept the blowback



Originally Posted by WTF

Exactly, you can't legislate words any more than you can legislate morality. So government needs to get out of that business and minorities need to stop trying to change the popular definition of a word through the courts and thereby forcing the government to legislate a word and force it on the majority. Then, and only then can we hold hands and sing Kum ba yah.

I'm actually starting to come around to your way of thinking WTF. Anarchy is the way to go. Fuck capitalism, socialism, communism and all the other ism's. Darwinism will naturally sort out a lot of our problems.

For the same reason the LBGT community wants to claim that Abraham Lincoln was gay: it's part of their "thumb to the eye agenda" wherein they falsely screech that they represent "normal".



I am a stupid student, i'va; it's my obbing and sucking motions that my Master Odumbo wants to fix, i'va. You need to study that video and those chickens assiduously,it is where I learned. BTW, how's that **Hope and CHANGE*sperm is tasting, good to me Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FIFY