SCOTUS Refuses review of opinions striking down gay marriage bans

Yep.

Let's face it. The chances of two fags being monogamous is pretty remote.

Like I said before. The lawyers are the winners.

I wonder if the "common law" statutes will be the same for Gays? Originally Posted by Jackie S
Sorry, this just cracked me the fuck up. I come from a family of 5 kids. My sister is currently divorcing her fifth husband. My other sister is married to the man who cheated on his wife to start dating her (this is the second marriage for both of them). Myself, I got engaged once, came to my senses and realized that I could never handle being monogamous, and started hooking instead.

Between myself and my 4 siblings, the only one who has maintained a monogamous long term relationship, is my gay brother. He and his partner have been together for 22 years now.

Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals come in every flavor of the rainbow, just like heterosexuals. Some are cut out for monogamy, like my brother, and some of just aren't - like myself. Some know how to keep a long term relationship going, and some can't. To say that gays are less capable of long term commitment than heterosexuals are is just plain silly.
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
Well said, SOTF. Very well said.

Well said, SOTF. Very well said.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Jewish Lawyer's Avatar
Should have never let gay's marry, should have civil unions with the same benefits as marriage . Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Yes, exactly - that would have been a reasonable compromise.
Instead, conservatives are forced to accept a fundamental redefinition of something profoundly important to our future and our country, something we feel will eventually destroy it.
Jewish Lawyer's Avatar
I'm gonna have to also say that when I talk about or argue about gay rights, unlike you, I don't laser focus in on "dicks in asses" and "lick each others assholes" like you do. I wonder why you are so zeroed in on that stuff? Have you ever thought about it? I think it may be psychologically significant for you. Have you spoken to your therapist about it? Or your wife? Originally Posted by timpage
I can understand how you don't wish to talk about the harsh reality of what you actually support. I feel it needs to be talked about in some less lofty rhetoric so it is completely clear what you support.
You are supporting a long term, biologically unsound relationship that has at its core two men having sex with one another, which in many cases includes anal sex, a fundamentally significant deviation so extreme it has been roundly denounced for all of human history by a large majority of the people of this earth, and is only now being supported in the Western countries which are too afraid to stop any liberal destruction of their societies for fear of being "uncool".
How do you know my old therapist wasn't educated back when Psychology considered it a deviation, as well?
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 10-11-2014, 08:19 AM
Why do you care if same sex couples marry? It does not affect you. It has no effect on anything, except in cases where one is hospitalized. Now their significant other can be present without interference, and cases like that. It is none of the government's business who you love or what you want to call it.

. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Who were you addressing?
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
I'm down with that! My meeting with SOTF is long overdue.
rioseco's Avatar
You guys are some sad-ass sacks of shit. They're human beings and they deserved to be treated the same as everybody else. Originally Posted by timpage


No they are not the fuckin same !
If you take it in the ass then you may be the same. The rest of us are not !
rioseco's Avatar
Equal rights are not special rights. Legally recognized marriages provides more than 1,000 rights, protections, and privileges. Heterosexuals have full access to these rights as soon as they say "I do". To deny these same rights to homosexuals makes them specials granted only to heterosexuals. I am glad to know that you are so strongly opposed to granting special rights. It is nice to have you join the side favoring equal rights for all.

One last thing, I don't give a flying wet shit whether you accept me or not, and I sure as hell do not need or want your pity. Neither does any other gay or bisexual person.


S.O.T.F
I call bullshit on your response. I know what all the crying whining variety of minorities want, and that is attention, pity and more allowances than any other group. I did not know you were a homosexual, good luck with that. At the same time you will not find me sympathetic for you or your cause. You will not find me supportive of any freedoms at all for you soley on the basis of your lifestyle choices. If it happens so be it, out of my hands. You maybe a homosexual, you may want to marry same sex or perhaps your sister for that matter, but that does not devalue or exclude my perception of you.
The Magical Land Of Progressitopia


MATT BARBER — OCTOBER 10, 2014

There once was a land, a magical land, with a chicken in every pot. And in this land, which was called Progressitopia, there were two peoples. There were those who saw the world as it was, and there were those who saw the world as they oh-so-very-much wished it could be. The former were called the Trads, and the latter, the Progs. It was the Progs who held dominion over this great land; and so it was they who wrote, or re-wrote, her history.

Now, in this kingdom, we must remember that Christianity, or “Christianism” as it would later be called (long since forbidden), along with similar such mythological and dogmatic phantasms, remained the foremost, if not the sole, thorn in the Progs’ collectivist butt. Any and all thought or practice that might, in any way, undermine full realization of, and strict adherence to, progressive thinking was therefore strictly verboten.


In fact, the Trads, the traditionalist remnant, had proven singularly responsible for the famines, Civil War II, and Progressitopia’s endlessly spiraling state of affairs, both foreign and domestic – a state that, notwithstanding all predictions to the contrary, somehow became significantly and enigmatically worse subsequent to the onset of progressive governance.

There was, however, one exception to this rule: Islam. Shadowing the glorious dawn of progressive reign came, from o’er the sea, a mighty and fearsome caliphate. The Muslim faith spread like wildfire. Recruitment efforts were buoyed, and appreciably so, in that, while yet a loving and peaceful religion, any skeptic or “infidel” who failed to convert was either immediately raped and enslaved or summarily beheaded, stoned, shot, or blown limb-from-limb.

Whereas Progressitopians, with their one-child-only abortion mandate, stopped reproducing altogether, adherents to the religion of peace rutted like rabbits. Every corner of the globe became thickly populated by devotees of the most praised Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him.

As global violence and jihad spiked, it seemed for a time that Progressitopia and the Islamic caliphate would be one another’s undoing.

And then something extraordinary happened.

The King of Progressitopia, a brave and handsome man most wise, with visor of gold and scepter of 3-iron in hand, bowed before the great caliph and presented a series of official mea culpas on behalf of his land. He prayed Allah’s forgiveness for incurring his wrath – just desserts for centuries of Progressitopian Imperialism.

And so these two seemingly incompatible kingdoms, with wholly polarized worldviews, agreed to forge an incongruous socio-political partnership – an “Islamo-Progressive Alliance.” The alliance was built upon the maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The common enemy, of course, had formed its own unholy alliance: the “Zio-Christian Axis of Evil.”

And so it soon came to pass that independent Islamic settlements cropped-up throughout Progressitopia. The Michganistan Territory became, for all intents and purposes, Mecca to the Western Hemisphere.

Presently, the Islamo-Progressive Alliance found itself enjoying a comparatively peaceful seven-year truce. Apart from a weekly handful of suicide bombings, mass shootings, and random beheadings, carried out chiefly against Progressitopia’s women and children, things were simply capital.

But then, trouble in paradise – economic turmoil. Toward the middle of the new millennium’s third decade, Progressitopia’s national debt ballooned to over 60 trillion. For many years, Trad economists and “debt alarmists” had warned that Progressitopia’s skyrocketing debt and deficits were unsustainable. These anti-progressive thinkers openly questioned the progressive strategy of taxing and spending one’s way to prosperity.

They felt, irrationally so, that such approach represented, as one provocative naysayer phrased it, “an epically stupid and patently impossible self-contradiction. No more can one spend his way out of debt than can he cheat his way out of adultery.”

Another fundamentalist cynic offered a less hurtful, yet no less sensationalist analogy: “When a bridge’s infrastructure becomes unsustainable,” he alleged, “it will ultimately collapse if its integrity is compromised to the degree that it can no longer support some burgeoning mass. So too it goes, apparently, as relates integrity to politicians, governments, and national debt.”

Right-wing propaganda aside, Progressitopia’s economy did, nonetheless, unexpectedly collapse for reasons ultimately deemed inconclusive.

Now, as heretofore told, and as go the history books, Christianism had, from time immemorial, been the very bane of free-thinking humanity’s existence. This hateful mythology had been largely to blame, in concert with its sister-faith, Judaism, and its insufferable cousin, conservatism, an equally curious mental disorder, for all of the world’s wars, slavery, racism, sexism, disease, capitalism, global warming, and, most onerously perhaps, gluten sensitivity.

Moreover, both Christianism and conservatism were ultimately determined to have been the catalyst for the systemic phobia outbreak that inexplicably began around the turn of the century. First there was homophobia, an irrational, chronic, and debilitating fear of the square-hole-round-peg people–or, as this flamboyant troupe, so enamored with acronymic wordplay, preferred to be called: the “SHRP community.” Since SHRPs displayed impeccable fashion sense and a flair for the fabulous, Neanderthalic Trads were, most naturally, terrified by them.

Then came Islamophobia, the irrational fear of having one’s head lopped off, followed by transphobia, the fear of naked men in ladies’ locker rooms, polyphobia, the fear of communal rompathons, as well as an all-inclusive litany of other phobias relating to myriad sexual orientations, gender identities, and expressions.

Next, there emerged the great progressiphobia pandemic of ’27. This involved an equally absurd, though no less universal, fear of progressive thought, practice, or people. This, for a time, threatened to halt Progressitopia’s progressing progress altogether.

Finally, there occurred a worldwide outbreak of phobia-phobia. This was, of course, a condition delineated by the once again irrational denial that any of the aforementioned phobias had “any basis in reality whatsoever,” but, rather, were “simply ham-fisted pejoratives intended to marginalize one’s political opposition.”

But, alas, we must for now part ways. My gluten-free frittata grows cold.


Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/mag...CXgQebDO48i.99
Yssup Rider's Avatar
I can understand how you don't wish to talk about the harsh reality of what you actually support. I feel it needs to be talked about in some less lofty rhetoric so it is completely clear what you support.
You are supporting a long term, biologically unsound relationship that has at its core two men having sex with one another, which in many cases includes anal sex, a fundamentally significant deviation so extreme it has been roundly denounced for all of human history by a large majority of the people of this earth, and is only now being supported in the Western countries which are too afraid to stop any liberal destruction of their societies for fear of being "uncool".
How do you know my old therapist wasn't educated back when Psychology considered it a deviation, as well? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer
Why do YOU give a fuck?

With all due respect, your post reveals that you, above all, are an asshole.
Yssup Rider's Avatar
No they are not the fuckin same !
If you take it in the ass then you may be the same. The rest of us are not ! Originally Posted by rioseco
You probably need to learn some tolerance for others.

Your rants are really rude and hateful.
Jewish Lawyer's Avatar
Why do YOU give a fuck?

With all due respect, your post reveals that you, above all, are an asshole. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
"tis better to be an asshole, than to take it up the ass"
Yssup Rider's Avatar
"tis better to be an asshole, than to take it up the ass" Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer
And you know this because...
Jewish Lawyer's Avatar
And you know this because... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
You told me you like taking it up the ass, and I responded to you I'd rather be an asshole. Consider this a reminder of that instant message exchange, faggot.