SCOTUS Refuses review of opinions striking down gay marriage bans

Makes perfect sense. So why does this terrify so many people?

Abe was gay? That explains a lot!

Originally Posted by WTF

No, Lincoln was not gay. And the only thing it explains, of note, is how this accusation typifies the LBGT agenda to lie and distort as they attempt to force their lifestyle on the greater balance of society.

See @: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/ny...ies-at-83.html

FIFY Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Keep slurping on Odumbo's hose for a taste of that **Hope and CHANGE** you enjoy so much, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering
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

FIFY Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Makes perfect sense. So why does this terrify so many people? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Really?
That makes sense?

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. Originally Posted by rioseco

Actually I do have copies, and I have actually read them. Multiple times. But nonetheless I took your advice. Here is an on line copy:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

I figured the archives was a pretty decent authority on the topic.

I did a search on "heterosexual", "homosexual", and several other related terms. Just for you I also searched for "fags". And guess what I found? Nothing! Not a single right in there has a qualifying phrase such as "Only for gays", or "Except for gays". It sure doesn't.

So, RioBigot, if they aren't called out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, then it seems you have some other source in mind. Care to share your supposed source? Otherwise I have to assume you were under the influence of some brain altering event, because I still have no idea what these "freedoms at all for you soley on the basis of your lifestyle choices" you claim exist.

Admit it, you let your homophobia get the better of you and you posted dumb comments without thinking.

No, Lincoln was not gay. And the only thing it explains, of note, is how this accusation typifies the LBGT agenda to lie and distort as they attempt to force their lifestyle on the greater balance of society.

See @: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/ny...ies-at-83.html



[COLOR="Black"I will ]Keep slurping on Odumbo's hose for a taste of that **Hope and CHANGE**that I enjoy [/COLOR] Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FIFY

No, Lincoln was not gay. And the only thing it explains, of note, is how this accusation typifies the LBGT agenda to lie and distort as they attempt to force their lifestyle on the greater balance of society.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

LOL...I was jkn IB.

For the record...the LGBT community has not tried forcing anything in me!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering
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





Really?
That makes sense? Originally Posted by boardman

Does the rainbow revolution terrify you?

I'm totally cool with it, afteer all, this is still America to most people... And those people, really know how to party, allegedly!

However, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that by fighting gays we'll promote enough population growth to stamp out Islam.

I think your homophobia is a manifestation of much more deeply seeded insecurities and fears.

ain't it always the way?

Oh yeah, and who but a faggot would wear a hat like Lincoln's, IBIdot?

I think Obama is Ebola's fault, That confirms his birth certificate is fake and he wasn't born in America, lol.


Jim

LOL...I was jkn IB.

For the record...the LGBT community has not tried forcing anything in me! Originally Posted by WTF

Maybe. Maybe not. Their lies are insidious. You may yet discover you've already accepted one of their lies as truth. The Kinsey study exaggerated their numbers, yet it is cited -- and accepted by too many -- as fact. Students of history are beset with a myriad of LGBT innuendo and lies that can only be quashed as false by genuine historians. Only students who actively seek the truth learn to know that there is only innuendo and there is no evidence that Lincoln, Florence Nightingale, Michelangelo, Norman Rockwell, etc., were homosexuals or that Native Americans revered homosexuals (as was innocuously disseminated as "fact" during the course of a popular TV show a couple of years ago). Most people won't make that extra effort to seek the truth; so, they will remain gullible and unwisely accept the disinformation disseminated by the LGBT community ... hook, line and sinker. Accepting their lies does harm to the community at large.

FIFY Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You're slurping on Odumbo's hose so loudly, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, that it's obvious you're seriously a-dick-ed to the taste of Odumbo's **Hope and CHANGE**.

But it is a personal characteristic of a particular group. Heterosexuals. Originally Posted by boardman

Horseshit.

Marriage isn't a personal characteristic of anyone. Do you even know what "personal" means?

Your personal characteristics are your hair color, eye color, gender, race, and, yes, sexual orientation.

Marriage is an instuition of society - a contract essentially - NOT a personal characteristic. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU REPEAT THAT IDIOCY.

If marriage is somehow a personal characteristic, what about other institutions of society? Divorce? Adoption? Education?

You are abusing language to try to win an argument. When you have to resort to that, you have already lost.

And, as I noted above, even the majority of heterosexuals, particularly among people below age 40, are in FAVOR of gay marriage.

So, it isn't heterosexuals that oppose gay marriage. It is religious people. And marriage isn't a "personal" characteristic of religious people, since atheists and agnostics.

give up while you are behind.

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.

Can you cite some authority for that? Because I am pretty sure marriage predated the Romans. By a lot. And for most of history, marriage wasn't even about a union of two people. marraigeswere mostly arranged and it was mostly about a union of families of clans.

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

WTF? Where do you get this shit from? Bible thumper class? "Sexual" comes from the latin root "sexus" and "hetero" and "homo" are Greek prefixes meaning "different" and "same".

The Romans knew Greek and studied it widely. so I am pretty certain they could have figured out what heterosexual and homosexual meant..

More importantly, who cares what the Romans thought or understood? They have been dead for over 1500 years. They don't control our debate.

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.

Ah, but it is NOT a majority, is it? The latest polls indicate a MAJORITY people in most states support gay marriage. And in 10 years, the majority in every state will support it - except maybe Mississippi. So, if the majority accepts it, what happens to your arguments?

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. Originally Posted by boardman

It is nearly impossible to tell what your rambling point is. It appears you don't want gays to refer to their unions as marriage - just because.

But, really, how are you going to stop it? If you think civil unions are OK, then you aren't proposing to illegalize homosexuality, apparently.

So, that means you just want to control the use of the word "marriage".

But how do you do that? We have a First Amendment, you know.

If the majority of society uses the term "marriage" for gay unions and the legal statutes refer to them that way, how are you going to stop it? And, for God's sake, WHY?

Actually I do have copies, and I have actually read them. Multiple times. But nonetheless I took your advice. Here is an on line copy:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

I figured the archives was a pretty decent authority on the topic.

I did a search on "heterosexual", "homosexual", and several other related terms. Just for you I also searched for "fags". And guess what I found? Nothing! Not a single right in there has a qualifying phrase such as "Only for gays", or "Except for gays". It sure doesn't.

So, RioBigot, if they aren't called out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, then it seems you have some other source in mind. Care to share your supposed source? Otherwise I have to assume you were under the influence of some brain altering event, because I still have no idea what these "freedoms at all for you soley on the basis of your lifestyle choices" you claim exist.

Admit it, you let your homophobia get the better of you and you posted dumb comments without thinking. Originally Posted by Old-T

Admit that you are to fucking stupid to underdrstand what i have telegraphed to your brain dead persona ! It is fairly simple. I don't give two shits what homsexuals demand as for as rights. I will not sopport or endorse their desire based SOLEY upon the fact that they are gay. I will not endorse the rights of someone based on the color of their skin, or their religion or anything else. I am sick of this fucking minority pandering ! Do you get it now, you stupid cock sucker ??? I will support your rights as a human being but not based on your creed or life choices. If you are and American, not an Afro-American, not a Islamic American, not a Anglo American, not a Native American and not a Homosexual American THEN I will support your rights and freedoms, Got it you poor miserable moron ?

Admit that you are to fucking stupid to underdrstand what i have telegraphed to your brain dead persona ! It is fairly simple. I don't give two shits what homsexuals demand as for as rights. I will not sopport or endorse their desire based SOLEY upon the fact that they are gay. I will not endorse the rights of someone based on the color of their skin, or their religion or anything else. I am sick of this fucking minority pandering ! Do you get it now, you stupid cock sucker ??? I will support your rights as a human being but not based on your creed or life choices. If you are and American, not an Afro-American, not a Islamic American, not a Anglo American, not a Native American and not a Homosexual American THEN I will support your rights and freedoms, Got it you poor miserable moron ? Originally Posted by rioseco

What I will admit is that you are avoiding answering the question. Again.YOU say they want things based "SOLEY upon the fact that they are gay." I only see them asking for the same freedoms others already have. What "special" freedoms do you think they are asking for? What special "Homosexual American" right are they seeking?

You can repeat your rant over and over--it does not answer that simple question.

Maybe. Maybe not. Their lies are insidious. You may yet discover you've already accepted one of their lies as truth. The Kinsey study exaggerated their numbers, yet it is cited -- and accepted by too many -- as fact. Students of history are beset with a myriad of LGBT innuendo and lies that can only be quashed as false by genuine historians. Only students who actively seek the truth learn to know that there is only innuendo and there is no evidence that Lincoln, Florence Nightingale, Michelangelo, Norman Rockwell, etc., were homosexuals or that Native Americans revered homosexuals (as was innocuously disseminated as "fact" during the course of a popular TV show a couple of years ago). Most people won't make that extra effort to seek the truth; so, they will remain gullible and unwisely accept the disinformation disseminated by the LGBT community ... hook, line and sinker. Accepting their lies does harm to the community at large.

You are right i'va I am just parroting the same ol' BS daily.


[] Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FIFY

Originally Posted by boardman
But it is a personal characteristic of a particular group. Heterosexuals.
Horseshit.

Marriage isn't a personal characteristic of anyone. Do you even know what "personal" means? So I've changed the meaning to suit my argument. Do you not support my right to do that?

Your personal characteristics are your hair color, eye color, gender, race, and, yes, sexual orientation.

Marriage is an instuition of society - a contract essentially - NOT a personal characteristic. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU REPEAT THAT IDIOCY.

If marriage is somehow a personal characteristic, what about other institutions of society? Divorce? Adoption? Education?

You are abusing language to try to win an argument. When you have to resort to that, you have already lost.

And, as I noted above, even the majority of heterosexuals, particularly among people below age 40, are in FAVOR of gay marriage.

So, it isn't heterosexuals that oppose gay marriage. It is religious people. And marriage isn't a "personal" characteristic of religious people, since atheists and agnostics.

give up while you are behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boardman
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.

Can you cite some authority for that? Because I am pretty sure marriage predated the Romans. By a lot. And for most of history, marriage wasn't even about a union of two people. marraiges were mostly arranged you mean like forced? and it was mostly about a union of families of clans. Link?
Although "homosexual" and "heterosexual" do not have direct latin translations. "Active" and "Passive" are the closest translations.

WTF? Where do you get this shit from? Bible thumper class? "Sexual" comes from the latin root "sexus" and "hetero" and "homo" are Greek prefixes meaning "different" and "same".

The Romans knew Greek and studied it widely. so I am pretty certain they could have figured out what heterosexual and homosexual meant.. Link?

More importantly, who cares what the Romans thought or understood? They have been dead for over 1500 years. They don't control our debate.
Then why argue with me about it?

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.

Ah, but it is NOT a majority, is it? The latest polls indicate a MAJORITY people in most states support gay marriage. And in 10 years, the majority in every state will support it - except maybe Mississippi. So, if the majority accepts it, what happens to your arguments?

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.

It is nearly impossible to tell what your rambling point is. It appears you don't want gays to refer to their unions as marriage - just because.

But, really, how are you going to stop it? If you think civil unions are OK, then you aren't proposing to illegalize homosexuality, apparently.

So, that means you just want to control the use of the word "marriage".

But how do you do that? We have a First Amendment, you know.

If the majority of society uses the term "marriage" for gay unions and the legal statutes refer to them that way, how are you going to stop it? And, for God's sake, WHY?

Yet you continue to argue with a bible thumper with no discernible point.
Who is the real fool?

I've said previously that I don't have a problem with gays doing whatever they want.
Are you going to be able to set aside your own personal disgust when someone demands the same rights and protections for marrying their sister or their dog. Do you deny that's coming? What about getting married to a dead person as a way of circumventing the law someway to gain certain benefits. Maybe they want to tweak the meaning of the word marriage so that consent is no longer needed. Wow, that opens up an entirely new Pandora's box, doesn't it.
Are you OK with that. If you are then we really have nothing to argue about. If you aren't then you really aren't as open minded as you claim to be. I'd say you are a either a follower, One that takes up the fight for the popular cause because it's popular not necessarily because it's right. Perhaps you are a simple narcissist who just like to argue because you know you are always right even when you aren't and this is the way you get validation.
There are plenty of guys on this forum who are like that. They stand up for gay rights for whatever reason then call each other dick suckers, cum guzzlers and the like as insults. It's like standing up for black equality and then calling someone else a N******** lover. Bunch of fucking hypocrites! Look, now you've got me sounding like WTF. I can actually see where he's coming from though. There's no arguing with idiots who don't respect another's argument. All you can do is point, laugh and have fun with it along the way.

For the record...the LGBT community has not tried forcing anything in me! Originally Posted by WTF

There was that one time at band camp.....