Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-26-supreme-court-gay-marriage

Ninja'd by Omega; mods, lock this thread.

Good times.

Well, unless you are a minority and value your voting rights, then it's bad times, I guess.

Ninja'd again; this time by the staff lol.

Anyway, congratulations to the victorious, condolences to the defeated. This is a pivotal day for US politics.

And the shitstorm begins.

Good, one step forward.

Most people will look back at this like most people now look back on the anti-miscegenation laws and think "wtf was wrong with people".

I think it's bullshit that they don't allow CSPAN-style video recording of the Supreme Court in session. The Supreme Court is arguably the place that most needs that kind of transparency considering it's the non-democratic branch of government.

it's one of those issues where I'm happy with the result, but more disappointed it had to come to this...

Did they uphold prop 8?

Originally posted by Cyner
Did they uphold prop 8?

From what I've read they ruled it unconstitutional. Hence victory dance (not sure about your politics, but you can join in regardless).

Scalia's dissent was engrossing, replete with his eloquent but vaguely caustic disposition. Roberts' was boring as hell.

Originally posted by Cyner
Did they uphold prop 8?

"The court struck down DOMA by a vote of 5-4. The court dismissed the Proposition 8 case on the grounds that the defense lacked standing, making gay marriage legal again in California."

"We have no power to invalidate his democratically elected legislation."

Um, really Justice Scalia? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of precedent for the Supreme Court deeming things unconstitutional. Removing that power wouldn't put the branches in balance, like he seems to think, it would make the Supreme Court powerless.

The man's an assclown. He had no problem sodomizing the Voting Rights Act, which was also "democratically adopted".

He's acting like any other intelligent, educated, but deeply biased operative. And he's not alone. People like that on both sides.

Prop 8 should not have been dismissed, if it was dismissed because the defense lacked standing, then how the heck did it get an appeal in the first place?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"We have no power to invalidate his democratically elected legislation."

Um, really Justice Scalia? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of precedent for the Supreme Court deeming things unconstitutional. Removing that power wouldn't put the branches in balance, like he seems to think, it would make the Supreme Court powerless.

I think he forgot that the US Government was founded on the notion of certain "inalienable rights". That's a pretty damn important function for the "interpreting the law" branch of the government.

Originally posted by Robtard
Most people will look back at this like most people now look back on the anti-miscegenation laws and think "wtf was wrong with people".

I think we'll look back on it and think of it as a stepping stone to a more complex and robust legal social system. I think the concept of "marriage" is on its way out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think he forgot that the US Government was founded on the notion of certain "inalienable rights". That's a pretty damn important function for the "interpreting the law" branch of the government.

I suspect its based on the "originalist" view that conservatives have been taking in the last twenty years, since the power of judicial review is not in the constitution. Of course, neither are check-and-balances.

Originally posted by Cyner
Prop 8 should not have been dismissed, if it was dismissed because the defense lacked standing, then how the heck did it get an appeal in the first place?

so is it that you are upset gay people are allowed to marry, or do you have a legitimate grievance with court procedure?

Originally posted by Oliver North
so is it that you are upset gay people are allowed to marry, or do you have a legitimate grievance with court procedure?
Based on his previous positions, I'm inclined to think it's the former.

It's stupid that the court can just dismiss something because the state is too lazy to defend it. Prop 8 was voted on twice, with the same result.

I don't care if gays get married as long as it doesn't intrude on religious liberties, such as being able to choose to not marry gay couples in a church. I still greatly dislike homosexuality and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.

(meanwhile my best friend is gay, lel)

So, you're essentially saying that the Supreme Court should be powerless?

Not at all, but the state should have to represent it's citizens.

Originally posted by Cyner
It's stupid that the court can just dismiss something because the state is too lazy to defend it. Prop 8 was voted on twice, with the same result.

the ruling was that the plaintiffs weren't harmed by the prop being deemed unconstitutional by a lower court, and thus had no reason to have their appeal heard

http://billmoyers.com/content/in-one-map-heres-what-the-supreme-court-just-did/

it had nothing to do with people being willing to support it, the courts heard the appeal in the first place because that is how they determine if the appeal is valid, and even if something is successful by referendum it doesn't mean that it isn't unconstitutional. If left to a referendum, flag burning would be outlawed and civil rights would have never passed.

Originally posted by Cyner
I don't care if gays get married as long as it doesn't intrude on religious liberties, such as being able to choose to not marry gay couples in a church.

that has never been the issue and you know it

Originally posted by Cyner
I still greatly dislike homosexuality and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.

well, bless your heart then, I remember Jesus saying something like that too, or was it MLK...

man, no, it could have been Ghandi... I mean, all of those paragons of moral philosophy have said similar things about hating people that are different, it is so hard to remember sometimes.



Originally posted by Cyner
(meanwhile my best friend is gay, lel)

right, because that means anything...

Originally posted by Cyner
Not at all, but the state should have to represent it's citizens.

not if the citizens want to take away or deny people rights...

Polls taken in California have shown that support for same sex marriage in the state has increased while opposition has decreased since 2008, according to one poll* the percentage in favor is as high as 61%--if that's accurate then I doubt that California would have been representing the majority of its citizens in challenging the ruling.

*source: http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf

Edit: And to look to a historical parallel, in states with sizable black minorities (but clear white majorities) where there were laws discriminating against blacks, would you have said that it would have been proper for the states to "represent their citizens" against court rulings that overturned Jim Crow Laws and other such laws?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Based on his previous positions, I'm inclined to think it's the former.

that was my assumption also, I didn't want to jump to conclusions though. Sometimes people who believe terrible things have persuasive reasons for doing so, and if there was a legal precedence issue here, I'd be happy to entertain that debate.

Now that this non issue has been decided can we quit hearing about it and move on to matters that are really important

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Now that this non issue has been decided can we quit hearing about it and move on to matters that are really important
Even if you don't think that gay marriage rights is an important issue, this has wider implications.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I suspect its based on the "originalist" view that conservatives have been taking in the last twenty years, since the power of judicial review is not in the constitution. Of course, neither are check-and-balances.

Of the implied powers, I think Judicial Review is the least "implied". It is almost directly stated in the constitution:


"...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."


And still, to this day, the SC (lol, your initials, too!!! WEEEE!) cannot arbitrarily decide to "interpret the law" and make a ruling. It has to end up at the SC level through appeals (the appellate process) so it is still very similar to the system that the Framers had in mind, imo. Marbury v. Madison happened when almost all of the original Framers were still alive (1803) and I don't remember them have a shit rage fest about Marshall's interpretation.


But "check and balances" is definitely in the constitution but not directly as a name. I don't even think the more appropriate name of "Separation of Powers" is listed in the constitution. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Cyner
It's stupid that the court can just dismiss something because the state is too lazy to defend it. Prop 8 was voted on twice, with the same result.

I don't care if gays get married as long as it doesn't intrude on religious liberties, such as being able to choose to not marry gay couples in a church. I still greatly dislike homosexuality and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.

(meanwhile my best friend is gay, lel)

Is this a picture of you?

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/small_closet.jpg




My point about the system, earlier: the system was setup to prevent the majority from making laws that oppress the minority. The SC is right in striking down laws that oppress the minority IF they can justify (with a majority) that the law voted in by the people DOES infringe upon those protected rights (i.e. unconstitutional).

not sure if you guys follow RightWingWatch.org, but they have some good pundit reactions to the SC's ruling:

tQdwDc15wJc
6p-YyZ43e_w
eSOBm3zjvuc

not a whole lot to say about them other than they make me chuckle and felt like passing them on

Can't watch vids right now, but the titles alone are entertaining.

God's judgement.

Hurts children.

Gays will crush Christians. <--- Think this is my favorite of the 3

Originally posted by Oliver North
the ruling was that the plaintiffs weren't harmed by the prop being deemed unconstitutional by a lower court, and thus had no reason to have their appeal heard

http://billmoyers.com/content/in-one-map-heres-what-the-supreme-court-just-did/

it had nothing to do with people being willing to support it, the courts heard the appeal in the first place because that is how they determine if the appeal is valid, and even if something is successful by referendum it doesn't mean that it isn't unconstitutional. If left to a referendum, flag burning would be outlawed and civil rights would have never passed.


Ah, that makes sense. Anger has vanished.



This has been the major issue for many, many people. While not very religious myself, I know a lot of people who are and it is a major concern to them. Especially seeing a good number of news stories where a private business or church gets sued and loses because a gay person's feelings were hurt when they weren't served by someone who believes homosexuality is against their religion.




There's no need to be passive aggressive about things.




Well I'm going to disagree with you on this. It seems there are definite psychological differences caused by hormone imbalance or trauma lead many to say "I've always been gay". There are however plenty of people who just choose it. The meaningful way they are different is the much higher drug use, and STD infection rates among gays in the US.




Just means that me and this friend have come to an understanding and can exchange different ideas and opinions on the matter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is this a picture of you?

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/small_closet.jpg


Nope, my closet is much bigger than that.

Originally posted by Cyner
This has been the major issue for many, many people. While not very religious myself, I know a lot of people who are and it is a major concern to them. Especially seeing a good number of news stories where a private business or church gets sued and loses because a gay person's feelings were hurt when they weren't served by someone who believes homosexuality is against their religion.

Can you cite one instance of a church successfully being sued for refusing to marry two same sex individuals?

Originally posted by Cyner
There's no need to be passive aggressive about things.

You would like me to be more aggressive in calling you immoral and bigoted?

Originally posted by Cyner
Well I'm going to disagree with you on this. It seems there are definite psychological differences caused by hormone imbalance or trauma lead many to say "I've always been gay". There are however plenty of people who just choose it. The meaningful way they are different is the much higher drug use, and STD infection rates among gays in the US.

wow... I'm actually totally happy to let those be the closing arguments of our debate as there is nothing I could ever say that would demonstrate how laughable I find your position that comes near to that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Can't watch vids right now, but the titles alone are entertaining.

God's judgement.

Hurts children.

Gays will crush Christians. <--- Think this is my favorite of the 3

the last one is also the best of the 3, though the first one is also good. Expect terrible things, America, GOD IS PISSED!

Originally posted by Cyner
Just means that me and this friend have come to an understanding and can exchange different ideas and opinions on the matter.

I still greatly dislike black culture and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.

(meanwhile my best friend is black, lel)

Would you buy it?

Originally posted by Oliver North
the last one is also the best of the 3, though the first one is also good. Expect terrible things, America, GOD IS PISSED!

I do love how people take upon themselves to know the thoughts and feelings of God. Pretty arrogant, imo.

Originally posted by Robtard
I still greatly dislike black culture and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.

(meanwhile my best friend is black, lel)

Would you buy it?

are you Paula Deen?

hey-o!

Originally posted by Robtard
I still greatly dislike black culture and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.

(meanwhile my best friend is black, lel)

Would you buy it?

That seems like a legit complaint.

I see no problem with that.

Though I would add "...majority of culture..." to that comparison you made because you cannot rule out all of any culture because it can get quite diverse.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do love how people take upon themselves to know the thoughts and feelings of God. Pretty arrogant, imo.

As though mere mortals are even capable of coming close to comprehending a supposedly infinitely complex being. 313

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you Paula Deen?

hey-o!

hey-o!

Add some mayo!

Discover deez nuts like Galileo!

Originally posted by Robtard
I still greatly dislike black culture and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.

(meanwhile my best friend is black, lel)

Would you buy it?
Or a historical variation:

Of course we still abhor Negro "culture" and its cabal of socialist periodicals, but they are still "people," "people" who deserve to return to Africa, hence why we in the Klu Klux Klan support Marcus Garvey's movement to resettle his "people" in their ancestral continent. Even if we hate him.

(meanwhile my best groundskeeper is black, Ged's truth).

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you Paula Deen?

hey-o!

BUT I ONLY SAY IT IN A NON MEAN WAY!

Originally posted by Cyner
Just means that me and this friend have come to an understanding and can exchange different ideas and opinions on the matter.

So in other words the propaganda is working on you.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Can you cite one instance of a church successfully being sued for refusing to marry two same sex individuals?

Nope, just one where a church lost it's tax exempt status because of it. Plenty of private business stories about it though. As it's legalized in more places I'm sure the issue will crop up. It's definitely a legitimate worry and complaint





Absolutely! The sarcasm angle makes you seem passive aggressive and petty. I know you're not too bad of a person so I'd rather you speak more forward about it.




That's fine. You certainly don't have to agree with me. I find your position just as misguided as you find mine.

Personally, I don't think Churches should be tax exempt, but that's not really germane here.

Originally posted by Robtard
I still greatly dislike black culture and the propaganda associated, but those are still people, people who deserve justice. Even if I don't like them.

(meanwhile my best friend is black, lel)

Would you buy it?

I sure would, because that's how I feel about current US black culture, and that's also how blacks in academia and politics feel about current US black culture.



Originally posted by Omega Vision
Personally, I don't think Churches should be tax exempt, but that's not really germane here.

I completely agree, and think that any church becoming a 501C3 is wrong for doing so.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So in other words the propaganda is working on you.

I've never hated people for doing what they think is right. Disagreeing on some matters doesn't mean you don't care about people.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Personally, I don't think Churches should be tax exempt...

This Mormon agrees with you. But that's only because we don't qualify as a non-Prophet organization. 1234

313 131 313

Originally posted by Cyner
That's fine. You certainly don't have to agree with me. I find your position just as misguided as you find mine.

ok, cool, I should clarify here then, because while I do think you are factually incorrect and lack even a pop-science level understanding of the concepts you brought up, my position is not actually that you are misguided.

I think you are a bad person. I think what you believe is evil and deliberately harmful to people who you callously admit to disliking because they are different. I think you bring up nonsense to defend this position because of your own fear of being anally penetrated, or possibly your fear of the fact you want to be anally penetrated. EDIT: In this way you aren't misguided, because your beliefs don't come from simply being mistaken, but are a deliberate way of justifying hate.

I have no choice but to believe your friend has pitiable levels of self-loathing if he would put up with what you must think of him and say in conversation, or, I would have no choice if I thought this friend actually existed.

Originally posted by Cyner
I sure would, because that's how I feel about current US black culture, and that's also how blacks in academia and politics feel about current US black culture.


Come on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on.

What? All the good ******* know their place.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I think you bring up nonsense to defend this position because of ... your fear of the fact you want to be anally penetrated.

Daaayum! That's even more direct than my closet picture.


This is a question for you, Oliver North:

Do you think there is a liberal bias in the scientific community (with at least some of those biases being negative)?

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on.

black academics hate black people /fact

wPf03T8YN-4

errr, I know you can't watch this, but it is Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about how he wants to empower black people and his talks with other black academics who wanted nothing more than to support black culture.

Originally posted by Oliver North
black academics hate black people /fact

wPf03T8YN-4

errr, I know you can't watch this, but it is Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about how he wants to empower black people and his talks with other black academics who wanted nothing more than to support black culture.

I'd also mention that in some black sub-cultures, it is looked down upon to be part of the "cracka-ass system" such as getting an education and working for the man.


So what Cyner says is not wrong...at least for some. Robtard made the mistake of characterizing Cyner's position as "all black people".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you think there is a liberal bias in the scientific community (with at least some of those biases being negative)?

I think most scientists are liberal, for sure (American "Liberal", center-left by more international standards).

I don't have a lot of experience with that impacting their research, and there are enough people from different political backgrounds that politically motivated conclusions get nailed as such very quickly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So what Cyner says is not wrong...at least for some. Robtard made the mistake of characterizing Cyner's position as "all black people".

No, you've got that backward.

Robtard made up what he felt was an absurdly offensive view about black people as a parallel to Cyner's views on homosexuality. Cyner then said in effect "yes, this is what I believe".

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd also mention that in some black sub-cultures, it is looked down upon to be part of the "cracka-ass system" such as getting an education and working for the man.


So what Cyner says is not wrong...at least for some. Robtard made the mistake of characterizing Cyner's position as "all black people".

Rob made the mistake of saying "culture" and not "people", the latter being closer to what Cyner said anyways. He didn't say he didn't like gay culture, he said he didn't like gay people.

Originally posted by Cyner


I completely agree, and think that any church becoming a 501C3 is wrong for doing so.

Then why do you take issue with one losing its status due to a lawsuit?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So what Cyner says is not wrong...at least for some. Robtard made the mistake of characterizing Cyner's position as "all black people".

Nope.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I think most scientists are liberal, for sure (American "Liberal", center-left by more international standards).

I don't have a lot of experience with that impacting their research, and there are enough people from different political backgrounds that politically motivated conclusions get nailed as such very quickly.

The reason I ask: I believe Cyner approaches the subject under the assumption that the niche/fringe group is representative of the whole in the scientific community so any such factual notions you'd bring to the table regarding this subject make you not only incorrect but a puppet of their political propaganda.

So, in that regard, you're just as factually incorrect (from his perspective) as you view him. So while your position is definitely more well written and acidic towards him, his perspective on you and your position is not really different. Basically, I'm explaining his position better than he could because the next 2 pages of will not really get to that meaning/answer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The reason I ask: I believe Cyner approaches the subject under the assumption that the niche/fringe group is representative of the whole in the scientific community so any such factual notions you'd bring to the table regarding this subject make you not only incorrect but a puppet of their political propaganda.

So, in that regard, you're just as factually incorrect (from his perspective) as you view him. So while your position is definitely more well written and acidic towards him, his perspective on you and your position is not really different. Basically, I'm explaining his position better than he could because the next 2 pages of will not really get to that meaning/answer.

I am aware that people see the world through subjective lenses, yes

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, you've got that backward.

Robtard made up what he felt was an absurdly offensive view about black people as a parallel to Cyner's views on homosexuality. Cyner then said in effect "yes, this is what I believe".

Based on Cyner's response, he clearly does not think like that of all black people (which is what I am talking about in that post I quoted).

Originally posted by Oliver North
Rob made the mistake of saying "culture" and not "people", the latter being closer to what Cyner said anyways. He didn't say he didn't like gay culture, he said he didn't like gay people.

I think he's just trolling. There is no way he can dislike all gay people...

I mean, there are some gay people who are more conservatardish than than most Oklahoman's.


Originally posted by Oliver North
I am aware that people see the world through subjective lenses, yes

Or that some people confuse a small group of the scientific community and paint them as representative of the majority...

All straight men in America will now be required, by law, to enter homosexual marriages. Have fun, you guys!

the proper term is Oklahomen, you racist.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, cool, I should clarify here then, because while I do think you are factually incorrect and lack even a pop-science level understanding of the concepts you brought up, my position is not actually that you are misguided.

I think you are a bad person. I think what you believe is evil and deliberately harmful to people who you callously admit to disliking because they are different. I think you bring up nonsense to defend this position because of your own fear of being anally penetrated, or possibly your fear of the fact you want to be anally penetrated. EDIT: In this way you aren't misguided, because your beliefs don't come from simply being mistaken, but are a deliberate way of justifying hate.

I have no choice but to believe your friend has pitiable levels of self-loathing if he would put up with what you must think of him and say in conversation, or, I would have no choice if I thought this friend actually existed.

When did I say I disliked the people? I dislike homosexuality, just as I dislike selfishness or some other personality trait. I view it as a bad thing that should not be promoted, however that doesn't in any way mean I dislike the people who are engaged in it. Especially since it doesn't affect me.

I think it's amusing that you're trying to find some fear or secret desire, that because I don't see the world the way you do that it's due to fear.

You demonize me and imagine me to be some horrible person, I'm just another person with a different opinion than you.

My friend is not self loathing at all, and I would never insult him. Like I said, it's an understanding that works, it works because despite disagreements or opinions we respect each other as humans.


Until you can understand that, I suppose you'll always think of someone like me as a horrible person filled with hate who obviously fears or secretly desires whatever it is I disagree with. Maybe step out of your echo chamber for a while and get to know the people you demonize, it'll do you some good.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think he's just trolling. There is no way he can dislike all gay people...

I mean, there are some gay people who are more conservatardish than than most Oklahoman's.

I'm literally just quoting him, and have no interest to try and white knight a bigot

Originally posted by dadudemon
Or that some people confuse a small group of the scientific community and paint them as representative of the majority...

sure... to be fair, I haven't actually attacked Cyner on a scientific ground. I think that conversation is too nuanced for his level of understanding of the issue. I've simply pointed out that I feel what he says is morally reprehensible, and if he feels that way about me, I'd wear it as a ****ing badge.

Originally posted by Cyner
When did I say I disliked the people? I dislike homosexuality, just as I dislike selfishness or some other personality trait. I view it as a bad thing that should not be promoted, however that doesn't in any way mean I dislike the people who are engaged in it. Especially since it doesn't affect me.

I don't hate black people, just the quality of dark skin. I don't hate women, just the quality of having a vagina.

ya man, you erudite you... boy do I feel like I misjudged your intellect on this one

Originally posted by Cyner
Until you can understand that, I suppose you'll always think of someone like me as a horrible person filled with hate

phew, got my point across that time

Originally posted by Cyner
When did I say I disliked the people? I dislike homosexuality, just as I dislike selfishness or some other personality trait. I view it as a bad thing that should not be promoted, however that doesn't in any way mean I dislike the people who are engaged in it.

You don't mind if your friend are assholes? Really?

Originally posted by Cyner
despite disagreements or opinions we respect each other as humans.

Except that you don't.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't hate black people, just the quality of dark skin. I don't hate women, just the quality of having a vagina.


You seriously have a problem here. Disliking parts of a culture is not disliking a people. Have you ever felt that you disliked parts of your own culture? I sure have. Do I hate all hispanics? By your logic I certainly do.

Originally posted by Cyner
When did I say I disliked the people? I dislike homosexuality,

When you said:

"Even if I don't like them." -Cyner

Originally posted by Cyner
You seriously have a problem here. Disliking parts of a culture is not disliking a people. Have you ever felt that you disliked parts of your own culture? I sure have. Do I hate all hispanics? By your logic I certainly do.

you've said nothing about gay culture

you talked about homosexuality as a personality trait, ie, the quality of being a homosexual, and you have several times said homosexuals directly.

I don't hate a person; I simply hate their behaviours, their thoughts, their desires, the things they identify with, their life choices, the relationships they build, and the world they wish to live in.

But I don't hate the person, how could you possibly suggest that?

Originally posted by Oliver North
you've said nothing about gay culture

you talked about homosexuality as a personality trait, ie, the quality of being a homosexual, and you have several times said homosexuals directly.

Well at least robtard is correct about what I've typed, but what I should have said there was "Even if I don't like what they do"

Sexual preference does not make a person, and if you think I'd hate someone for something like that then you're absolutely wrong. I do not however like some of the things that arise from some parts of what has become homosexual culture.

no, you are totally correct, how could I possibly confuse your dislike for a person's behaviours and cognitions for your dislike of that person?

you still love their soul, the person they are that doesn't have a hormone imbalance or trauma that caused them to be homosexual, you know, the real them that is different from the person they are.

Originally posted by Cyner
Well at least robtard is correct about what I've typed, but what I should have said there was "Even if I don't like what they do"

Sexual preference does not make a person, and if you think I'd hate someone for something like that then you're absolutely wrong. I do not however like some of the things that arise from some parts of what has become homosexual culture.

Is it the buttsex?

Which parts/what exactly is it that you do not like about 'homosexual culture'?

ini, would you say that (based on your best understanding) homosexuality is something like how certain people prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, or is it something deeper than that?

Originally posted by Oliver North
no, you are totally correct, how could I possibly confuse your dislike for a person's behaviours and cognitions for your dislike of that person?

you still love their soul, the person they are that doesn't have a hormone imbalance or trauma that caused them to be homosexual, you know, the real them that is different from the person they are.

Originally posted by Cyner
Sexual preference does not make a person, and if you think I'd hate someone for something like that then you're absolutely wrong. I do not however like some of the things that arise from some parts of what has become homosexual culture.

I think you are now mischaracterizing Cyner's position, on purpose. My sexuality does not define me. There are many many many more things about me that define me than just my sexuality. That should be the same for most people.

If you have a friend that you like everything about them, I say you found your soul-mate. If there are things you don't like about your friends, I'd say you're normal.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you are now mischaracterizing Cyner's position, on purpose. My sexuality does not define me. There are many many many more things about me that define me than just my sexuality. That should be the same for most people.

If you have a friend that you like everything about them, I say you found your soul-mate. If there are things you don't like about your friends, I'd say you're normal.
What do you think Cyner dislikes about gay culture if not the sexuality?

The colorful dress of the more campy ones? The annoying poems of Frank O'Hara?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
ini, would you say that (based on your best understanding) homosexuality is something like how certain people prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, or is it something deeper than that?

the biological mechanism is probably different, like, the gustatory nucleus in the brainstem probably doesn't play a huge role in sexual preference, but at a less reductive level, ya, that's almost exactly how I would describe it.

something like being transgender might be more complex based on stuff that I have read (the "body-map" matching a different gender than the body ), but strictly in terms of sexual preference it would be the same as any preference.

So like, my preference for abstract over realist art is not the same as my preference for root beer over cola at the most reductive levels and may originate for a variety of different reasons, but I don't think there is any major difference between those "types" of preferences in general, and I would say the same about homosexuality. It will have causes and mechanisms that makes it different, but at the most relevant social level, it is just a preference for one thing over another.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you are now mischaracterizing Cyner's position, on purpose. My sexuality does not define me. There are many many many more things about me that define me than just my sexuality. That should be the same for most people.

If you have a friend that you like everything about them, I say you found your soul-mate. If there are things you don't like about your friends, I'd say you're normal.

go back through the thread and quote another post where Cyner has said anything remotely close to that...

it seems like he is backpedaling because he was called out on bigotry. That, or he mischaracterized himself in the first place.

also, if Cyner is only ok with homosexuals for whom that isn't a major part of their self-identity, I'd say that is almost identical to being a homophobe. It'd be like saying "I don't hate the black people who I don't have to look at".

Originally posted by Oliver North
the biological mechanism is probably different, like, the gustatory nucleus in the brainstem probably doesn't play a huge role in sexual preference, but at a less reductive level, ya, that's almost exactly how I would describe it.

something like being transgender might be more complex based on stuff that I have read (the "body-map" matching a different gender than the body ), but strictly in terms of sexual preference it would be the same as any preference.

So like, my preference for abstract over realist art is not the same as my preference for root beer over cola at the most reductive levels and may originate for a variety of different reasons, but I don't think there is any major difference between those "types" of preferences in general, and I would say the same about homosexuality. It will have causes and mechanisms that makes it different, but at the most relevant social level, it is just a preference for one thing over another.
I see. Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is it the buttsex?

Which parts/what exactly is it that you do not like of 'homosexual culture'?

It's the fashion sense... there is such a a thing as being too fashionable.

Honestly it's the near automatic support of all leftist ideals. The constant forcing of acceptance of homosexuality, that not only do you have to be tolerant but you better damn love it. How many base their entire lives around their sexuality instead it being just another facet of who they are.

These may seem like small issues to some of you but I can promise that these reasons together is what causes 90% of the vitriol that's lobbed at homosexuals. I'm sure that there are people who actually hate homosexuals but WBC is a very small minority of people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you have a friend that you like everything about them, I say you found your soul-mate. If there are things you don't like about your friends, I'd say you're normal.

How many of your friends regularly do things that utterly disgust you and a part of a conspiracy to destroy American culture? Why do you think the number is as high or low as it is?

Originally posted by Cyner
I'm sure that there are people who actually hate homosexuals but WBC is a very small minority of people.

Woah, now you're the one being judgmental of homophobes. WBC doesn't hate homosexuals, its GOD who hates gays. Nothing they can do about that.

There is no such thing as being too fashionable.

Originally posted by Cyner
It's the fashion sense... there is such a a thing as being too fashionable.

Honestly it's the near automatic support of all leftist ideals. The constant forcing of acceptance of homosexuality, that not only do you have to be tolerant but you better damn love it. How many base their entire lives around their sexuality instead it being just another facet of who they are.

These may seem like small issues to some of you but I can promise that these reasons together is what causes 90% of the vitriol that's lobbed at homosexuals. I'm sure that there are people who actually hate homosexuals but WBC is a very small minority of people.
Have you ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans?

It's not hard to figure out why they overwhelmingly support liberal politics when conservative politicians and organizations are heavily invested in "family values" based politics that treats gays as either subhuman or pitiable deviants that need to have their souls cleansed.

And what about the advertisements, movies, tv shows, songs, and literature that celebrate heterosexuality? This is the "heteronormativity" that modern critics love to point out. For every bit of "homosexual propaganda" you might come across I can guarantee there will be a hundred more examples of "heterosexual propaganda" on tv, on the internet, and in magazines before you go to bed.

Originally posted by Cyner
Honestly it's the near automatic support of all leftist ideals. The constant forcing of acceptance of homosexuality, that not only do you have to be tolerant but you better damn love it. How many base their entire lives around their sexuality instead it being just another facet of who they are.

These may seem like small issues to some of you but I can promise that these reasons together is what causes 90% of the vitriol that's lobbed at homosexuals.

DDM, will you continue to white knight someone who just said homosexuals are responsible for 90% of the hate they receive in society?

Originally posted by Cyner
Honestly it's the near automatic support of all leftist ideals.

So then it makes no sense to say you dislike homosexual culture, you just hate liberalism. That's a vastly more accurate and useful way of describing your views.

Problem solved: You're just a moron. (But don't worry it's only your beliefs and the ways you express them that I think are stupid, I'm sure you're totally smart)

He probably hates blacks and latinos too. Not to mention the state of Massachusetts.

Originally posted by Cyner
It's the fashion sense... there is such a a thing as being too fashionable.

Honestly it's the near automatic support of all leftist ideals. The constant forcing of acceptance of homosexuality, that not only do you have to be tolerant but you better damn love it. How many base their entire lives around their sexuality instead it being just another facet of who they are.

These may seem like small issues to some of you but I can promise that these reasons together is what causes 90% of the vitriol that's lobbed at homosexuals. I'm sure that there are people who actually hate homosexuals but WBC is a very small minority of people.

So you dislike "leftist" too. Shocking. Do you think it's possible that if homosexuality wasn't looked down upon and that if gay discrimination didn't exist, no one would be "forcing" you to not be a bigot? I don't know, how many do that? Why do you care what other people do when it's not affecting you?

They should be non issues, which is the point. Gays shouldn't have had to claw and fight for equality, no more than black people should have had and still have to in some areas. You're aware that homosexuals being prosecuted goes way back and it isn't a 20th/21st century thing, yes? Cos what you said is outright silly.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not to mention the state of Massachusetts.

it's the glove shape, isn't it...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How many of your friends regularly do things that utterly disgust you and a part of a conspiracy to destroy American culture? Why do you think the number is as high or low as it is?

Do you think his friend does that? Do you think Cyner thinks that of every single homosexual (regardless of his obvious troll blanket statement)?

Originally posted by Oliver North
DDM, will you continue to white knight someone who just said homosexuals are responsible for 90% of the hate they receive in society?

I'm not sure I've white-knighted him when:

1. I indirectly called him a closet homo.

2. Summed up his arguments by indirectly calling him a conservatard.


I just disagreed with your characterization. I don't think sexuality can be painted to as broadly define a person as you were doing of his position.

Originally posted by Oliver North
it's the glove shape, isn't it...
I think it's shaped more like a pistol, or a man in robes raising a pickaxe over his head. Or a squarish octopus.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure I've white-knighted him when:

1. I indirectly called him a closet homo.

2. Summed up his arguments by indirectly calling him a conservatard.


I just disagreed with your characterization. I don't think sexuality can be painted to as broadly define a person as you were doing of his position.

touche

EDIT: I hardly think I've suggested that a person is defined by their sexuality though

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think it's shaped more like a pistol, or a man in robes raising a pickaxe over his head. Or a squarish octopus.

haha, I'm just confused about geography...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you think his friend does that? Do you think Cyner thinks that of every single homosexual (regardless of his obvious troll blanket statement)

That is how Cyner defines gay culture. I only know about Cyner's thoughts from what we tells us. You can speculate all you like but that's all it is, speculation. If you're okay with just making up thoughts for Cyner to have can I say that he obviously would like to shoot up some building in Harlem?

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: I hardly think I've suggested that a person is defined by their sexuality though

I try not to making sweeping conclusions made from tongue-in-cheek/troll-ish comments. It makes conversations with people go more smoothly.

Some of you are definitely manipulating what I say to fit what you think I said.

I'm definitely not a conservatard though.

Originally posted by Cyner
I'm definitely not a conservatard though.

lulz


I apologize.

"I only know about Cyner's thoughts from what we tells us."

So I just assumed since you espoused the conservatardy beliefs and ideas regarding homosexuality and "libtard" culture, I just assumed you shared more ideas with conservatards.



I am become the monster I just protested!*

*Basically, I'm a hypocrite for citicizing the sweeping conclusions made about your posts because I just did the same thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I try not to making sweeping conclusions made from tongue-in-cheek/troll-ish comments. It makes conversations with people go more smoothly.

/shrug

I hardly think I can be criticized for taking what Cyner said as a representation for what he believes.

Additionally, it seems more like he will say something ridiculous, people will respond to it, and you will come back with "but he could have meant this", at which point Cyner begins to dick ride your clarification because it makes him look less ridiculous.

Originally posted by Cyner
Some of you are definitely manipulating what I say to fit what you think I said.

if many people aren't getting your position straight, it is more likely something you are doing wrong

So it's settled, Cyner secretly wants to ride a dick. /thread

Originally posted by Oliver North


Additionally, it seems more like he will say something ridiculous, people will respond to it, and you will come back with "but he could have meant this", at which point Cyner begins to dick ride your clarification because it makes him look less ridiculous.
I don't think that's limited to this discussion. DDD seems habitually disposed to playing devil's advocate for people whose stupidity or bigotry (or both) makes them say ridiculous things.

I never see DDD sticking up for me, you, or Sym, so I guess that means we don't say anything stupid.






Or he hates us.

Look I'm pretty honest with you guys, and until a few posts ago I didn't even acknowledge what ddm was saying. Maybe I'm not the best at expressing thoughts or ideas in writing but what doesn't help is your ridiculous twisting of what I say to make it fit your preconceived notion of my overall beliefs because if I said "X" then what I must mean is "Y". Having thoughts outside of common beliefs on one side or the other seems nearly impossible but it happens. I can't fault you too much though because I get the same sort of reactions when I argue for abortion rights with righties.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think that's limited to this discussion. DDD seems habitually disposed to playing devil's advocate for people whose stupidity or bigotry (or both) makes them say ridiculous things.

I never see DDD sticking up for me, you, or Sym, so I guess that means we don't say anything stupid.






Or he hates us.

DDM's a very effective troll.

Originally posted by Cyner
Look I'm pretty honest with you guys, and until a few posts ago I didn't even acknowledge what ddm was saying. Maybe I'm not the best at expressing thoughts or ideas in writing but what doesn't help is your ridiculous twisting of what I say to make it fit your preconceived notion of my overall beliefs because if I said "X" then what I must mean is "Y". Having thoughts outside of common beliefs on one side or the other seems nearly impossible but it happens. I can't fault you too much though because I get the same sort of reactions when I argue for abortion rights with righties.

Jokes aside, from what you've said and the stances you've taken, you come off as a narrow minded bigot. Maybe you're not at all, but that's what you're conveying.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Additionally, it seems more like he will say something ridiculous, people will respond to it,

I'd note that he did so, on purpose, to create controversy.


Originally posted by Oliver North
and you will come back with "but he could have meant this",

No, "He clearly did not mean it to be this."

Originally posted by Oliver North
at which point Cyner begins to dick ride your clarification because it makes him look less ridiculous.

I agree which is why I stopped.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think that's limited to this discussion. DDD seems habitually disposed to playing devil's advocate for people whose stupidity or bigotry (or both) makes them say ridiculous things.

That's because this place has lots of posters that seem to really really play the high and mighty pedantic position. In fact, this place is one of the worst if not the worst place I have posted on, on the whole of the internet for stuff like that. It is part of why other people do not come to the GDF: the self-important wankfest that occurs here. Obviously, we all contribute to that perception so no one single person here is guilty or innocent. And even if that isn't true, it is still the perception of the frequenters of the GDF.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I never see DDD sticking up for me, you, or Sym, so I guess that means we don't say anything stupid.

Actually, I have for all 3 of you (and sometimes, multiple occasions). You just don't remember those moments because you just think, "yeah, of course I'm right and obviously people agree with me."

I'd prefer this be about the topic, though. Can we stop talking about poster's peeves and posting habits?

Originally posted by Nephthys
DDM's a very effective troll.

You're obviously bored.

Originally posted by Cyner
Look I'm pretty honest with you guys, and until a few posts ago I didn't even acknowledge what ddm was saying. Maybe I'm not the best at expressing thoughts or ideas in writing but what doesn't help is your ridiculous twisting of what I say to make it fit your preconceived notion of my overall beliefs because if I said "X" then what I must mean is "Y". Having thoughts outside of common beliefs on one side or the other seems nearly impossible but it happens. I can't fault you too much though because I get the same sort of reactions when I argue for abortion rights with righties.

you literally said gay people were responsible for 90% of the hate they receive in society...

that is not an issue of misunderstanding you

There's also his position against miscegenation, which as I understood it was that because there's racism people should keep to their races.

If I'm misinterpreting then I apologize, but that was what I got out of his argument.

Edit: While we're on the subject of poster's personal habits, Robtard puts empty milk jugs back into the fridge.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I try not to making sweeping conclusions made from tongue-in-cheek/troll-ish comments. It makes conversations with people go more smoothly.

When a person says "I dislike homosexual culture" and "I dislike black culture" I conclude that this person dislikes black and homosexual culture (I alphabetize). If they later complain about that its their problem. That's just how language works. Ignoring that makes communication impossible.

Cyner says he is disgusted by homosexuality and something called "black culture" so I have to assume that he actually feels those things. He might be writing in an invented language where those comments meant "I'd like to live in Honduras" and "fifteen minus ten is five" but there's no way for me to know that. The fact that we're all writing in English (and his sentences are grammatical in English) makes it reasonable for me to assume he is as well. David Hume, as they say, should go jump off a bridge if he really doesn't think he knows what will happen at the bottom.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you literally said gay people were responsible for 90% of the hate they receive in society...

that is not an issue of misunderstanding you

Awesome, a post back on topic:

I would say that 90% of the hate gays in America receive are from self-righteous, hypocritical, judgmental Christians. But that's just fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Awesome, a post back on topic:

I would say that 90% of the hate gays in America receive are from self-righteous, hypocritical, judgmental Christians. But that's just fact.

of course it is

short of violent crime, what could someone do to possibly justify oppression and the denial of rights?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's also his position against miscegenation, which as I understood it was that because there's racism people should keep to their races.

If I'm misinterpreting then I apologize, but that was what I got out of his argument.

Edit: While we're on the subject of poster's personal habits, Robtard puts empty milk jugs back into the fridge.

And I don't really even drink milk. I'm a total dick.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's because this place has lots of posters that seem to really really play the high and mighty pedantic position. In fact, this place is one of the worst if not the worst place I have posted on, on the whole of the internet for stuff like that. It is part of why other people do not come to the GDF: the self-important wankfest that occurs here. Obviously, we all contribute to that perception so no one single person here is guilty or innocent. And even if that isn't true, it is still the perception of the frequenters of the GDF.


You're obviously bored.

People who debate Star Wars tend to be much more smugly superior in my opinion. Seriously, go to the Swtor forums and try arguing that anyone other than Darth Sidious is the most powerful Sith ever. Then watch 89 losers dogpile you and circlejerk over the topic for goddamn ever. After which they'll act like they're ****ing Socrates and just proved string theory because they managed to quote from 3 or 4 sourcebooks.


Numerous other posters have made the same observation. You clearly get your jollies by riling people up subtly.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's also his position against miscegenation, which as I understood it was that because there's racism people should keep to their races.

No, I think he's afraid of "cultural Marxism". I have no idea what that is but racists are always worried about it.

On this subject, I'm not a bigot. I am however a huge bigot when it comes to other topics and you guys should definitely examine the "Are you a little bit racist?" thread so you can see just how bigoted and ignorant I am. It's a lot. Do it.

Originally posted by Nephthys
People who debate Star Wars tend to be much more smugly superior in my opinion. Seriously, go to the Swtor forums and try arguing that anyone other than Darth Sidious is the most powerful Sith ever. Then watch 89 losers dogpile you and circlejerk over the topic for goddamn ever. After which they'll act like they're ****ing Socrates and just proved string theory because they managed to quote from 3 or 4 sourcebooks.


Numerous other posters have made the same observation. You clearly get your jollies by riling people up subtly.

at the risk of looking like I'm defending DDM here, I don't think he is actually that wrong about that point. The core members of this forum tend to have very similar beliefs and feelings toward major political and social issues.

In much the same way almost all self-selected groups of people do...

I don't see it as problematic, generally. I certainly don't think it is an argument that the members here are "wrong" about the issues, or that someone who makes a reasonable argument wouldn't be taken seriously, there is a very low tolerance for non-rational dissent from that group though, and given most members agree broadly, it can look like a pile on when someone makes a poor argument against these views. It does tend to come out more with moral/equality issues than more strictly political ones. For instance this thread vs the Snowden one.

Originally posted by Cyner
On this subject, I'm not a bigot.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you literally said gay people were responsible for 90% of the hate they receive in society...

Originally posted by Cyner
On this subject, I'm not a bigot. I am however a huge bigot when it comes to other topics and you guys should definitely examine the "Are you a little bit racist?" thread so you can see just how bigoted and ignorant I am. It's a lot. Do it.

What do you think makes you a racial bigot?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When a person says "I dislike homosexual culture" and "I dislike black culture" I conclude that this person dislikes black and homosexual culture (I alphabetize). If they later complain about that its their problem. That's just how language works. Ignoring that makes communication impossible.

Cyner says he is disgusted by homosexuality and something called "black culture" so I have to assume that he actually feels those things. He might be writing in an invented language where those comments meant "I'd like to live in Honduras" and "fifteen minus ten is five" but there's no way for me to know that. The fact that we're all writing in English (and his sentences are grammatical in English) makes it reasonable for me to assume he is as well. David Hume, as they say, should go jump off a bridge if he really doesn't think he knows what will happen at the bottom.

I was thinking more along the lines of: "I dislike a specific type of black culture" and as he later specified, that was true. Like I stated, direct interpretations and sweeping conclusions about tongue-in-cheek statements are rarely true...especially if it looks like a person is borderline trolling a forum.

I wish there was a language specialist here (I believe Ushgarak is one but he doesn't post around this time) because people make statements like that, all the time, but it is not supposed to be taken as sweeping or 100% encompassing. Clearly, there are exceptions to most sweeping statements. Does that make sense?


This is my perspective: "Clearly, you do not mean that as a blanket statement for 100% of homosexuals. I know what you mean, even if I do not agree with it."

Yours and others' perspectives: "Holy shit! You're a hateful jerk! How could you say that stuff about every last homosexual in America?"

Does that make more sense? We both agree that Cyner's statements are generally pretty stupid but I am not going to town on it like you and others are. I know what he meant. He may have played off, as ON suggested, based on my posts, so I stopped "feeding" the system. Can we move on? I don't think we should waste anymore time on this part of the discussion.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You clearly get your jollies by riling people up subtly.

Clearly, I don't. The subject you've commented on, I'm trying to rile shit down/de-escalate. As in, "it's not that bad, dudes. Here's why." That's the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Originally posted by Robtard
What do you think makes you a racial bigot?

wall of text that's quoted anyway

you are all sunshine, eh?

Originally posted by Cyner
In general, just looking at history, current trends, and over time a growing love and appreciation for my ancestors.

In a more detailed way:

I have spent most of my life growing up in some of the most diverse places in the US. Interacting with people of every race and background, getting to know their culture, their customs, and habits. I was brought up to love and accept all people of all races from all walks of life. My parents were very egalitarian, many times even taking in runaways or troubled youths, and so they sort of instilled in me this idea that everyone is equal.

Those ideas of complete acceptance of others were great as ideals but as I came to know the world, things didn't work out like that. It took me many many years to come to the conclusion that racism is not some horrible thing, but rather a natural occurrence, a way to protect your group and a way for your genes to express the desire to protect themselves.


Really go read the thread though if you want my actual detailed ideas on the matter.

That was a pretty odd reply. I just wanted specifics of what you do/believe that makes you racially bigoted.

All I really got is that you believe racism is natural and okay and that you don't approve of the mixing of the races.

lol, nothing. I don't feel I'm racist at all.

"Racism is natural, but I'm not a racist."

"Protecting your genes" is a concept that only has meaning from a racist perspective. The only way to truly protect your genes would be to reproduce via cloning.

Racist implies hate.

Originally posted by Cyner
lol, nothing. I don't feel I'm racist at all.

I asked you cos you said:

"I am however a huge bigot when it comes to other topics and you guys should definitely examine the "Are you a little bit racist?" thread so you can see just how bigoted and ignorant I am. It's a lot. Do it." -Cyner

And you went on to say that racism "isn't horrible" and that people shouldn't racially mix. So, are you just ****ing around for some laughs or a nutter?

Originally posted by Cyner
Racist implies hate.
I thought you said racism was a natural and beneficial practice that protects a group from outside pollution?

I'm using racism the way it's used today, to define in group preference. Instead of how it's been used in the past as actual hate and genocidal justification.

Cyner was frozen in ice in 1746

Originally posted by Cyner
I'm using racism the way it's used today, to define in group preference. Instead of how it's been used in the past as actual hate and genocidal justification.

You seem to have a tendency to say something, then go about like you never said that something or that it meant something else.

Maybe I'll just go with North's (aka inimilist) appraisal that you have a "fear of the fact you want to be anally penetrated", but I'll add "by a black dick."

eh, take it as you will then.

I suppose I was just jealous about not having a high school like this:

http://news.yahoo.com/anal-hazing-apparently-thing-american-high-schools-now-140040056.html

I'd put that in the same category as kids fermenting poop to get high...

"In tiny Greenfield, Iowa, a group of members of the Nodaway Valley High School wrestling team allegedly pinned down a 16-year-old teammate and sexually assaulted him because he had missed practice. An unidentified student told ABC affiliate KCRG that older wrestlers ordinarily forced jump role handles into the anuses of younger wrestlers who missed practice or failed to make weight."

He probably never missed practice again.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I am aware that people see the world through subjective lenses, yes

They are called "eyes". (that's the only thing I want to contribute, cause "Oh God, oh God, people...."

Originally posted by Cyner
I'm using racism the way it's used today, to define in group preference. Instead of how it's been used in the past as actual hate and genocidal justification.
Racism still means "actual hate and genocidal justification."

What you mean is something like bigotry, or insularity, and neither of them are benign.

Ok folks, this has drifted off topic enough I think- we're also on very dodgy ground making a thread about a poster's views on the subject rather than the subject itself, so please be careful there.

Not THAT bad on the quote warring here though, which is nice...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd note that he did so, on purpose, to create controversy.




No, "He clearly did not mean it to be this."



I agree which is why I stopped.



That's because this place has lots of posters that seem to really really play the high and mighty pedantic position. In fact, this place is one of the worst if not the worst place I have posted on, on the whole of the internet for stuff like that. It is part of why other people do not come to the GDF: the self-important wankfest that occurs here. Obviously, we all contribute to that perception so no one single person here is guilty or innocent. And even if that isn't true, it is still the perception of the frequenters of the GDF.



Actually, I have for all 3 of you (and sometimes, multiple occasions). You just don't remember those moments because you just think, "yeah, of course I'm right and obviously people agree with me."

I'd prefer this be about the topic, though. Can we stop talking about poster's peeves and posting habits?



You're obviously bored.

I'm happy that you can explain what these guys are so well.

I'm ready for the bashing that they will administer now

I just told people to get back to the topic, Raisen. Don't do that in future, thanks.

So, does this mean that state laws barring gay marriage are now annulled?

no, just that the federal government can't ban it. in fact, it also means the federal government couldn't mandate that all states must allow or recognize gay marriage either. more than anything it is a blow to the US government and a win for state rights.

When you say it like that I have mixed emotions about the whole thing--I like the victory for gay rights, but I hate and distrust any hint of "state's rights."

oh ya, now that the celebrations are ending, there are some sobering realities this ruling brings. this and the voters rights decision have been major coups for states, and it wouldn't surprise me if half the reason lay in the fact that Robertson was so heavily criticized for trampling state rights in the obamacare judgement.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, does this mean that state laws barring gay marriage are now annulled?

Man...I've read all sorts of shit about it. I could have sworn that this invalidated Prop 8.



This is a lulz read:

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=062713

It seems like prop 8 got dismissed unrelated to this (the appeal to be more correct)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Man...I've read all sorts of shit about it. I could have sworn that this invalidated Prop 8.



This is a lulz read:

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=062713
Some of the comments...just lol.