Gay Marriage everywhere, mass hysteria ensues

[boyst]

That gave me an awesome idea. The next time I see a gay pride parade in my area i will bring my confederate flag and buy an isis flag and march with them.

 

if anyone finds one in my area, i will definitely do this.

 

hell, for ***** and giggles i'll add the christian flag.

[/dev/null]

That gave me an awesome idea. The next time I see a gay pride parade in my area i will bring my confederate flag and buy an isis flag and march with them.

 

if anyone finds one in my area, i will definitely do this.

 

hell, for ***** and giggles i'll add the christian flag.

Don't forget to gesticulate properly

 

Sig Heil with one hand and Black Power with the other

[....lybob]

That gave me an awesome idea. The next time I see a gay pride parade in my area i will bring my confederate flag and buy an isis flag and march with them.

 

if anyone finds one in my area, i will definitely do this.

 

hell, for ***** and giggles i'll add the christian flag.

A confederate flag and an ISIS flag, I like the synergy- two flags representing butt-hurt losers engaged in a desperate fight against modernity

[jimmy10]

Marraige is a religious institution, and should be left in the private sector.

Then why did my wife and I have to show the minister a government-issued marriage license before we could be ecclesiastically hitched?

[Max Fischer]

We assume you did a little bit of research to learn this was NOT an ISIS flag? Before the hysteria continues you might want to check the hysterical truth.

[Max Fischer]

Let's be honest.

 

There is no legal reason for the Supreme Court's decision. The justices voted for the outcome they wanted. Even Kennedy states that it was an emotional decision. He admitted to bypassing the text of the Constitution to correct a cultural (in his opinion) grievance.

 

The Supreme Court did what Congress was unwilling (or unable) to do.

 

Next up: Legalize illegal immigrants:Denying the rights of citizens to non-citizens is discriminatory.

Kennedy said no such thing.

 

Instead, it could be the dissenters and their supporters continue to hide behind the multi-generational excuse of unsupportable and when convenient, strict constructionalism to mask their personal biases when common sense dictates that the ConstitutIon protects basic freedoms, especially those under the Bill of Rights. See the 150 years for indisputable proof.

[/dev/null]

So if a Southerner walks into a black owned bakery and asks them to bake a Confederate battle flag cake, do the same rules apply as gay wedding cakes?

[Deranged Rhino]

Anyone with working eyes can see that's not an Isis flag. It's a bunch of dildos. That's why it's hilarious in a thread that has "mass hysteria ensues" in its title.

 

We assume you did a little bit of research to learn this was NOT an ISIS flag? Before the hysteria continues you might want to check the hysterical truth.

Edited June 28, 2015 by GreggyT

[B-Man]

Anyone with working eyes can see that's not an Isis flag. It's a bunch of dildos. That's why it's hilarious in a thread that has "mass hysteria ensues" in its title.

 

 

The fact that there is "mass hysteria" at CNN is really not even worth noting.

 

 

.

 

 

 

Should news outlets declare allegiances?

 

This is from CNN:

Every. Single. State. #LoveWins

http://t.co/qfl4Z1u8qd

pic.twitter.com/JLWbv3KOTh

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) June 26, 2015

 

 

A CNN spokesperson declined to comment on the tweet.

Edited June 28, 2015 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

Man you really like the straw man approach. Seek professional help.

 

I am clearly saying that there has to be a complaint - an injury - before there can be a remedy. Your example is without facts. Please provide an example whereby a marriage license fee is blocking a couple from marriage? Is ther ONE legal example? However, if for example, there is fee that could be a clear and unreasonable impetiment to marriage, then yes, it would unconstitutional. So far, I am not aware that has happened recently.

 

If you say there is no clear scientific basis to bar cousins from marriage, then they should be allowed to marry anywhere. From what I understand, the science is not clear but I don't know that for sure. I assume the other reason it's banned is "we think it's creepy."

 

Again - I have not addressed nor been asked about incest.

 

You don't actually know what a straw man argument is, do you?

 

And let me repeat: As for cousins...ask the right question: what's the argument for West Virginia discriminating against first cousins, but Florida granting them the fundamental right to marriage? Explain how that isn't a violation of the Equal Protection clause the same way that Indiana discriminating against gays, but Massachusetts granting them the fundamental right to marriage, is.

 

And don't say "science." There's no scientific basis for WV and FL to have different criteria.

[unbillievable]

So if a Southerner walks into a black owned bakery and asks them to bake a Confederate battle flag cake, do the same rules apply as gay wedding cakes?

This was already answered in cases following the court's ruling; Denying to bake a gay wedding cake isn't considered discriminatory unless the owner is doing so under religious reasons.

 

Think Hate Crime criteria: you'll know it's illegal when you see it.

[boyst]

So if a Southerner walks into a black owned bakery and asks them to bake a Confederate battle flag cake, do the same rules apply as gay wedding cakes?

what if a biker walks in to a fancy lil pastry shop o' queers? Can they deny him and his cake of a nude woman?

What if a Jewish person walks in to a Muslim shop and asks for a Jewish themed cake?

Or a white dude goes to Detroit to ask for a Confederate flag cake in an all black shop?

 

In those cases we would see the headlines reading as "biker terrorizes local pastry owners" or "Jewish man sueing for freedom of expression, or " white guy gets ass kicked for being racist "

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This is all pissing in the wind. The homosexuals got what they wanted. It's on to the next "persecuted" minority. Sometimes I wonder if these people know what REAL persecution is.

[GG]

Please provide an example whereby a marriage license fee is blocking a couple from marriage? Is ther ONE legal example? However, if for example, there is fee that could be a clear and unreasonable impetiment to marriage, then yes, it would unconstitutional. So far, I am not aware that has happened recently.

 

If you extrapolate the marriage license fee to the polling taxes, or other paid forms of registration to vote, then yes, fees have been used as a hypothetical reason to be deemed discriminatory.

 

And if it needs to be repeated again, few people are arguing against the concept of giving the same legal rights to homosexual couples. The argument is about the process, where the judiciary just made up a law. There's a long established process in this country where change is affected through legislation. And although at times it's cumbersome and time consuming, the process works well, and Americans accept the legislative decisions. With "evolving" public opinion, gay marriage would have been legislated in nearly every state in short order. But the SCOTUS decision short circuits the natural process, and galvanizes the opposition, which will lead to a worse outcome and further fights in the states.

 

This is not about a moral position, but about upholding a process that's been enduring in the US. This is what separates this country from the lunatics in Europe where the losing side takes to the ramparts in a hissy fit and gums up the gears. In the US, the losing side accepted defeat and worked the system to get the outcome down the road. And that process of building up the voting blocks is vital to our democratic process.

 

In this case, the victory was handed down based on an emotional reading of the times, and that is in a stark contrast to how things used to get done. We're beyond the slippery slope where we're moving away from a country of laws.

[Dorkington]

This is all pissing in the wind. The homosexuals got what they wanted. It's on to the next "persecuted" minority. Sometimes I wonder if these people know what REAL persecution is.

Something ironic about this.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Something ironic about this.

 

Is there?

 

I've yet to see any death camps, or purges or pogroms or anything of that nature happen to ANYONE in a so-called "protected minority" in my lifetime.

 

And no, I'm not anti-gay marraige. I am anti-special-snowflake mentality.

Edited June 29, 2015 by joesixpack

[Max Fischer]

You don't actually know what a straw man argument is, do you?

 

And let me repeat: As for cousins...ask the right question: what's the argument for West Virginia discriminating against first cousins, but Florida granting them the fundamental right to marriage? Explain how that isn't a violation of the Equal Protection clause the same way that Indiana discriminating against gays, but Massachusetts granting them the fundamental right to marriage, is.

 

And don't say "science." There's no scientific basis for WV and FL to have different criteria.

i don't know the arguments against first cousins marrying (I made a few guesses) and I keep asking you to explain them. This YOUR question and you have repeatedly ignored requests for information. You seem perfectly comfortable making judgments without reviewing the evidence.

[Max Fischer]

If you extrapolate the marriage license fee to the polling taxes, or other paid forms of registration to vote, then yes, fees have been used as a hypothetical reason to be deemed discriminatory.

 

And if it needs to be repeated again, few people are arguing against the concept of giving the same legal rights to homosexual couples. The argument is about the process, where the judiciary just made up a law. There's a long established process in this country where change is affected through legislation. And although at times it's cumbersome and time consuming, the process works well, and Americans accept the legislative decisions. With "evolving" public opinion, gay marriage would have been legislated in nearly every state in short order. But the SCOTUS decision short circuits the natural process, and galvanizes the opposition, which will lead to a worse outcome and further fights in the states.

 

This is not about a moral position, but about upholding a process that's been enduring in the US. This is what separates this country from the lunatics in Europe where the losing side takes to the ramparts in a hissy fit and gums up the gears. In the US, the losing side accepted defeat and worked the system to get the outcome down the road. And that process of building up the voting blocks is vital to our democratic process.

 

In this case, the victory was handed down based on an emotional reading of the times, and that is in a stark contrast to how things used to get done. We're beyond the slippery slope where we're moving away from a country of laws.

Your argument assumes that the equal protection act does not prohibit the laws in question. I disagree and so does the Supreme Court. There is no slippery slope when it comes to basic human rights. The "times" caught up to what has always been correct. The "times" did not make slavery wrong, it was always wrong. The "times" did not make a ban on interracial marriage wrong, it was always wrong. Their are countless other examples, it's what makes our system work.

 

Sometimes bills are passed, sometimes courts make decisions, but in the end, it's about getting to the right decision.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Max Fischer

[Rob's House]

Your argument assumes that the equal protection act does not prohibit the laws in question. I disagree and so does the Supreme Court. There is no slippery slope when it comes to basic human rights. The "times" caught up to what has always been correct. The "times" did not make slavery wrong, it was always wrong. The "times" did not make a ban on interracial marriage wrong, it was always wrong. Their are countless other examples, it's what makes our system work.

 

Sometimes bills are passed, sometimes courts make decisions, but in the end, it's about getting to the right decision.

Do you realize how patently retarded it is to keep throwing that out at people who are openly stating that they disagree with the Supreme Court?

[Big Blitz]

“Professional sports teams still haven’t been able to shake that toxic culture of masculinity.”

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/the-sports-worlds-slow-embrace-of-gay-rights/397076/

 

So anyone that didn't change all their look at me social media profile pics to a rainbow avi should feel shame? Especially our professional sports teams.

 

Wow.

 

 

What freaking country is this? What in the heck is a "toxic culture of masculinity?" And if it's a problem....then the....opposite of masculine (feminine?) is the proper culture?