How polished! Sneaking in a few words that I never said or even implied, along with the your standard bullshit and never ending word salad? Surely your able to defend your arguments with more than misrepresentations that that come dangerously close to being outright lies? You have to pretty much count on people not reading most of your mindless prattling to get away with that. You're so boring and transparent.
Posted by Thena323 - 5 hours ago




Forgive me for my boring and transparentness. I am sorry if I offended.
Pleas, will you then clarify your statement that I misunderstood and misrepresented to have a complete understanding/meaning of your comment. " Same-sex marriage is a done deal and there's not a goddamn thing bigoted assholes can do about it."

Please allow me to correct myself.
Thank you

(July 24, 2015 at 2:21 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 23, 2015 at 7:37 pm)Ace Wrote: I am saying  that NO LAW is ever a done deal (set in stone) and any law that is made about any issue does not make it any more or less permissible for anyone to talk about any law.  

I posted the Dumb and Dumber clip as a joke, not a motivational video. Jesus fuck.

Oh I know it was a joke. Good One. I liked it.
No, please forgive me if my post came off as an angry replay. Far from it.
I am truly sorry.

Thena323

I am still waiting for your clarification of your statement that I have misinterpret, to correct my reply.


"Same-sex marriage is a done deal and there's not a goddamn thing bigoted assholes can do about it" Please clarify for better understanding on my part to not misrepresent your view or "put words in your mouth"

Thena 323 you have not provided me with a clarification of your statement "Same-sex marriage is a done deal and there's not a goddamn thing bigoted assholes can do about it so that no misrepresentation is done by me. Therefor I will stand by my a regional statement in interpenetrating your statement as is: (in connection with the discussion that goes with this statement)

"Same-sex marriage is a done deal    and  there's not a goddamn thing   bigoted         assholes can do about it"
( same-sex marriage law is set)                (so there is not need for discussion,debate/ anything)               (so move on)

Oh I missed this post. My apologies.

(July 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 23, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Anima Wrote: McDonnell's  is always hiring

That's a neat trick since Boeing absorbed McDonnell Douglas in the late 90s.

This is attributed to me but I do not think i wrote it. In either case I think it is McDonalds the burger joint. Not McDonnell Douglas the aerospace company.

(July 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Cato Wrote: The idea that one day the law will allow homosexuals to be fucked over the way they have been is a fanciful dream. One reason is the trend in public opinion. From Gallup:

Really?? I do not even know why you wasted your time with a recent Gallup poll. The trend of opinion now is not the trend of opinion for all time. If that were the case the polls never would have changed in their favor. You are a bright individual Cato so I do not know why you wasted time with such a pointless statement.

"Every man despises his father. And in so doing becomes his grandfather." - Plato

(July 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Cato Wrote: Another reason already discussed is the fact that it will have to pass strict scrutiny. Yet another reason is the fact that it would be a very thinly veiled attempt of pushing a religious prohibition where the prohibition by practice no longer exists. There won't be another opportunity to argue the silly procreative centric state interest bullshit again.

In regards to strict scrutiny it is not applied to homosexuals. They are still not a protected class. They fail to meet 3 of the 4 criterion utilized in determining a protected class. Strict scrutiny is to be applied to marriage restrictions so long as the Obergefell ruling stands. However, if the logic utilized in Obergefell runs afoul of many other laws in place or starts leading to unjust rulings the court can and may overturn the ruling (like they did with Lochner V. New york which is the only precedence in support of Obergefell).

Furthermore the lack of data concerning the impacts of same sex marriage is in homos favor now. We will end up seeing if what they said is true and it has no impact. So long as it does not have an impact then good. If it does have a negative impact the States may use that historical data to support a ban on same sex marriage under strict scrutiny. Fingers crossed for it to have no or only a good impact!

Finally, the States are not required by law to marry people so they may opt out of the marriage game altogether, they may also amend the federal constitution to prohibit same sex marriage (which the courts can do absolutely nothing about) with 2/3rds of the states (considering 39 states had their bans overturned by court order and only 33 are need to amend the constitution I would be somewhat concerned if I were you. There are still possibilities. But hey you have public opinion polls and everyone knows public opinion polls dictate electoral polls. Just ask same sex marriage advocates who knew they were going to win in the 33 out of 34 attempts to get democratic approval.

That is a good question; am I only a bigot when I don't agree with you? Do I have to always agree with you to not be a bigot? . . . Can I ever say no? . . .If so, then how is that not what you accuse the religious of doing, "you can't force your own beliefs (ideas or views) on other people?

And this :
Currently many have argued limiting marriage to the opposite sex is discriminatory prohibiting [i]“everyone[/i]” to marry. However, the most universal element present in di-hybrid species of both animal and humans are the two sexes of male and female, (with very few defective exceptions). Even in human society, with its vastness of sub-differences that exist among people, the two sexes are always present in every, race, ethnicity, social, economic, continent, primitive, and non-primitive, and so on. Since Roman times marriages had been form with elements of segregation to keep social class, race, religion and pure bloods from intermingling with one another “[i]dirtying societies race, social, or religious structures.[/i]”

With time, the realization that such segregation is not only unjust but also unneeded marriage would purge its self of all forms of segregation. In an attempt to help keep this universalism or inclusivity the safeguard of requiring the opposite sexes for marriage remained due to the universality and inclusive nature.

Under the concept of [u]“marriage equality,[/u]” the universal diversity of marriage (which was inherent in the presence of all genders being required for the act) is being eliminated for a segregationist criteria so that some social groups may request to opted out of the universal inclusion of people of all genders for an exclusionary centric marriage were each marries “only your own[/i]”.
“[b]Marriage equality”[/b], either intentionally or unintentional excludes one of the sexes form the union of same sex. Lesbian marriages only incorporate two women; Gay marriages only incorporate two men. Each union denies the presents of the opposite sex to be in either union, unlike opposed sex marriage which requires it. The segregation in “[i]marriage equality” is based solely on one’s sexual preferences; preferences that are not set in stone but can change at the behest of what the individual feels like from one day to the next. If we look at what is the defining characteristic of these unions? Rather than being gender-integrated as true marriage is, they are segregated by gender.

The homosexual community in short is asking for marriage to be a discriminatory institution once more by having the “right” to refuse the opposite gender from the union. Same sex unions do not give respect to the opposite sex and or acknowledge the diversity of the sexes and what they bring to not only the union but to a relationship and in the razing of children. By arguing the necessary inclusion of the opposite sex in to the marriage union is violation of their desire to exclude the opposite sex.  

Those who are in the “marriage equality” camp go one to render the opposite sex person a mere object (not unlike slavery did with African Americans) in their egocentric quest for emotional satisfaction by means of playing parent to children. In this way Gay men proceed to denigrate women by viewing her importance to their relationship according to her reproductive anatomy to be bought and sold for use at their behest.  Requesting that any personal bond of mother and child that occurs naturally be denied (and even going so far as to sue for that denial in several cases where the mother decided to keep the baby and return the money).  After the birth she is to have no insight, say, or rights to the child in its development.  She is to be denied the dignity of womanhood, motherhood, and parentage so that it may be “given” to another who paid for it.  Her sole role is to produce the baby, (i.e. Baby factory). For Lesbians, the male is even more objectified because it is only his sperm that is needed and nothing more.  Once more denying him the dignity of manhood, fatherhood, and parentage to satisfy the emotional desire of one who paid for it.  To convey dignity to that which does not act dignified we take the dignity of women and men by treating them as incubation and insemination tools akin to an Easy Bake Oven and a Turkey Baster.

Let us not forget the objectification of the children.  No longer are children embraced as the resultant manifestation of the expression of love whenever they may arrive.  Instead they are objects to satisfy the emotional desires of “parents” who bought and paid for them.  Consideration is not given to the importance of the sexes in the development of a child or even to the child’s rights by nature to experience and benefit from the contributions made by parents of both sexes.  Just as with the adults any dignity which was belonging to the child shall be taken in order to convey dignity to the undignified.  They child is no longer a being in its own right, rather it is an item to be purchased (adopted) or created (IVF or surrogacy) at the leisure and whim of the parents; not for the child, but to grant the homosexual the dignity of parentage with a flesh doll rather than a fake doll we give to children to play parent with; as an object to satisfy our desire rather than a being to which we are obliged to respect and dignity.

The word Equally in this new form of  marriage needs to be changed to marriage segregation.  Legal recognition of same sex marriage is recognition of the right of a group (sex) to exclude another (sex) because they desire to do so; and to then further discriminate by dehumanizing men/women and their contribution to the marital relationship as husband/wife, the rearing of children as father/mother to the dignified task of inseminator and incubator (what we all wanted to be when we grow up).  While also dehumanizing children to instruments of emotional satisfaction.

Furthermore the Supreme Court ruling endeavoring to eliminate second class status from same sex couples serves to create second-class citizens out of single, co-habitating or non-married person who are denied equal dignity and security as well as economic and legal power afforded to the married class.  

How is this the road to equality and dignity when all it does is scream segregation and dehumanization? [/i]

You'd get along well with my dad.

(July 29, 2015 at 12:48 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You'd get along well with my dad.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

(July 30, 2015 at 10:05 am)Ace Wrote:

(July 29, 2015 at 12:48 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You'd get along well with my dad.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Must be a good thing since he raised such a fine individual