SCOTUS Rules 5-4 In Favor of Gay Marriage

[Fallen]

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. He was joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

Full story is below.



WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. He was joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

The decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.

Justice Kennedy said gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,” he wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

“It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” Justice Kennedy said of the couples challenging state bans on same-sex marriage. “Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said the Constitution has nothing to say on the subject.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

In a second dissent, Justice Scalia mocked Justice Kennedy’s soaring language.

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” Justice Scalia wrote of his colleague’s work. “Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”

As in earlier civil rights cases, the Supreme Court had moved cautiously and methodically, laying careful judicial groundwork for a transformative decision.

As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19.

Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision not to act, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry.

The court did not agree to resolve the issue for the rest of the nation until January, in cases filed by gay and lesbian couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The court heard extended arguments in April, and the justices seemed sharply divided over what the Constitution has to say about same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said their clients had a fundamental right to marry and to equal protection, adding that the bans they challenged demeaned their dignity, imposed countless practical difficulties and inflicted particular harm on their children.

The Obama administration, which had gradually come to embrace the cause of same-sex marriage, was unequivocal in urging the justices to rule for the plaintiffs.

“Gay and lesbian people are equal,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said. “They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now.”

Lawyers for the four states said their bans were justified by tradition and the distinctive characteristics of opposite-sex unions. They added that the question should be resolved democratically, at the polls and in state legislatures, rather than by judges.

The Supreme Court had once before agreed to hear a case arising from a constitutional challenge to a same-sex marriage ban, California’s Proposition 8, in 2012 in Hollingsworth v. Perry. At the time, nine states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex couples to marry.

But when the court’s ruling arrived in June 2013, the justices ducked, with a majority saying the case was not properly before them, and none of them expressing a view on the ultimate question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriage.

A second decision the same day, in United States v. Windsor, provided the movement for same-sex marriage with what turned out to be a powerful tailwind. The decision struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that barred federal benefits for same-sex couples married in states that allowed such unions.

The Windsor decision was based partly on federalism grounds, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion stressing that state decisions on how to treat marriages deserved respect. But lower courts focused on other parts of his opinion, ones that emphasized the dignity of gay relationships and the harm that families of gay couples suffered from bans on same-sex marriage.

In a remarkable and largely unbroken line of more than 40 decisions, state and federal courts relied on the Windsor decision to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

[Taernath]

Good. Not as wide a margin as I'd have hoped, though.

[~Rocktar~]

YAY! Now homosexuals everywhere can enjoy the wonders and horrors of divorce court. Finally some steps toward true equality. And politicians can shut the fuck up about it.

[Methais]

Now that that's over with, what will they cry about next? Surely living one's life without always being in an uproar over something isn't an option.

[Fallen]

YAY! Now homosexuals everywhere can enjoy the wonders and horrors of divorce court. Finally some steps toward true equality. And politicians can shut the fuck up about it.

This.

[Warriorbird]

Now that that's over with, what will they cry about next? Surely living one's life without always being in an uproar over something isn't an option.

You've never been upset about anything, ever, of course.


YAY! Now homosexuals everywhere can enjoy the wonders and horrors of divorce court. Finally some steps toward true equality. And politicians can shut the fuck up about it.

One of the reasons the lawyers of America were so interested in it going through. Then again, the original Republican Party wanted to free slaves so they'd improve the economy and work in the factories, so I think the gay folks are probably thankful for however they get it.

[Parkbandit]

Now that that's over with, what will they cry about next? Surely living one's life without always being in an uproar over something isn't an option.

Glass ceiling for women. 70 cents (or whatever the made up figure currently is..) on the dollar.

Transgender rights to use whichever bathroom they want.

Animals are people too.

Transcountry rights. People from other countries that identify as American should be given American rights. It's in the Constitution.

[Tgo01]

Shame it wasn't a 9-0 decision but eh, at least it passed.

[Parkbandit]

Shame it wasn't a 9-0 decision but eh, at least it passed.

I personally don't think the Government should be involved in marriage. At all.

[Tgo01]

I personally don't think the Government should be involved in marriage. At all.

I'm fine with the government getting out of legislating marriage. I just think if the government is gonna give married couples certain rights and privileges then it should be open to straight and gay people alike.

[Gelston]

I personally don't think the Government should be involved in marriage. At all.

When it comes to tax purposes, they damn sure should be.

[Tisket]

Good on you, America.

[Whirlin]

I'm fine with the government getting out of legislating marriage. I just think if the government is gonna give married couples certain rights and privileges then it should be open to straight and gay people alike.

I personally don't think the Government should be involved in marriage. At all.
It was becoming an issue with some states recognizing it while other states wouldn't... If we consider it just from a tax perspective, if you're living and working in two states, one of which won't recognize your marriage, each individual would be forced to file single for those states while married filing jointly for the other state and national returns... It was becoming a convoluted mess trying to manage the differences. But then the same kinds of complications applied to insurance, work benefits, and other nuances.

I would agree that ideally the situation could/should have been settled through the political process... but with the mess that is Washington nowadays, even if a decision were to be made, it'd be another 20 years of fighting that decision.

[Parkbandit]

I'm fine with the government getting out of legislating marriage. I just think if the government is gonna give married couples certain rights and privileges then it should be open to straight and gay people alike.

Agreed.


When it comes to tax purposes, they damn sure should be.

Why? What difference does it make to the government if I am married or I am single? Heck, if I want, I can file separately now instead of jointly.

There shouldn't be a difference.

[Gelston]

Agreed.



Why? What difference does it make to the government if I am married or I am single? Heck, if I want, I can file separately now instead of jointly.

There shouldn't be a difference.

But there is a difference. Shouldn't doesn't matter.

[Methais]

You've never made a career out of being upset about anything, ever, of course.

Fixed.

When does Gay Divorce Court start airing?

[Gelston]

Fixed.

When does Gay Divorce Court start airing?

It's called Jerry Springer.

[time4fun]

Right decision- grossly incoherent legal reasoning. It was badly reasoned- even for a Kennedy decision.

[Warriorbird]

Sometimes bad legal reasoning can be a good thing. Penumbras and emanations of the 4th Amendment, anyone?

[time4fun]

I don't disagree. Brown was another example of the right decision arrived at through bizarre legal reasoning.

[Astray]

Fixed.

When does Gay Divorce Court start airing?

They haven't earned the right to be on court T.V yet. Three more decades of toiling in the gay cotton fields and they'll get their chance.

[Tgo01]

Right decision- grossly incoherent legal reasoning. It was badly reasoned- even for a Kennedy decision.

From what little I've read about the reasoning why the majority voted the way they did, it seems like they cited the 14th amendment. I've always thought gay marriage should fall under the 14th amendment. Why do you think this is "incoherent legal reasoning"? Or was there more to the decision that I'm unfamiliar with?

[Wrathbringer]

I personally don't think the Government should be involved in marriage. At all.

My thoughts as well.

[Wrathbringer]

Sometimes bad legal reasoning can be a good thing. Penumbras and emanations of the 4th Amendment, anyone?

No. Not even remotely similar, and it wasn't a good thing.

[Androidpk]

Pure applesauce.

[Whirlin]

From what little I've read about the reasoning why the majority voted the way they did, it seems like they cited the 14th amendment. I've always thought gay marriage should fall under the 14th amendment. Why do you think this is "incoherent legal reasoning"? Or was there more to the decision that I'm unfamiliar with?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Here's an example of the argument:
Vyrshkana has the right to marry Dreaven. If Whirlin doesn't have that same right to marry Dreaven because he's a man... that's a discriminatory practice that is restricting the availability to rights due to gender.

[Gelston]

Whirlin wants to marry Dreaven.

[Tgo01]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Here's an example of the argument:
Vyrshkana has the right to marry Dreaven. If Whirlin doesn't have that same right to marry Dreaven because he's a man... that's a discriminatory practice that is restricting the availability to rights due to gender.

Yeah that's like, exactly what I'm saying :O

I don't understand how that can be viewed as "grossly incoherent legal reasoning."


Whirlin wants to marry Dreaven.

Who doesn't?

[Taernath]

Whirlin wants to marry Dreaven.

What's next, people marrying Whirlin's bow?

[Whirlin's Bow]

What's next, people marrying Whirlin's bow?

Ohh baby... if you buy me, I'm yours to do whatever you want with.

[Parkbandit]

Ohh baby... if you buy me, I'm yours to do whatever you want with.

Are you suggesting that people should have the right to marry inanimate objects?

[Whirlin's Bow]

Are you suggesting that people should have the right to marry inanimate objects?

No... I'm saying buy me.

[EdSnowden]

Go team America.

Now if we could just stop spying on citizens indiscriminately. Amirite?

[Androidpk]

I'm surprised Roberts didn't vote for it. Is the guy bipolar or what?

[Shaps]

Who cares about gays marrying gays. It is two consenting adults, choosing who they want to be with. Which should be allowed, and not looked down upon.

Disregard the scientific fact that if everyone was gay, we.. as a species.. would perish. Fortunately there are enough heterosexual people to keep reproducing the human race, to afford gay individuals partners with which to wed.

So, in reality, gay people should look upon straight people as their salvation.

Just saying.

[Tenlaar]

Who cares about gays marrying gays.

Gays?

[Astray]

Who cares about gays marrying gays. It is two consenting adults, choosing who they want to be with. Which should be allowed, and not looked down upon.

Disregard the scientific fact that if everyone was gay, we.. as a species.. would perish. Fortunately there are enough heterosexual people to keep reproducing the human race, to afford gay individuals partners with which to wed.

So, in reality, gay people should look upon straight people as their salvation.

Just saying.

gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8 no h8

[Shaps]

Gays?

Yes.. I said GAYS. Holy hell.. stop being so PC. Sorry, homosexuals.

So let me rephrase.. Who cares about guys (or gals) that like sticking their dicks (or tongues) in the non-reproductive (or reproductive) organs of the same sex.. that does not result in a child being born.. thus not contributing to the continuation of the human race.

Hence, homosexuals should consider heterosexuals as their savior, because they are the only ones that can reproduce their future wife or husband.

Is that more PC?

[Jeril]

Who cares about gays marrying gays. It is two consenting adults, choosing who they want to be with. Which should be allowed, and not looked down upon.

Disregard the scientific fact that if everyone was gay, we.. as a species.. would perish. Fortunately there are enough heterosexual people to keep reproducing the human race, to afford gay individuals partners with which to wed.

So, in reality, gay people should look upon straight people as their salvation.

Just saying.

You do realize this no longer holds true? We don't need to have sex any more to produce children.

[Astray]

You do realize this no longer holds true? We don't need to have sex any more to produce children.

Leave it to science to take out all the fun! Bunch of nerds.

[Shaps]

Yes, yes.. you are correct. We don't have to. I mean, why worry about what nature has allowed all species to do for the past 5 million+ years with regards to reproduction and the continuation of life.

Sure, just cook a baby up in the lab and call it day.

So yes, I understand we have the technology to do such.

If you don't understand the sarcasm that I'm laying down, or choose to take such a stance (which you are correct in saying - but with your statement implying we no longer, as a society, need mothers and fathers for a family unit)... then well.. I suppose peoples these days are just more enlightened than all of creation from the formation of the planet.

I, for one, am happy that we're so advanced and can disregard all natural laws.

[Gelston]

Yes.. I said GAYS. Holy hell.. stop being so PC. Sorry, homosexuals.

So let me rephrase.. Who cares about guys (or gals) that like sticking their dicks (or tongues) in the non-reproductive (or reproductive) organs of the same sex.. that does not result in a child being born.. thus not contributing to the continuation of the human race.

Hence, homosexuals should consider heterosexuals as their savior, because they are the only ones that can reproduce their future wife or husband.

Is that more PC?

He was saying gays care, not that he was offended by the word.

[m444w]

Yes, yes.. you are correct. We don't have to. I mean, why worry about what nature has allowed all species to do for the past 5 million+ years with regards to reproduction and the continuation of life.

Sure, just cook a baby up in the lab and call it day.

So yes, I understand we have the technology to do such.

If you don't understand the sarcasm that I'm laying down, or choose to take such a stance (which you are correct in saying - but with your statement implying we no longer, as a society, need mothers and fathers for a family unit)... then well.. I suppose peoples these days are just more enlightened than all of creation from the formation of the planet.

I, for one, am happy that we're so advanced and can disregard all natural laws.

Did your state outlaw basic biology classes or something?

[Shaps]

Did your state outlaw basic biology classes or something?

? I'm pretty sure basic biology states that 1 male + 1 female species is required to reproduce, hence allowing the continuation of the species.

And yes, I realize there are some species that are androgynous and can reproduce. But, I've yet to see a human that can.

[Astray]

And yes, I realize there are some species that are androgynous and can reproduce. But, I've yet to see a human that can.
I laughed.

[Jeril]

Yes, yes.. you are correct. We don't have to. I mean, why worry about what nature has allowed all species to do for the past 5 million+ years with regards to reproduction and the continuation of life.

Sure, just cook a baby up in the lab and call it day.

So yes, I understand we have the technology to do such.

If you don't understand the sarcasm that I'm laying down, or choose to take such a stance (which you are correct in saying - but with your statement implying we no longer, as a society, need mothers and fathers for a family unit)... then well.. I suppose peoples these days are just more enlightened than all of creation from the formation of the planet.

I, for one, am happy that we're so advanced and can disregard all natural laws.

There are many animals out there that function just fine without any parental oversight. And it is only society that makes the claim that we need a mother/father family unit to raise our children. With many tribes of Indians it wasn't the soul responsibility of the parents to raise their children but that of the whole tribe. At one point in time even in this country it wasn't just the parents responsibility to make sure children were raised right. If anyone caught a child doing something wrong they either corrected the child or brought the situation to the attention of the parents who took care of it instead of telling the other person to mind their own damn business.

[Shaps]

He was saying gays care, not that he was offended by the word.

Holy hell.. you are 100% correct. Just went back and reread that, and how is reply was meant to be taken.

True point. Gays do care about the right for gays to marry other gays. Which, as I think is perfectly fine.. and we should have done it a long time ago.

I can't believe how my sarcastic (yet factually correct) comments on this, has turned into this.. heh.

[Shaps]

[QUOTE=Jeril;1788248]There are many animals out there that function just fine without any parental oversight. And it is only society that makes the claim that we need a mother/father family unit to raise our children. With many tribes of Indians it wasn't the soul responsibility of the parents to raise their children but that of the whole tribe. At one point in time even in this country it wasn't just the parents responsibility to make sure children were raised right. If anyone caught a child doing something wrong they either corrected the child or brought the situation to the attention of the parents who took care of it instead of telling the other person to mind their own damn business.[/QUOT

Those animals.. do not reproduce without a female + a male (very, very few species retain that ability - Humans do not - Unless, yes, you count science).

As for how societies form, and choose to take care of people or children, that is different. I'm not talking about social structure. I'm talking about the ability - as a species - IF everyone were gay, we would eventually die off. And yes, I'm sure you'll say - but we have brains and edumacation.. so the gay men would sleep with the gay women out of necessity - which would allow the human race to continue. I get it.. there are ways around everything.

Again.. Personally, I think it is a good thing.. because consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to with each other. It does not take away from the hilarious fact, that if everyone were gay.. we would die off (without the help of science).

So lets just turn everyone gay (for real gay - I'm not talking they bang the opposite sex just because they have to), but really gay.... then drop 100 EMP bombs and do away with all electricity (hence no science sperm donors).... and how long would we have? 100 years? Maybe 120?

[Tgo01]

Gays should be forced to have heterosexual sex to ensure the survival of the human race.

While we're at it men should be forced to copulate well into their 80's with as many women as possible.

[Tenlaar]

It does not take away from the hilarious fact, that if everyone were gay.. we would die off (without the help of science).

I guess the confusing part, for me, is where you seem to think that somebody is arguing against this ridiculous and completely unrelated "fact."

[Shaps]

I guess the confusing part, for me, is where you seem to think that somebody is arguing against this ridiculous and completely unrelated "fact."

If you haven't figured out that I like messing with people ;)

[Taernath]

I guess the confusing part, for me, is where you seem to think that somebody is arguing against this ridiculous and completely unrelated "fact."

I think he's worried about all humans becoming gay at some point in the future because we allowed them to legally marry, here and now.

It's science, man.

[Tenlaar]

If you haven't figured out that I like messing with people ;)

Shouldn't you be better at it, then?

[Shaps]

I think he's worried about all humans becoming gay at some point in the future because we allowed them to legally marry, here and now.

It's science, man.

It is science. If everyone were gay... We would not exist as a species. Pretty simple fact. Glad you finally got it.

[m444w]

There are many animals out there that function just fine without any parental oversight. And it is only society that makes the claim that we need a mother/father family unit to raise our children. With many tribes of Indians it wasn't the soul responsibility of the parents to raise their children but that of the whole tribe. At one point in time even in this country it wasn't just the parents responsibility to make sure children were raised right. If anyone caught a child doing something wrong they either corrected the child or brought the situation to the attention of the parents who took care of it instead of telling the other person to mind their own damn business.[/QUOT

Those animals.. do not reproduce without a female + a male (very, very few species retain that ability - Humans do not - Unless, yes, you count science).







First, androgyny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgyny) vs parthenogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis)

Second, I'm still not convinced by your statements you've ever taken a basic biology course.

[Shaps]

Shouldn't you be better at it, then?

You're taking the time to reply aren't you? I think I'm doing just fine at it.

[Astray]

If you haven't figured out that I like messing with people ;)

Ah... the idiots claim. A fine choice, sir.

[Shaps]

First, androgyny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgyny) vs parthenogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis)

Second, I'm still not convinced by your statements you've ever taken a basic biology course.

Androgyny and homosexuality are seen in Plato’s Symposium in a myth that Aristophanes tells the audience.[3] People used to be spherical creatures, with two bodies attached back to back who cartwheeled around. There were three sexes: the male-male people who descended from the sun, the female-female people who descended from the earth, and the male-female people who came from the moon. This last pairing represented the androgynous couple. These sphere people tried to take over the gods and failed. Zeus then decided to cut them in half and had Apollo stitch them back together leaving the navel as a reminder to not defy the gods again. If they did, he would cleave them in two again to hop around on one leg. Plato states in this work that homosexuality is not shameful. This is one of the earlier written references to androgyny. Other early references to androgyny include astronomy, where androgyn was a name given to planets that were sometimes warm and sometimes cold.[4

So.. androgyny referenced long before you and I.. as male-female..

Third, I'm still not convinced by your statements you've ever thought outside the box.

[Tenlaar]

You're taking the time to reply aren't you? I think I'm doing just fine at it.

I'm not replying because you have somehow forced me to, or tricked me, though. I'm replying because I can't sleep and I came here specifically to post and kill time. Do you consider this trolling?

[Shaps]

I'm not replying because you have somehow forced me to, or tricked me, though. I'm replying because I can't sleep and I came here specifically to post and kill time. Do you consider this trolling?

Not at all.. you're the one that asked if I should be better at it. Thus, it deserved a reply. Glad I'm helping you stay awake.

[time4fun]

Yeah that's like, exactly what I'm saying :O

I don't understand how that can be viewed as "grossly incoherent legal reasoning."



Who doesn't?

Kennedy never really went beyond philosophical arguments in the decision. He never addressed what the appropriate level of scrutiny was- which is a big problem if you're going to cite the 14th amendment. He actually focused the entire thing on the right to marry and not on the rights of LGBTQ people. In a 14th amendment case like this, the Court should address the appropriate level of scrutiny being applied, why it was the appropriate level, and then a list of the reasons why the case either does or does not meet that standard. Kennedy completely ignored that in his decision- it was just really strange that way he never once said that he arrived at the decision based on rational, intermediate, or strict scrutiny. He even used the word "rationale" at one point, but never "rational". I generally don't take Scalia seriously, and most of his dissent shouldn't be, but he was absolutely correct to point out that here (as in Windsor) the Court's legal reasoning was seriously lacking. He also never really gave guidelines on how to deal with the nebulous intersection between equal protection and due process. I had to read the damn thing twice to see if I had somehow just missed something.

Right decision, wrong reasoning.

[Shaps]

Kennedy never really went beyond philosophical arguments in the decision. He never addressed what the appropriate level of scrutiny was- which is a big problem if you're going to cite the 14th amendment. He actually focused the entire thing on the right to marry and not on the rights of LGBTQ people. In a 14th amendment case like this, the Court should address the appropriate level of scrutiny being applied, why it was the appropriate level, and then a list of the reasons why the case either does or does not meet that standard. Kennedy completely ignored that in his decision- it was just really strange that way he never once said that he arrived at the decision based on rational, intermediate, or strict scrutiny. He even used the word "rationale" at one point, but never "rational". I generally don't take Scalia seriously, and most of his dissent shouldn't be, but he was absolutely correct to point out that here (as in Windsor) the Court's legal reasoning was seriously lacking. He also never really gave guidelines on how to deal with the nebulous intersection between equal protection and due process. I had to read the damn thing twice to see if I had somehow just missed something.

Right decision, wrong reasoning.

I agree with you. Though, I am a simple person.. I live in this country.. The Constitution is supposed to be the law.. and all citizens (not people physically within our borders, but citizens).. deserve the opportunity to live how they want, and do what makes them happy.. so long as they do not impose their choices, lifestyle, or beliefs on others.

Still not sure why gay marriage, which in reality is a consenting adult choosing to be with another consenting adult, is a big issue. SO LONG AS... they do not infringe on the rights of religious individuals who do not believe as they do.

Just do your own thing, let others do theirs, and don't impose on each other. Would be a much better place all around.

[Latrinsorm]

Who cares about gays marrying gays. It is two consenting adults, choosing who they want to be with. Which should be allowed, and not looked down upon. Disregard the scientific fact that if everyone was gay, we.. as a species.. would perish. Fortunately there are enough heterosexual people to keep reproducing the human race, to afford gay individuals partners with which to wed. So, in reality, gay people should look upon straight people as their salvation. Just saying.The scientific fact is that homosexuals can have sex with members of the opposite gender, and that sex can produce viable offspring. Attraction is not required for reproduction, and the irony of your position is that the link between marriage and attraction is very recent in human history. For thousands of years, marriages were arranged without input from the sexual partners-to-be and the species survived just fine. Many people who were gay participated in heterosexual marriages and produced children (and still do), in the event that everyone became gay they would continue to do so.

[Shaps]

The scientific fact is that homosexuals can have sex with members of the opposite gender, and that sex can produce viable offspring. Attraction is not required for reproduction, and the irony of your position is that the link between marriage and attraction is very recent in human history. For thousands of years, marriages were arranged without input from the sexual partners-to-be and the species survived just fine. Many people who were gay participated in heterosexual marriages and produced children (and still do), in the event that everyone became gay they would continue to do so.

::sigh:: I've said of course they "CAN", but if.. as people claim.. people are BORN truly homosexual.. their natural inclination is to only lay with the same sex. If that is the case, then by your statement.. you would then force homosexuals to lay with people they do not want to.. So, you're implying it would be okay to force someone.. to have sexual relations with someone they do not want to.. in order for the greater good?

So, you would impose that requirement on them to keep the species alive?

Secondly, I never inferred that marriage and attraction is recent.. I've said that reproduction of a species over the course of millions of years, has been done by male+female natural reproduction. Not "marriage".

Thirdly, I think arranged marriages.. forcing someone to do something against their will.. is bullshit (even if necessary to ensure survival).

Lastly, you make the assumption in your statement "gays participated in heterosexual marriages and produced children (and still do), and in the event they were all gay, they would continue to do so".... So you condone the relationships they've had to endure that they didn't want to? You think they should be forced to lay with those, that they naturally don't want to? So you would impose those requirements on them if you were in charge, and everyone was gay?

You see where this goes? It's not about the fact that anatomically, could the species survive. Sure.. we could. It's about, if someone is truly gay.. who am I, or you?, to force them to sleep or reproduce with someone they don't want to? And you're reasoning is, well you have to sleep with them, because we need to keep our species alive.. therefore putting certain individuals under enormous pressure and stress, because you are dictating what they should do with their bodies.

Lol.. I know this may seem a bit convoluted.. but you can't be for someone's rights, and their CHOICE.. then make statements like you did above.

[Astray]

"Walls of text and wiki quotes, guys! Totes trolling you! HA HA!" Sums up Shaps involvement in this topic.

[Shaps]

"Walls of text and wiki quotes, guys! Totes trolling you! HA HA!" Sums up Shaps involvement in this topic.

I suppose for some, namely you, reading is difficult then.. if you think anything I've written is a "wall of text". The ability for people to critically think, analyze, and form a response has sadly declined over the years.

I'll be sure to do all future posts in 140 characters or less from my Twitter account.

[Warriorbird]

The notion that marriage should only be based on love rather than a requirement is relatively new.

[Astray]

trolling guiz

You're like a poor mans Wrathbringer.

[Shaps]

The notion that marriage should only be based on love rather than a requirement is relatively new.

Very true. And I'm glad we have moved past arranged marriages.

[Shaps]

You're like a poor mans Wrathbringer.

And you have yet to make any statement worthy of this thread. Stop trying to troll me. You're just wasting your time. Thank you for stopping by.

[Astray]

And you have yet to make any statement worthy of this thread. Stop trying to troll me. You're just wasting your time. Thank you for stopping by.

I'm surprised you didn't post some pseudo-intellectual multi-paragraph thing. Good work, you're learning. That's a step in the right direction, keep up the good work kid.

[Shaps]

I'm surprised you didn't post some pseudo-intellectual multi-paragraph thing. Good work, you're learning. That's a step in the right direction, keep up the good work kid.

Move along. You keep adding nothing to this thread.

[Astray]

Move along. You keep adding nothing to this thread.

We're on mutual ground here.

[Shaps]

We're on mutual ground here.

Now, if you'd only move off of it.

[Astray]

Now, if you'd only move off of it.

I was thinking about posting long diatribes about how if the world were entirely gay that'd be the death of humanity. I mean, nobody in this topic has brought the subject up well.

[Shaps]

I was thinking about posting long diatribes about how if the world were entirely gay that'd be the death of humanity. I mean, nobody in this topic has brought the subject up well.

Your line of thinking is correct. You should elaborate.

[Astray]

Your line of thinking is correct. You should elaborate.

I would but somebody in this topic doesn't have the desire to read it all! Typical.

[Warriorbird]

Very true. And I'm glad we have moved past arranged marriages.

Except you know, like Hugh Hefner and stuff.

[Tenlaar]

Do you guys realize that if all people were only aroused by pineapples, it would mean the end of humans as a species? This is completely relevant because of reasons.

[Warriorbird]

Do you guys realize that if all people were only aroused by pineapples, it would mean the end of humans as a species? This is completely relevant because of reasons.

We're doomed! Doomed I tell you!

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140724050701/austinally/images/b/bb/Kawaii_pineapple.png

[Astray]

Do you guys realize that if all people were only aroused by bad posts, it would mean the PC would be swimming in sex? This is completely relevant because of reasons.

[Warriorbird]

Do you guys realize that if all people were only aroused by bad posts, it would mean the PC would be swimming in sex? This is completely relevant because of reasons.

http://www.reddit.com/r/SRS

[Taernath]

We're doomed! Doomed I tell you!

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140724050701/austinally/images/b/bb/Kawaii_pineapple.png

Ananas Comosus... my one weakness..

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/556/132/258.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Ananas Comosus... my one weakness..

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/556/132/258.jpg

I know right!

http://www.zikwid.com/assets/images/pina-colada.jpg

[Tisket]

Those animals.. do not reproduce without a female + a male (very, very few species retain that ability - Humans do not - Unless, yes, you count science).

As for how societies form, and choose to take care of people or children, that is different. I'm not talking about social structure. I'm talking about the ability - as a species - IF everyone were gay, we would eventually die off. And yes, I'm sure you'll say - but we have brains and edumacation.. so the gay men would sleep with the gay women out of necessity - which would allow the human race to continue. I get it.. there are ways around everything.

Again.. Personally, I think it is a good thing.. because consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to with each other. It does not take away from the hilarious fact, that if everyone were gay.. we would die off (without the help of science).

So lets just turn everyone gay (for real gay - I'm not talking they bang the opposite sex just because they have to), but really gay.... then drop 100 EMP bombs and do away with all electricity (hence no science sperm donors).... and how long would we have? 100 years? Maybe 120?

There is nothing more ludicrous than a pretentious douchebag making unsound predictions based on a poorly thought out opinion.

Stop it.

[Astray]

There is nothing more ludicrous than a pretentious douchebag making predictions based on poorly thought out opinion.

Stop it.

But Tisket! He's just messin' with people! He said so himself!

[Taernath]

Guys you are really harshing the pineapple mood.

https://mojoswork.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1912363_10153912952345181_1659538425_n.jpg

[Astray]

Pineapples put up a tough outer appearance but they are totally sweet on the inside.

[Tenlaar]

Mmm...
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs24/f/2007/323/3/8/Seductive_Pineapple___Complete_by_Urser.png

[Tisket]

I do take requests. This one is done and I quoted you in the comment:

Thread: SCOTUS Rules 5-4 In Favor of Gay Marriage (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?96868-SCOTUS-Rules-5-4-In-Favor-of-Gay-Marriage&p=1788296#post1788296)
Neg rep him Tisket... yes, yes! Let the anger flow through you! Become the instrument of justice you were destined to be!

[AestheticDeath]

Man, too bad I am not gay. And the world just had to have STDs... so many of them.

IF everyone were homosexual, and reproduction were only from the result of prearranged coital activities. We could have SEX ALL THE TIME, with no thoughts to hinder us about unwanted pregnancy, or ya know that other big issues about government staying out of vaginas, but having to pay for them or whatev.

Guys n' gals, I think a world wide homo club could solve some problems. 7487

[ClydeR]

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/supreme_court_obergefell_zps4ikl5uft.jpg


Buzzfeed compiled the responses of many of the Republican candidates. The gist is that they all said it was a bad decision. Some of them are vowing civil disobedience. Some of them want a Constitutional amendment. And some of them said they want new laws protecting religious people from being forced to arrange flowers and decorate cakes for gay weddings. Read them all here (http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/heres-every-2016-gop-candidates-response-to-the-same-sex-mar#.vep89lZYv).



Clinton temporarily changed her famous logo because of the court's decision..

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/clinton-obergefell_zpsulbwtwb0.jpg
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614439551491264512 (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614439551491264512)

[ClydeR]

Look at all the stuff the Supreme Court did in the last week..


Made it legal for states to exclude Confederate flags from personalized license plates.

Made it easier to prove racial distrimination in housing.

Upheld Obamacare again.

Legalized same-sex marriage.

It's Christmas morning for liberals. There will be a backlash.

[Stanley Burrell]

Pineapples though.

[Androidpk]

Pineapples are synonymous with marijuana.

[Tenlaar]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/95be9362aef2e601e8de5d3a65423093/tumblr_mf4wjuqhAj1rqkkzco1_500.gif

Doubly relevant.

[Androidpk]

http://i.imgur.com/o6h8rfI.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

I think gays should get the Darwin award for removing their genes from the collective pool. Thanks for taking one for the team, homos.

[Shaps]

There is nothing more ludicrous than a pretentious douchebag making unsound predictions based on a poorly thought out opinion.

Stop it.

Thanks for the love by the way Tisket. Much appreciated.

Also, I'm not sure why you think my prediction is unsound.. Did I do my math wrong? I thought 100 to 120 years would be just about right.

As for the pretentious douchebag part.. pot.. meet kettle.

[Shaps]

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/supreme_court_obergefell_zps4ikl5uft.jpg


Buzzfeed compiled the responses of many of the Republican candidates. The gist is that they all said it was a bad decision. Some of them are vowing civil disobedience. Some of them want a Constitutional amendment. And some of them said they want new laws protecting religious people from being forced to arrange flowers and decorate cakes for gay weddings. Read them all here (http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/heres-every-2016-gop-candidates-response-to-the-same-sex-mar#.vep89lZYv).



Clinton temporarily changed her famous logo because of the court's decision..

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/clinton-obergefell_zpsulbwtwb0.jpg
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614439551491264512 (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614439551491264512)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUkuEtcqzyA

Yes.. because only those evil Republicans are against you citizens of the US. We Democrats are here to suckle you, and nurture you, and ensure that you are protected.. as we have for all time!

Politicians, both sides of the aisle, are all full of shit.

[Warriorbird]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/28/3e/90/283e902c0cf6130fe54e8fdeb31de5ef.jpg

[Shaps]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/28/3e/90/283e902c0cf6130fe54e8fdeb31de5ef.jpg

That looks amazing. Now to just sell everything and move to a place like that.

[Wrathbringer]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/28/3e/90/283e902c0cf6130fe54e8fdeb31de5ef.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51rDGz6vqo0

[Latrinsorm]

::sigh:: I've said of course they "CAN", but if.. as people claim.. people are BORN truly homosexual.. their natural inclination is to only lay with the same sex. If that is the case, then by your statement.. you would then force homosexuals to lay with people they do not want to.. So, you're implying it would be okay to force someone.. to have sexual relations with someone they do not want to.. in order for the greater good? So, you would impose that requirement on them to keep the species alive? Secondly, I never inferred that marriage and attraction is recent.. I've said that reproduction of a species over the course of millions of years, has been done by male+female natural reproduction. Not "marriage". Thirdly, I think arranged marriages.. forcing someone to do something against their will.. is bullshit (even if necessary to ensure survival). Lastly, you make the assumption in your statement "gays participated in heterosexual marriages and produced children (and still do), and in the event they were all gay, they would continue to do so".... So you condone the relationships they've had to endure that they didn't want to? You think they should be forced to lay with those, that they naturally don't want to? So you would impose those requirements on them if you were in charge, and everyone was gay?You misunderstood my word "can" for your word "must". I encourage you to read my post again without making that substitution.
You see where this goes? It's not about the fact that anatomically, could the species survive. Sure.. we could. It's about, if someone is truly gay.. who am I, or you?, to force them to sleep or reproduce with someone they don't want to? And you're reasoning is, well you have to sleep with them, because we need to keep our species alive.. therefore putting certain individuals under enormous pressure and stress, because you are dictating what they should do with their bodies. Lol.. I know this may seem a bit convoluted.. but you can't be for someone's rights, and their CHOICE.. then make statements like you did above.My post was 100% about the fact that anatomically the species would survive, which leaves 0% for any of this other stuff you brought up. If you want to talk about that stuff, okay. If you want to claim I said, condoned, dictated, or in any way mentioned that stuff, you are incorrect.

[Astray]

Stahpit Latrin.

[Tisket]

Also, I'm not sure why you think my prediction is unsound..

Because you are positing something a kindergarten child could debunk. That you even make the argument proves you to be a technological illiterate.

[Shaps]

Because you are positing something a kindergarten child could debunk. That you even make the argument proves you to be a technological illiterate.

Tisket,
Tsk tsk. Do we really need to resort to such childish comments? I thought we were all better than that. Have a pineapple and relax.

[Shaps]

You misunderstood my word "can" for your word "must". I encourage you to read my post again without making that substitution.My post was 100% about the fact that anatomically the species would survive, which leaves 0% for any of this other stuff you brought up. If you want to talk about that stuff, okay. If you want to claim I said, condoned, dictated, or in any way mentioned that stuff, you are incorrect.

If you're post was to simple state that anatomically the species could survive.. Then I agree 100% with you.

Unfortunately, to ensure that such occurred would require forcing people to do something they naturally do not want to.

I know it is completely out of the realm of possibility.. something like this was merely a way to examine an unreasonable situation, and apply a logical conclusion to it.

[Tisket]

Unfortunately, to ensure that such occurred would require forcing people to do something they naturally do not want to.

Be parents?

Moron.

[Shaps]

Be parents?

Moron.

And more with the name calling, without thinking through what you are saying. It's okay Tisket. We all understand that is who you are. I forgive you, and won't take offense or call you any names... like idiot, moron, ignoramus... because that would just be stooping to your level and I just won't do that.

[Astray]

If you listen closely, you can hear Shaps attempt trolling.

[Shaps]

If you listen closely, you can hear Shaps attempt trolling.

Me? I would never do that, and your I am offended by the implication!

[Tisket]

And more with the name calling, without thinking through what you are saying. It's okay Tisket. We all understand that is who you are. I forgive you, and won't take offense or call you any names... like idiot, moron, ignoramus... because that would just be stooping to your level and I just won't do that.

You are using avoidance once more. I understand. It's the only thing you can do considering you have no answers to obvious questions.

[Astray]

Me? I would never do that, and your I am offended by the implication!

Well which one is it?! YOUR OR I?!

[Shaps]

You are using avoidance once more. I understand. It's the only thing you can do considering you have no answers to obvious questions.

You have to ask the right question. You have yet to do such. Obvious questions, have obvious answers which require no response.

[Shaps]

Well which one is it?! YOUR OR I?!

I am not sure what you are referring to one bit. Stop trying to derail this important thread.

[Astray]

I am not sure what you are referring to one bit. Stop trying to derail this important thread.

Referring to your paper thin attempt to deny your paper thin trolling. Keep up. Jeez, and I thought I was the one who didn't like reading.

[Tisket]

You have to ask the right question. You have yet to do such. Obvious questions, have obvious answers which require no response.

You have reached Zep-level stupidity now.

[Shaps]

Referring to your paper thin attempt to deny your paper thin trolling. Keep up. Jeez, and I thought I was the one who didn't like reading.

I was pretty clear about the fact that I would never troll.

[Astray]

I was pretty clear about the fact that I would never troll.

You aren't that awful. Jeez, give yourself a molecule of credit.

[Tisket]

I was pretty clear about the fact that I would never troll.

If you were smart (lol), you'd claim you were only trolling.

[Shaps]

You have reached Zep-level stupidity now.

Okay Tisket.. just for you.

I never said anything about being parents, which you chose to bring up. I was talking about forcing people to do something they wouldn't normally want to do, which is the case.

Here it is Barney style for you - in a hypothetical situation:

There are 4 people on earth left - 2 men and 2 women. They are all homosexual.
The 2 men are happy together, and due to their natural born desire to only be with men.. they choose to be with one another.
The 2 women are happy together, and due to their natural born desire to only be with women.. they choose to be with one another.

So in this situation.. How does the human race reproduce?

At least one women and one man would have to be forced to engage in sexual relations.. against their natural wants and desires.. in order to ensure a child was conceived.

Hence, the forcing of someone to do something against their natural desire or want.

I was in no way referring to peoples desires to be parents.

[Shaps]

You aren't that awful. Jeez, give yourself a molecule of credit.

Shhh.. you'll make Tisket rethink where he/she is going with this. Just let it play out.

[Astray]

Here it is, a heavily weighted in favor of my argument, hypothetical situation:

There are 4 people on earth left - 2 men and 2 women. They are all homosexual.
The 2 men are happy together, and due to their natural born desire to only be with men.. they choose to be with one another.
The 2 women are happy together, and due to their natural born desire to only be with women.. they choose to be with one another.

Fix'd that fer ya laddy boy.

[Shaps]

Fix'd that fer ya laddy boy.

Did you really need to add that? I would think the use of the term hypothetical situation, would be enough to make it clear.

[Astray]

Did you really need to add that?

Absolutely.

[Shaps]

Okay.. well a day of making you and Tisket tear your hair out is enough for me. It was fun. I'll be sure to find another topic that I can work you two up about in the future. :)

[Astray]

Okay.. well a day of making you and Tisket tear your hair out is enough for me. It was fun. I'll be sure to find another topic that I can work you two up about in the future. :)

I ain't even mad tho.

[Tgo01]

Wow, something like 10% of the world population is gay yet in an end of the world type scenario only gays managed to survive the apocalypse? Maybe we should all be gay, they seem to have the survival skills needed to ensure the human race survives forever.

[Tisket]

I ain't even mad tho.

He is attributing his own state of mind to everyone else. It's a childlike commonality.

[Gelston]

Wow, something like 10% of the world population is gay yet in an end of the world type scenario only gays managed to survive the apocalypse? Maybe we should all be gay, they seem to have the survival skills needed to ensure the human race survives forever.

I think 10% is a bit high. 3.5% in the US, with 1.8% identifying as bisexual, and we are a bit more open about this sort of thing than many other countries... According to UCLA anyways.

[Astray]

He is attributing his own state of mind to everyone else. It's a child-like commonality.

Well, it's over.

[Tisket]

Well, it's over.

Yes, he's snatched up his toys and stomped away from this thread.

[Astray]

Yes, he's snatched up his toys and stomped away from this thread.

He'll be back. It's a shame he lost his balls already. Could do with a good game of soccer.

[elcidcannon]

Fix'd that fer ya laddy boy.

trolls be trollin'

[Kembal]

Kennedy never really went beyond philosophical arguments in the decision. He never addressed what the appropriate level of scrutiny was- which is a big problem if you're going to cite the 14th amendment. He actually focused the entire thing on the right to marry and not on the rights of LGBTQ people. In a 14th amendment case like this, the Court should address the appropriate level of scrutiny being applied, why it was the appropriate level, and then a list of the reasons why the case either does or does not meet that standard. Kennedy completely ignored that in his decision- it was just really strange that way he never once said that he arrived at the decision based on rational, intermediate, or strict scrutiny. He even used the word "rationale" at one point, but never "rational". I generally don't take Scalia seriously, and most of his dissent shouldn't be, but he was absolutely correct to point out that here (as in Windsor) the Court's legal reasoning was seriously lacking. He also never really gave guidelines on how to deal with the nebulous intersection between equal protection and due process. I had to read the damn thing twice to see if I had somehow just missed something.

Right decision, wrong reasoning.

Yeah, that. Not thorough at all...Kennedy should've set a standard. Would've given a basis as to how evaluate other gay rights cases going forward and offered them more protection.

[Wrathbringer]

This is the most tyrannical federal government we've ever had. The tenth amendment may as well not exist.

[Shaps]

This is the most tyrannical federal government we've ever had. The tenth amendment may as well not exist.

I've disagreed with a lot this administration and SCOTUS has done over the past few years.. and even though I don't like the legal rational to reach this decision.. The decision itself is correct in my opinion.

All consenting adults should be able to be with who they want, without the government favoring one or the other group. So long as no one infringes on the rights of others to believe how they want.

[Wrathbringer]

I've disagreed with a lot this administration and SCOTUS has done over the past few years.. and even though I don't like the legal rational to reach this decision.. The decision itself is correct in my opinion.

All consenting adults should be able to be with who they want, without the government favoring one or the other group. So long as no one infringes on the rights of others to believe how they want.

Everyone get your fire and brimstone shelters built asap. And if you live in CA or ny and are straight, get out while you can. Children shouldn't be exposed to such perversion. Pedophilia is just a short step from homosexuality. I'm sure we'll require states to recognize that next once the perverts get bored with gayness. USA! USA! USA!

[Back]

http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/a8jjbNd_460s.jpg

[Shaps]

Everyone get your fire and brimstone shelters built asap. And if you live in CA or ny and are straight, get out while you can. Children shouldn't be exposed to such perversion. Pedophilia is just a short step from homosexuality. I'm sure we'll require states to recognize that next once the perverts get bored with gayness. USA! USA! USA!

Well at least now, people should be able to celebrate and have Straight Pride parades without being ridiculed. Right?

[Wrathbringer]

Well at least now, people should be able to celebrate and have Straight Pride parades without being ridiculed. Right?

Nope. Being straight is now just like being white. One is not allowed to be proud of those things in this country. We're just supposed to be grateful we aren't gay or colored.

[Wrathbringer]

http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/a8jjbNd_460s.jpg

Wow back, that was sexist. I'm taking this to scotus so you can't hate anymore and get away with it.

[elcidcannon]

Nope. Being straight is now just like being white. One is not allowed to be proud of those things in this country. We're just supposed to be grateful we aren't gay or colored.

QFT

[Gelston]

QFT

rofl, so clueless.

[Tenlaar]

I know that I, personally, have found being a straight white male to be an incredible burden. It's a tough life, being so oppressed.

[elcidcannon]

rofl, so clueless.

::shrug::

He's right....and I don't even like him that much lol

[Wrathbringer]

I know that I, personally, have found being a straight white male to be an incredible burden. It's a tough life, being so oppressed.

Pick up an immoral past time and become a huge whiner. That's what it takes to get free in this country.

eta: I'm unsurprised you've had difficulty, as you can't even choose an avatar that works all the time.

[ClydeR]

The Texas attorney general issued an opinion (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/static/5144.html) today -- Sunday -- telling clerks that normally issue marriage licenses that they do not have to issue licenses to same sex couples if they think it is immoral.


Attorney General Paxton: Religious Liberties of Texas Public Officials Remain Constitutionally Protected After Obergefell v. Hodges

Attorney General Ken Paxton today made the following statement and issued an opinion in response to questions about the impact of Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that redefined marriage:

“Friday, the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live.

“Indeed, for those who respect the rule of law, this lawless ruling presents a fundamental dilemma: A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law.

“Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Here is where things currently stand:

“Pursuant to the Court’s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.

“Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty. Even the flawed majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges acknowledged there are religious liberty protections of which individuals may be able to avail themselves. Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes. While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.”

“In the Attorney General’s opinion my office issued in response to Lt. Governor Patrick’s request for guidance, we find that although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791. This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and speech. This opinion concludes that:

“County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.

“Justices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms, and may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, when other authorized individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”

“It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine. But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.
“Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans, but most immediately do anything we can to help our County Clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the Court’s ruling.”

To read Attorney General Paxton’s full opinion, click here (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/op/2015/kp0025.pdf).

To read Attorney General Paxton’s earlier comments on this Supreme Court ruling, click here (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=5142).

[Shaps]

Hmm.. not sure what I think about that. They are state employees, not private entities.

Not sure how such a thing would play out legally at all.

I suppose, since it's federal/state employees, it would have to fall under something similar to conscientious objector status in the military that certain people are able to use due to religious beliefs?

[AestheticDeath]

I say they stop allowing marriage at all. Who needs a paper and ring anyways.

[Methais]

I say they stop allowing marriage at all. Who needs a paper and ring anyways.

Marriage is an outdated practice from times when people lived to be like 30.

People should be happy just banging without all those extra complications.

[Gelston]

Marriage is an outdated practice from times when people lived to be like 30.

People should be happy just banging without all those extra complications.

Banging your mom is an outdated practice.

[Methais]

Banging your mom is an outdated practice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdTIOlhyKY

[Tisket]

Marriage is an outdated practice from times when people lived to be like 30.

It was created as a means of taking control of property a woman owns or might own as well as a way to control her sexuality and thereby insure the paternity of her children.

If you recommend ditching marriage now, the wedding and bridal industry will have you assassinated. Big bucks there.

[Ashliana]

It was created as a means of taking control of property a woman owns or might own as well as a way to control her sexuality and thereby insure the paternity of her children.

If you recommend ditching marriage now, the wedding and bridal industry will have you assassinated. Big bucks there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[Gelston]

It was created as a means of taking control of property a woman owns or might own as well as a way to control her sexuality and thereby insure the paternity of her children.

If you recommend ditching marriage now, the wedding and bridal industry will have you assassinated. Big bucks there.

That depends on the culture.

[Tisket]

That depends on the culture.

Doesn't everything?

[Gelston]

Doesn't everything?

STOP GENERALIZING YOU ANGRY ANCIENT FEMINIST

[Tisket]

STOP GENERALIZING YOU ANGRY ANCIENT FEMINIST

I'm not a feminist!

[Gelston]

I'm not a feminist!

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-06/27/13/enhanced/webdr02/enhanced-18362-1435425554-1.jpg

I just felt like posting that somewhere.

[Methais]

Doesn't everything?

Not fapping.

[Latrinsorm]

Hmm.. not sure what I think about that. They are state employees, not private entities. Not sure how such a thing would play out legally at all. I suppose, since it's federal/state employees, it would have to fall under something similar to conscientious objector status in the military that certain people are able to use due to religious beliefs?An important point is that a conscientious objector refuses to perform military service of all kinds, not just a specific order, type of order, or giver of orders. (This is why Ali went to jail.) The analog would be that the state employee would be permitted to leave their job without penalty of fine or imprisonment, not that they would be free to perform their job as they saw fit. To my knowledge these state employees are already free to do that, as Texas is an at-will employment state.

[Shaps]

An important point is that a conscientious objector refuses to perform military service of all kinds, not just a specific order, type of order, or giver of orders. (This is why Ali went to jail.) The analog would be that the state employee would be permitted to leave their job without penalty of fine or imprisonment, not that they would be free to perform their job as they saw fit. To my knowledge these state employees are already free to do that, as Texas is an at-will employment state.

Actually.. a number of conscientious objectors served in the military.. and only refused to kill another person. They chose to help others though. Some actually received the MOH. So, you may wish to rethink that. It is not always an either/or situation.

[Fallen]

Conscientious objectors absolutely served during wartime. Check out operation whitecoat.

[Tisket]

Latrinsorm isn't usually so spectacularly wrong.

[Gelston]

They used to have non combat roles, the only such role that exists now is Chaplain, which is an officer anyways.

[Latrinsorm]

Actually.. a number of conscientious objectors served in the military.. and only refused to kill another person. They chose to help others though. Some actually received the MOH. So, you may wish to rethink that. It is not always an either/or situation.That they served in the military means they weren't conscientious objectors. In the case of Desmond Doss, "Doss made clear he was not an Objector". If you want to recognize his valor by wildly misattributing his beliefs in a failed attempt to score points on a message board, I can't stop you, but I encourage you not to.
Conscientious objectors absolutely served during wartime. Check out operation whitecoat.In the same way that objectors in World War 2 served on the Civilian Public Service, those people served their country but were not performing military service in the sense I used the term.

[Warriorbird]

Latrinsorm isn't usually so spectacularly wrong.

Usually when he's wrong he's just wrong in great detail.

[Shaps]

That they served in the military means they weren't conscientious objectors. In the case of Desmond Doss, "Doss made clear he was not an Objector". If you want to recognize his valor by wildly misattributing his beliefs in a failed attempt to score points on a message board, I can't stop you, but I encourage you not to.In the same way that objectors in World War 2 served on the Civilian Public Service, those people served their country but were not performing military service in the sense I used the term.

You feel the need to be right, so you can't admit when you're wrong. Look up Thomas W. Bennett. And there are a few more like him.

Your simple statement of "they served in the military means they weren't conscientious objectors" is just false, and slightly rude to those that choose to serve their Country.

You can conscientiously object, based upon religion/belief, and still serve.

[Warriorbird]

That they served in the military means they weren't conscientious objectors. In the case of Desmond Doss, "Doss made clear he was not an Objector". If you want to recognize his valor by wildly misattributing his beliefs in a failed attempt to score points on a message board, I can't stop you, but I encourage you not to.In the same way that objectors in World War 2 served on the Civilian Public Service, those people served their country but were not performing military service in the sense I used the term.

These people might not be classified under the Latrin definition of "conscientious objector" but they are under the legal U.S. definition. You're just wrong.

[Gelston]

That they served in the military means they weren't conscientious objectors. In the case of Desmond Doss, "Doss made clear he was not an Objector". If you want to recognize his valor by wildly misattributing his beliefs in a failed attempt to score points on a message board, I can't stop you, but I encourage you not to.In the same way that objectors in World War 2 served on the Civilian Public Service, those people served their country but were not performing military service in the sense I used the term.

And you are completely wrong. Conscientious objectors served in WW2 combat units, they were generally medics, who, at the time, were unarmed. Conscientious objectors were against the taking of human life.

[Latrinsorm]

You feel the need to be right, so you can't admit when you're wrong. Look up Thomas W. Bennett. And there are a few more like him. Your simple statement of "they served in the military means they weren't conscientious objectors" is just false, and slightly rude to those that choose to serve their Country. You can conscientiously object, based upon religion/belief, and still serve.I guess you missed it, but I already quoted the words of the man who did the serving. He explicitly agrees with what I said.
These people might not be classified under the Latrin definition of "conscientious objector" but they are under the legal U.S. definition. You're just wrong.Legal definition, cool. Let's try 50 App. U.S.C.A. § 451 et seq. [1967]. "Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form, unless it proves Latrinsorm wrong on a message board."

Darn it! I stopped reading at "in any form", that's a rookie mistake on my part.

[Shaps]

I guess you missed it, but I already quoted the words of the man who did the serving. He explicitly agrees with what I said.Legal definition, cool. Let's try 50 App. U.S.C.A. § 451 et seq. [1967]. "Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form, unless it proves Latrinsorm wrong on a message board."

Darn it! I stopped reading at "in any form", that's a rookie mistake on my part.

I'll just stay with the notion that you feel you are right, regardless of facts. It's how you are wired. Not your fault really, just how people tend to be.

[Latrinsorm]

And you are completely wrong. Conscientious objectors served in WW2 combat units, they were generally medics, who, at the time, were unarmed. Conscientious objectors were against the taking of human life.Actual conscientious objectors were imprisoned, tortured, and murdered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_Michael_Hofer) by the United States. You think they wouldn't have said "okay yeah, I'll be a medic or a quartermaster or whatever" at some point if that was all it took? You people, sheesh.

[Latrinsorm]

I'll just stay with the notion that you feel you are right, regardless of facts. It's how you are wired. Not your fault really, just how people tend to be."Doss made clear he was not an Objector." I've got all the facts I need, baby. :)

[Shaps]

"Doss made clear he was not an Objector." I've got all the facts I need, baby. :)

Actually, you are twisting one fact to support your whole premise. When in fact, there are many facets to such a situation. You of course, as I said, enjoy thinking you are right regardless of anything provided to disprove your statements.

Not unusual at all really.

[Gelston]

Actual conscientious objectors were imprisoned, tortured, and murdered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_Michael_Hofer) by the United States. You think they wouldn't have said "okay yeah, I'll be a medic or a quartermaster or whatever" at some point if that was all it took? You people, sheesh.

Quartermaster isn't a non combat job. And yes, because I think many people were more afraid of possibly being sent to a warzone then being in prison. Many conscientious objectors went in as medics. They were never issued a weapon, they never fired a round, but they saved lives.

[Taernath]

Look at all the stuff the Supreme Court did in the last week..


Made it legal for states to exclude Confederate flags from personalized license plates.

Made it easier to prove racial distrimination in housing.

Upheld Obamacare again.

Legalized same-sex marriage.

It's Christmas morning for liberals. There will be a backlash.


Quartermaster isn't a non combat job.

Maybe the Marines do it differently, but quartermaster/supply clerk/bath and laundry specialist is definitely non-combat in the Army.

[Taernath]

Look at all the stuff the Supreme Court did in the last week..


Made it legal for states to exclude Confederate flags from personalized license plates.

Made it easier to prove racial distrimination in housing.

Upheld Obamacare again.

Legalized same-sex marriage.

It's Christmas morning for liberals. There will be a backlash.


Quartermaster isn't a non combat job.

Maybe the Marines do it differently, but quartermaster/supply clerk/bath and laundry specialist is definitely non-combat in the Army.

*edit* how the fuck did I quote ClydeR in there? I'm leaving it in.

*edit edit* Double post??? THREAD BROKEN

[Gelston]

Maybe the Marines do it differently, but quartermaster/supply clerk/bath and laundry specialist is definitely non-combat in the Army.

*edit* how the fuck did I quote ClydeR in there? I'm leaving it in.

*edit edit* Double post??? THREAD BROKEN

I call them non-combat when they aren't issued a rifle. Yes, I know they aren't combat arms, but they are still trained in basic infantry skills and issued a rifle yes?

[Taernath]

I call them non-combat when they aren't issued a rifle. Yes, I know they aren't combat arms, but they are still trained in basic infantry skills and issued a rifle yes?

Careful, Latrinestorm likes to make up definitions too.

[Gelston]

Careful, Latrinestorm likes to make up definitions too.

I'm not making it up. They are considered combative forces under the Geneva Conventions right? Medics used to not be, because they weren't issued rifles. They still have a different code, but they are issued weapons now.

[Shaps]

All Marines are Riflemen first, regardless of their specialty. The same should be expected of all military service members.

Just because a specific MOS is not defined as "combat arms", does not mean they will never serve in combat.

[Warriorbird]

Legal definition, cool. Let's try 50 App. U.S.C.A. § 451 et seq. [1967]. "Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form, unless it proves Latrinsorm wrong on a message board."

Darn it! I stopped reading at "in any form", that's a rookie mistake on my part.

Wrong code for the people who actually serve. Sorry.

It also helps that I actually, you know, met the first one to win the Medal of Honor. Lynchburg's about 20 minutes away from where I grew up. He spoke several times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss

Do I get a new Latrin bit about how one of the greatest heroes to conscientious objectors in this country (and greatest Seventh Day Adventists) wasn't a real conscientious objector?

Because that'd be pathetic.

Here's a useful quote from the article about the other conscientious objector who won the Medal of Honor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Bennett_(conscientious_objector)


Deeply patriotic, but opposed to killing on religious grounds, he opted to enlist as a conscientious objector who was willing to serve. This classification is different from a conscientious objector who will not assist the military in any way. He was trained as a field medic.

That should clarify things for you.

[Candor]

Given the promiscuity of many male homosexuals (you don't think that being married changes this for many of them, do you?), you can be certain that another disease will be coming sooner or later. I just hope not as many people die from it as they have from AIDS.

And before you flame this post, at least try to realize it is not a moral judgement, as much as you may want it to be. Biology is biology. If you can't accept that, try asking the CDC whether they are concerned about another disease infecting the homosexual population, and then go and accuse them of bigotry first.

[Fallen]

...why would them being able to marry suddenly increase the risk of a new sexual disease?

[Gelston]

...why would them being able to marry suddenly increase the risk of a new sexual disease?

Because he is retarded. On this forum, libs have their Back, conservatives have Candor.

[Candor]

...why would them being able to marry suddenly increase the risk of a new sexual disease?

It increases society's acceptance of their behavior. Sexual responsibility of male homosexuals (such as it is) will be decreased by such acceptance.

[Androidpk]

I can't tell if Candor is actually serious or trying to be funny.

[Wrathbringer]

All Marines are Riflemen first, regardless of their specialty. The same should be expected of all military service members.

Just because a specific MOS is not defined as "combat arms", does not mean they will never serve in combat.

Ah you're a jar head. That explains a lot.

[Wrathbringer]

Given the promiscuity of many male homosexuals (you don't think that being married changes this for many of them, do you?), you can be certain that another disease will be coming sooner or later. I just hope not as many people die from it as they have from AIDS.

And before you flame this post, at least try to realize it is not a moral judgement, as much as you may want it to be. Biology is biology. If you can't accept that, try asking the CDC whether they are concerned about another disease infecting the homosexual population, and then go and accuse them of bigotry first.

Yeah...aids is a bio weapon we created. If you're saying that we'll create another and use it on our own citizens again, then I agree with you. USA! USA! If you think gay sex creates new diseases, well, that's just something ignorant old people say. Yes gays are gross diseased people, but they aren't biochemists.

[Parkbandit]

Given the promiscuity of many male homosexuals (you don't think that being married changes this for many of them, do you?), you can be certain that another disease will be coming sooner or later. I just hope not as many people die from it as they have from AIDS.

And before you flame this post, at least try to realize it is not a moral judgement, as much as you may want it to be. Biology is biology. If you can't accept that, try asking the CDC whether they are concerned about another disease infecting the homosexual population, and then go and accuse them of bigotry first.

http://www.hilarioustime.com/images/04/Irritated-wtf-lolcat.jpg

[Methais]

Latrinsorm isn't usually so spectacularly wrong.

Yes he is.

[Candor]

"Hey Candor, you're stupid!"

The above statement sums up the intellectual prowess of many of the people on this board who disagree with me. I can honestly say I am underwhelmed. As for those who actually try to say something smart, well here's a <cough> great example:

"There are more straights with AIDS than gays".

Well gee, ya think? There's also roughly 30-35 times more straight guys than homosexuals. Try using the concept of a percentage (this gets taught in third or fourth grade).

[Astray]

"Hey Candor, you're stupid!"

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/56282581.jpg

[Tenlaar]

"Hey Candor, you're stupid!"

It may have something to do with the stupendous logical leap you made to link encouraging serious, long term, monogamous relationships with increasing societal acceptance of promiscuity.

[Methais]

...why would them being able to marry suddenly increase the risk of a new sexual disease?

Because Candor is the PC's right wing Backlash.

Hey Candor, you're stupid!

[Atlanteax]

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pvponlinenew/img/comic/2015/06/pvp20150629.jpg

[Parkbandit]

"Hey Candor, you're stupid!"

The above statement sums up the intellectual prowess of many of the people on this board who disagree with me. I can honestly say I am underwhelmed.



It might be that they just don't disagree with you.. it might be more likely that you post really, really stupid "thoughts".

[Latrinsorm]

Actually, you are twisting one fact to support your whole premise. When in fact, there are many facets to such a situation. You of course, as I said, enjoy thinking you are right regardless of anything provided to disprove your statements. Not unusual at all really.That sounds very compelling except for the fact that you brought him up, not me. I was right, you tried to gotcha me, it backfired on you. I also love how pointing out the guy explicitly saying he wasn't an objector somehow constitutes "twisting" a fact.
Quartermaster isn't a non combat job. And yes, because I think many people were more afraid of possibly being sent to a warzone then being in prison. Many conscientious objectors went in as medics. They were never issued a weapon, they never fired a round, but they saved lives.You think the people who were being tortured to death... were afraid... of possibly being sent to a warzone... and I'm the bad guy in this thread. (Well, second to Candor.)
Wrong code for the people who actually serve. Sorry. It also helps that I actually, you know, met the first one to win the Medal of Honor. Lynchburg's about 20 minutes away from where I grew up. He spoke several times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss Do I get a new Latrin bit about how one of the greatest heroes to conscientious objectors in this country (and greatest Seventh Day Adventists) wasn't a real conscientious objector?You get the words of the man himself: "Doss made clear he was not an Objector." He spoke several times? It's a shame you didn't listen.
Here's a useful quote from the article about the other conscientious objector who won the Medal of Honor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas...ious_objector) Deeply patriotic, but opposed to killing on religious grounds, he opted to enlist as a conscientious objector who was willing to serve. This classification is different from a conscientious objector who will not assist the military in any way. He was trained as a field medic. That should clarify things for you.That you think that would clarify things for me is mind boggling. Bottom line, this was the comparison made:

Government employee X wants to grant marriage licenses, but not to gays because of their conscience.
This is like conscientious objectors, who want to wage war, but only on certain people because of their conscience.

That's not how conscientious objection worked. At no point in any of you peoples' rambling nonsense have you made point one backing that up. That's all there is to it.

[Warriorbird]

You get the words of the man himself: "Doss made clear he was not an Objector." He spoke several times? It's a shame you didn't listen.That you think that would clarify things for me is mind boggling. Bottom line, this was the comparison made:

Government employee X wants to grant marriage licenses, but not to gays because of their conscience.
This is like conscientious objectors, who want to wage war, but only on certain people because of their conscience.

That's not how conscientious objection worked. At no point in any of you peoples' rambling nonsense have you made point one backing that up. That's all there is to it.

Except in my actual presence he said something different. And legally there were two different classifications.

Here's a helpful FAQ.

https://www.libertyinstitute.org/conscientious-objector-faq

And a quote:


There are two classifications of Conscientious Objectors: (1) Class 1-O Conscientious Objectors and (2) Class 1-A-O Conscientious Objectors. A Class 1-O Conscientious Objector “objects to participation in military service of any kind in war in any form,” while a Class 1-A-O Conscientious Objector only “objects to participation as a combatant in war in any form.”2 A Service Member who is classified as a Class 1-O Conscientious Objector will be discharged from the Armed Forces. A Class 1-A-O Conscientious Objector may be discharged or may be assigned noncombat duties. It is within the discretion of each branch of the Armed Forces on whether to discharge Class 1-A-O Conscientious Objectors or assign them to noncombat duties. However, the Army has a policy that it will not discharge Class 1-A-O Conscientious Objectors, so they will be assigned to noncombat duties.3 If a Class 1-A-O Conscientious Objector is retained and assigned to noncombat duties, then once his term of service expires, he may not extend his term or reenlist in the Armed Forces.4 If a Conscientious Objector is discharged from the Armed Forces, he is not entitled to any veteran benefits other than certain types of insurance, including war-risk, Government (converted), or veterans’ life insurance.5
Case Precedent and Regulations:
2 Department of Defense Instruction 1300.06, ¶ 3.1, May 31, 2007.
3 Army Regulation 600-43, ¶ 3-1b, Aug. 21, 2006.
4 Department of Defense Instruction 1300.06, Enclosure E4, May 31, 2007.
5 38 U.S.C. § 5303.



Stop being willfully obtuse.

[Gelston]

That sounds very compelling except for the fact that you brought him up, not me. I was right, you tried to gotcha me, it backfired on you. I also love how pointing out the guy explicitly saying he wasn't an objector somehow constitutes "twisting" a fact.You think the people who were being tortured to death... were afraid... of possibly being sent to a warzone... and I'm the bad guy in this thread. (Well, second to Candor.)You get the words of the man himself: "Doss made clear he was not an Objector." He spoke several times? It's a shame you didn't listen.That you think that would clarify things for me is mind boggling. Bottom line, this was the comparison made:

Government employee X wants to grant marriage licenses, but not to gays because of their conscience.
This is like conscientious objectors, who want to wage war, but only on certain people because of their conscience.

That's not how conscientious objection worked. At no point in any of you peoples' rambling nonsense have you made point one backing that up. That's all there is to it.

Um, who was being tortured to death?

[Tgo01]

Um, who was being tortured to death?

People.

[Gelston]

People.

Oh right. All those people being tortured to death.

Did you know only 1 person from WW2 to now has ever been executed for desertion? The military also hasn't executed anyone since 1961. But yeah, they totally torture people to death for not showing up when drafted. You know, even with all the blanket amnesties and stuff that have occurred.

[Tgo01]

Oh right. All those people being tortured to death.

Did you know only 1 person from WW2 to now has ever been executed for desertion? The military also hasn't executed anyone since 1961. But yeah, they totally torture people to death for not showing up when drafted. You know, even with all the blanket amnesties and stuff that have occurred.

Here is the link Latrin provided in regards to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_Michael_Hofer

Once again it looks like we've stumbled upon Latrin's tactic of providing a link, saying what's in the link and hoping no one really clicks the link to see that it doesn't say what Latrin says it says.

Yes, the men were imprisoned for not complying with orders but if they were tortured at Alcatraz I highly doubt that had anything to do with why they were in prison and more to do with prisons generally being shit holes in the US back in 1918.

Also the family insists they were killed by mistreatment so obviously that's the truth.

[Gelston]

Though the four Hutterites were unusual in refusing to do any work during detention, even after they had been placed in prison, Homan said, officials ‚surely lacked the compassion, sensitivity, and plain decency to make some allowance‛ for their convictions.

Further reading, indicates the above. While in prison, serving hard labor, they refused to do it. They weren't treated any way different from anyone else that committed a crime and refused to do their mandated punishment. This was 1918-1919. 100 years ago, prisons were a way different time. I've been told they are still pretty shitty, especially if you disobey the corrections officers.

[Latrinsorm]

Though the four Hutterites were unusual in refusing to do any work during detention, even after they had been placed in prison, Homan said, officials ‚surely lacked the compassion, sensitivity, and plain decency to make some allowance‛ for their convictions.

Further reading, indicates the above. While in prison, serving hard labor, they refused to do it. They weren't treated any way different from anyone else that committed a crime and refused to do their mandated punishment. This was 1918-1919. 100 years ago, prisons were a way different time. I've been told they are still pretty shitty, especially if you disobey the corrections officers.I didn't say they were treated any way different from any other prisoner. I said they were in prison for being conscientious objectors, and I said that in prison they were tortured to death; hence, they were tortured to death for being conscientious objectors. You might as well take issue with the claim that people are jailed for murder. "They weren't treated any way different from anyone else that was convicted of a felony!!!!!" It's a minor league red herring.

[Tgo01]

I said they were in prison for being conscientious objectors, and I said that in prison they were tortured to death; hence, they were tortured to death for being conscientious objectors.

So...let me see if I understand Latrinsorm logic correctly.

Let's say Joe is put in jail for robbing a bank. While in prison Joe is butt raped 10 times a day.

This means Joe was butt raped for robbing a bank?

[Gelston]

I didn't say they were treated any way different from any other prisoner. I said they were in prison for being conscientious objectors, and I said that in prison they were tortured to death; hence, they were tortured to death for being conscientious objectors. You might as well take issue with the claim that people are jailed for murder. "They weren't treated any way different from anyone else that was convicted of a felony!!!!!" It's a minor league red herring.

No, they died because prison systems were shit back then (not that they aren't now, but they have more rules on what they can and can't do to an inamte now) and they refused to do their assigned prison work. They may have been in prison due to being a conscientious objector, but they died due to something else completely. Stop being a dumbass.

[Wrathbringer]

Except in my actual presence he said something different. And legally there were two different classifications.

Here's a helpful FAQ.

https://www.libertyinstitute.org/conscientious-objector-faq

And a quote:





Stop being willfully obtuse.

You're funny when you think you're right about something. Please don't ever study logic or all of this win goes away.

[Wrathbringer]

No, they died because prison systems were shit back then (not that they aren't now, but they have more rules on what they can and can't do to an inamte now) and they refused to do their assigned prison work. They may have been in prison due to being a conscientious objector, but they died due to something else completely. Stop being a dumbass.

Would he have been in prison if not for being an objector? No. Stop being distracted by misdirection. No offense, but you're way out of your league in attempting to engage Latrinsorm. Given your life choices, logic is not your strong suit. It's like watching a dog try to convince a human that the earth is flat; never going to happen, but entertaining as long as the dog is trying.

[Warriorbird]

You're funny when you think you're right about something. Please don't ever study logic or all of this win goes away.

You talking about logic is entertaining. Please continue.

[Methais]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/fake-hate-gay-man-faked-robbery-beating-and-carved-anti-gay-slur-into-his-own-arm/

[Tenlaar]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/fake-hate-gay-man-faked-robbery-beating-and-carved-anti-gay-slur-into-his-own-arm/

And this has what to do with gay marriage being legal?

[Methais]

And this has what to do with gay marriage being legal?

Because no matter what you do, they will always be looking for something to be outraged over. Just like a good liberal.

And this thread is already gay enough to warrant not starting a new thread for it.

[Candor]

Because no matter what you do, they will always be looking for something to be outraged over. Just like a good liberal.

The man clearly has a mental disorder - he needs help. Outrage isn't the right response.

[Methais]

The man clearly has a mental disorder

Liberalism?

[Tenlaar]

Because no matter what you do, they will always be looking for something to be outraged over. Just like a good liberal.

You're kind of an ignorant piece of shit, aren't you?

[Methais]

You're kind of an ignorant piece of shit, aren't you?

If liberals aren't outraged over something, they create something to be outraged over. If they don't have something to be outraged over, they have nothing.

Sorry if the truth offends you.

Off topic - I wonder how many of these people weren't liberal too:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teens-storm-georgia-wal-mart-wild-rampage-destruction-32122318


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IlDK9PPK8k

Can you count the white people in the video that were part of the rampage?

Thread: SCOTUS Rules 5-4 In Favor of Gay Marriage
Just because gay marriage is legal doesn't mean you have to marry a man. The only one outraged in this thread is you.

Had you read the actual post you'd see that it has nothing to do with outrage over the gay marriage ruling. I couldn't give a shit either way if they get married or not. They deserve to experience the joys of divorce just like straight people.

[Silvean]

If liberals aren't outraged over something, they create something to be outraged over. If they don't have something to be outraged over, they have nothing.

Sorry if the truth offends you.

I don't get this. Are you trolling? Are you trying to hassle that one other guy who is cussing you out? Do you really believe this? As long as I am asking questions; you all who post fringe political BS on this board all day, is it just this board? Do you get a cup of coffee in the morning and sit there at the computer throwing up posts on like 10 different boards? If I went to the Betty Crocker motherfucking cookbook board, would I find 2 posts about brownies and 48 about Obama's trade policies? I don't get it. I'm obviously not cyberpunk 1337 enough to follow this crap.

[Gelston]

I don't get this. Are you trolling? Are you trying to hassle that one other guy who is cussing you out? Do you really believe this? As long as I am asking questions; you all who post fringe political BS on this board all day, is it just this board? Do you get a cup of coffee in the morning and sit there at the computer throwing up posts on like 10 different boards? If I went to the Betty Crocker motherfucking cookbook board, would I find 2 posts about brownies and 48 about Obama's trade policies? I don't get it. I'm obviously not cyberpunk 1337 enough to follow this crap.

I'd change liberal to people and it is generally 100% correct.

[Methais]

I don't get this. Are you trolling? Are you trying to hassle that one other guy who is cussing you out? Do you really believe this? As long as I am asking questions; you all who post fringe political BS on this board all day, is it just this board? Do you get a cup of coffee in the morning and sit there at the computer throwing up posts on like 10 different boards? If I went to the Betty Crocker motherfucking cookbook board, would I find 2 posts about brownies and 48 about Obama's trade policies? I don't get it. I'm obviously not cyberpunk 1337 enough to follow this crap.

http://imgur.com/gallery/EDVw1

[Silvean]

I'd change liberal to people and it is generally 100% correct.

How in the hell can something be generally 100% correct?

Outrage and conflict make for good television but most people just want to live their lives without being bothered too much. I have a friend with the saddest fucking never-gets-laid dad. Poor bastard can't sit down with a woman for 5 minutes without launching into his own outraged political spiel. But that guy is the exception. I ought to get him on some internet forums.

[Warriorbird]

If liberals aren't outraged over something, they create something to be outraged over. If they don't have something to be outraged over, they have nothing.

Sorry if the truth offends you.

Off topic - I wonder how many of these people weren't liberal too:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teens-storm-georgia-wal-mart-wild-rampage-destruction-32122318


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IlDK9PPK8k

Can you count the white people in the video that were part of the rampage?

Thread: SCOTUS Rules 5-4 In Favor of Gay Marriage
Just because gay marriage is legal doesn't mean you have to marry a man. The only one outraged in this thread is you.

Had you read the actual post you'd see that it has nothing to do with outrage over the gay marriage ruling. I couldn't give a shit either way if they get married or not. They deserve to experience the joys of divorce just like straight people.

Whereas you don't create new things to be outraged over. You've got Obama, those pesky undeserving black people, and "liberals."

[Methais]

Whereas you don't create new things to be outraged over. You've got Obama, those pesky undeserving black people, and "liberals."

Yes, I created Obama, black people, and liberals. If it weren't for me, those things wouldn't exist.

Other than those things, what have I created to be outraged over?

[Gelston]

How in the hell can something be generally 100% correct?

Outrage and conflict make for good television but most people just want to live their lives without being bothered too much. I have a friend with the saddest fucking never-gets-laid dad. Poor bastard can't sit down with a woman for 5 minutes without launching into his own outraged political spiel. But that guy is the exception. I ought to get him on some internet forums.

Because it isn't every situation, but generally 100% of people are in certain situations, whether it is outrage at the situation or outraged at the outraged. Also, stop being dickish.

[Warriorbird]

Yes, I created Obama, black people, and liberals. If it weren't for me, those things wouldn't exist.

Other than those things, what have I created to be outraged over?

Do note that I didn't say you created any of them. It's okay though. You're part of the outrage culture too.

[Methais]

Do note that I didn't say you created any of them. It's okay though. You're part of the outrage culture too.

Tone of voice and text, etc.

Brb gonna go rob and beat myself up and say that a mob of militant gays did it.

[Silvean]

Also, stop being dickish.

Yeah, it was a little dickish. Sorry about that. Sometimes I pull this forum up on my phone for a minute and I see just so much stupid shit... but that's not your fault.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, I created Obama, black people, and liberals. If it weren't for me, those things wouldn't exist.


You son of a bitch.

[Warriorbird]

Tone of voice and text, etc.

Brb gonna go rob and beat myself up and say that a mob of militant gays did it.

Lol. Yeah. You're totally not part of the outrage culture yo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax

This'll get you further.

[Methais]

Lol. Yeah. You're totally not part of the outrage culture yo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax

This'll get you further.

If being outraged over something outrageous is being part of the outrage culture, then sure.

In the real world, the guy in the story I linked, the guy in the story you linked, people who are freaking out over the Dukes of Hazzard having a Confederate flag on the roof, etc., are the real outrage culture. People reacting to bullshit like that, not so much.


You son of a bitch.

That reminds me, check out this preview of Jax's Carl Weathers skin that comes out with Predator DLC this month.

Make sure your sound is on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOmDSu9Tbz8

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDQ5epjjSsM

[Warriorbird]

If being outraged over something outrageous is being part of the outrage culture, then sure.

In the real world, the guy in the story I linked, the guy in the story you linked, people who are freaking out over the Dukes of Hazzard having a Confederate flag on the roof, etc., are the real outrage culture. People reacting to bullshit like that, not so much.


You always have something to be pissed off about. You're not different than them. They think they see outrageous stuff too.

[Gelston]

You always have something to be pissed off about. You're not different than them. They think they see outrageous stuff too.

Stop being outraged about his outrage.

[Taernath]

Stop being outraged about his outrage.

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/good-morning-america-what-are-we-offended-by-today-b8228.png

[Methais]

You always have something to be pissed off about. You're not different than them. They think they see outrageous stuff too.

I think you need to research the meaning of pissed off.


http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/good-morning-america-what-are-we-offended-by-today-b8228.png

http://i.imgur.com/Zm46ivb.jpg

[Gelston]

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/good-morning-america-what-are-we-offended-by-today-b8228.png

A robot killed a guy in Germany or something.

#Ludditesunite

[Methais]

I'm offended over TV Land pulling the Dukes of Hazzard.

[Gelston]

I'm offended over TV Land pulling the Dukes of Hazzard.

I'm not offended. I just think it is a stupid overreaction.

[Methais]

I'm not offended. I just think it is a stupid overreaction.

I'm offended by stupid overreactions.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

http://i.imgur.com/ygIpvkN.png

[Gelston]

I'm offended by stupid overreactions.

I still read that Back quote in your profile and laugh.

[Methais]

I still read that Back quote in your profile and laugh.

:lol:

[Warriorbird]

Stop being outraged about his outrage.

I'm perfectly all right with people being upset about things. It's their American right, whether I agree with them or not. People who get upset about things and stare down their nose at other people who do the same thing are silly.

[Methais]

http://cdn.iwastesomuchtime.com/8122012005928xbccgb.jpeg

[Methais]

I'm perfectly all right with people being upset about things. It's their American right, whether I agree with them or not. People who get upset about things and stare down their nose at other people who do the same thing are silly.

This is what outrages people:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_final_order_gresha.html

[Fallen]

What makes discrimination more palatable when it comes under the auspices of religion? I suppose it will take yet another supreme court ruling to make it clear freedom of religion doesn't extend to discriminatory practices against minorities.

[Wrathbringer]

This is what outrages people:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_final_order_gresha.html

$135,000 for their bad experience at a business (what?) and for the horrible press clamoring that followed (which they caused). What a scam. I'm in. Who wants to be gay with me in Oregon and attend 6 cake tastings a day in as gay a manner as possible?

[Parkbandit]

What makes discrimination more palatable when it comes under the auspices of religion? I suppose it will take yet another supreme court ruling to make it clear freedom of religion doesn't extend to discriminatory practices against minorities.

Let's take it a step further... do you believe a church should be forced to wed a gay couple in their church, even though their religion believes it to be not right?

[Androidpk]

Let's take it a step further... do you believe a church should be forced to wed a gay couple in their church, even though their religion believes it to be not right?

No.