Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Yes but after 21 pages, things had digressed.

If you think there should be a rule stating that threads can never go off track, take it up with the owner and stop bothering me.

 

You're bothering me.

 

This is why we can't have nice things. Or talk about politics.

 

Scoreboard my ass. She has gay friends but wants to not afford them the same basic rights she has. Hell of a friend.

 

A complete failure. you aren't correcting in accuracies. You are repeating them.

I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement that you were dead wrong in your characterization of my discussion with Tony, but that was too much to expect from you.

You can deny our problem all you want, but it is quite clear. If you have a problem with homosexuals marrying the people they love, you have a problem with homosexuals.

Don't try to tell me what I think, either. I never said you don't know any homosoexuals. I said you have a problem with them. And I do wonder if all those homosexuals you know are aware of your opposition to gay marriage. I'm guessing the answer is no.

You did support the Duggars. Anybody who reads the thread sees that. You were an apologist even when it was pointed out that the molestations continued even AFTER the first confession. And you continued to try to paint it as purely an internal family matter even though one of the victims was not part of the family. That is what I mean by dismissing her. We don't need more information than the fact that she was victimized twice, first by the son, and then by the family when they covered for the son.

And let's be clear on this. Criminal behavior does not stop being criminal just because it was 14 years ago.

And I'll still take that bet. I could use the easy money.

 

Why would you just accept the opinion of the "other side" when to do so requires that you "acknowledge" your own subjugation and eternal damnation?

Why would anyone ask a gay man to just accept the opinion of some "religious" people who think he is an "abomination" who goes against humans' very nature?

It's like asking black people to just accept the opinions of the other side that slavery was "justified" and "necessary."

 

You know OOP, it's possible to be against same-sex marriage AND not have a problem with homosexuals.

 

That would require (gasp!) two-dimensional thinking. Can't have that here.

You have to be 100 percent behind something that has been lawful for, oh, 0.0000229% of this country's existence . . . or you're a piece of shit and no friend at all.

 

Umm, what?

 

There are two facets to the marriage question: 1) What the couple does with one another vis-a-vis their relationship; and 2) What the married couple can compel, via the state, of others. Not that it's my position, but it's entirely possible that a person could conclude that same-sex couples shouldn't be free to compel others to recognize their union while also having absolutely no animus toward those couples.

 

Hot take:

YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

 

Sounds like gloating. Tsk, tsk.