It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?

What makes homosexuality (in particular) something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it?.

The odd thing is, that you even believe that our society and culture are being radically and fundamentally changed just because our society is now treating homosexuals equally before the law.

No one is fundamentally changing your life in the United States. What has been changing is that decades- even centuries of legal discrimination have been gradually eliminated. None of which affect you personally. Or any non-gay American.

What makes you think that Americans who are homosexuals do not deserve to be treated equally by the law?

 

[Syriusly]

What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?

How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity(homosexual behavior) somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?y.

I view the government's role in 'controlling our sexual urges' to start when 'our sexual urges' infringe on another person's rights.

You may want to screw Angelina Jolie, and with her consent, government should not be involved or care. Only when you attempt to have sex with her without her consent should the government get involved.

And that involves all forms of sex when it comes to consent- people who cannot give consent- children, mentally incompetent, drugged and intoxicated- then there is a role for government to be involved- in protecting one person from the attack of another person.

But if you as a single man want to go out every night to bars, and hook up with a different man or woman every night- the government has no role in regulating your testoterone.

Now- if you believe that government has a role in promoting monogamy- well then we have a government program that supposedly promotes monogamy- that is called marriage.

The program you want to deny to gay men.

 

[Syriusly]

[. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

Boss: If you keep pointing out my lie- I will put you on ignore- and I mean it!

 

[Boss]

What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.

No, what I wrote were questions you called "sentences" and tried to apply some kind of weird Marxist sentence diagram upon.. Borrowing from one according to ability and giving to another according to need. I pointed out; "first of all, those are questions." As in... those are not "just sentences" but rather, questions, which you have not answered. You failed to grasp context, just like you did in the other sentence you were obsessing on... just like you do in so many instances.

I do not have the time or patience to break down every nuance of context you miss and then decide to derail the conversation over. If you can't control this behavior you are going to be ignored by me. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

You've had this quoted to you on multiple occasions, but I'll do it again to highlight your lie.

First of all, those are questions and not sentences.

You clearly say they are not sentences. You did not say they are not just sentences.

You clearly often do not mean what you say, but rather mean something else entirely. Apparently when you say something is not a sentence what you mean is it is not just a sentence.

Again, if my pointing out your errors and lies is too damaging to your fragile ego, put me on ignore. It won't ruin my day.

Well, no... I don't communicate like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand English or context and needs everything dissected and explained in specific nuanced detail because such a conversation would take forever. I don't know of anyone who communicates that way, including you. I could take the post you just made and find dozens of grammatical errors and mistakes in composition... I don't do that because I'm not a smart ass who wants to derail the conversation and try to be cute. In 100% of all sentences ever composed, there is some other way it could have been composed to say the same thing. However, in a college English Composition class, there is probably only one way it can be composed correctly. We're not in an English Composition class. The point of me posting is not so that you can myopically pick apart details to derail the conversation by being a smart ass. If you believe that is your responsibility or obligation, you're going to find yourself on ignore really quickly because I will no longer tolerate it. Has nothing to do with my ego.

 

[Montrovant]

What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.

No, what I wrote were questions you called "sentences" and tried to apply some kind of weird Marxist sentence diagram upon.. Borrowing from one according to ability and giving to another according to need. I pointed out; "first of all, those are questions." As in... those are not "just sentences" but rather, questions, which you have not answered. You failed to grasp context, just like you did in the other sentence you were obsessing on... just like you do in so many instances.

I do not have the time or patience to break down every nuance of context you miss and then decide to derail the conversation over. If you can't control this behavior you are going to be ignored by me. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

You've had this quoted to you on multiple occasions, but I'll do it again to highlight your lie.

First of all, those are questions and not sentences.

You clearly say they are not sentences. You did not say they are not just sentences.

You clearly often do not mean what you say, but rather mean something else entirely. Apparently when you say something is not a sentence what you mean is it is not just a sentence.

Again, if my pointing out your errors and lies is too damaging to your fragile ego, put me on ignore. It won't ruin my day.

Well, no... I don't communicate like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand English or context and needs everything dissected and explained in specific nuanced detail because such a conversation would take forever. I don't know of anyone who communicates that way, including you. I could take the post you just made and find dozens of grammatical errors and mistakes in composition... I don't do that because I'm not a smart ass who wants to derail the conversation and try to be cute. In 100% of all sentences ever composed, there is some other way it could have been composed to say the same thing. However, in a college English Composition class, there is probably only one way it can be composed correctly. We're not in an English Composition class. The point of me posting is not so that you can myopically pick apart details to derail the conversation by being a smart ass. If you believe that is your responsibility or obligation, you're going to find yourself on ignore really quickly because I will no longer tolerate it. Has nothing to do with my ego.

To summarize : You said something different from what you claimed. You are unwilling to admit it and so will pretend it is simply me trying to derail the conversation and ignoring context.

I don't know how much clearer it can be than to quote what you said and see that it is different from what you claim. You want to put me on ignore? Go ahead. You want to move on from the thing you don't want to admit you said? Go ahead. Maybe you could actually answer my questions, the way I answered yours......but probably not.

 

[Sally Vater]

Reversing the unconstitutional same-sex marriage decision will not be that difficult. All that's needed is one constitutional lawyer to replace one of the activist lawyers. That's why the election of a conservative president is vital.

 

[Boss]

What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?

Again... not the question I asked.

What makes homosexuality (in particular) something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it?

How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity(homosexual behavior) somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

As anyone can clearly see, I am not simply asking why homosexuality requires a change in society.

I'll reply again.

I do not believe homosexuality is something that we have to change our culture and society radically and fundamentally to attempt normalizing it. I disagree that it has to be done, I disagree that our society is radically changed by the acceptance of homosexuality. I believe that all societies change over time and this is simply an example of that. If anything the view of homosexuality as acceptable could be seen as just one of many changes to the sexual mores of American society.

I don't think homosexual behavior is inherently promiscuous. I think men are much more sex-oriented than women, generally speaking, so with gay men the likelihood of promiscuity goes up. I don't believe that homosexuality overcomes the boundaries of reason, I don't believe that homosexuals are somehow unable to control their sexual urges. That is your projection on me.

I have answered your questions again. Strangely, despite your complaints, you still have not answered mine.

I do not believe homosexuality is something that we have to change our culture and society radically and fundamentally to attempt normalizing it.
I didn't ask if you believed it was, I asked you why.

I disagree that it has to be done, I disagree that our society is radically changed by the acceptance of homosexuality.
Again... didn't ask you whether you disagree or agree.

I believe that all societies change over time and this is simply an example of that.
But it's not an example of that. Society did not change the definition of marriage, in many cases, society solidified the definition by law and the SCOTUS made a 5-4 ruling to overturn what society did.

I don't believe that homosexuals are somehow unable to control their sexual urges.
Again... didn't ask you what you believed. I asked why it is treated this way in our collective reasoning in determining a redefinition of marriage. And yes, I stated that a different way.

As for any questions you've asked, I must have missed those in all the minutia over trivial grammar errors you want to nit pick and derail the conversation over.

 

[Boss]

[. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

Boss: If you keep pointing out my lie- I will put you on ignore- and I mean it!

Well... YOU are going on ignore right now. Just for being a generally annoying antagonistic punk who never has anything of value to contribute to the conversation. You see, I don't respect you as much and Montro.. he has been known to actually engage in meaningful conversation at times, when he's not trying to be an obtuse smart ass. That's why he gets a warning and you do not.

...Buh-bye punk! Nice knowing ya!

 

[Syriusly]

[. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

Boss: If you keep pointing out my lie- I will put you on ignore- and I mean it!

Well... YOU are going on ignore right now. Just for being a generally annoying antagonistic punk who never has anything of value to contribute to the conversation. You see, I don't respect you as much and Montro.. he has been known to actually engage in meaningful conversation at times, when he's not trying to be an obtuse smart ass. That's why he gets a warning and you do not.

...Buh-bye punk! Nice knowing ya!

LOL- like all cowardly bullies- Run Away! Run Away!

 

[Syriusly]

Reversing the unconstitutional same-sex marriage decision will not be that difficult. All that's needed is one constitutional lawyer to replace one of the activist lawyers. That's why the election of a conservative president is vital.

LOL.....'all thats needed'......

Conservatives are so funny.

 

[Syriusly]

What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.

No, what I wrote were questions you called "sentences" and tried to apply some kind of weird Marxist sentence diagram upon.. Borrowing from one according to ability and giving to another according to need. I pointed out; "first of all, those are questions." As in... those are not "just sentences" but rather, questions, which you have not answered. You failed to grasp context, just like you did in the other sentence you were obsessing on... just like you do in so many instances.

I do not have the time or patience to break down every nuance of context you miss and then decide to derail the conversation over. If you can't control this behavior you are going to be ignored by me. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

You've had this quoted to you on multiple occasions, but I'll do it again to highlight your lie.

First of all, those are questions and not sentences.

You clearly say they are not sentences. You did not say they are not just sentences.

You clearly often do not mean what you say, but rather mean something else entirely. Apparently when you say something is not a sentence what you mean is it is not just a sentence.

Again, if my pointing out your errors and lies is too damaging to your fragile ego, put me on ignore. It won't ruin my day.

Well, no... I don't communicate like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand English or context and needs everything dissected and explained in specific nuanced detail because such a conversation would take forever. I don't know of anyone who communicates that way, including you. I could take the post you just made and find dozens of grammatical errors and mistakes in composition... I don't do that because I'm not a smart ass who wants to derail the conversation and try to be cute. In 100% of all sentences ever composed, there is some other way it could have been composed to say the same thing. However, in a college English Composition class, there is probably only one way it can be composed correctly. We're not in an English Composition class. The point of me posting is not so that you can myopically pick apart details to derail the conversation by being a smart ass. If you believe that is your responsibility or obligation, you're going to find yourself on ignore really quickly because I will no longer tolerate it. Has nothing to do with my ego.

To summarize : You said something different from what you claimed. You are unwilling to admit it and so will pretend it is simply me trying to derail the conversation and ignoring context.

I don't know how much clearer it can be than to quote what you said and see that it is different from what you claim. You want to put me on ignore? Go ahead. You want to move on from the thing you don't want to admit you said? Go ahead. Maybe you could actually answer my questions, the way I answered yours......but probably not.

Boss basically is dishonest.

I pointed this out earlier in this thread when he lied about what he had said repeatedly before.

Hell he is dishonest about his own OP- his screed calling for Americans to go back to discriminating against homosexuals- which he then pretends is nothing of the sort.

Just a bitter homophobe who is still scared that the big bad homosexuals all want to force him to have sex with him.

 

[Montrovant]

What questions have I left unanswered? Why homosexuality requires a change in society?

Again... not the question I asked.

What makes homosexuality (in particular) something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it?

How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity(homosexual behavior) somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

As anyone can clearly see, I am not simply asking why homosexuality requires a change in society.

I'll reply again.

I do not believe homosexuality is something that we have to change our culture and society radically and fundamentally to attempt normalizing it. I disagree that it has to be done, I disagree that our society is radically changed by the acceptance of homosexuality. I believe that all societies change over time and this is simply an example of that. If anything the view of homosexuality as acceptable could be seen as just one of many changes to the sexual mores of American society.

I don't think homosexual behavior is inherently promiscuous. I think men are much more sex-oriented than women, generally speaking, so with gay men the likelihood of promiscuity goes up. I don't believe that homosexuality overcomes the boundaries of reason, I don't believe that homosexuals are somehow unable to control their sexual urges. That is your projection on me.

I have answered your questions again. Strangely, despite your complaints, you still have not answered mine.

I do not believe homosexuality is something that we have to change our culture and society radically and fundamentally to attempt normalizing it.
I didn't ask if you believed it was, I asked you why.

I disagree that it has to be done, I disagree that our society is radically changed by the acceptance of homosexuality.
Again... didn't ask you whether you disagree or agree.

I believe that all societies change over time and this is simply an example of that.
But it's not an example of that. Society did not change the definition of marriage, in many cases, society solidified the definition by law and the SCOTUS made a 5-4 ruling to overturn what society did.

I don't believe that homosexuals are somehow unable to control their sexual urges.
Again... didn't ask you what you believed. I asked why it is treated this way in our collective reasoning in determining a redefinition of marriage. And yes, I stated that a different way.

As for any questions you've asked, I must have missed those in all the minutia over trivial grammar errors you want to nit pick and derail the conversation over.

Now you expect me to accept your premise and proceed from there?

1. I can't answer why if I don't believe it is true.

2. Luckily I am not limited to simply answering any questions you may ask.

3. See 2.

4. The definition of marriage was changing before the Obergefell ruling. The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again. Same sex marriage was legal in multiple states before Obergefell, and while most were the result of court action, some were based on legislation or referendum. Further, the idea of same sex marriage had been gaining acceptance among the populace regardless of the court ruling. You may wish that the courts had stayed out of it and that same sex marriage didn't occur until every state passed legislation for it (or more likely, you hoped states would not) but that doesn't change that the number of people who are OK with same sex marriage has grown quite a lot in the past couple of decades.

Thanks for once again showing your hypocrisy in not answering my questions. Your excuse that you 'must have missed those' isn't even flimsy. You want others to answer all of your questions (and apparently accept the premise for those questions as well) but won't even go back a couple of posts to find and answer mine.

 

[Dragonlady]

Canada has had same sex marriage for more than 10 years now. There has been noticeable impact on the rest of us except we occasionally get invited to weddings and anniversary parties for our gays friends.

The American right's angst over gay marriage is laughable from my perspective.

For people who do go on about YOUR religious freedom, you sure want a lot of say about other peoples' freedom of religion.

Can you say "hypocrites" boys and girls? I knew you could.

 

[Boss]

The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.

No, the definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and woman. The legal regulatory parameters of marriage has changed. And now it has been established marriage can be whatever we need it to be in order to accommodate our sexual urges. So yes... it's gonna change radically.

 

[Sally Vater]

What you wrote and what I was talking about were sentences.

No, what I wrote were questions you called "sentences" and tried to apply some kind of weird Marxist sentence diagram upon.. Borrowing from one according to ability and giving to another according to need. I pointed out; "first of all, those are questions." As in... those are not "just sentences" but rather, questions, which you have not answered. You failed to grasp context, just like you did in the other sentence you were obsessing on... just like you do in so many instances.

I do not have the time or patience to break down every nuance of context you miss and then decide to derail the conversation over. If you can't control this behavior you are going to be ignored by me. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

You've had this quoted to you on multiple occasions, but I'll do it again to highlight your lie.

First of all, those are questions and not sentences.

You clearly say they are not sentences. You did not say they are not just sentences.

You clearly often do not mean what you say, but rather mean something else entirely. Apparently when you say something is not a sentence what you mean is it is not just a sentence.

Again, if my pointing out your errors and lies is too damaging to your fragile ego, put me on ignore. It won't ruin my day.

Well, no... I don't communicate like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand English or context and needs everything dissected and explained in specific nuanced detail because such a conversation would take forever. I don't know of anyone who communicates that way, including you. I could take the post you just made and find dozens of grammatical errors and mistakes in composition... I don't do that because I'm not a smart ass who wants to derail the conversation and try to be cute. In 100% of all sentences ever composed, there is some other way it could have been composed to say the same thing. However, in a college English Composition class, there is probably only one way it can be composed correctly. We're not in an English Composition class. The point of me posting is not so that you can myopically pick apart details to derail the conversation by being a smart ass. If you believe that is your responsibility or obligation, you're going to find yourself on ignore really quickly because I will no longer tolerate it. Has nothing to do with my ego.

To summarize : You said something different from what you claimed. You are unwilling to admit it and so will pretend it is simply me trying to derail the conversation and ignoring context.

I don't know how much clearer it can be than to quote what you said and see that it is different from what you claim. You want to put me on ignore? Go ahead. You want to move on from the thing you don't want to admit you said? Go ahead. Maybe you could actually answer my questions, the way I answered yours......but probably not.

Boss basically is dishonest.

I pointed this out earlier in this thread when he lied about what he had said repeatedly before.

Hell he is dishonest about his own OP- his screed calling for Americans to go back to discriminating against homosexuals- which he then pretends is nothing of the sort.

Just a bitter homophobe who is still scared that the big bad homosexuals all want to force him to have sex with him.

Homos are Christophobic hateful bigots and should never be in a position of authority over decent people. They're mentally ill.

 

[Syriusly]

No, what I wrote were questions you called "sentences" and tried to apply some kind of weird Marxist sentence diagram upon.. Borrowing from one according to ability and giving to another according to need. I pointed out; "first of all, those are questions." As in... those are not "just sentences" but rather, questions, which you have not answered. You failed to grasp context, just like you did in the other sentence you were obsessing on... just like you do in so many instances.

I do not have the time or patience to break down every nuance of context you miss and then decide to derail the conversation over. If you can't control this behavior you are going to be ignored by me. I have given you fair warning this is going to happen the next instance and I will not continue to put up with it. If you don't want to take me seriously and you want to try and test me, you're going to find that I am a person who means what he says.

You've had this quoted to you on multiple occasions, but I'll do it again to highlight your lie.

First of all, those are questions and not sentences.

You clearly say they are not sentences. You did not say they are not just sentences.

You clearly often do not mean what you say, but rather mean something else entirely. Apparently when you say something is not a sentence what you mean is it is not just a sentence.

Again, if my pointing out your errors and lies is too damaging to your fragile ego, put me on ignore. It won't ruin my day.

Well, no... I don't communicate like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand English or context and needs everything dissected and explained in specific nuanced detail because such a conversation would take forever. I don't know of anyone who communicates that way, including you. I could take the post you just made and find dozens of grammatical errors and mistakes in composition... I don't do that because I'm not a smart ass who wants to derail the conversation and try to be cute. In 100% of all sentences ever composed, there is some other way it could have been composed to say the same thing. However, in a college English Composition class, there is probably only one way it can be composed correctly. We're not in an English Composition class. The point of me posting is not so that you can myopically pick apart details to derail the conversation by being a smart ass. If you believe that is your responsibility or obligation, you're going to find yourself on ignore really quickly because I will no longer tolerate it. Has nothing to do with my ego.

To summarize : You said something different from what you claimed. You are unwilling to admit it and so will pretend it is simply me trying to derail the conversation and ignoring context.

I don't know how much clearer it can be than to quote what you said and see that it is different from what you claim. You want to put me on ignore? Go ahead. You want to move on from the thing you don't want to admit you said? Go ahead. Maybe you could actually answer my questions, the way I answered yours......but probably not.

Boss basically is dishonest.

I pointed this out earlier in this thread when he lied about what he had said repeatedly before.

Hell he is dishonest about his own OP- his screed calling for Americans to go back to discriminating against homosexuals- which he then pretends is nothing of the sort.

Just a bitter homophobe who is still scared that the big bad homosexuals all want to force him to have sex with him.

Homos are Christophobic hateful bigots and should never be in a position of authority over decent people. They're mentally ill.

Christo Fascists are hateful bigots who have attempted to force EVERYONE to obey their narrow anti-American fascist agenda for the last 200 years. Now that they don't have the position of authority to tell decent people how they can live their lives they consider themselves big victims- but what they are are whiny assholes.

 

[Syriusly]

The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.

No, the definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and woman. .

No it hasn't. Boss just keeps lying about that.

Within the United States itself- the definition has included:
A man and several women
A same race man and a woman and for the last 11 years in the United States
A couple- regardless of gender.

Boss is both ignorant- and lies.

 

[Sally Vater]

You've had this quoted to you on multiple occasions, but I'll do it again to highlight your lie.
You clearly say they are not sentences. You did not say they are not just sentences.

You clearly often do not mean what you say, but rather mean something else entirely. Apparently when you say something is not a sentence what you mean is it is not just a sentence.

Again, if my pointing out your errors and lies is too damaging to your fragile ego, put me on ignore. It won't ruin my day.

Well, no... I don't communicate like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand English or context and needs everything dissected and explained in specific nuanced detail because such a conversation would take forever. I don't know of anyone who communicates that way, including you. I could take the post you just made and find dozens of grammatical errors and mistakes in composition... I don't do that because I'm not a smart ass who wants to derail the conversation and try to be cute. In 100% of all sentences ever composed, there is some other way it could have been composed to say the same thing. However, in a college English Composition class, there is probably only one way it can be composed correctly. We're not in an English Composition class. The point of me posting is not so that you can myopically pick apart details to derail the conversation by being a smart ass. If you believe that is your responsibility or obligation, you're going to find yourself on ignore really quickly because I will no longer tolerate it. Has nothing to do with my ego.

To summarize : You said something different from what you claimed. You are unwilling to admit it and so will pretend it is simply me trying to derail the conversation and ignoring context.

I don't know how much clearer it can be than to quote what you said and see that it is different from what you claim. You want to put me on ignore? Go ahead. You want to move on from the thing you don't want to admit you said? Go ahead. Maybe you could actually answer my questions, the way I answered yours......but probably not.

Boss basically is dishonest.

I pointed this out earlier in this thread when he lied about what he had said repeatedly before.

Hell he is dishonest about his own OP- his screed calling for Americans to go back to discriminating against homosexuals- which he then pretends is nothing of the sort.

Just a bitter homophobe who is still scared that the big bad homosexuals all want to force him to have sex with him.

Homos are Christophobic hateful bigots and should never be in a position of authority over decent people. They're mentally ill.

Christo Fascists are hateful bigots who have attempted to force EVERYONE to obey their narrow anti-American fascist agenda for the last 200 years. Now that they don't have the position of authority to tell decent people how they can live their lives they consider themselves big victims- but what they are are whiny assholes.

Homos are mentally ill perverts. Go live your life. Marriage is a male and female and always will be. Christians are good decent people. God Bless America and Israel.

 

[Montrovant]

The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.

No, the definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and woman. The legal regulatory parameters of marriage has changed. And now it has been established marriage can be whatever we need it to be in order to accommodate our sexual urges. So yes... it's gonna change radically.

So marriage has never been, say, a man and multiple women?

But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing. States, territories, even native tribes had incorporated same sex marriage before Obergefell. Other nations have also allowed same sex marriages. I do not know of any instance in which same sex marriage has been used as a winning legal argument to grant another previously disallowed union to become a legal marriage. Have you heard of any such instances?

You say it has been established that marriage can be whatever we need it to be to accommodate sexual urges, but that's not based on the actual ruling. That ruling, so far as I am aware, did not mention sexual urges nor use them as the ruling's basis. Any later ruling which might use Obergefell as precedent could have a hard time if it makes claims about Obergefell which aren't there. Obergefell cited equal protection and gender. Did it say anything about accommodating sexual urges? You may think that is the obvious real meaning of the ruling but I have seen no evidence that allowing same sex marriage leads to the various other forms of marriage you have talked about becoming legal. Can you cite a single instance of a state or territory or nation allowing same sex marriage and then using that decision to allow pedophilia? Zoophilia? Necrophilia? Immediate family marriages? How about even polygamy?

There are a number of other nations where same sex marriage is legal. In the Netherlands it has been legal since 2001, and before that they apparently had something like civil unions starting from 1995. Polygamy remains illegal in the Netherlands. I'm going to guess that they also don't allow people to marry animals or corpses, etc.. If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?

 

[Syriusly]

Well, no... I don't communicate like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand English or context and needs everything dissected and explained in specific nuanced detail because such a conversation would take forever. I don't know of anyone who communicates that way, including you. I could take the post you just made and find dozens of grammatical errors and mistakes in composition... I don't do that because I'm not a smart ass who wants to derail the conversation and try to be cute. In 100% of all sentences ever composed, there is some other way it could have been composed to say the same thing. However, in a college English Composition class, there is probably only one way it can be composed correctly. We're not in an English Composition class. The point of me posting is not so that you can myopically pick apart details to derail the conversation by being a smart ass. If you believe that is your responsibility or obligation, you're going to find yourself on ignore really quickly because I will no longer tolerate it. Has nothing to do with my ego.

To summarize : You said something different from what you claimed. You are unwilling to admit it and so will pretend it is simply me trying to derail the conversation and ignoring context.

I don't know how much clearer it can be than to quote what you said and see that it is different from what you claim. You want to put me on ignore? Go ahead. You want to move on from the thing you don't want to admit you said? Go ahead. Maybe you could actually answer my questions, the way I answered yours......but probably not.

Boss basically is dishonest.

I pointed this out earlier in this thread when he lied about what he had said repeatedly before.

Hell he is dishonest about his own OP- his screed calling for Americans to go back to discriminating against homosexuals- which he then pretends is nothing of the sort.

Just a bitter homophobe who is still scared that the big bad homosexuals all want to force him to have sex with him.

Homos are Christophobic hateful bigots and should never be in a position of authority over decent people. They're mentally ill.

Christo Fascists are hateful bigots who have attempted to force EVERYONE to obey their narrow anti-American fascist agenda for the last 200 years. Now that they don't have the position of authority to tell decent people how they can live their lives they consider themselves big victims- but what they are are whiny assholes.

Homos are mentally ill perverts. Go live your life. Marriage is a male and female and always will be. Christians are good decent people. God Bless America and Israel.

Many Christians are good decent people- as are many homosexuals. Which is not surprising since many Christians are homosexuals, and many homosexuals are Christians. And the ones I respect remember Jesus's first and second commandment. Unlike you.

Christo Fascists are hateful bigots who have attempted to force EVERYONE to obey their narrow anti-American fascist agenda for the last 200 years. Now that they don't have the position of authority to tell decent people how they can live their lives they consider themselves big victims- but what they are are whiny assholes.

Why don't you want God to bless Canada or Great Britain?

Specifically why do you want to bless a nation which rejects Jesus, but not a country like Canada which is majority Christian?