Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-28-2013, 05:20 PM   #316
Blue Meth Addict
 
u2popmofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 36,960
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Who's Norm? One of the Prophets? The Gospel of Norm?


Follow his traditions, JT.
__________________

__________________
u2popmofo is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 05:35 PM   #317
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:06 PM
His appearance on Conan is still the single funniest thing I've seen on live TV
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 05:35 PM   #318
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Bono has made the point about the sexual obsession of many modern, politicized Christians and the relative lack of scriptural references vs. the Bible and Jesus' obsession with the less fortunate.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 05:38 PM   #319
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Have you guys seen what's been on the Family Research Council website since the SCOTUS decisions?



__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 05:39 PM   #320
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Oral day?

Even the little man on the poster looks like he's giving it a two hander
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 05:41 PM   #321
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Tony Perkins certainly knows what good fellatio technique with proper wrist action looks like.



__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 05:53 PM   #322
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:06 PM
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 05:54 PM   #323
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,331
Local Time: 04:06 PM
You guys are fucked up.

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 06:07 PM   #324
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,857
Local Time: 07:06 PM
I'm personally thrilled that there are some conservatives hanging around again. This place becomes mad boring when there aren't. It's like an echo chamber.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 06-28-2013, 06:30 PM   #325
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:06 PM
CA back in gay marrige business today.



Quote:
Court allows gay marriages to resume in California
Los Angeles Times | June 28, 2013 | 3:26 PM

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California.

The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 06:40 PM   #326
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:06 PM
.

Quote:
The illustrator called next week's cover "Moment of Joy."

"It's amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime," . "This is great for our kids, a moment we can all celebrate."

As you can imagine, the cover already has people talking. : " 'New Yorker' Outs Bert and Ernie."

Jordan Weissmann, of The Atlantic, : "Fact error by the : Bert and Ernie could not have watched the court ruling on TV."

Of course, , Sesame Workshop says the two male Muppets who share a house and a bedroom are just friends.

"Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation," the workshop said.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 09:39 PM   #327
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
That's fine.

If you think that all opinions demand tolerance, then I assume you also tolerate the opinions of racists, anti-semites, Islamic jihadists and so on. I don't.
First of all:

1) Racists
2) Anti-semites
3) Islamic jihadists
4) Focus on the Family

What ever happened to liberal nuance?

Second, your attitude doesn't bode well at all for a great many things.

1) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protection of Free Speech. Can we assume the days of a Fortune 500 company president questioning gay marriage i.e. Chick-fil-a, are now over? That no school board will be allowed to remove materials referencing SSM without sanction from state or federal education authorities? Will churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong lose their tax-exempt status? How soon can we expect new hate-speech laws?
2) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protect of the free exercise of religion. Will a small bakery that refuses to cater a same-sex wedding or a bed & breakfast refusing accommodations on religious grounds be allowed to do so without lawsuits, demonstrations or worse?
3) It doesn't bode well for the first Amendment freedom of assembly. Can we assume that soon membership in any private organization that does not recognize SSM will be akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan? That charities failing to "evolve" on the issues risk losing their charitable status?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 10:06 PM   #328
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,857
Local Time: 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
1) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protection of Free Speech. Can we assume the days of a Fortune 500 company president questioning gay marriage i.e. Chick-fil-a, are now over? That no school board will be allowed to remove materials referencing SSM without sanction from state or federal education authorities? Will churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong lose their tax-exempt status? How soon can we expect new hate-speech laws?
2) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protect of the free exercise of religion. Will a small bakery that refuses to cater a same-sex wedding or a bed & breakfast refusing accommodations on religious grounds be allowed to do so without lawsuits, demonstrations or worse?
3) It doesn't bode well for the first Amendment freedom of assembly. Can we assume that soon membership in any private organization that does not recognize SSM will be akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan? That charities failing to "evolve" on the issues risk losing their charitable status?
What is the virtue of doing a lot of these things (omitting the portions that are strawman arguments) for other issues of hate but not for gays?
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 06-28-2013, 11:40 PM   #329
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Who cares?
You should care. Given we have a process, a system, in place for self-government you should care, regardless of the ruling, about the court's usurpation of power. Quoting Scalia again in his brilliant dissent:

Quote:
"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseases root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."
Serious stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
This will remain an issue for fewer and fewer people who are inflexible and stuck in their ways and for the rest of us, life goes on just like it did before. I'm getting married in 7 weeks and I'm glad that the "new" definition of marriage is extended to all of our gay friends who will be celebrating with us, including one American couple who moved to Canada precisely because so many people in their country were hung up on dictionaries 8 years ago.
Hung up on dictionaries? Ok, let's use that law degree of yours. Do me a huge favor and write a short marriage law devoid of definitions or exclusionary standards and requirements. I'll wait.

If not, then what we have been doing in this country is debating the definition of marriage and who to include or exclude. Seems like a perfectly reasonable debate for a society to have.

But why try and win a debate when it's so much easier to just ban any debate.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 11:56 PM   #330
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

You should care. Given we have a process, a system, in place for self-government you should care, regardless of the ruling, about the court's usurpation of power. Quoting Scalia again in his brilliant dissent:

Serious stuff.

Hung up on dictionaries? Ok, let's use that law degree of yours. Do me a huge favor and write a short marriage law devoid of definitions or exclusionary standards and requirements. I'll wait.

If not, then what we have been doing in this country is debating the definition of marriage and who to include or exclude. Seems like a perfectly reasonable debate for a society to have.

But why try and win a debate when it's so much easier to just ban any debate.
You and Scalia are on the wrong side of history on this one. Carry a torch for this all you want, but the rest of the world is moving on.

As for your marriage law, are you seriously drawing a blank on how to change the language to "two consenting adults"?
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com