'Merica: YOU ARE SO GAY!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, since Obama wasn't actually involved in any way, it isn't important who gets the credit / blame.

I'm sorry... Obama has no hand in this? Last time I checked, the only thing that matters in Presidential elections are the justices to be nominated and put on SCOTUS. Had McCain won in '08, this decision would have been 5-4 against Gay Marriage.

Why is it so important to you that Libertarians receive no credit for the work they did on this issue?

Who?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, extraordinary indeed. Like when the assembled townfolks decide that a nigger needs to be hanged for ogling a white girl, that their democratic right to decide, and the courts better mind their own business instead of declaring collective democratic decisions to execute a perpetrator "unlawful". Who do they think they are?

Oh for fuck's sake, get a grip. Only on here would you see such a grotesque comparison. You must be trolling.

Mirrorspeak from the right.

 

[ronburgundy]

You mean when you were talking about how gays should stop feeling the need to publically express who they are because bigotry against them is now done?

If you also held the view that blacks needed to STFU about racism after the Civil Rights amendment was passed, then I could at least credit you with being consistent.

1. You haven't answered my vitriolic question about my vitriolic post.
If they feel they need their version of a Santa Claus parade, then let them have it. I will continue to dislike that and to say so. I will not join in a Heterosexual parade, if one is ever organised, and will insist on making equally vitriolic comments about it. As far as homosexuality itself is concerned, I have no objections to it. The parade is sleazy, as would be the same parade of heterosexuals.

You haven't answered my question. Do you show the same disdain for all parades, from Eater to St. Pats, Memorial, etc.. If not, then your disdain for the gay pride parade is pure biased and bigoted intolerance. All those parades are celebrating identity, heritage, and honoring the fallen in wars against the enemy, which is exactly what the gay pride parade is about. In fact, one could say that all parades are pretty damn gay.
Do you call all parades "abnormal"? If so, that is idiotic because all of humanity has been having them for many thousands of years. Thus, they are the definition of normal. IF not, then your singling out gay pride parades reveals biased bigoted intolerance.

Parades speak to the sympathisers only.

So what? What is so disdainful and abnormal about people who are lynched, assaulted,and treated like sub-humans due their natural and biological features wanting to speak to people who are sympathetic to them?

In sum, your post showed such negative bias and emotionally-fueled objectively wrong sentiments coupled with a total lack of basic human empathy for why those parades have been important to that community which more than qualifies your post as vitriolic.

 

[4321lynx]

1. You haven't answered my vitriolic question about my vitriolic post.
If they feel they need their version of a Santa Claus parade, then let them have it. I will continue to dislike that and to say so. I will not join in a Heterosexual parade, if one is ever organised, and will insist on making equally vitriolic comments about it. As far as homosexuality itself is concerned, I have no objections to it. The parade is sleazy, as would be the same parade of heterosexuals.

You haven't answered my question. Do you show the same disdain for all parades, from Eater to St. Pats, Memorial, etc.. If not, then your disdain for the gay pride parade is pure biased and bigoted intolerance. All those parades are celebrating identity, heritage, and honoring the fallen in wars against the enemy, which is exactly what the gay pride parade is about. In fact, one could say that all parades are pretty damn gay.
Do you call all parades "abnormal"? If so, that is idiotic because all of humanity has been having them for many thousands of years. Thus, they are the definition of normal. IF not, then your singling out gay pride parades reveals biased bigoted intolerance.

Parades speak to the sympathisers only.

So what? What is so disdainful and abnormal about people who are lynched, assaulted,and treated like sub-humans due their natural and biological features wanting to speak to people who are sympathetic to them?

In sum, your post showed such negative bias and emotionally-fueled objectively wrong sentiments coupled with a total lack of basic human empathy for why those parades have been important to that community which more than qualifies your post as vitriolic.

You came in too late on this subject. I have done arguing. You can have your own views, and I'll have mine on this subject. Neither your side nor mine is entirely unemotional.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm sorry... Obama has no hand in this? Last time I checked, the only thing that matters in Presidential elections are the justices to be nominated and put on SCOTUS. Had McCain won in '08, this decision would have been 5-4 against Gay Marriage.

QFT. In fact, had any of the Republican candidates of 2008 won, including Ron Paul, this decision would have swung the other way. If any one of the 2016 Republican candidates win, their nominations will once again swing the court away from reason an humane principles. And the grotesque unreason and lack of integrity Scalia has shown suggests he will lead such a conservative majority to find a way to undue this current decision.
In fact, the Democratic control of the Senate since 2008 also helped this outcome, because had it been Republican controlled, they would likely have blocked both the Kagan and Sotomayor nominations and may have forced at least one of those seats to go to someone more likely to cave into the cowardly bigoted cop-out stance of "states' rights" over Constitutional equality.

My voting for the past 20 years has been driven mostly by hoping to expedite rulings such as Friday's. My understanding that every vote for any Republican makes such rulings and thus and progress toward rational and humane government less likely, is why I have not even considered voting for a Republican in 20 years and likely will never again, unless that party makes a clear decision to abandon its strategy of the last half century of actively 'courting the most bigoted and religiously zealous Americans.

Most so-called "libertarians" would defer to "State's Rights" on this issue, which is really just code for trying to protect the ability of bigots to oppress individual rights without the Fed stepping in to protect those individuals, like they so annoyingly did with Emancipation, the ERA, and the Civil Rights Amendment. People that actually care about liberty recognize that more oppression of liberty often comes from State and local governments than the Fed, and thus they do not pretend that "State's rights" is a valid principle for promoting real liberty.

 

[RavenSky]

Most so-called "libertarians" would defer to "State's Rights" on this issue, which is really just code for trying to protect the ability of bigots to oppress individual rights without the Fed stepping in to protect those individuals, like they so annoyingly did with Emancipation, the ERA, and the Civil Rights Amendment. People that actually care about liberty recognize that more oppression of liberty often comes from State and local governments than the Fed, and thus they do not pretend that "State's rights" is a valid principle for promoting real liberty.

The entire post was good, but this was especially so

 

[ronburgundy]

You haven't answered my question. Do you show the same disdain for all parades, from Eater to St. Pats, Memorial, etc.. If not, then your disdain for the gay pride parade is pure biased and bigoted intolerance. All those parades are celebrating identity, heritage, and honoring the fallen in wars against the enemy, which is exactly what the gay pride parade is about. In fact, one could say that all parades are pretty damn gay.
Do you call all parades "abnormal"? If so, that is idiotic because all of humanity has been having them for many thousands of years. Thus, they are the definition of normal. IF not, then your singling out gay pride parades reveals biased bigoted intolerance.

Parades speak to the sympathisers only.

So what? What is so disdainful and abnormal about people who are lynched, assaulted,and treated like sub-humans due their natural and biological features wanting to speak to people who are sympathetic to them?

In sum, your post showed such negative bias and emotionally-fueled objectively wrong sentiments coupled with a total lack of basic human empathy for why those parades have been important to that community which more than qualifies your post as vitriolic.

You came in too late on this subject. I have done arguing. You can have your own views, and I'll have mine on this subject. Neither your side nor mine is entirely unemotional.

The problem with your views are not that they are emotional, but that your sentiments are clearly shaped by negative emotions toward a group of people just because of their personal biological traits that have no real impact on you. Your willingness to make such blatantly false claims about the abnormality of their desire for these parades reveals the intensity of these emotions and how they control and distort your thinking on matters of fact. The fact that putting an end to the great burden on you of their parades is your focus on the day when they (and all decent people) won a major battle against a culture of cruel violent intolerance shows why the issue and the cultural bigotry is far from over and thus why the parades will continue.

Yes, I also feel emotion on this issue. I feel empathy for people viciously and cruelly attacked their whole lives for a biological impulse, empathy for their psychological need to push back against pressures to shame them into secrecy and suicide, and I feel anger toward those responsible for that cruelty or even just who enable it via dismissing it or detracting from it by acting like the potential end to the harmless flamboyance of their parades is the potential positive effect of the winning equal rights. Also, my emotions are not leading me to distort issues of reality in order to try and justify those feelings.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I understand this position, but to me that's not correctly described as "gay" pride.

It is. First, pride is not a feeling reserved only for accomplishment or merit. Pride is also about the sense of dignity and self-worth a person feels.

Canadian OED 2nd Edition:
Pride: ... 3a. knowledge of one's own worth or character; a sense of dignity and respect for oneself.

merriam-webster.com
1b. a reasonable or justifiable self-respect.

Most current dictionaries will include definitions along these lines along with the other meanings of the word. While they do not capture the nuance of the word 'pride', the point is that it is accepted that pride does not refer only to conceit or a feeling of merit based on accomplishment.

Second, the unifying factor for the proud people marching in the parade is that they are gay (though typically pride includes many others). I know you are already aware of that fact, yet somehow it escapes you that the succinct and typical way to associate these two concepts is 'gay pride'. When I say 'typical' I mean it's a common thing in English to pair two words together where the meaning of the new term is only understood by the contextual connection of the original terms. For instance, I know that the fictional character Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is a man made of marshmallows, while the fictional character Fireman Sam is not a man made of fire; he is a man who fights fires. A mailman is neither made of mail nor fights it, but rather distributes it. Two terms are paired together to form a new term which only makes sense with contextual comprehension.

Third, even if none of the above was true, the issue at hand was about not having the parade itself. What you said in relation to not liking the parade was not a good enough reason to stop having them was, "Unless you're like me and object to the notion of being proud of things that simply are and are not accomplishments" which is not what the parade generally does, regardless of the name. Unless you are a participant yourself, the name of the parade doesn't need to make a whole ton of sense to you if it makes sense to the participants.

 

[4321lynx]

You haven't answered my question. Do you show the same disdain for all parades, from Eater to St. Pats, Memorial, etc.. If not, then your disdain for the gay pride parade is pure biased and bigoted intolerance. All those parades are celebrating identity, heritage, and honoring the fallen in wars against the enemy, which is exactly what the gay pride parade is about. In fact, one could say that all parades are pretty damn gay.
Do you call all parades "abnormal"? If so, that is idiotic because all of humanity has been having them for many thousands of years. Thus, they are the definition of normal. IF not, then your singling out gay pride parades reveals biased bigoted intolerance.

Parades speak to the sympathisers only.

So what? What is so disdainful and abnormal about people who are lynched, assaulted,and treated like sub-humans due their natural and biological features wanting to speak to people who are sympathetic to them?

In sum, your post showed such negative bias and emotionally-fueled objectively wrong sentiments coupled with a total lack of basic human empathy for why those parades have been important to that community which more than qualifies your post as vitriolic.

You came in too late on this subject. I have done arguing. You can have your own views, and I'll have mine on this subject. Neither your side nor mine is entirely unemotional.

The problem with your views are not that they are emotional, but that your sentiments are clearly shaped by negative emotions toward a group of people just because of their personal biological traits that have no real impact on you. Your willingness to make such blatantly false claims about the abnormality of their desire for these parades reveals the intensity of these emotions and how they control and distort your thinking on matters of fact. The fact that putting an end to the great burden on you of their parades is your focus on the day when they (and all decent people) won a major battle against a culture of cruel violent intolerance shows why the issue and the cultural bigotry is far from over and thus why the parades will continue.

Yes, I also feel emotion on this issue. I feel empathy for people viciously and cruelly attacked their whole lives for a biological impulse, empathy for their psychological need to push back against pressures to shame them into secrecy and suicide, and I feel anger toward those responsible for that cruelty or even just who enable it via dismissing it or detracting from it by acting like the potential end to the harmless flamboyance of their parades is the potential positive effect of the winning equal rights. Also, my emotions are not leading me to distort issues of reality in order to try and justify those feelings.

You'll have to try harder and exaggerate more in your "diagnosis", and you'll be wasting your time if the aim is to get me to talk about this subject again.
Kindest regards, etc,
4321lynx

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You'll have to try harder and exaggerate more in your "diagnosis", and you'll be wasting your time if the aim is to get me to talk about this subject again.
Kindest regards, etc,
4321lynx

Happy Pride. Keep reaching for the rainbow.
-Skwerl

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ooh, finding out Libertarians were there long before the progressives is really rustling many sets of jimmies.

 

[4321lynx]

You'll have to try harder and exaggerate more in your "diagnosis", and you'll be wasting your time if the aim is to get me to talk about this subject again.
Kindest regards, etc,
4321lynx

Happy Pride. Keep reaching for the rainbow.
-Skwerl

I keep looking for the pot of gold at its end. Have you seen it? It's mine.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ooh, finding out Libertarians were there long before the progressives is really rustling many sets of jimmies.

No rustling.
Just asking for some sort of basis for all the bragging...

You laid the groundwork, you paid the dues, you were 'there' before 'there' was popular... Sure, fine, great.

But what did Libertarians actually accomplish?

 

[Ford]

Ooh, finding out Libertarians were there long before the progressives is really rustling many sets of jimmies.

They were there long before even the gays! I heard that libertarians in ancient Greece were responsible for the earliest gay rights legislation. Cave paintings from twenty thousand years ago depict libertarians standing up for gay rights. Some scientists even believe that Neanderthals had a small percentage of homosexuals, and that libertarian Neanderthals defended them with sharp sticks and free market principles!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Ooh, finding out Libertarians were there long before the progressives is really rustling many sets of jimmies.

They were there long before even the gays! I heard that libertarians in ancient Greece were responsible for the earliest gay rights legislation. Cave paintings from twenty thousand years ago depict libertarians standing up for gay rights. Some scientists even believe that Neanderthals had a small percentage of homosexuals, and that libertarian Neanderthals defended them with sharp sticks and free market principles!

Contrary to popular belief, Neanderthals were not the original "bears". It was actual bears that a certain subset of Homo sapien homosexualus liked -- (Not a horse named "Dallas"²). This is why Neanderthals went extinct and bears did not.<sup>1



1</sup>Source: HOT Bears v Neanderthals, The Scientific Journal of Reddit
²Lenny Bruce

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Ooh, finding out Libertarians were there long before the progressives is really rustling many sets of jimmies.

They were there long before even the gays! I heard that libertarians in ancient Greece were responsible for the earliest gay rights legislation. Cave paintings from twenty thousand years ago depict libertarians standing up for gay rights. Some scientists even believe that Neanderthals had a small percentage of homosexuals, and that libertarian Neanderthals defended them with sharp sticks and free market principles!

 

[Keith&Co.]

I keep seeing people complain that this should have been a decision left to the states.
But they don't seem to go further than that to come up with anything like a justification to continue the discrimination on a state-to-state basis.

What basis would they put forward as a legally binding reason to continue denying SSM?
The ickyness?

 

[Malintent]

So, they (the ??10%) are normal and 'accepted' and can marry, if they want to, in every State of the Union. Now can we please have an end to 'Gay Pride' parades? Just start living normally for Chrissakes, like the rest of us.

a-fucking-men, brother. Enough of all the damn gay already!

 

[ronburgundy]

I keep seeing people complain that this should have been a decision left to the states.
But they don't seem to go further than that to come up with anything like a justification to continue the discrimination on a state-to-state basis.

What basis would they put forward as a legally binding reason to continue denying SSM?
The ickyness?

"States' rights" is usually code for supporting state-sponsored bigotry and oppression of minority interests, without the Fed stepping in to protecting individual liberty as it should. That is why conservatives direct most of their ire at Fed government, because it is easier for them to have the super-majorities at the local level to undermine the core principles of personal liberty, equality, and democracy that all of their social policies run counter to.

Individual rights trump States rights, just like they did with Emancipation, the ERA, desegregation, and the Civil Rights Acts. Anyone talking about States Rights on this issue likely opposes the Fed overriding of States' rights on all those issues too, regardless of whether they have the honesty to admit it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"States' rights" is usually code for supporting state-sponsored bigotry and oppression of minority interests, without the Fed stepping in to protecting individual liberty as it should.

That's what it was looking like. It's less about rights and more about the opportunity to bully where they have control. But I was hoping someone, somewhere at least tried to offer an actual basis for an argument.

 

[laughing dog]

Ooh, finding out Libertarians were there long before the progressives is really rustling many sets of jimmies.

Actually, all we have found out is that, once again, you have made an observably false claim and then continued to literally pull hilariously false diagnoses out of the air.