It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: Libertas on March 26, 2013, 07:27:30 AM
-
I'm not confident, at all, it will be shot down and never seen again.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/21787312/high-court-gay-marriage-tickets-cost-time-money (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/21787312/high-court-gay-marriage-tickets-cost-time-money)
-
I'm afraid I share your pessimism.
And, like all ('freedoms' or 'rights', as they've been branded by MSM), it will not be easy to rectify this once decided.
So, can religious institutions still turn down unsavory marriages worst case scenario?
-
I am sure the Supreme Court has been compromised beyond repair at this point. When they can blatantly say the bill as passed is unconstitutional, but they will amend it so that "penalty" means "tax", while also claiming a tax of $1000s every year isn't burdensome, that have announced publicly that they are no longer going to do their jobs, and are instead cronies of the administration, willing to rubber stamp any new fascist policy they want.
They feel better about themselves when that make us bad, evil, bitter-clinger types do "the right thing" - and so you can expect they will find Gay Marriage legal, and they will then use that as a tool to "make you" accept them.
We may not win, but we should take out as many of these self righteous narcissistic liberal pricks as we can before we go. Shoot them in the back. Poison them. Torture them . If you don't believe others have rights, you can lay no claim to rights of your own. If you believe that a Democracy is legitimate because a majority decides , then we will obtain out own majorities of 20 or more in the back alleys. After all, if the "majority" in the alley decide to beat or rape you, who are you, a single individual in the minority, to object?
-
A minority . . . I'll apply for protected status! AA! ::danceban::
-
A minority . . . I'll apply for protected status! AA! :bananadance:
Yeah, but the application process is a little hard to swallow.
-
A minority . . . I'll apply for protected status! AA! :bananadance:
Yeah, but the application process is a little hard to swallow.
I see what you did there.
-
I am sure the Supreme Court has been compromised beyond repair at this point. When they can blatantly say the bill as passed is unconstitutional, but they will amend it so that "penalty" means "tax", while also claiming a tax of $1000s every year isn't burdensome, that have announced publicly that they are no longer going to do their jobs, and are instead cronies of the administration, willing to rubber stamp any new fascist policy they want.
They feel better about themselves when that make us bad, evil, bitter-clinger types do "the right thing" - and so you can expect they will find Gay Marriage legal, and they will then use that as a tool to "make you" accept them.
We may not win, but we should take out as many of these self righteous narcissistic liberal pricks as we can before we go. Shoot them in the back. Poison them. Torture them . If you don't believe others have rights, you can lay no claim to rights of your own. If you believe that a Democracy is legitimate because a majority decides , then we will obtain out own majorities of 20 or more in the back alleys. After all, if the "majority" in the alley decide to beat or rape you, who are you, a single individual in the minority, to object?
That really is the takeaway I am getting as well, SCOTUS seems to almost fully co-opted into advancing the statist agenda regardless what we the majority think anyway, so it is the minority trampling the majority by decree in order to make it appear the minority is the majority and once in place the manufactured new minority will have no say because the law is set in stone and pro-deviancy will be seen as the new mainstream/majority/normal. Abortion, Obamacare...deviant marriage...it doesn't matter, it's all about destroying the underpinnings of America...once her anchors are cut the whims of man will be set loose to wherever their passions lead them! Welcome to the beginning of the Pagan Nation of America, where anything goes, as long as it is sanctioned by the state!
I agree Weisshaupt, there is no reasoning with people willing to destroy the pillars we were Founded upon, there is no reasoning with pure emoters incapable of rational thought, there is no equal division of the nation and its resources with the looters, there is no religious freedom when any act of deviancy must be accepted by one and all at the point of a government gun!
In the end we will have to kill every last one of them!
-
I am sure the Supreme Court has been compromised beyond repair at this point.
Word.
In our upside-down world I have a hard time finding anyone who will admit to having faith or confidence in the court. At this point what we're witnessing (more often than not) is validation of our worst fears. It's easy for me - I said moths ago that if they upheld the Øbamanation that is Øbamacare I would cease to recognize their charter. They made their bed and I've made mine. They can do whatever makes them feeeeeeeeeel good - I'll not respect it or abide by it.
I always sorta liked the name Renegade.
-
Seven votes so far, including mine, and all predict the Roberts court will screw us again.
-
I voted for a narrow 5-4 punt on 3rd down. But ultimately who even cares anymore. This country is already finished. They'll get their sodomite marriage, and not long after we'll have marriages between 3+ people, marriages between siblings, children, animals, WTF-ever.
-
I love my pony ::applerump::, no, really.
I'm afraid you're correct about Roberts, he's done this before. He asked probing questions today that would lead one to assume he will rule in conservative. Leading us down the garden path before he cuts us off at the knees as he did on Obamacare.
-
Seven votes so far, including mine, and all predict the Roberts court will screw us again.
I haven't voted. I'm conflicted between the choices. The only one that doesn't have any basis in reality is "It will be defeated and never surface as an issue again" - as we all know rust and evil never sleeps. They will never give up trying to destroy civilization.
All of the arguments for/against are thoroughly worn out. I'm weary of all of it.
My public stance is simple: faggots attempting to change the definition of marriage is like mathematical illiterates trying to change the the equation 2+2=4. They can imagine any damnable thing that trips their hammer but that won't make it true.
Personally, there is a huge (and growing) part of me that says "go ahead". Because redefining the underpinnings of civilization will only hasten the day when it all collapses and I get to wreak my revenge.
Do it now while I still have plenty of ammo.
-
Seven votes so far, including mine, and all predict the Roberts court will screw us again.
I haven't voted. I'm conflicted between the choices. The only one that doesn't have any basis in reality is "It will be defeated and never surface as an issue again" - as we all know rust and evil never sleeps. They will never give up trying to destroy civilization.
All of the arguments for/against are thoroughly worn out. I'm weary of all of it.
My public stance is simple: faggots attempting to change the definition of marriage is like mathematical illiterates trying to change the the equation 2+2=4. They can imagine any damnable thing that trips their hammer but that won't make it true.
Personally, there is a huge (and growing) part of me that says "go ahead". Because redefining the underpinnings of civilization will only hasten the day when it all collapses and I get to wreak my revenge.
Do it now while I still have plenty of ammo.
Yes. And depressed, demoralized and just plain sad.
-
I voted for a narrow 5-4 punt on 3rd down. But ultimately who even cares anymore. This country is already finished. They'll get their sodomite marriage, and not long after we'll have marriages between 3+ people, marriages between siblings, children, animals, WTF-ever.
Oh come on. Deep down you have always wanted to see how bad bad can get. Now we get to find out.
They created a situation where every conservative is turning into a person who "just wants to watch the world burn", Get the lawn chair the gun and the popcorn, and just relax as it all falls apart. I know I want to take the time to enjoy the looks of terror on the liberals faces as it all comes crashing down on them. Its the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine - mostly because I know the liberals will largely bring upon themselves the suffering I wish for them, without me having to life a finger.
-
I'd like a Tom Collins to go with that popcorn, thank you.
-
I'd like a Tom Collins to go with that popcorn, thank you.
I can make that for you, and salud! with a glass of wine.
-
::thumbsup::
-
There was a brilliant comment by a Justice....this is like forcing a child to call someone his friend against his will....you may do that and you can do that, but by doing so you have changed the very definition of the word friend. You did not make the person his friend.
The same thing is happening with marriage. They will not make it a marriage, they will redefine the word to be meaningless.
-
All day yesterday and again this morning clips played of the oral arguments focusing on the Justices questions and responses with an eye toward predicting which way they'll rule. Shades of the Obamacare case, to my mind, the ruling on which came as a severe shock to most.
So, meh. More Kabuki theater.
I don't give a rat's ass anymore what any of them do.
-
Yes, Kabuki, reading the oral argument tea leaves one way or the other has led many a prognosticator astray from what the eventual ruling would be.
And as we all know, just because the Supreme Court deems something to be "legal" does not make it right, moral, or just.
Dred Scott said slaves were not Americans and had no standing and said the Federal government cannot regulate slavery in newly acuired territories, both elements were reversed only as a result of war.
Gitlow could be pointed at as the beginning of the supreme state making it more difficult for Americans who are jealous of their liberty from changing their government in the manner of the Founders because the "direct incitement" directed at the present government, we'll gosh, could have a field day with that cirteria today, eh?
Korematsu gave the thumbs up to FDR's Executive Order 9066 for the internment of Japanese Americans based upon the definintion of the "exclusion order". What was done once can be done again.
Griswald began the march to expel God from Public Schools, what followed was inevitable - greater power by teachers unions, an ever lefetward lurch in curiculum, higher costs and lower scores and moral behavior.
Roe came along and create an entire new right that never existed before and made it legal to slaughter millions of babies for the most trivial of reasons. The American Holocaust continues unabated.
US v Virginia ended single sex state schools and ended institutions like VMI, yet "black" colleges are allowed to exist, VMI and the other schools should have been allowed to continue! IS this the most prominent start of the war on men?
And on June 28th 2012 the nefarious ObamaCare law was upheld when the turncoat Roberts redfined a penalty to be a tax, thus making it legal, this is the day the Republic officially ended, everything after this point is just going to leverage off that fondation, the Imperial Government will not ever sucumb to peaceful transformation...and things will only get worse.
Bourbon, Single Malt, Rum...I'm easy to please aned I have my own chair. ;)
-
I'd like to turn loose Gifford's assualt pooch on Sergei the Sodomist!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299671/PUNCHES-fly-gay-marriage-advocates-opponents-clash-outside-Supreme-Court-landmark-case-heard-inside.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299671/PUNCHES-fly-gay-marriage-advocates-opponents-clash-outside-Supreme-Court-landmark-case-heard-inside.html)
-
I'd like to turn loose Gifford's assualt pooch on Sergei Sir Gay the Sodomist!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299671/PUNCHES-fly-gay-marriage-advocates-opponents-clash-outside-Supreme-Court-landmark-case-heard-inside.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299671/PUNCHES-fly-gay-marriage-advocates-opponents-clash-outside-Supreme-Court-landmark-case-heard-inside.html)
FTFY/
-
I'd like to turn loose Gifford's assualt pooch on Sergei Sir Gay the Sodomist!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299671/PUNCHES-fly-gay-marriage-advocates-opponents-clash-outside-Supreme-Court-landmark-case-heard-inside.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299671/PUNCHES-fly-gay-marriage-advocates-opponents-clash-outside-Supreme-Court-landmark-case-heard-inside.html)
FTFY/
::hysterical::
I'll go along with that revision! ::thumbsup::
-
And the torturing of the language escalates. Since yesterday afternoon, I have heard and read the term "opposite sex marriage" to describe marriage about a half-dozen times. I can't stand it.
-
Kinda retarded, isn't it? Opposite sex marriage? Umm, isn't that blurring things to make it appear it is two opposites being married? How many turnipheads out there realize they are talking about two "opposite sex" people of the same bleeping sex wanting to marry? It would be more honest of them if they termed it accurately - deviant marriage.
::gaah::
I just want to shove these people into a wood-chipper!
And the proof that the radical homosexer agenda was and is still all about forcing heterosexuals to accept their deviancy was exposed long ago when they got civil unions and partner benefits on par with married heterosexuals and said "that isn't enough". They want nothing less than to have the government force citizens to accept their behavior and to force every Church into apostate homosexer churches.
I say they can go straight to Hell and get their asses kicked every step of the way!
-
And the torturing of the language escalates. Since yesterday afternoon, I have heard and read the term "opposite sex marriage" to describe marriage about a half-dozen times. I can't stand it.
I don't prefer "deviant sex marriage" but I do like the term because it is offensive to people who are looking to be offended.
::evil::
-
They'll kick it back to the states and bow out.
-
Nullify!
-
Here we go:
Chief Justice Roberts' Lesbian Cousin Says He'll Rule in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage (http://joemiller.us/2013/03/chief-justice-roberts-lesbian-cousin-hell-rule-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriage/)
-
Hey, it's two sides of the same coin.
That's what SCOTUS will say.
-
And the torturing of the language escalates. Since yesterday afternoon, I have heard and read the term "opposite sex marriage" to describe marriage about a half-dozen times. I can't stand it.
I don't prefer "deviant sex marriage" but I do like the term because it is offensive to people who are looking to be offended.
::evil::
Within my sphere of control that really is about all I can aim for. ::evilbat::
-
And the torturing of the language escalates. Since yesterday afternoon, I have heard and read the term "opposite sex marriage" to describe marriage about a half-dozen times. I can't stand it.
I don't prefer "deviant sex marriage" but I do like the term because it is offensive to people who are looking to be offended.
::evil::
Within my sphere of control that really is about all I can aim for. ::evilbat::
I do strive to oblige ::curtsy4::
-
Nullify!
This issue does look like it is one that could be ignored by a lot of people/organizations, making normal people out to be criminals is but a preview of where everyone will eventually be categorized by The State. Resist or be a government slave, people better realize that is the last and only choice they will ever make.
-
And the torturing of the language escalates. Since yesterday afternoon, I have heard and read the term "opposite sex marriage" to describe marriage about a half-dozen times. I can't stand it.
I don't prefer "deviant sex marriage" but I do like the term because it is offensive to people who are looking to be offended.
::evil::
Within my sphere of control that really is about all I can aim for. ::evilbat::
I do strive to oblige ::curtsy4::
It's like tenderizing meat before a meal, so this meat is still kicking...for now! ::evil::
-
Now for our Feature Presentation
Remember When The Democrats Opposed Gay Marriage? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUkuEtcqzyA#)
-
And about 4 decades before that...I remember when Democrats fought Commies...then they became the Commies.
This is what Progressives do, the progressively go left and straight into Hell.
And they have to hold the rest of us hostage during the journey.
Time to sabotage the train .
-
I have no hope that the left will even understand when it all crashes and burns.
They're too stupid.
-
Yes, we can hear their weak "But we didn't know!" refrains already and they will be even less meaningless to me when they are uttered. They'll just get me even more PO'd.
-
Yes, we can hear their weak "But we didn't know!" refrains already and they will be even less meaningless to me when they are uttered. They'll just get me even m6ore PO'd.
My response to "But we didn't know" will be "we were telling warning you, you just thought that you were smarter than us". The next sound they will hear is "BANG!!!".
-
Yes, we can hear their weak "But we didn't know!" refrains already and they will be even less meaningless to me when they are uttered. They'll just get me even m6ore PO'd.
My response to "But we didn't know" will be "we were telling warning you, you just thought that you were smarter than us". The next sound they will hear is "BANG!!!".
So sudden, so quick!
You old softy you!
;D
-
Interesting observations by VDH ... (http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/confessions-of-a-counter-revolutionary/?singlepage=true)
"Gay Marriage
Sometime about a year ago, the long-held position of Barack Obama and the Clintons on gay marriage — No! — became, in Emmanuel Goldstein fashion, abhorrent. Indeed, they’ve become harsh critics of those who still believe as they recently did.
Most Americans are fine with civil unions and, in live-and-let-live fashion, don’t worry all that much about gay marriage. Nonetheless, why the sudden dramatic change, if not for brilliant messaging and well-funded liberal gay donors whose pledges were made contingent on fluidity on the issue?
Key to the transformation in popular culture was the radical change in the perception of male homosexuality. In the 1980s and 1990s — read the work of the late gay investigative journalist Randy Shilts, or the old videos of San Francisco parades or arguments over bath houses — there was the general impression that male homosexuality was both more promiscuous than either heterosexual or lesbian practice, and that passive sexual intercourse was a catalyst for the spread of the AIDS virus and hepatitis (suddenly a venereal disease in a way it had not been in the past) in a manner that “normative” heterosexual intercourse was not.
Mention of male homosexuality in the news was usually linked with sexual practice, and the result was not favorable to the majority of the public. The age-old word “sodomy” was not then the taboo term that it is now. That perception — reality, whatever one calls it — has now vanished. “Gay” is a non-sexual sobriquet that involves vaguely defined expressions of affection. To suggest that anal intercourse is statistically more likely to be unhygienic or, if practiced with frequency, to run the risk of either hepatitis or AIDS is now proof of homophobia. Indeed, so is the use of “homosexual” for “gay.”
Most of us do not think too much about it, other than to ensure that we treat people — in my case whether in evaluating students, grant applicants, or scholars — equally, with no interest at all in their sexual lives.
That said, the transformation in gay-advocacy strategy has been nothing short of remarkable, its signature achievement being that there is absolutely nothing much different between gay male and straight male sexual congress — and that those who believe there is are themselves bigots.
If so, we should soon expect the liberal popular culture — from the movies of Quentin Tarantino to the recent Spartacus series — to stop presenting anal penetration as an especially unwelcome sort of act, or a particular nasty sort of sexual coercion.
In the logic of gay marriage, liberal culture — art, cinema, movies, journalism, politics — will soon represent gay male sexual practice as an act as natural as any other, without value judgments of any sort attached to it. Also, I would expect in the years ahead that the law, as it does now, will not add enhanced charges like “anal penetration” or “sodomy” to sexual criminal complaints. I am confused in this progressive era why I still read that a particular sex offender suspect is to be considered especially odious, by adding details to his charges like “sodomy” or “anal penetration.” Why qualify, much less legally enhance, the particular details of rape?
Incidentally, in matters of sexual consistency, there should be no longer suspicions of adult males being Brownie or Girl Scout Masters, given that the gay rights movement has made the Boy Scouts themselves suspect for unfairly discouraging gay Scout Masters. Is a forty-year old heterosexual male any more likely to look upon young girls in untoward fashion than a forty-year old gay male would young boys? Gay marriage is not the end of a long struggle, but the very beginning of a brave new world whose contours we can only imagine."
-
[blockquote]passive sexual intercourse was a catalyst for the spread of the AIDS virus and hepatitis (suddenly a venereal disease in a way it had not been in the past) in a manner that “normative” heterosexual intercourse was not.[/blockquote]
Really? I didn't get the memo. I thought that homosexual intercourse buttf^&***g gay physical association was the number one way that aids, in the US, was transmitted.
[blockquote] liberal culture — art, cinema, movies, journalism, politics — will soon represent gay male sexual practice as an act as natural as any other,[/blockquote]
That's when they start burning the books and the movies too.[blockquote]
Gay marriage is not the end of a long struggle, but the very beginning of a brave new world
::outrage::
-
AIDS was introduced to the US by a homo male flight attendant in the late 1960s, who had been having their abominable sort of liaisons in Haiti. Everything about the homo male lifestyle and aberrant sexual practice is an ideal vector for diseases such as HIV. This is indisputable biological fact, and they can deny it all they want.
But to offer a point in support of what VDH describes (the rapid transformation in public attitudes), I remember even as recently as the early 90s it was still an ubiquitous playground taunt to call other kids "faggot". It was considered uncouth perhaps, but it definitely didn't prompt collective freakouts from the busybodies who would today order mandatory tolerance workshops in every classroom. When I was in elementary school in the 80s "Fag!" was just one of several slams against other kids, and it was almost never even in reference to suspected homo orientation, it was just a general purpose taunt. Really within the span of a single decade it went from being a common word to something as unacceptable as "nigger". That's an incredibly rapid transformation in the values of an entire society.
-
The transformation is mostly with persons younger than you. As colleges graduate increasingly more indoctrinated teachers the transformation increases exponentially. It's that old "give me a boy when he's four and when he's a man..." .
And that flight attendant..... a Frenchman.
-
"That said, the transformation in gay-advocacy strategy has been nothing short of remarkable, its signature achievement being that there is absolutely nothing much different between gay male and straight male sexual congress — and that those who believe there is are themselves bigots."
Pretty much encapsulates the process behind which our descent into Hell is achieved. ::gaah::
-
I wrote this for another site, and I'm not sure if I shared it here, but
Homosexuality is a Choice
The essence is that we are free to choose our behavior. In order to empirically study homosexuality we have to define it as a behavior, which is already the definition of it. Who you feel attracted to is a moot point, and any other chemicals in your body (i.e. emotions) are not important because no matter how we feel we have complete control over our actions, whether or not we exercise it.
I think the issue needs to be pushed. We need to clarify that homosexuality is a choice. From there, with it established that you can choose to or not to engage in sordid activities, we can then sort the issue out nice and impersonally.
If I could have feedback or suggestions, honestly that would help. I feel my logic is up to par and completely objective, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved!
--------------
Homosexuality is a choice.
-Why is it a choice?
Well, by defining the concept of homosexuality we are setting a definition. One that, if it is to carry any real, scientific weight, has to be based on the empirical (what we can observe). That's behavior. We can't use 'I felt attracted to him,' or 'I felt like a man in a woman's body'; these aren't objective or measurable to a reliable extent.
Can you tell me, to a reliable, concise, and accurate degree, how much you love your significant other? How physically turned on they make you? You can't, not in a way I can use to judge every other member of that gender. But you can describe behaviors, can't you? Because behaviors are visible and measurable.
So, we can define homosexuality wherever on the spectrum of behaviors (kissing, hand holding, fondling, sodomy, w.e. you choose). Now, once you engage in the agreed behavior (and for the sake of this exercise let's put it at fondling or better) you are engaging in homosexual behavior and thus scientifically definable as a homosexual at that moment.
Now, did anyone force you to engage in such behavior? No? Well what if they had a gun to your head and said they would kill you if you didn't? Then are you forced?
This is where Aristotle's idea of indeterminism and free will come into play. Don't worry; we've been using the foundations of his works in the formation of our ideals almost since they were first put forth.
Indeterminism and Aristotle
The gist of it is that, even with a gun you are not forced to do anything. You choose to.
You chose to make the decisions you make today, and they shape tomorrow, in which you are free to choose again your own decisions. Who you are is a direct result of who you were and what choices you made.
-"But gay is who I am!"
No. Being a gay is not who you are. It's your self identity. You identify with homosexuality, and thus you attempt to meet that schema (mental image) in aspects of your daily life. You choose to believe you are gay, you choose to engage in gay behavior; you chose to be gay by definition.
Okay, so far so good.
-But, what about genetics? The gay genes made me this way!
Aside from skirting responsibility again, this is not true. For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be. However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality. Anyone familiar with cancer or diabetes knows what that means, and I use these examples because they are the most prominent in our society. You have an increased likelihood of being at risk for homosexual tendencies.
Like any biological factor, the environment plays a fairly large role in it too. If you take a child from a family known to be tall and malnourish it chances are it will not grow to their full (height) potential. If you take a child with a predisposition towards homosexuality and fill him with a high level of sexual anxiety (caused by either extreme sexual repression or over-exposure to sex) then you are exasperating his risk, just like sitting in a tanning booth for a few hours a week will increase the risk of skin cancer.
-"This is stupid. You say I'm gay because of my actions and not how I feel? My feelings are chemical reactions and thus scientific! I feel attracted to men, so I'm gay, I can't help it! Anyone can choose to go out and get sodomized! Do you choose not to be gay? When did you realize you felt attracted to men?"
The first of a long line of emotional appeals laid bare; and attacking me personally to boot! Like any good scientist would do, we define homosexuality not off subjective emotions or feelings of attraction (which are indeed chemicals, triggered by environmental conditioning. In other words, your body releases chemicals because of signals from your mind, which was conditioned by your experience) but off of empirical and measurable behavior.
We explain how free will works, and how freedom of expression works. You were not forced to be gay. You are not guaranteed to be gay by genetics, the same way that genetics cannot force you to be creative or force you to be aggressive. Personality traits are conditioned after (and before) birth, although there are dispositions for them in the genes.
We explain that they are simply appealing to emotion. Society is capable of being swayed by emotion, and the media tends to support this with filtered reports only conveying one side of a story. But reality is objective, not subject to emotional appeal. Science simply attempts to follow.
[/spoiler]