Social Sorry Abe, SF says you're gone

[blaseblah]

C'mon man, gay marriage isn't going anywhere. That ship has sailed for all but the last few holdouts and you'll always have that. Even most of the people who were opposed to it a few years ago are now just shrugging and moving on. The SC isn't going to overturn any of it, and whether or not some anti-discrimination laws continue to be debated, the chances of gay marriage being undone are zero. You have to know that.

Then why is getting rid of gay marriage still in the official Republican platform and why are they still appointing anti-gay marriage judges to the most powerful court in the country? Their actions and words say otherwise.

 

[blaseblah]

I completely doubt that. 20 years ago, Democrats were basically right centrists. Now they are bat shit insane. I get you're trying to make a point, but you don't have to use ridiculous hyperbolic statements to get it across. It's embarrassing.

Just because you were an extreme bigot 20 years ago doesn't mean everyone was. I've never been a Democrat, I'm an independent.

 

[blaseblah]

So, what you're saying is that all of the people saying "slippery slope" and that it wouldn't stop at Confederate statues were spot on - again? You know, for all the people who bitch about the argument of "I'm worried about what this will lead to," I'm suspecting that many aren't really arguing in good faith and are instead using that as a cover for actually wanting this stuff to happen. Simply put, we have seen again and again and again that the slope is slippery as all holy hell, and the people saying "What? Nooooo - that's silly!" are effectively just making sure we keep on sliding.

Stop taking those arguments against this being a cultural slippery slope seriously. The people making them are not that stupid - they're just hoping you are.

Again, this argument is always used to oppose positive change. It's a fallacy.

Draw your line in the sand and stick to it.

 

[mkess101]

Then why is getting rid of gay marriage still in the official Republican platform and why are they still appointing anti-gay marriage judges to the most powerful court in the country? Their actions and words say otherwise.

I would imagine (though I don't know for sure obviously) that they've deemed it a wise political strategy to keep it in the platform to pander to a small subset of their base that still actually cares about it. I'm guessing because they know most of their constituents don't really care either way so they won't really alienate them by leaving it in there, but it will appease a small amount of people that still want to die on that hill. Just because it's in there doesn't mean they have a prayer of overturning it even if they tried (which they won't).

The judges being appointed likely having nothing to do with their stances on gay marriage. If the SC even agreed to hear cases about it I'd be shocked at this point. And if they somehow actually overturned it, I'll be the first one here saying "Holy shit, I was way wrong." But that's not gonna happen.

 

[blaseblah]

I would imagine (though I don't know for sure obviously) that they've deemed it a wise political strategy to keep it in the platform to pander to a small subset of their base that still actually cares about it. I'm guessing because they know most of their constituents don't really care either way so they won't really alienate them by leaving it in there, but it will appease a small amount of people that still want to die on that hill. Just because it's in there doesn't mean they have a prayer of overturning it even if they tried (which they won't).

The judges being appointed likely having nothing to do with their stances on gay marriage. If the SC even agreed to hear cases about it I'd be shocked at this point. And if they somehow actually overturned it, I'll be the first one here saying "Holy shit, I was way wrong." But that's not gonna happen.

It's part of their official policy. Trump while in office enacted anti-LGBT policies. To pretend they are not a threat is laughable given their actions. Do I think they will succeed? No. But they are trying.

 

[nostradumbass]

San Francisco has over 50% more intravenous drug addicts than HS students, so if they wanted to spread their message, they should have renamed the needle exchange center instead.

 

[nhbbear]

Get ready for at least twenty schools named Fredrick Douglas or booker Washington high.

Also, this game sounds like fun. I have named myself to a renaming board and I have decided that Black Lives Matter plaza in dc is racist and I proclaim it all lives matter square

 

[Staph infection]

Is the insinuation here that homosexuals should not have equal rights?

Absolutely not, homosexuals should have equal rights. If they are married their spouses should be entitled to their health care, they should not be discriminated against for jobs or other things for what they are but I also feel there is no need to always throw it out there. I was using that as one of my examples because it was about basics rights for homosexuals but it just kept going from there. Now we have things like drag Queen story time and under agendas and programming being used under the guise of basic rights.

 

[Staph infection]

Get ready for at least twenty schools named Fredrick Douglas or booker Washington high.

Also, this game sounds like fun. I have named myself to a renaming board and I have decided that Black Lives Matter plaza in dc is racist and I proclaim it all lives matter square

I can’t wait for the Maxine Waters school of economics.

 

[Staph infection]

Thats what my ex boyfwend told me.

Both parties now what just the tip means. It is a way for the guy to get all the way in and a way for woman to allow it but not seem easy because the y an claim to was supposed to be just the tip but it went a little further. In the end both parties get something out of it.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Soon leftists are going to be pulling down statues of Martin Luther King Jr, and renaming streets and schools with his name on name on it.

 

[mkess101]

It's part of their official policy. Trump while in office enacted anti-LGBT policies. To pretend they are not a threat is laughable given their actions. Do I think they will succeed? No. But they are trying.

So...I'm guessing somewhere along the line you heard that in like a month, Trump isn't gonna be president anymore, right? Any hand wringing about Obergefell vs Hodges being overturned is just wasted energy imo. The threat of Biden expanding the court looms over it, and the more conservative members of the SC aren't going to try to die on that hill only to see their majority squashed because of something that the majority of Americans are fine with leaving as is.

It's much ado about nothing if you're actually worried about gay marriage being overturned.

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

creativity is natural even if seeming nonsensical to you. what can be, will be. it's not undoing the natural order of the earth like industries that empty their waste into nature. people love having retarded ideas about sex. the more convoluted, ridiculous, exploitive, self debasing the better. and nobody is going out trying to kill you with their prosthetic penis or surgery wound vagina, unlike the people who literally find it necessary to murder people for attempting to live these dreams that I don't understand. Their experience in these things and sub cultural phenomenons bring new theory and perspective on our world, whether you appreciate, or even really know if you appreciate it or not. the court of public opinion and the supply and demand of economies sorts these things out as far as where they stand. the masses generally don't give too much of a shit about whether or not a high school is named after Abraham Lincoln at the end of the day, and they're not majority jacking off to she-males or questioning the theory of their sexual biology either.

Well... That was alot of words that didn't really mean shit to anything I wrote...

It almost felt a reply from a bot programmed to give a generic reply full of b.s. talking points.

 

[hedidhisownstunts]

Well... That was alot of words that didn't really mean shit to anything I wrote...

It almost felt a reply from a bot programmed to give a generic reply full of b.s. talking points.

anything other than what fits your perspective doesn't mean shit to you. you have a small intolerant mind, that has trepidation about discovery and growth. it's not abnormal, but you can't blame people who see you imposing your problems on others for wanting to shake you and talk you down from all your adversarial aesthetic ultimatums.

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

anything other than what fits your perspective doesn't mean shit to you. you have a small intolerant mind, that has trepidation about discovery and growth. it's not abnormal, but you can't blame people who see you imposing your problems on others for wanting to shake you and talk you down from all your adversarial aesthetic ultimatums.

Let me get this straight... When a man says he thinks he's a woman and wants to cut his junk off... That's just discovery and growth? And the women who ended up with PCOS are just victims of discovery and growth?

Feel free to come try and shake me, people have lost teeth for less, just sayin

 

[S Class]

"Bu-but, they just want the Confederate statues taken down!"

Give them an inch, they will take a mile. Slippery slope, etc.

 

[hedidhisownstunts]

Let me get this straight... When a man says he thinks he's a woman and wants to cut his junk off... That's just discovery and growth? And the women who ended up with PCOS are just victims of discovery and growth?

Feel free to come try and shake me, people have lost teeth for less, just sayin

what do you care what elective surgeries some fetishist is getting for their pleasure theory? are women cutting their tits open to fill them with giant cancer balloons something you need to stomp out as well? or filling their asses with concrete and garbage for whatever their sexual or sexual-financial agenda is? people do sick shit with and for their sexuality all the time, it's just the one that doesn't fit your aesthetic that bothers you.
considering men transitioning to women seems to be your primary go-to, is this really just about your fear of men emasculating themselves and what this will mean for the overall theory of masculinity's value? why are you so threatened personally?

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

what do you care what elective surgeries some fetishist is getting for their pleasure theory?

I already explained it is not a fetish, it's a byproduct of using unproven and improperly tested synthetic hormones on the population

are women cutting their tits open to fill them with giant cancer balloons something you need to stomp out as well? or filling their asses with concrete and garbage for whatever their sexual or sexual-financial agenda is?

Are they demanding I refer to them as something that they are obviously not?

people do sick shit with and for their sexuality all the time, it's just the one that doesn't fit your aesthetic that bothers you.
considering men transitioning to women seems to be your primary go-to, is this really just about your fear of men emasculating themselves and what this will mean for the overall theory of masculinity's value? why are you so threatened personally?

I don't care how anyone gets their rocks off. I do however care about the mental health of people, and feeding into an obvious mental health crisis does NOT help anyone involved. I also care about young girls having to compete against boys, inhibiting thier opportunities to chase their dreams.

You're too woke for own good... You need to see a good psychologist yourself.

 

[mmawarrior20]

Abraham Lincoln didn’t have a high opinion like of black folks but he believed they deserved to be free and not slaves. I don’t know what to think of that and how it relates to wether or not removing symbols honoring him is a good thing

 

[Deorum]

Is the insinuation here that homosexuals should not have equal rights?

They have equal rights. That's been settled.

C'mon man, gay marriage isn't going anywhere. That ship has sailed for all but the last few holdouts and you'll always have that.

Absolutely not, homosexuals should have equal rights. If they are married their spouses should be entitled to their health care, they should not be discriminated against for jobs or other things for what they are but I also feel there is no need to always throw it out there. I was using that as one of my examples because it was about basics rights for homosexuals but it just kept going from there. Now we have things like drag Queen story time and under agendas and programming being used under the guise of basic rights.

SCOTUS is the only way they've ever been acquired, at least on a nationwide level. I'd gladly give up marriage (not marrying a dude), adoption (not and don't need to adopt a kid), anti-discrimination in employment (I'm my own boss) and the non-existent anti-discrimination in the provision of goods and services (I'll take my money elsewhere) if it meant crushing gay conversion therapy for minors in all 50 states. Also stop deranged parents from trying to turn their gay children into trannies.

* Since June 2003, sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex has been legal nationwide, pursuant to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.

* Since June 2015, all states must license and recognize marriage between same-sex couples as a result of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

* Since June 2015, adoption of children by same-sex married couples is legal nationwide, following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

* Since June 2020, United States federal law includes protections against discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation as a result of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC.

One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the first to address freedom of speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that ONE Magazine violated obscenity laws, thus upholding constitutional protection for gay content, writing and publishing.

Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962) was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which held that publications consisting of photographs of nude or near-nude male fitness models are not obscene within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1461. The majority found that portrayal of the male nude (and, implicitly, portrayal of the homosexual male nude) "cannot fairly be regarded as more objectionable than many portrayals of the female nude that society tolerates." Sherdog ain't tolerating that shit.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on June 26, 2013.