Marvel Comics makes history with gay marriage of superhero

[_Shulem]

You don't have a choice because we are going to pray the gay in you! Get your ass down to the gay club and pick out a boy. I'll pray for you. The Lord will bless you to know which boy to pick.

Paul O

You need a reality check, Paul. While "boys" may attract you, I feel as much sexual attraction to them as I do to concrete slabs, or porcupines.

If sexuality was so "elastic", then it would mean you could be gay by choice. Are you gay by choice, or were you "born so"?

For jezzus sake, Ray, I'm just teasing you and poking fun! I hope you're doing the same. I can't imagine having sex with a porcupine. That would hurt. And being attracted to concrete would really get me hard.



Paul O

[_Darth J]

Protest all you want, but this is the wave of the future.

Sure looks like it, so on the board where "all opinions are welcome":

Gay Marriage: The Hidden Agenda.

It's funny how the once persecuted can turn into the persecutors, or come to dominate through agendas. Checks and balances are always needed, whether it applies to Mormons or Gays.

As impressed as I am with the ridiculous pastiche of talking points, unsupported assertions, and fantasies about the history of civilization to which you linked, there are a great many people who do not accept the premise that recognizing same-sex marriage is a "leftist" issue. That would include lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown (sub nomine Perry v. Schwarzenegger at the district court level), who is very conservative politically. The current state of the law in the United States is such that the 14th Amendment requires same-sex marriage to be recognized. That is a legal conclusion, not an ideological stance. I have explained why this is so many, many times on this board. Please feel free to demonstrate the flaws in my equal protection argument, though. You might begin by asserting that the gay marriage debate is a false flag operation by the CIA to keep people distracted from learning the "real truth" about all the space aliens that are visiting our planet.

Have your rights, and enjoy your freedoms, but don't impose them on me.

Excellent, Ray. If a court in the United States determines that under the U.S. Constitution, same-sex partners can get married if they choose to, it means that you in Australia will be forced to marry another man. Your logic is as penetrating as it is inescapable.

[_RayAgostini]

As impressed as I am with the ridiculous pastiche of talking points, unsupported assertions, and fantasies about the history of civilization to which you linked, there are a great many people who do not accept the premise that recognizing same-sex marriage is a "leftist" issue. That would include lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown (sub nomine Perry v. Schwarzenegger at the district court level), who is very conservative politically. The current state of the law in the United States is such that the 14th Amendment requires same-sex marriage to be recognized. That is a legal conclusion, not an ideological stance. I have explained why this is so many, many times on this board. Please feel free to demonstrate the flaws in my equal protection argument, though. You might begin by asserting that the gay marriage debate is a false flag operation by the CIA to keep people distracted from learning the "real truth" about all the space aliens that are visiting our planet.

Earth to Darth J, let me know when you get back into the conversation. If the above had some relevance to my actual stance on gay marriage, and my understanding of it, I'd reply, but clearly it's a waste of time at the moment.

Excellent, Ray. If a court in the United States determines that under the U.S. Constitution, same-sex partners can get married if they choose to, it means that you in Australia will be forced to marry another man. Your logic is as penetrating as it is inescapable.

And yes, that certainly was my logic. You got it packed down well.

[_lulu]

As impressed as I am with the ridiculous pastiche of talking points, unsupported assertions, and fantasies about the history of civilization to which you linked, there are a great many people who do not accept the premise that recognizing same-sex marriage is a "leftist" issue. That would include lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown (sub nomine Perry v. Schwarzenegger at the district court level), who is very conservative politically. The current state of the law in the United States is such that the 14th Amendment requires same-sex marriage to be recognized. That is a legal conclusion, not an ideological stance. I have explained why this is so many, many times on this board. Please feel free to demonstrate the flaws in my equal protection argument, though. You might begin by asserting that the gay marriage debate is a false flag operation by the CIA to keep people distracted from learning the "real truth" about all the space aliens that are visiting our planet.

Earth to Darth J, let me know when you get back into the conversation. If the above had some relevance to my actual stance on gay marriage, and my understanding of it, I'd reply, but clearly it's a waste of time at the moment.

Excellent, Ray. If a court in the United States determines that under the U.S. Constitution, same-sex partners can get married if they choose to, it means that you in Australia will be forced to marry another man. Your logic is as penetrating as it is inescapable.

And yes, that certainly was my logic. You got it packed down well.

Allow me a moment of incrudulity. You're worried that you'll be forced to marry a man?

[_RayAgostini]

Allow me a moment of incrudulity. You're worried that you'll be forced to marry a man?

lulu, surely you're smarter than Darth J.

Of course not. The article I linked is not PC, but it raises issues that have been under serious debate in Oz for decades.

Let me give another example. Are you a Holocaust denier? You can be jailed for holding that opinion, and publicly expressing it, in some countries.

[_lulu]

Allow me a moment of incrudulity. You're worried that you'll be forced to marry a man?

Of course not.

Oh, good. Because that is what we are talking about.

[_Darth J]

As impressed as I am with the ridiculous pastiche of talking points, unsupported assertions, and fantasies about the history of civilization to which you linked, there are a great many people who do not accept the premise that recognizing same-sex marriage is a "leftist" issue. That would include lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown (sub nomine Perry v. Schwarzenegger at the district court level), who is very conservative politically. The current state of the law in the United States is such that the 14th Amendment requires same-sex marriage to be recognized. That is a legal conclusion, not an ideological stance. I have explained why this is so many, many times on this board. Please feel free to demonstrate the flaws in my equal protection argument, though. You might begin by asserting that the gay marriage debate is a false flag operation by the CIA to keep people distracted from learning the "real truth" about all the space aliens that are visiting our planet.

Earth to Darth J, let me know when you get back into the conversation. If the above had some relevance to my actual stance on gay marriage, and my understanding of it, I'd reply, but clearly it's a waste of time at the moment.

Ray, according to your understanding of Equal Protection jurisprudence in the United States, what is the constitutional basis for recognizing same-sex marriage?

And if "the above" has no relevance to your actual stance on or understanding of gay marriage, then it is somewhat puzzling that you linked to that editorial while demanding that people do not impose their freedoms on you.

Excellent, Ray. If a court in the United States determines that under the U.S. Constitution, same-sex partners can get married if they choose to, it means that you in Australia will be forced to marry another man. Your logic is as penetrating as it is inescapable.

And yes, that certainly was my logic. You got it packed down well.

In other words, people in another country (your article is about the United States) who are not you freely choosing to marry another person who is not you is not, in fact, imposing anything on you.

[_RayAgostini]

In other words, people in another country (your article is about the United States) who are not you freely choosing to marry another person who is not you is not, in fact, imposing anything on you.

Try re-writing that in plain English and I'll get back to you later. I'm busy with other things at the moment.

[_Buffalo]

Protest all you want, but this is the wave of the future.

Sure looks like it, so on the board where "all opinions are welcome":

Gay Marriage: The Hidden Agenda.

It's funny how the once persecuted can turn into the persecutors, or come to dominate through agendas. Checks and balances are always needed, whether it applies to Mormons or Gays.

Have your rights, and enjoy your freedoms, but don't impose them on me.

Is someone going to force you to marry a dude or something?

[_Darth J]

In other words, people in another country (your article is about the United States) who are not you freely choosing to marry another person who is not you is not, in fact, imposing anything on you.

Try re-writing that in plain English and I'll get back to you later. I'm busy with other things at the moment.

In other words,

people in another country (your article is about the United States)

who are not you

freely choosing to marry another person

who is not you

is not, in fact, imposing anything on you.

The subject of that sentence is a gerund: "freely choosing to marry another person."

The predicate is: "is not imposing anything on you."

The rest consists of dependent clauses.

But what a shocking twist, huh? Ray cannot respond when his premises are not accepted at face value, so he starts making it about a person instead of the issue he raised. I cannot imagine that anyone could have predicted such a turn of events.