Actually, there are quite a few states, including my own, that legalized same-sex marriage through the legislative process or a popular vote.

The legislative process was allowed to operate in those states.  Kentucky was a "no."

So marriage was already redefined to include same-sex couples by the general public. The Supreme Court's job, as it usually is, was to reconcile the fact that there were two rules of law in the country

Wrong.

Centuries of marriage, my ass. It has evolved constantly over its history, whether allowing for polygamy, various rules about divorce, ....

Hey, hey, let's leave your ass out of it.   Yes, marriage has evolved throughout history.  So why was that evolution stunted, aborted and not allowed to continue its natural course.

What for?

Marriage is an institution that has existed for centuries, outside of govt as TRBB points out, and 5 powdered wigs say, no. Then the haters go and seek out people who they know don't want to play their games and have the govt FORCE them to bake them a same sex wedding cake. That's hate.  That's intolerance. Wake the fck up.

Is it tolerant and loving to not allow people to marry?

No, it's not... you're right.  But no one was being denied marriage.  Only when the Supreme Court decided it had the phantom ability to redefine marriage does this now occur.  The states, legislature, and citizens that make up a society and it's laws didn't decide this.  Very similar to abortion.  The society did not decide this... there was no meeting.  No vote.

You're being ruled by judicial fiat. This should concern a free society.

Mr. Bag,

I have a quick simple question for you.

How exactly does a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, affect you? 

That seems to be a question that nobody who is against same sex marriage can answer. 

It doesn't.

You'll get it when you get it.

M.I.U
Lost In Iowa

 

Getting old sux.  But it beats the alternative!

What is it about American culture that creates this fear?

There's a lot more money here and it's way more accessible than in say a communist or socialist "paradise" where the wealth and power has been secured for the ruling class.  So there's still money available (though it's dwindled greatly under Obama).  And there's also liberty.  With liberty comes social mobility which can acquire things like money and power.

So... in America, a culture that traditionally embraces liberty and free will, there's a healthy distrust for things that don't.  Such as single payer, abortion and other choice-less endeavors.  Anything requiring a citizen to comply and give up their rights (often in the name of "granting" them a new right -- gotta love that one!) -- just isn't trusted.  Simple as that.  For the reasons I mentioned.  Take away people's liberty... you take away their ability to acquire wealth and power.

Loaf, you're so wrong it's icky. The hate is coming from militant leftists pushing an agenda that most - not even close - most Americans do not want. That's the hate.  Men and women are different (in case you're clueless) and when they get together and get married it's a unique thing.

Marriage is an institution that has existed for centuries, outside of govt as TRBB points out, and 5 powdered wigs say, no. Then the haters go and seek out people who they know don't want to play their games and have the govt FORCE them to bake them a same sex wedding cake. That's hate.  That's intolerance. Wake the fck up.

Stop accusing good people of the sht your left wing slobs do. Nobody fcking hates gays. Marriage is a special institution for a man and a woman. It's not about hating gays or whatever perverse fantasy the left wing media wants you to believe. It's about a small militant minoirty of hateful activists who don't want anyone to have anything special and unique.

Fcking haters. Cheer 'em on if you like, but but don't blame the victims of oppression for being hateful.

You should become a vegetarian like me.

   What if someone becomes a vegetarian AND a tree-hugger?  Let alone, if they're a college "educated" Leftist, which sees mankind as a disease and the planet's biggest threat -- do they become cannibals?

The answer is yes.

oic
i
c

Well, yea.  But I think vegetarianism, is pretty cool.  I do mean that.  As a kid I thought they were crazy people.  And ... shoot, maybe they still are.  Killing and eating the vegetables.  BUT... I do appreciate vegetables more at my stage.  So I'm practically there.

Yeah, sure... but what's with the backhanded "torching the oil fields" smear of Reagan?    The Left is always slashing and burning and attacking.  The incessant twisted revisionist propaganda against Reagan is a pale attempt to loot the unsuspecting of their worthy admiration and keep the Left's adversaries on the defensive.  They're never happy.  I'm not going down that path and chasing that rabbit at the moment, but I do want people to understand what's happening and the devious sort we're dealing with.

 

Reagan's history on abortion is not what his adversaries want it to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan-ebook/dp/B004NEVLMU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441803099&sr=8-1&keywords=reagan+abortion

I have no idea what this post even means? What are you trying to say?

Are you even disputing anything I wrote?

However, to paraphrase TRBB, your logical fallacies are your straw men

Cut the "I'm slow.  Explain yourself to me, I'm just a simple farmer" routine.  You're a liberal.  You're cocked and loaded.  The two acts don't mesh as well as you think.

And if you're truly a stumped bumpkin -- and frankly, I'm starting to believe -- I'll grant you a 2 week pass.  But, please.  Do not respond until you've thought about it for 2 weeks. 

Two weeks, Loaf. Two whole fcking weeks.   

----

For those who are versed on these matters (not you Loaf, you sit the rest of this post out) -- liberals have to change the subject.  They have to.  That's what they do.  And yes, often to Reagan, as Loaf just did.  Liberals are hung up on the guy so badly.  They feel the need to discredit him.  They can't let it go.  Even though he's dead.  They can't accept it.

Anyway... the "do you dispute anything I wrote?" act, is the lame bait for the subject change.  That's what liberals do.  That's the tactic.  Liberalism is a puny little arrogant ideology whose whole agenda is to keep people from believing what they know in their heart is true.  Write that down.

And if attacking an accomplished warrior like Reagan is something that they think will make people doubt what they believe is good and true (it won't) -- then by God, they'll do it.  So if someone wants to play cat and mouse with Loaf on Reagan's history on abortion, please be my guest.  Loaf seems like a reasonable guy, and will eventually admit when the jig's up.  But you have to do the dance.  For me, life's too short and I'd rather dance with my wife.  So, I'll let him stew for 2 weeks.

Gosh, I sure hope Loaf didn't read any of that.  Do you think he did?  I beginning to think nobody reads anything I write...   

You should become a vegetarian like me.

   What if someone becomes a vegetarian AND a tree-hugger?  Let alone, if they're a college "educated" Leftist, which sees mankind as a disease and the planet's biggest threat -- do they become cannibals?

The answer is yes.

Yeah, sure... but what's with the backhanded "torching the oil fields" smear of Reagan?    The Left is always slashing and burning and attacking.  The incessant twisted revisionist propaganda against Reagan is a pale attempt to loot the unsuspecting of their worthy admiration and keep the Left's adversaries on the defensive.  They're never happy.  I'm not going down that path and chasing that rabbit at the moment, but I do want people to understand what's happening and the devious sort we're dealing with.

 

Reagan's history on abortion is not what his adversaries want it to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan-ebook/dp/B004NEVLMU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441803099&sr=8-1&keywords=reagan+abortion

My position is easy to understand. If you believe a baby is a human being. You're stuck on what we do after the body or head arrives "eyes closed" to avoid the horror of opening the box. I don't care if they're making soup to feed the homeless. It's wrong.

The point of these horrendous videos (that most human beings find bone chilling) is the callous and breezy nature with which this is conducted -- illustrating a human society that has devolved into something most find unrecognizable.  The depths of depravity and selfishness required to accept this sort of behavior -- let alone to conduct it as casually as ordering a f-cking pizza -- is beyond me.

Sorry if I thought this was self-explanatory.  . But that is the whole point.  You don't see it yourself.  

So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.

Oooo, you gettin' sassy.  Why do I have to do better?  This is your hurdle.  Take the donor card and shove it, if you're hung up on that metaphor.  The point is you get a say. 

If slavery were still legal,would you so peppy about people killing slaves for "research?"  Oh, I forgot, the slave was already dead.  Right.  Right.

People of "loose" morals typically don't need a reason.  But, hey this is research, I get it.  I hear you, Loaf.  The holy church of research.  "You standin' in the way of "research, boy?"

It's a shame that we have to keep doing this.  It's all the same loaf of sh-t.  Different time, different victim.  You people... I swear.

I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.

I'm thinking about starting a thread where women can decide whether men can have vasectomies or not.

   Even better, start up a thread where people who disagree with you can do whatever they want to you.

Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?    A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....

I understand your position on abortion. That is not what i was asking you about.

To put it crudely, a dead body is just tissue. Dead bodies can be used for a number of useful and practical things: cadaver dissection for training doctors, organ donation, stem cells and other forms of scientific research.

You mentioned previously that you have an ethical stance against killing people for research. However, people are not killed to order for the purposes of research. Women do not decide to get pregnant and have an abortion because they initially wanted to donate a foetus. They are two separate legal issues. Women are legally allowed to choose to have an abortion. Women are also then allowed to choose whether tissue from the foetus can be used for research. Note also that the sale of foetal tissue is non-profit.

My initial question, many posts ago, what was asking you what you found so bonechilling in the conversation about the practical implications of shipping donated tissue, and with an implied undertone of whether or not you agree with using dead bodies (human or foetal) for scientific research.

An answer to that question is not easy to fill in, so if you feel up to answering the question, then go ahead. I won't get dizzy.

Just as an fyi, my own position on abortion is that it is an incredibly complex issue. If I were a pregnant woman, I do not know whether i could go ahead with an abortion, but I think that it should be legal for women to have an abortion. I do not think it is a decision to be taken lightly, or without counselling or without understanding the psychological or physical ramifications of the procedure. I think a lot of support should be provided for these women, and I think there is a grim irony that men decide the (legal) fate of women's bodies.

They're killing unborn babies Loaf.  This is not a morgue, though that term would be slightly closer than the one they're using.  But these, eh-hmm, "clinics" (how they can use that term, I don't know) are killing half of their patients -- and discussing the best methods to do so, in order to extrapolate the best gain, in this case financial.

I appreciate the discussion, but this was all covered in the syllabus. Please tell me I've answered the question to your satisfaction!  

---------

Regarding the ones that are already dead.  Remember they had to be alive before they were dead.  And I don't think they were capable of "checking the organ donor box" on their driver's license (as you were) before they were killed.  Killed, not died.  Killed.  Even though they were legally killed -- please remember to thank them for their donation when you get to the pearly gates.

Please tell me we're good on this question.

---------

Regarding your personal opinion on abortion -- that's fine.  I'm appreciate you sharing it.  But I find it silly that anyone would label it "complex" then proceed to school those who find it easy.  Either you're OK with it or not.  But if you're OK with it, just understand what you are doing.

Sorry for my condescending tone.  It's actually part of the presentation, as it emphasizes the basic logic and morality that needs to be brushed aside in order to excuse some pretty strange behavior.

I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.

I'm sure slave owners (white or black, male or female) thought it was funny to watch abolitionists (white or black, male or female) talk about ending slavery.

Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?   A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....

[Shut Down Volume 2]

Shut Down Volume 2
Shut Down, In the Parking Lot

When I hear "Julia", I get the urge to say something snarky like "just what the world wanted: the new Airborne Toxic Event", but then I'm not 100% confident on the comparison. It's a group of guys dressed in business casual and that one mystery female band member that you're not really sure what she does, but she's attractive so it's okay. "Oh, you're going to play acoustic rhythm on this one? Well, that would be three guitars for this song. I'm already playing rhythm on electric.... No, that's fine." It's that same kind of bombastic, faux-literary, plastic-romance thing. So... anyway, I'm giving "Julia" a no. Deal with it, losers.

Here is something I like that was just released:
Destroyer - "Girl in a Sling"

I can never get past the fact that their guitars aren't plugged in.

Right, right, right.  We disagree on the fundamentals, seems kind of pointless, no?  I'll walk you through it again, if you like.  Just didn't want you to get dizzy again.

I'm not sure why you keep talking around in circles, you still haven't answered my questions.

You create a straw-man argument about being against killing people for research, but that isn't what's happening here. People aren't being killed for research, tissue from foetuses already aborted are being used for research. Despite what your paranoia might suggest, there isn't a killing-to-order going on here.

Abortion is legal, and it is legal under some circumstances to use that tissue for scientific research.

So, how about answering my questions from my previous post, so we can have a reasoned debate? You want people to share and discuss their opinions, but you seem to be reluctant to answer questions about your own opinions.

To answer your question, I am happy for my organs to be donated for others to use after I die, and any remaining tissue can be used for scientific research. I like the idea of helping after I am gone.

Hold your horses.  Wait a second.  Stop the train.  We can't debate.  You have different definitions than I have.  I define a fetus as a life (or anchor baby, if you're a Hillary kinda person).

It's sorta like arguing with Himmler -- I say "hey you're killing people!"  And Himmler says "no we're not.  We're killing Jews."  So... you know, it's not gonna work, you and me.


By the way... thanks for being an organ donor.  But do you recall seeing a checkbox for "Right Now."

oh jeez!  Are you good now? 

I think they probably make more videos now than they did during MTV's heyday. Fewer gigantic / epic ones, but with filming and editing cheaper and easier and youtube and such for distribution, everyone makes them. (I pretty much never watch them, though. I still like listening to music, myself. And when I was a teen watching MTV, the visuals were mostly to see what scantily clad performers would be gracing the screens of Poison's or Whitesnake's latest hits...)

   I hear ya.  I actually didn't have MTV growing up -- and can remember staying up late to watch something called Friday Night Videos.  LOL.  We thought videos were the coolest thing ever.