G.O.P. Hopefuls Denounce Marriage Equality Ruling

[gwb-trading]

I meant you've lost the political battle. Besides, you can't tell me that two pretty women kissing each other sloppily isn't romantic.

It's never like that...

I arrived in Toronto last night. It is Pride Week. The CN Tower is lit up in rainbow colors.

After checking in at the hotel, I rode the elevator up to the high floors with two large lesbians with tattoos, colored hair, who both stank of smoke while sucking face the entire trip up. Both had considerable girth and weight on me.

For a moment I considered saying something, but I didn’t want to get my ass kicked.

I can see my interview with the police now, "Can you explain again how you were raped by two women using strap-ons?" as they held their hands over their mouths to hide their snickers.
"Well officer, I told them sarcastically 'Just what I wanted, some hot woman on woman action.'"

To compound my issues, the two ladies got off on my floor, holding hands. Pride Week never disappoints, the freak show continued with two guys dressed in women's underwear quickly walking towards the elevator yelling for me to hold it for them.

I was tempted to say, "Hey guys, the ladies want their garments back." But I didn't for two reasons, the first being that these skinny characters obviously were not wearing clothing from the two immensely large women. The second being the two chicks would probably kick all of our asses.

I finally made it to my room, safe at last - only to find piles of glossy literature about celebrating Pride Week.

I seriously need to consider a new hotel.

 

[piezoe]

It's never like that...

I arrived in Toronto last night. It is Pride Week. The CN Tower is lit up in rainbow colors.

After checking in at the hotel, I rode the elevator up to the high floors with two large lesbians with tattoos, colored hair, who both stank of smoke while sucking face the entire trip up. Both had considerable girth and weight on me.

For a moment I considered saying something, but I didn’t want to get my ass kicked.

I can see my interview with the police now, "Can you explain again how you were raped by two women using strap-ons?" as they held their hands over their mouths to hide their snickers.
"Well officer, I told them sarcastically 'Just what I wanted, some hot woman on woman action.'"

To compound my issues, the two ladies got off on my floor, holding hands. Pride Week never disappoints, the freak show continued with two guys dressed in women's underwear quickly walking towards the elevator yelling for me to hold it for them.

I was tempted to say, "Hey guys, the ladies want their garments back." But I didn't for two reasons, the first being that these skinny characters obviously were not wearing clothing from the two immensely large women. The second being the two chicks would probably kick all of our asses.

I finally made it to my room, safe at last - only to find piles of glossy literature about celebrating Pride Week.

I seriously need to consider a new hotel.

As far as I'm concerned, your attitude is healthy! Gay folks are still in the business of publicly over-displaying their enthusiasm for their new freedoms, and before that it was in defiance of the clearly unequal treatment they suffered under the law. (The argument, so often heard, "that they are treated like everyone else before the law" is, of course, absurd. That's what this case was about. The legal arguments on equal protection grounds completely buried, once and for all, the defendants' pallid sentimental arguments.) As in nearly every court case, the issue of harm is either explicit or implicit, and the defendants were utterly unable to make any arguments, directly or indirectly, in support of their being substantively harmed by two individuals of the same sex being allowed to marry each other. (The argument heard in Congress that gay marriage harmed "The Institution of Marriage" is, on any logical grounds, laughable. How does one harm a figurative "institution" in a substantive way? I think it was our former gay congressman from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, who said that those who make this argument belong in an institution.)

I am absolutely confident that the annoying, uncalled for, but understandable, behavior you were subjected to in Toronto, one of my favorite cities, will with time be far less common as our gay friends, sons and daughters, settle into their new roles as citizens equal under the law. Twenty five years from now being gay will be a normal, less common alternative to being heterosexual, and no one will care one way or the other. It will just be an alternate choice that everyone is free to make and no one, except the usual kooks, will pay any attention.

 

[Ricter]

As far as I'm concerned, your attitude is healthy! Gay folks are still in the business of publicly over-displaying their enthusiasm for their new freedoms, and before that it was in defiance of the clearly unequal treatment they suffered under the law. (The argument, so often heard, "that they are treated like everyone else before the law" is, of course, absurd. That's what this case was about. The legal arguments on equal protection grounds completely buried, once and for all, the defendants' pallid sentimental arguments.) As in nearly every court case, the issue of harm is either explicit or implicit, and the defendants were utterly unable to make any arguments, directly or indirectly, in support of their being substantively harmed by two individuals of the same sex being allowed to marry each other. (The argument heard in Congress that gay marriage harmed "The Institution of Marriage" is, on any logical grounds, laughable. How does one harm a figurative "institution" in a substantive way? I think it was our former gay congressman from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, who said that those who make this argument belong in an institution.)

I am absolutely confident that the annoying, uncalled for, but understandable, behavior you were subjected to in Toronto, one of my favorite cities, will with time be far less common as our gay friends, sons and daughters, settle into their new roles as citizens equal under the law. Twenty five years from now being gay will be a normal, less common alternative to being heterosexual, and no one will care one way or the other. It will just be an alternate choice that everyone is free to make and no one, except the usual kooks, will pay any attention.

Some day "man in a dress" will be about as shocking as "'black' guy at the lunch counter".

 

[piezoe]

Exactly!

 

[fhl]

Here's the marriage rate of one country after they legalized homosexual marriage:

When marriage is no longer a special, sacred union, but just a couple of dudes having butt sex, then what's the point, really?

So we've all heard the connection between single parent households and poverty:

Iow, it's all going to lead to a poverty mired hellhole. :eek:

Fabulous

 

[Gambit]

Some day "man in a dress" will be about as shocking as "'black' guy at the lunch counter".

Agreed. I want as little state intervention in my personal life as possible and most people feel the same. As long as gay parents raise their children responsibly, I don't care. Live and let live.

 

[gwb-trading]

As far as I'm concerned, your attitude is healthy! Gay folks are still in the business of publicly over-displaying their enthusiasm for their new freedoms, and before that it was in defiance of the clearly unequal treatment they suffered under the law. (The argument, so often heard, "that they are treated like everyone else before the law" is, of course, absurd. That's what this case was about. The legal arguments on equal protection grounds completely buried, once and for all, the defendants' pallid sentimental arguments.) As in nearly every court case, the issue of harm is either explicit or implicit, and the defendants were utterly unable to make any arguments, directly or indirectly, in support of their being substantively harmed by two individuals of the same sex being allowed to marry each other. (The argument heard in Congress that gay marriage harmed "The Institution of Marriage" is, on any logical grounds, laughable. How does one harm a figurative "institution" in a substantive way? I think it was our former gay congressman from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, who said that those who make this argument belong in an institution.)

I am absolutely confident that the annoying, uncalled for, but understandable, behavior you were subjected to in Toronto, one of my favorite cities, will with time be far less common as our gay friends, sons and daughters, settle into their new roles as citizens equal under the law. Twenty five years from now being gay will be a normal, less common alternative to being heterosexual, and no one will care one way or the other. It will just be an alternate choice that everyone is free to make and no one, except the usual kooks, will pay any attention.

All last week Mayor Tory of Toronto spent his time urging the marchers in the pride parade to keep their clothes on this year. I'm told he was not very successful.

 

[Scataphagos]

Agreed. I want as little state intervention in my personal life as possible and most people feel the same. As long as gay parents raise their children responsibly, I don't care. Live and let live.

That was the intention of the Founders, but you're not getting that now nor likely at any time in the future.

Thanks to greedy, power-hungry politicians and a lazy "I deserve more because some scumbag politico told me I do (in exchange for my vote, of course)" electorate... we have GOVERNMENT UP OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES... TRYING TO CONTROL NEARLY EVERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF OUR LIVES... including free speech.

 

[Ricter]

Agreed. I want as little state intervention in my personal life as possible and most people feel the same. As long as gay parents raise their children responsibly, I don't care. Live and let live.

Well said, though I was pointing at social norms, not government. I don't think there is any law prohibiting a man from wearing a dress. (But none of us are going to try it, unless we're Scottish, on a Scottish holiday. : )

 

[Gambit]

Well said, though I was pointing at social norms, not government. I don't think there is any law prohibiting a man from wearing a dress. (But none of us are going to try it, unless we're Scottish, on a Scottish holiday. : )

I understand what you're saying. Sometimes culture follows government and sometimes it's the other way around. The government is definitely leading this cultural paradigm shift.