In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both...

In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

There are 1144 comments on the Reuters story from Nov 28, 2012, titled In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles. In it, Reuters reports that:

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

TheTroll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#574 Dec 4, 2012
The Delegate wrote:
<quoted text>You phaggs yap yap yap...
Wow, I'll bet that response of yours must surely have taxed your intellectual capacity to its very limit.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#575 Dec 5, 2012
The Delegate wrote:
<quoted text>You phaggs see it that way but it ain't so.
Here is a better way to put it together:
.
Gay guys are born with the same sexual orientation your mother was born with; attracted to men; and in all the same ways and for all the same reasons
.
If you have any questions; ask your mother
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#576 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
A court of lifetime judges, versus your opinion....
You strike me as a mendacious and manipulative poster; I have directly addressed this in my previous response.

Here, you ignore 100% of what I said, desperately clinging to this facet of your "rebuttal," attempting again and again to denigrate me personally for quite forcefully telling you any judge who rules in an antigay manner is prejudiced and full of shit.

Weird, because I just said it again, so apparently you're not stopping me. But you feel free to argue this *as if the supreme court judges can agree amongst themselves*, when their verdicts are often split 5-4 ... meaning that your "reliance" upon "the wisdom of judges" is vastly suspect.

But you knew that.
Jane Dough wrote:
you just don't carry much weight...
Ahhhh, like Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas case?

You ever read his "hissy fit" when that verdict was pronounced?

According to you, "JANE DOUGH," Scalia's verdict -- an antigay one you'd love -- didn't carry much weight.

How's that working for you *right now* when Scalia is in the same boat you claim I'm in?

Want some water to wash down your foot?
Jane Dough wrote:
I wouldn't say its meaningless, but its not as valuable an opinion for sure...
Like Scalia's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas?

He's a *SUPREME COURT* justice, "JANE DOUGH," and his opinion was rendered moot and meaningless by that verdict.

Hey, you brought it up.
Jane Dough wrote:
especially when you rely on unsupportable claims of bigotry and nothing more as you do...
Right, kind of like Scalia did in the Lawrence v. Texas case, his reasoning and his "legal opinions" being unsupported in fact.

But ya know what?

You keep telling me my "legal opinions are meaningless," and I'll keep bringing up Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas just to slam you, since his opinion *was rendered meaningless* and he's a supreme court justice.

You won't win this; but hey, keep trying.

Check out what Scalia said about Lawrence v. Texas. He threw a fit much like yours on these boards, champ.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#577 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no, it was merely useless
Your failure to convince me of this is your problem, not mine. I'm not buying it.
Jane Dough wrote:
and boring
Nor am I buying this.

Sucks to be you; your job is to convince me what you say is true.

I see a really interesting connection between your manipulative nature on these boards *and your assessments of my posts*, so I'm calling you out as false.
Jane Dough wrote:
so I scanned it...
Not my problem.
Jane Dough wrote:
like this little pack of nonsense above...
Sounds like your problem, "JANE DOUGH." Don't try to put your problems on me; they will be thrown back in your face.

Don't like it?

Try someone on your level. I don't suffer fools gladly.

At all.
Jane Dough wrote:
I didn't claim to remove it or anything, its still there for anyone to see, but I suspect most will do the same as I did...
Of *course* you suspect this; you're being shown to be less-than-intelligent and you're trying to save face. You're too spineless to admit your lack of rectitude.

My posts. are here. for anyone. to see.

If you think you'll stop me from posting as I please, you have a long, miserable life ahead of you. I suggest you try manipulating someone who wasn't born yesterday, because your posts are *cementing repetitively* my conviction in what I say, and my conviction that you *know* you're wrong. Look at the bullshit you bring up; we're not even discussing the issues anymore.

You're acting spineless and I am being quite determined to make sure that that's pointed out.

You're not smart enough to shut up, are you.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#578 Dec 5, 2012
*shrug* You want to say stupid antigay shit, I'll call you out on it. Don't like it, go cry to someone else. This is pretty simple.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#579 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
stereotyping mixed with prejudice?
whats that called again?
consistency is not their virtue...
And yet here you are, acting like you have something to win by engaging in the *impossible* task of hoping to convince me my posts are anything but showing you up, logical point by logical point.

You're sitting there thinking *YOU* will convince *ME* of this. You personally. You're actually trying to do this, and then crying about shit like this when I tell you the antigay are spineless and could only be deriving that opinion in the current instance from *YOUR* behavior.

You people are not smart about knowing when to shut your mouths, and then you cry about it when people absolutely relentlessly stand up to you, not even blinking. What in the goddamn hell do you think would stop anyone pro-gay from calling you out for your laughable nonsense? Christ, you're a piece of work.

God damn.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#580 Dec 5, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If they're going strictly by the constitution, then they shouldn't care if a party is dying or not, unless the verdict would directly save that person's life- i.e ending the death penalty, etc. Of course in that type of situation they could just issue an emergency stay of execution until they decide the case.
I hear you (so to speak).

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#581 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Do IKEA instructions discuss gay marriage?
I've bought a few items from them but yet have to see it on their instructional diagrams.
I'd like to see an example if you may since I find that hard to believe.
You have to look all the way back in the IKEA catalog -- they have instructions and diagrams, but all have those funny Swedish names.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#582 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
I could find months of your daily posts which exhibit repeated mistakes in terms of grammar and spelling.
If I itemize probably what amounts to hundreds of your posts are you to say you'll rewrite each in a manner that will ensure an 'A' in Miss Thornberry's 6th grade English class?
P.S. You'll shoot your eye out!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#585 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Therein is why I mentioned the other states like those.
Sorry you got lost there.
And what's "zing"?
Are you a cartoon character in your mind and that's your exit sign?
psst, a zing is a joke....
seriously are you using an English translator?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#586 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
"And not something that makes my posts tougher to understand but what your wrote read like German translated to Chinese and then to English.
I was commenting on what makes you tough to understand. Not stupid stuff like 'utulize' which are just typos."
----C'mon now dipshit....if you're going to judge others typos you need to clean up your own act first.
Its all right there in your own post Danny...

I said I was NOT critiquing stupid typos....see, right here:
"I was commenting on what makes you tough to understand. Not stupid stuff like 'utulize' which are just typos."

to which you respond that if I Am going to critique typos...
"C'mon now dipshit....if you're going to judge others typos "

follow it now?

I look past silly typos, but the one post was GIBBERISH that i could not decipher so I had to address it...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#587 Dec 5, 2012
NoQ wrote:
You're a fking raving lunatic. Just Saying.
Funny, you're the one offering off topic ad hominem attacks.

Have you come up with any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional?

I wonder why so many trolls hate the US Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection? I can't say for certain, but I think it has to do with level of intellect.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#588 Dec 5, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Funny, the ruling still stands.
so Hernandez is not valid law, but Walker's decision still stands?

and the sky is green too, huh?

you use your ignorance as a sword...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#589 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>

Drop your IGNORANT stance on typos
How about you go back and actually READ and realize that was never what I was saying...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#590 Dec 5, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>

You people are not smart a
you are a bigot.. face facts.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#591 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Vermont certainly has a special place in GLBT history and in our hearts.
Its special because its a beautiful place...
its not always all about you gays ya know...
actually most of the time its not about you...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#592 Dec 5, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
any judge who rules in an antigay manner is prejudiced and full of shit.
.
classic...

yah, I leave that "legal argument" alone...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#593 Dec 5, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, you're the one offering off topic ad hominem attacks.

trolls
hate the US Constitution
I think it has to do with level of intellect.
can you even be consistent within one post?

clearly, no.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#595 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
so Hernandez is not valid law, but Walker's decision still stands?
and the sky is green too, huh?
you use your ignorance as a sword...
Wow, you aren't very bright, are you?
Hernandez has been superseded by legislation. I don't know how much clearer that can be made for you.

superseded (transative verb)
1a : to cause to be set aside
b : to force out of use as inferior
2: to take the place or position of
3: to displace in favor of another

Walker's decision does stand, although it is currently stayed and under appeal to the US Supreme Court.

It is worthy of note that I have note cited Walker's decision, but rather rhetoric from pre-trial motions (via an article from the New Yorker, where said interchange was labeled as being just that).

You have prove incapable of refuting the rhetoric. But there again, you seem to suffer from the delusion that there is a procreative requirement relative to legal marriage even though it has been plainly illustrated to you on a number of levels that there is not.

Feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#596 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Its special because its a beautiful place...
its not always all about you gays ya know...
actually most of the time its not about you...
The best thing about Vermont is you have a terrific view of New Hampshire. Especially in places like Bellows Falls.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News After refusing to watch LGBT diversity video, S... 31 min Paul 3
Gay Jokes 34 min Paul 5
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Now Is The Time 24,742
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 13,034
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Respect71 44,926
News Gay groups seek to buy NYC church known for hat... (Feb '16) 4 hr john 22
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr Tre H 5,275
More from around the web