Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settl...

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

There are 929 comments on the The Washington Post story from Aug 17, 2014, titled Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

A whole lot of judges who are being asked to decide whether states may ban same-sex couples from marrying think the Supreme Court clearly gave them the answer last year: no.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#133 Aug 20, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's likely that you are correct.
Likely?? How many thousands of posts of his where he posts exactly the same thing over and over do you have to see before you realize that he's not discussing ANYTHING with you or anyone else? He's just baiting you to respond. And he's being successful at the expense of the rest of the thread.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#134 Aug 20, 2014
Quest wrote:
Didn't the enactment of DOMA itself CREATE a federal question?
Yep!! And, for that, the GLBT community will be forever grateful! Without the Federal DOMA giving the courts such blatant examples of unconstitutional discrimination as an 80-something-year-old widow paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra tax because she was married to a woman and not a man, we might still have decades to go before getting our equal rights recognized.

We've got a long way to go, for sure, but the Federal DOMA certain sped things up for us!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#136 Aug 20, 2014
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is exactly what I postulated in my post #3 of this thread, and I got no response to it. I thought I would engender some discussion, but I was sadly disappointed.
Several of us DID try to engage in that discussion. Unfortunately, the rest of the thread decided to allow Frankie to completely derail the discussion.

I was curious about the subject matter, but way too many people were more interested in trying to engage a troll--always a huge waste of time.

Sad stuff.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#137 Aug 20, 2014
Ex Senator Stillborn wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it did. We know that if for no other reason that Windsor v. addressed DOMA specifically.
And it's telling in this regard that the Supreme Court did not address Prop 8.
But even without DOMA making the matter federal, having different marriage laws in such a significant way from state to state would have made the matter one for federal courts, anyway.
True, but it probably would have taken MUCH longer to happen.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#139 Aug 20, 2014
eJohn wrote:
Not true. You're assisting him in chasing away both other posters here and any chance of on-topic, reasonable discussion. The more you respond to a troll, the more the troll wins and the more everyone that comes here for reasonable discussion loses.
I'm not stopping anyone from any reasonable discussions that they wish to have. I don't see how anyone is chased away. They would have to see my specific conversations and somehow determine that these conversations make other ones impossible. But no one has to read them. I'm not stealing anyone's bandwidth, or using up a limited number of page postings.

What if TWO trolls are engaging each other? Would everyone ELSE then be unable to post? Any given thread can have good conversations and bad ones. If all the "good" people ditch simply because they see bad conversations, thereby leaving the conversation entirely to the trolls, then who really wins? You don't cure an infection by ignoring it and letting it run the place.
eJohn wrote:
Likely?? How many thousands of posts of his where he posts exactly the same thing over and over do you have to see before you realize that he's not discussing ANYTHING with you or anyone else? He's just baiting you to respond. And he's being successful at the expense of the rest of the thread.
I don't see how my conversation could possibly be at the "expense" of anyone. What is your cost? What losses have you suffered? If something doesn't interest you, then just don't read it. You won't incur any "expense" if I'm talking to someone else, no matter how empty our conversation is. I've seen these threads go into the thousands of pages. No one will be shorted the opportunity to share their voice, simply because I have a conversation with someone else. You are suggesting that an entire thread can be RUINED, and therefore the subject is no longer capable of discussion, just because one troll might be present. The people who come here and say things like "disgusting" and "spot on" are HOPING that we'll abandon the topic because of their toxicity.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#140 Aug 20, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not stopping anyone from any reasonable discussions that they wish to have. I don't see how anyone is chased away. They would have to see my specific conversations and somehow determine that these conversations make other ones impossible. But no one has to read them. I'm not stealing anyone's bandwidth, or using up a limited number of page postings.
What if TWO trolls are engaging each other? Would everyone ELSE then be unable to post? Any given thread can have good conversations and bad ones. If all the "good" people ditch simply because they see bad conversations, thereby leaving the conversation entirely to the trolls, then who really wins? You don't cure an infection by ignoring it and letting it run the place.
<quoted text>
I don't see how my conversation could possibly be at the "expense" of anyone. What is your cost? What losses have you suffered? If something doesn't interest you, then just don't read it. You won't incur any "expense" if I'm talking to someone else, no matter how empty our conversation is. I've seen these threads go into the thousands of pages. No one will be shorted the opportunity to share their voice, simply because I have a conversation with someone else. You are suggesting that an entire thread can be RUINED, and therefore the subject is no longer capable of discussion, just because one troll might be present. The people who come here and say things like "disgusting" and "spot on" are HOPING that we'll abandon the topic because of their toxicity.
Spot on!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#141 Aug 20, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not stopping anyone from any reasonable discussions that they wish to have. I don't see how anyone is chased away. They would have to see my specific conversations and somehow determine that these conversations make other ones impossible. But no one has to read them. I'm not stealing anyone's bandwidth, or using up a limited number of page postings.
What if TWO trolls are engaging each other? Would everyone ELSE then be unable to post? Any given thread can have good conversations and bad ones. If all the "good" people ditch simply because they see bad conversations, thereby leaving the conversation entirely to the trolls, then who really wins? You don't cure an infection by ignoring it and letting it run the place.
<quoted text>
I don't see how my conversation could possibly be at the "expense" of anyone. What is your cost? What losses have you suffered? If something doesn't interest you, then just don't read it. You won't incur any "expense" if I'm talking to someone else, no matter how empty our conversation is. I've seen these threads go into the thousands of pages. No one will be shorted the opportunity to share their voice, simply because I have a conversation with someone else. You are suggesting that an entire thread can be RUINED, and therefore the subject is no longer capable of discussion, just because one troll might be present. The people who come here and say things like "disgusting" and "spot on" are HOPING that we'll abandon the topic because of their toxicity.
So there are two trolls having a discussion here. My mistake.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#142 Aug 20, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
So there are two trolls having a discussion here. My mistake.
No need to apologize, just don't let it happen again.'K Squeaky?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#143 Aug 21, 2014
eJohn wrote:
Likely?? How many thousands of posts of his where he posts exactly the same thing over and over do you have to see before you realize that he's not discussing ANYTHING with you or anyone else?
If it amuses me to offer the opportunity, and he doesn't mind making an a$$ of himself, what is the harm?

I know Frankie has no valid or on topic argument to offer, and that he isn't that smart. However having him reiterate both of these simple truths is amusing to me. If he is stupid enough to do so, repeatedly, and it amuses me, what is the harm?

Am I right, Frankie? Who's an idiot? That's right, Frankie's an idiot.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#144 Aug 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If it amuses me to offer the opportunity, and he doesn't mind making an a$$ of himself, what is the harm?
I know Frankie has no valid or on topic argument to offer, and that he isn't that smart. However having him reiterate both of these simple truths is amusing to me. If he is stupid enough to do so, repeatedly, and it amuses me, what is the harm?
Am I right, Frankie? Who's an idiot? That's right, Frankie's an idiot.
My argument is that we cannot deny marriage equality because of moral disapproval. Your argument is "Frankie is an idiot". We'll let our arguments stand on their merits eh?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#145 Aug 21, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
My argument is that we cannot deny marriage equality because of moral disapproval. Your argument is "Frankie is an idiot". We'll let our arguments stand on their merits eh?
I have never argued that we should, Frankie. What you are arguing, by definition, is not equality. Learn to count.
Come back to the topic at hand.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#146 Aug 21, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
"Pursuit of happiness" isn't in the constitution; it's in the DOI, a non-ruling document.
<quoted text>
Close enough: "...In Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."

But not close enough for a long time poster who insists repeatedly he has seen no racist (or misogynistic or sexist or anti Catholic or pedo vibe posts) from Foxy/Frank/Daniel, and therefore needs "proof" that these posts exist.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#147 Aug 21, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not stopping anyone from any reasonable discussions that they wish to have.
I take it then that you find exchanges with Rizzo (or with Foxy) to be "reasonable discussions."

I do not, nor those when I include content with Wondering or any other sexually sick bigot, even though I sometimes do include content besides just invective.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#148 Aug 21, 2014
eJohn wrote:
So there are two trolls having a discussion here. My mistake.
And neither of them are bothering you.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#149 Aug 21, 2014
Latter Day Taints wrote:
I take it then that you find exchanges with Rizzo (or with Foxy) to be "reasonable discussions."
That's not what I said. I said that my exchanges don't stand in the way of anyone else's.

It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter if I think that other people's discussions are "reasonable" or not, I'm not in the habit of telling others whether their conversations are "valid" in some way.
Latter Day Taints wrote:
I do not, nor those when I include content with Wondering or any other sexually sick bigot, even though I sometimes do include content besides just invective.
And that's up to you. You won't ever find me telling you, or eJohn, or anyone else that they CAN'T have a particular conversation. If you want to waste your own time, it doesn't waste mine. And vice versa.

I won't be deterred by accusations of causing an "expense" to other posters simply because they feel that my conversation with someone is unproductive. That's a spurious claim. There is no "expense" to anyone. Posting is free to everyone, and completely unlimited as far as I can tell. People can have entire conversations without ever acknowledging or even noticing other posters here.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#150 Aug 21, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what I said. I said that my exchanges don't stand in the way of anyone else's.
It doesn't (and shouldn't) matter if I think that other people's discussions are "reasonable" or not
Okay then, for starters you should not have said "reasonable," which is definitely what you did say.

"I'm not stopping anyone from any reasonable discussions that they wish to have."

You meant to say, I guess you are averring, "I'm not stopping anyone from any discussions that they wish to have."

Then why did you include, "reasonable"?

It's a signal to noise problem. If the percentage of posts which are merely taunts from the closet cases or off topic goadings from Rizzo or twisted, deranged "arguments" from the likes of Wondering then the threads become dominated by the noise, not any signal. That might not bother you, but perhaps you cannot tell the difference, as with your struggle over "reasonable."

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#151 Aug 21, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what I said. I said that my exchanges don't stand in the way of anyone else's.....
Keep telling yourself that. Then look around and see how many people are posting intelligent discussion in this thread vs. how many posts are you two, the troll and the troll-enabler, jerking yourselves off?
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#152 Aug 21, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep telling yourself that. Then look around and see how many people are posting intelligent discussion in this thread vs. how many posts are you two, the troll and the troll-enabler, jerking yourselves off?
I can't remember: Were you one of the posters who got all upset when I suggested to Ralph that if he posts seriously to Foxy that he should not then have any right to complain about the horsesht he predictably gets in response? I genuinely can't remember if you were one. I remember some others who got upset by my commonsense observation....

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#153 Aug 21, 2014
Latter Day Taints wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't remember: Were you one of the posters who got all upset when I suggested to Ralph that if he posts seriously to Foxy that he should not then have any right to complain about the horsesht he predictably gets in response? I genuinely can't remember if you were one. I remember some others who got upset by my commonsense observation....
No, no. Definitely not me. I've been scrolling by Foxy's posts for ages now. Reverend What's-His-Name, Wondering, and Frankie, now, too. There's just no point in reading anything they post, let alone responding to it. I also tend to skip over almost anyone's post that *responds* to any of them, either.

And when I get sick of scrolling their their bullshit, I just remove the post from my tracker and move on. I'm here for intelligent discussion. I wanted to watch idiots jerking themselves off, there are plenty of porn sites I could go do that offer far more satisfying and entertaining solo jerk-off routines.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#154 Aug 21, 2014
Latter Day Taints wrote:
Okay then, for starters you should not have said "reasonable," which is definitely what you did say.
"I'm not stopping anyone from any reasonable discussions that they wish to have."
You meant to say, I guess you are averring, "I'm not stopping anyone from any discussions that they wish to have."
Then why did you include, "reasonable"?
I was just echoing eJohn's use of the same phrase, from when he said:
eJohn wrote:
You're assisting him in chasing away both other posters here and any chance of on-topic, reasonable discussion.
But yes, whether the discussions are reasonable or unreasonable, I'm not stopping anyone from ANY discussions they wish to have.
Latter Day Taints wrote:
It's a signal to noise problem. If the percentage of posts which are merely taunts from the closet cases or off topic goadings from Rizzo or twisted, deranged "arguments" from the likes of Wondering then the threads become dominated by the noise, not any signal. That might not bother you, but perhaps you cannot tell the difference, as with your struggle over "reasonable."
It's only a "signal to noise" problem for people who feel compelled to read EVERY post on a thread. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't do that. I skim, I skip, I look for specific replies to me. I ignore a lot of posts. I don't have any issue sorting out the "signal" from the "noise".

And I think we get into questionable grounds if we insist on this. Who gets to define what is "signal" and what is "noise"? Just because a particular post is "noise" to YOU, doesn't mean it isn't "signal" to someone else. Who gets to decide which posters are ok for replying to? Who gets to decide which conversations are allowed? Once those rules are established, how are they enforced?

There is an administrative body here that already takes care of all that. If they decide that I'm breaking THEIR rules, and they warn me or kick me off, then I'll abide by that. But I'm not going to ALSO adopt a bunch of arbitrary rules set by other users. There's never any justification for one poster telling another poster whom they may or may not converse with, or what the content or quality of those conversations must be.

People are taking Topix WAY too seriously, as if it were the federally-recognized Final Arena for debating these issues, and any "misbehavior" destroys our nation's capacity for proper discussion. This is just one website out of similar thousands, and we're all just a bunch of average nobodies. If you go online, you should EXPECT to see conversations that you don't like. It goes with the territory.

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.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 40-Year Sentence Upheld For Drug Dealer Milburn (Jan '09) Jul '17 Notfromaroundhere... 7
News Appeals court ruling opens door to Ohio resumin... Jun '17 Ohio Drama 1
News Ron Paul: The only Patriot Act reform is total ... (May '15) Jun '17 Ron Paul Liberty 11
News Senate acts on Trump pick, promotes judge to ap... May '17 BB Board 1
News Appeals court rules robbery case gets a third s... May '17 Anonymous 2
News Trump Moves to Get More Conservatives on Federa... May '17 Dee Dee Dee 1
News Court says gay couples can sue Kentucky clerk K... May '17 Xstain Mullah Fri... 4
More from around the web