Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

That didn't answer the question. What does that statement have to do with @Dayton3 asking @rahl to prove rahl's assertion on what can and cannot come before SCOTUS? Your strawman is from so far out of right field that it's not even in the same complex yet alone ballpark as the rest of the thread.

 

Why don't you just spell out the response you want?

 

I am looking for you to tell me what your remarks has to do with the post you quoted. The post you quoted is @Dayton3 asking @rahl to prove that "No case can ever again make it to SCOTUS on the same grounds (SSM)". What does your little rant have to do with that? What part of asking for proof of the criteria of whether or not a same sex marriage case can go before SCOTUS now, since Obergefell has been decided, does your post address? It doesn't matter which side of the overall issue of SSM one is on. The post you quoted was one about whether a case can go before SCOTUS or not. Do you have the comprehension ability to answer the question presented to you, without making a strawman response?

 

Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage? <------ this is what I'm responding, are you as confused by that as you are about sex?

 

I would see a doctor about that memory loss if I were you. Here is the screen shot of what you responded to.



For further reference here is the whole thread of discussion subset.

If you wanted to respond to the thread topic, then you should have quoted the OP or just jump in. But you quoted a specific post and then proceeded to fly off into right field with completely unrelated crap to the quoted post. The evidence is above. All the links are available and can take you there, and I screenshot what you quoted and responded just so you can't claim I edited the quote lines.

 

so your assumption is I was responding to Dayton's post?

 

You quoted it. Why else would you quote it if you were not responding to it? Like I said, if you were responding to the OP issue, then you would quote the OP, not some completely unrelated post to what you are making a point on. Standard operating procedure is that if you are quoting a post then you are making a point, supporting or countering, of at least some content of that post, or the context it was made in. These are the basics, man!

 

Gasp. Why are you assuming he/she/they/zer identifies as a man????!1!eleventyone!

 

Because it says so in his profile?

 

So you're saying the profile system is cis-biased? GASP

 

Nope, unspecified is an option. Are you saying posters are too stupid to self identify themselves?

 

No, but I am saying your detectors for sarcasm and humour are lacking.

 

It is very difficult to tell trolling from sarcasm from stupidity — we have more than our fair share here unfortunately. Apologies

 

It's the lack of visual and audio cues. Tone of voice goes a great way towards sarcasm.

 

I thought eleventyone would give it away

 

I used to be against homosexuality because that's what I thought the Bible says.

 

The bible does say that.

 

It actually doesn't if you look at the original texts.

 

And we're right back to different interpretations.

 

Homosexuality is a perverse violation of conscience. Consequently, same sex marriage supposes to legitimize the illegitimate and hold it equal to the sanctity of traditional marriage. It is a horrible example for all, especially for children. People who don't see the wrongness or harm in it have already been blinded and deadened in conscience by it and by other digressions in standards of conduct.

 

Telling two consenting adults that celebrating their love for each other as other couples do is a perverse violation of conscience, just because they happen to be the same gender, is a perverse violation of conscience.

 

Indeed. But thinking something is wrong just because a book or another person says so, and changing one's mind when realizing the book or person didn't actually say so, is what bothers me. It is a farming out of your own moral judgment.

I once asked a Catholic fellow what he thought about an ethical quandary, and his reply was he thought whatever the pope says but wasn't sure what that was, so he didn't know. I found that a bit unnerving.

 

Accommodating the reprobate is ghoulish. Calling it a service is an insult to the light of intellect and truth. There was a time in America not long ago when this standard waved in common. Pulling it down does not change it. It will always be so.

 

We've grown morally as a society since the bronze age. Slavery is also taboo now, even if you adhere to the strict bible standards on how to beat your slaves.

 

Blaspheming the holy Spirit is also a violation of Christian morality to a greater extent.

It is the only sin that Jesus says he will not forgive you for.

So do you take a bigger issue with freedom of speech because it allows you to blaspheme the holy spirit?