DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[LemmingofGlory]

So I need to be gay or lesbian to make an assessment of the possible social consequences of a political decision regarding the issue? Right, because you provided all the insight to the issue that there is to provide, on this issue or any other political discussion that has taken place on this forum . And you have the audacity to call my "intuition" crap? Puuuulease. Go take a long walk off a short pier.

Think you herped before you derped on that post big time man. I'll tell you whats amazing - the idiocy and naivety of tools like yourself that think the social context of any issue exists in some separate vacuum from how the entire social order and its relationships are arranged. Hint: capitalism, the whole social order in which we live, is what encompasses all elements at play, and thus they are structured around the very social relationships intrinsic to it and its operations. They don't exist as static, individual entities external from one another. Learn to see the forest through the trees, educate yourself, then come talk to me. Hint#2: when that time comes, you would do well to approach me in a much less confrontational, more intelligent way.

The "forest for the trees" accusation is exactly what I was saying to you when I said that you view everything in terms of capitalism. Capitalism is your Yggdrasil, and it has grown so large you can't see any of the other trees around it. You, specifically, are at a disadvantage in assessing social situations because of this. For example, if you're going to make a claim that nationwide gay marriage will cause backlash, you need a basis upon which to make that claim. My guess here is that your basis consists of "The Capitalist power structure doesn't want it, so they will fight!" It is very easy to view this as plausible, but absent any other perspective on this issue (e.g., being LGBT and living in a bigoted area) it is a guess at best. I did not say to you that your lack of one specific perspective makes your point invalid but that your lack of any other perspective makes it unsophisticated and ignorant.

It is absurd to me that you believe I see zero involvement of other elements in this issue when my point was that "This is not well-explained from just one perspective." Bump a few points of INT over to WIS and you'll take my meaning as intended.

You did not address why you didn't read the Supreme Court rulings, so I will assume I was correct in my prior assessment.

This also caught my eye:

People have little taste in anything these days. Otherwise, Justin Bieber wouldnt be worth millions with a shit ton of grammies.

Do you even understand who his demographic is? It's tween girls. Are you really extrapolating the interests of tween girls to the whole rest of society? Of course tween girls like terrible things! The capitalist-patriarchal power structure understands how gender is culturally conveyed to little girls and consequently markets to the interests with which they are indoctrinated. To assume that their tastes are completely independent of the overarching power structure seems completely unlike you.

I also factchecked your Grammy claim. It is false: the BeebZ has no grammies.

As for the original topic, I doubt it's completely over, but it is an important step.

SCOTUS seems to be playing it safe. They refused to hear a case about a same-sex marriage from Nevada which, like the Prop 8 case, was challenging the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage. My understanding is it could have led to a Loving v. Virginia kind of ruling (which declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional nationwide), but SCOTUS decided to chicken out and kick the case to a lower court. I assume this means that, whatever the outcome of this case, its impact will be felt only in Nevada.

-Lemming