BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[Marener]

It has to have a basis in something. And I notice you haven't found a link for a historical precedent for SSM. Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

Loving was right, Obergfell wasn't. It's just that simple.

And not allowing SSM isn't based on gender, it's based saying pairing X is not equal to pairing Y.

Substantive due process is made up bullshit.

Marriage is the basis. Marriage is a longstanding historical tradition which makes it subject to due process claims.

If you read Loving v Virgina, almost all of it has to do with equal protection. The due process argument occupies two small paragraphs at the end. Those two paragraphs could apply almost identically to same sex marriage by exchanging race with gender.

Lots of constitutional ideas are made up bullshit. Substantive due process is far more rational than dumb crap like major questions doctrine.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It's why many of them are performed, at least the birth control ones.

Define "many"?

What are other reasons abortions are performed?

 

[martybegan]

Define "many"?

What are other reasons abortions are performed?

We all know the standard tropes, rape, incest, non-viability, downs syndrome, other genetic screw ups. But most are because the woman (and man) decided to play without protection and now want to get out of the biological end result.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage is the basis. Marriage is a longstanding historical tradition which makes it subject to due process claims.

If you read Loving v Virgina, almost all of it has to do with equal protection. The due process argument occupies two small paragraphs at the end. Those two paragraphs could apply almost identically to same sex marriage by exchanging race with gender.

Lots of constitutional ideas are made up bullshit. Substantive due process is far more rational than dumb crap like major questions doctrine.

Because race based restrictions are clearly against equal protection because race doesn't change the overall structure of a marriage in the modern western world, one man, one woman.

Race and sexuality can't be exchanged, gender isn't part of the argument, a man can marry, they just have to marry a woman, and vice versa.

I assume you are one of those lefties that likes to think the 2nd amendment doesn't exist.

 

[Marener]

Because race based restrictions are clearly against equal protection because race doesn't change the overall structure of a marriage in the modern western world, one man, one woman.

Race and sexuality can't be exchanged, gender isn't part of the argument, a man can marry, they just have to marry a woman, and vice versa.

I assume you are one of those lefties that likes to think the 2nd amendment doesn't exist.

The defenders of interracial marriage bans said basically the same thing.

To them it wasn’t about equal protection since the law applied equally to both races. A black man couldn’t marry a white woman just the same as a white man couldn’t marry a black woman.

A black man can marry. They just have to marry a black woman. It’s the same as saying a man can marry. They just have to marry a woman.

This talk about the “modern western world” is gibberish. It had absolutely nothing to do with the legal principles.

 

[Catsnmeters]

We all know the standard tropes, rape, incest, non-viability, downs syndrome, other genetic screw ups. But most are because the woman (and man) decided to play without protection and now want to get out of the biological end result.

Yep. All good reasons to abort a fetus.

 

[martybegan]

The defenders of interracial marriage bans said basically the same thing.

To them it wasn’t about equal protection since the law applied equally to both races. A black man couldn’t marry a white woman just the same as a white man couldn’t marry a black woman.

A black man can marry. They just have to marry a black woman. It’s the same as saying a man can marry. They just have to marry a woman.

This talk about the “modern western world” is gibberish. It had absolutely nothing to do with the legal principles.

They were wrong, I am right.

Race and sexuality are not the same thing. This is the crux of our disagreement on this issue.

All legal principles are based on precedent, which is based in history and tradition.

 

[martybegan]

Yep. All good reasons to abort a fetus.

Sorry, but "I don't want to be a parent" isn't a good reason, it's a selfish reason.

And as for non fatal genetic defects, that smacks of Eugenics.

Do you support abortions because a fetus is a girl, or what if we can figure out a fetus is going to be gay?

 

[Marener]

They were wrong, I am right.

Race and sexuality are not the same thing. This is the crux of our disagreement on this issue.

All legal principles are based on precedent, which is based in history and tradition.

It’s not sexuality discrimination. It’s gender.

Legal principles are based on the constitution.

“they were wrong, I’m right”. You’re making the same goddamn argument as them. You’re both wrong.

 

[martybegan]

It’s not sexuality discrimination. It’s gender.

Legal principles are based on the constitution.

“they were wrong, I’m right”. You’re making the same goddamn argument as them. You’re both wrong.

No, it's sexuality.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, as it is really just a State approved contract.

And somehow you are right?

All you back that with is "I want this to happen, so fuck the procedure on how it happens".

Again, I have no issue with SSM as long as it's implemented via legislative action at the State level, the way any change to a State mandated contract is supposed to happen.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Sorry, but "I don't want to be a parent" isn't a good reason, it's a selfish reason.

Your opinion.

And as for non fatal genetic defects, that smacks of Eugenics.

No it doesn't.

Do you support abortions because a fetus is a girl, or what if we can figure out a fetus is going to be gay?

I supported abortion because it was a constitutional right. Now I support it in states that allow it.

 

[Marener]

No, it's sexuality.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, as it is really just a State approved contract.

And somehow you are right?

All you back that with is "I want this to happen, so fuck the procedure on how it happens".

Again, I have no issue with SSM as long as it's implemented via legislative action at the State level, the way any change to a State mandated contract is supposed to happen.

Before the legalization of same sex marriage, a person's ability to marry someone was determined by the gender of that person. So it is indeed gender discrimination. The ability to marry wasn't based on your identification of gay or straight. It was based on the gender of the person being married. There is no difference.

The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. It does say that people are granted equal protection and due process, which is the basis for outlawing bans on gay marriage and interracial marriage. My argument is backed by the fact that gay couples were being denied the equal protection of the law just the same as interracial couples.

All you back your argument with is "they're not the same" but never have any ability to determine what's actually different other than completely irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with our legal system.

I'll add, that your opinion about same sex marriage being implemented via legislative action at the state level is the argument that would have preserved interracial marriage bans.

 

[Leo123]

Before the legalization of same sex marriage, a person's ability to marry someone was determined by the gender of that person. So it is indeed gender discrimination. The ability to marry wasn't based on your identification of gay or straight. It was based on the gender of the person being married. There is no difference.

The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. It does say that people are granted equal protection and due process, which is the basis for outlawing bans on gay marriage and interracial marriage. My argument is backed by the fact that gay couples were being denied the equal protection of the law just the same as interracial couples.

All you back your argument with is "they're not the same" but never have any ability to determine what's actually different other than completely irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with our legal system.

I'll add, that your opinion about same sex marriage being implemented via legislative action at the state level is the argument that would have preserved interracial marriage bans.

Equal protection under the law means those who should be equal are not treated equally. Queers are not equal to heterosexuals because they can't procreate with the same sex which is why hetero marriage is sanctioned. Equal justice does not apply in this case.

 

[Marener]

Equal protection under the law means those who should be equal are not treated equally. Queers are not equal to heterosexuals because they can't procreate with the same sex which is why hetero marriage is sanctioned. Equal justice does not apply in this case.

Marriage is not contingent on the ability to procreate.

What garbage.

 

[Leo123]

Marriage is not contingent on the ability to procreate.

What garbage.

Marriage is overwhelmingly between natal men and natal women heterosexuals and always has been because it promotes family stability which is the lynch pin of a healthy society. Queers have co-opted marriage in an effort to be accepted as normal, which they are not. Now, go ahead and call me a hater.

 

[Curried Goats]

Marriage is overwhelmingly between natal men and natal women heterosexuals and always has been because it promotes family stability which is the lynch pin of a healthy society. Queers have co-opted marriage in an effort to be accepted as normal, which they are not. Now, go ahead and call me a hater.

Morons like you confuse biology with sociology all the time. Blind people aren't the norm but like gay people they are produced naturally and don't deserve your derision. You mutants lost. There's no going back. You're going to lose on the LGTBQ issues like your forefathers did with racial segregation and your children will be here telling my children how much they love gay activists like you simps tell us all how much you love MLK Jr.

 

[Leo123]

Morons like you confuse biology with sociology all the time. Blind people aren't the norm but like gay people they are produced naturally and don't deserve your derision. You mutants lost. There's no going back. You're going to lose on the LGTBQ issues like your forefathers did with racial segregation and your children will be here telling my children how much they love gay activists like you simps tell us all how much you love MLK Jr.

You're the one who is confused. Blind people are not the norm because most humans are born full sighted. We don't try to teach our children to blind themselves though do we? There is no proof that gays are born gay. I've already wasted time with you giving you facts on this in another thread. What am I going to lose on? I don't give a shit if you're a queer I recognize there are folks with sexual fetishes just keep it to yourself and your butt buddy. Stop trying to sell it as normal because it ain't most sane people know it. And stop trying to equate yourself with MLK it's disgusting really.

 

[Curried Goats]

You're the one who is confused. Blind people are no the norm because most humans are born full sighted. We don't try to teach our children to blind themselves though do we?

We don't teach people to be gay either, they're born that way.

There is no proof that gays are born gay.

Except for homosexuality being found throughout the entire animal kingdom you mean.

I've already wasted time with you giving you facts on this in another thread.

Your hilarious cosplay facts are wonderful, I never get tired of hearing them.

What am I going to lose on?

The law, politics, cultural significance. Pretty much everything.

I don't give a shit if you're a queer I recognize there are folks with sexual fetishes just keep it to yourself and your butt buddy. Stop trying to sell it as normal because it ain't most sane people know it.

You keep trying to equate not normal with morally wrong and you're failing at it. Not normal simply means not common. It doesn't mean wrong and learned people know that.

And stop trying to equate yourself with MLK it's disgusting really.

I wasn't you moron, I was ruminating about how entirely conquered you're going to be over this issue as the racists have been conquered over Civil Rights. None of you whites wants to admit to having been opposed to it yet we know nearly have the country was.

 

[martybegan]

Your opinion.



No it doesn't.


I supported abortion because it was a constitutional right. Now I support it in states that allow it.

You didn't answer my last question. Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

 

[martybegan]

Before the legalization of same sex marriage, a person's ability to marry someone was determined by the gender of that person. So it is indeed gender discrimination. The ability to marry wasn't based on your identification of gay or straight. It was based on the gender of the person being married. There is no difference.

The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. It does say that people are granted equal protection and due process, which is the basis for outlawing bans on gay marriage and interracial marriage. My argument is backed by the fact that gay couples were being denied the equal protection of the law just the same as interracial couples.

All you back your argument with is "they're not the same" but never have any ability to determine what's actually different other than completely irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with our legal system.

I'll add, that your opinion about same sex marriage being implemented via legislative action at the state level is the argument that would have preserved interracial marriage bans.

It's the sexuality, not the gender. equal protection doesn't apply because SSM and hetero marriage aren't equal despite you just saying it is.

Race and sexuality are not the same.

No, because race and sexuality are not the same.