martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,046
- 34,363
Limit. Taking. I donāt give a shit what word you use.
Dobbs has more in common with Plessy than Obergfell or Roe.
Dobbs was fixing the fuckup that was Roe. Roe should have never happened.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Limit. Taking. I donāt give a shit what word you use.
Dobbs has more in common with Plessy than Obergfell or Roe.
I don't know because that isn't my claim, it's yours.What the point in claiming that heterosexuality isn't the default condition for our species?
No. There is no default condition for our species with regards to sexual orientation just as there are none with skin tone, hair color, or height.Is it the default condition for or species, yes or no?
Not with sexual orientation just as there is no default for height, hair color, or weight.Are you saying there is no default condition?
Are you arguing that people born with only one arm shouldn't be allowed to marry?Two hands and two feet aren't the default? A 4 chamber heart isn't the default?
Thatās not a fucking answer.Because they are different.
Dobbs is the modern day Plessy.Dobbs was fixing the fuckup that was Roe. Roe should have never happened.
It's been my contention for a long time that, should we identify a "gay gene" and develop a pre-natal test for it, that we would see an epic battle between the gay lobby and the abortion lobby.
Thatās not a fucking answer.
Jesus, you consider yourself one of the ābig boysā? Pathetic.
You canāt discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on gender. The fact you canāt explain how this is wrong demonstrates your intellectual bankruptcy.
You have a constitutional right of equal protection. If you arenāt allowed to marry someone based solely on your gender, then youāre not getting equal protection.
Dobbs is the modern day Plessy.
Imagine if in the 1890s, the courts had ruled against segregation and instead of society moving on, the conservatives made it their mission to appoint enough judges to āfixā that, finally doing so 50 years later, sending the issue back to the states āwhere it belongedā.
Thatās whatās going on here.
I don't know because that isn't my claim, it's yours.
No. There is no default condition for our species with regards to sexual orientation just as there are none with skin tone, hair color, or height.
Not with sexual orientation just as there is no default for height, hair color, or weight.
Are you arguing that people born with only one arm shouldn't be allowed to marry?![]()
Itās not. You donāt have an answer.It's an answer, you just don't agree with it.
Plessy believed that the states could make things separate without making them unequal. Want to know how? Easy. They said that their segregation laws applied equally to both races. Black kids couldnāt go to white kids schools. But white kids couldnāt go to black kids schools either.Dobbs is righting a wrong.
Roe was based on a made up right, same as Obergfell.
Plessey was based on the made up concept of separate being equal in the case of race relations, which it clearly couldn't be.
Itās not. You donāt have an answer.
āItās differentā doesnāt even come close to being an answer. Itās pathetic you think it does.
Iāll ask it again. Try harder this time. How do you discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on gender?
How are both genders being treated equally if one gender can marry a man and one gender canāt?I have an answer.
because you aren't discriminating in this case based on gender, both genders are treated equally in the scenario.
Plessy believed that the states could make things separate without making them unequal. Want to know how? Easy. They said that their segregation laws applied equally to both races. Black kids couldnāt go to white kids schools. But white kids couldnāt go to black kids schools either.
Sound familiar? It should. Itās your excuse for making same sex marriage a state issue.
To get to Plessy, youād have to ignore different treatment or different people to allow government additional authority. Thatās what you want with Roe. Thatās what you want with Obergfell. To ignore different treatment to allow additional government authority on how to live our lives.
How are both genders being treated equally if one gender can marry a man and one gender canāt?
They arenāt.
Not for homosexual humans.So is heterosexuality the human default?
And? Some people are more than happy to not pass on their DNA. You are not responsible for the direction of our entire species.Let me answer that, yes, it is, If it wasn't it would lead to the end of the species.
Which means what to you? In what way would you treat them differently by law because of this? You don't think one armed people should be allowed to marry?I'm saying a person being born with only one arm isn't the default.
Black kid canāt go to a white kid school. White kid canāt go to a black kid school.the woman can't marry a woman either.
Only in a given State however. If they got married in a State where SSM was voted in, my version of obergfell would have had their license recognized in all States.
Plessy was overturned in a number of decisions. The multiple issues were addressed basically one by one. That includes Loving.In that case you were dealing with multiple issues, education, transportation, commerce, legal, and others. In the case of SSM you are only dealing with one thing, the marriage contract, more particularly, who you have to issue a marriage contract to.
I find people like you comical when you talk about government authority, when you probably side with the couple over the whole forcing the baker to bake a wedding cake thing, or forcing the photographer to work a same sex wedding.
Not for homosexual humans.
And? Some people are more than happy to not pass on their DNA. You are not responsible for the direction of our entire species.
Which means what to you? In what way would you treat them differently by law because of this? You don't think one armed people should be allowed to marry?
Black kid canāt go to a white kid school. White kid canāt go to a black kid school.
Is that equal protection? Nope.
A man canāt marry a man because theyāre a man. If they were a woman, theyād be allowed to. Thatās not equal protection. Thatās limiting their freedom based on their gender.
Plessy was overturned in a number of decisions. The multiple issues were addressed basically one by one. That includes Loving.
Your legal beliefs donāt have any foundation. The only reason you accept Loving is because it was so long ago. At the time, it was also deemed massive overreach by conservatives like yourself. The Warren court was the most liberal court in the history of the nation and itās what conservatives have been trying to undo ever since.