GOP Senator Celebrates His Vote Against Gay Marriage By Attending Son's Gay Marriage

[struth]

Good fucking grief! Do we have to explain everything to you? It exists in the form of a SCOTUS decision that my be overturned. What part of that do you not understand?

so what makes you think a federal law can overturn a Court case?

 

[struth]

You really don't understand much about how things work, do you.? The court will not rule that gay marriage is unconstitutional. By overturning Obergfell they will be returning the matter to the states, and some states will ban it. And yes, a federal law will override those bans

how does the federal govt have the power to do that? have you read Art 1 Sec 8?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh you got me. here You're argument is dumb. ZINGER....

It's only dumb to someone who has no grasp of logic. That would be you, in this case. Your circular argument was stupid.

"Can a gay man not marry a woman? Can a gay woman not marry a man? They are being treated exactly the same under the law, if your definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman."


Hahaha, so fucking dumb...

 

[Couchpotato]

That is hardly a valid rebuttle to the points that I made. It is however a demonstration of your grose insensitivity and callous disregard for the fact that gay people deserve the opportunity to marry for the same reasons as anyone else.

Im not arguing the feelings or whether gay people should or should not be able to get married so whether Im insensitive or not is irrelevant. Can you quote me saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married? Oh you cant because I never said that? That's what I thought.

There is no need for a law that defines the meaning of marriage. Each individual couple already has the ability to define what marriage means to them.

Can I marry my dog? Can I marry my sister? We already have laws prohibiting or regulating who you can or cant get married to. The law HAS to define what it is. Do I get to decide what speeding is? Do I get to decide what murder is? Do I get to decide what anything else in the law means based on my personal opinion? Why would marriage be any different than literally everything else?

However, tellingh gays that they can marry someone of the opposite sex takes that ability away from them in the cruelest of ways. That is stupid and infuriating

Again with the feelings. The law doesnt give a shit nor should it about your feelings or mine. The law is the law. If you dont like what the law says change it. Who's feelings should we follow? Your's, mine, David Duke's?

Im not advocating for the overturning of Obergfell. Im not sure the court got it right perse as I think Artice IV Sec 1 is a better application to ensure Constitutionality across the board but it's ruled the way it has ruled and because existing marriages depend on that ruling and new ones will into the future I dont see how you can overturn it.

 

[Couchpotato]

It's only dumb to someone who has no grasp of logic. That would be you, in this case. Your circular argument was stupid.

"Can a gay man not marry a woman? Can a gay woman not marry a man? They are being treated exactly the same under the law, if your definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman."


Hahaha, so fucking dumb...

You realize you have made like 4 posts and have yet to make an actual argument against what I said. Just said it was dumb . If it's dumb then it should be easy to refute using logic and something of substance.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

so what makes you think a federal law can overturn a Court case?

It would not be a matter over overturning a court case. If Obergfelle were to be reversedm it would simply mean that the court does not reccognize same sex marriage as a right. It does not prohibit same sex marriage. It only allows states to prohibit it

The idea is to codify the right to same sex marriage. It might be open to a legal challange- perhapps on states rights grounds-but it would stand until such challenge was successful

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

how does the federal govt have the power to do that? have you read Art 1 Sec 8?

Yes. Nothing about marriage But have you read the 9th Amendment?

 

[Failzero]

Evolving is overrated

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You realize you have made like 4 posts and have yet to make an actual argument against what I said. Just said it was dumb . If it's dumb then it should be easy to refute using logic and something of substance.

I made an argument against that tripe and you could not deal with it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Im not arguing the feelings or whether gay people should or should not be able to get married so whether Im insensitive or not is irrelevant. Can you quote me saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married? Oh you cant because I never said that? That's what I thought.

Cut the bullshit games, I know what you said and now you are running from it after I documented the stupidity and cruelty of saying that gays people can marry someone of the opposite sex

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolving is overrated

Some people like you will always be left behind.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Can I marry my dog? Can I marry my sister? We already have laws prohibiting or regulating who you can or cant get married to. The law HAS to define what it is. Do I get to decide what speeding is? Do I get to decide what murder is? Do I get to decide what anything else in the law means based on my personal opinion? Why would marriage be any different than literally everything else?

Now you are just throwing a lot of Gish Gallop bullshit at the wall in that hope that something will stick. The ability for gays to marry the person who they are romantically and physically attracted to has nothing to do with you marrying your dog or sister. If a gay person cannot marry for the same reasons that others can marry-that is discrimination.

I really , really hope that you are not so stupid that you believe your own bullshit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again with the feelings. The law doesnt give a shit nor should it about your feelings or mine. The law is the law. If you dont like what the law says change it. Who's feelings should we follow? Your's, mine, David Duke's?

Actually, If you had read the Obergefell opinion, which I am sure you did not, you would see that the law cares very much about feelings.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Good fucking grief! Do we have to explain everything to you? It exists in the form of a SCOTUS decision that my be overturned. What part of that do you not understand?

So if the decision can be overturned then it isnt a legal law under the constitution, Just like Abortion on demand by the SCOTUS wasnt a law in the Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Im not arguing the feelings or whether gay people should or should not be able to get married so whether Im insensitive or not is irrelevant. Can you quote me saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married? Oh you cant because I never said that? That's what I thought.


Can I marry my dog? Can I marry my sister? We already have laws prohibiting or regulating who you can or cant get married to. The law HAS to define what it is. Do I get to decide what speeding is? Do I get to decide what murder is? Do I get to decide what anything else in the law means based on my personal opinion? Why would marriage be any different than literally everything else?



Again with the feelings. The law doesnt give a shit nor should it about your feelings or mine. The law is the law. If you dont like what the law says change it. Who's feelings should we follow? Your's, mine, David Duke's?

Im not advocating for the overturning of Obergfell. Im not sure the court got it right perse as I think Artice IV Sec 1 is a better application to ensure Constitutionality across the board but it's ruled the way it has ruled and because existing marriages depend on that ruling and new ones will into the future I dont see how you can overturn it.

Oh please, not that crap again!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Now you are just throwing a lot of Gish Gallop bullshit at the wall in that hope that something will stick. The ability for gays to marry the person who they are romantically and physically attracted to has nothing to do with you marrying your dog or sister. If a gay person cannot marry for the same reasons that others can marry-that is discrimination.

I really , really hope that you are not so stupid that you believe your own bullshit

gays to marry the person who they are romantically and physically attracted to

Sick, just sick in the head. The teachers would tell my kids that we needed to accept them as normal, my response to the kids was to accept them as citizens of the US, but if they opened that bedroom door and came out queer, then the acceptance was thrown out, because mentally ill people need to be put in an asylum, not allowed to infect young children with their immoral ways.

In 1973, the diagnosis of Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD) appeared which regarded homosexuality as an illness if an individual with same-sex attractions found them distressing and wanted to change what sex they were attracted to, but it also was inclusive of distress from heterosexuality.

Homosexuality was Considered a Mental Illness - Each Mind

eachmind.org/blog/homosexuality-mental-illness/


You cant take a consensus vote and stop saying Cancer is a disease, you cant take a consensus and vote mental illness to stop being a mental illness. Insane is just that insane.

May the Monkey Pox be with you.

 

[Failzero]

Some people like you will always be left behind.

And not taken to the camps like the rest

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Evolving is overrated

Among the knuckle draggers

 

[Couchpotato]

Cut the bullshit games, I know what you said and now you are running from it after I documented the stupidity and cruelty of saying that gays people can marry someone of the opposite sex

Im not running from anything. Quote it. I'll wait.

 

[Couchpotato]

I made an argument against that tripe and you could not deal with it.

I wasnt talking to you.