JUDGE BLOCKS NEBRASKA SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN

[Syriusly]

So, if it was consensual it would be OK?

Incest and forcing rape victims to marry their rapists is okay as long as god commands you to do so.

So you would have to ask your god on that, as those passages are just as important as the ones that apparently 'prohibit gay relationships'.

Want are you talking about?
Some people might object to legal homo marriage on logic grounds.

I have yet to see an objection based upon logic.

Feel free to show us some.

There is no objection based upon logic. Only fear.

How many times does it have to be explained that homos cannot procreate with each other and only heteros can? This is the only dynamic that should require any legal intervention. Otherwise it is completely a personal issue. It doesn't get any more logical than that.

Homosexuals can procreate with other homosexuals.

None of which has anything to do with gay marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, the depravity.

 

[PratchettFan]

So, if it was consensual it would be OK?

Incest and forcing rape victims to marry their rapists is okay as long as god commands you to do so.

So you would have to ask your god on that, as those passages are just as important as the ones that apparently 'prohibit gay relationships'.

Want are you talking about?
Some people might object to legal homo marriage on logic grounds.

I have yet to see an objection based upon logic.

Feel free to show us some.

There is no objection based upon logic. Only fear.

How many times does it have to be explained that homos cannot procreate with each other and only heteros can? This is the only dynamic that should require any legal intervention. Otherwise it is completely a personal issue. It doesn't get any more logical than that.

Yes. I have heard that excuse, but it does not stand up. There is no legal obligation for a couple to procreate in order to be married. People incapable of procreating are not prevented from getting married. People beyond child bearing years are not prevented from getting married. Are you suggesting that should change?

 

[WinterBorn]

ISIS has best idea for faggots.

Feel free to try an carry out the ISIS method for dealing with gays here. I will be one of those straights who will not only defy you, but fight back with a vengence.

 

[WinterBorn]

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Every other day some judge is dictating to us on who can be married

what country do we live in. the people has voted time after time their feeling on this (take California) and then these thugs and militants for homosexual marrying negate their votes and cheer when a some thug in a black robe tickles their fancy

You cannot vote away the rights of the minority. And, according to SCOTUS, the constitutional rights have been denied according to the 14th amendment.

If you believe that such a huge majority is against same sex marriage, then amend the US Constitution. (or try)

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Incest and forcing rape victims to marry their rapists is okay as long as god commands you to do so.

So you would have to ask your god on that, as those passages are just as important as the ones that apparently 'prohibit gay relationships'.

Want are you talking about?
Some people might object to legal homo marriage on logic grounds.

I have yet to see an objection based upon logic.

Feel free to show us some.

There is no objection based upon logic. Only fear.

How many times does it have to be explained that homos cannot procreate with each other and only heteros can? This is the only dynamic that should require any legal intervention. Otherwise it is completely a personal issue. It doesn't get any more logical than that.

Yes. I have heard that excuse, but it does not stand up. There is no legal obligation for a couple to procreate in order to be married. People incapable of procreating are not prevented from getting married. People beyond child bearing years are not prevented from getting married. Are you suggesting that should change?

And there is no reason for the law to coerce concessions from others per marriage except for the potential for procreation. I'm convinced that when marriage was deemed a legal thing it was assumed that this was the standard and that alternatives would be too ridiculous to even consider. Who knew?
As for non-procreative couples, the possibility for adoption while providing the necessary mother/father circumstance makes that legal marriage legitimate.
Or, homos should not be allowed to adopt and children should not be forced into homes missing a gender parent. Cruel and rude and a violation of a human right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the potential for procreation. has been debunked: toddle along.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

the potential for procreation. has been debunked: toddle along.

No it hasn't. Try again.

 

[Syriusly]

Want are you talking about?
Some people might object to legal homo marriage on logic grounds.

I have yet to see an objection based upon logic.

Feel free to show us some.

There is no objection based upon logic. Only fear.

How many times does it have to be explained that homos cannot procreate with each other and only heteros can? This is the only dynamic that should require any legal intervention. Otherwise it is completely a personal issue. It doesn't get any more logical than that.

Yes. I have heard that excuse, but it does not stand up. There is no legal obligation for a couple to procreate in order to be married. People incapable of procreating are not prevented from getting married. People beyond child bearing years are not prevented from getting married. Are you suggesting that should change?

And there is no reason for the law to coerce concessions from others per marriage except for the potential for procreation. I'm convinced that when marriage was deemed a legal thing it was assumed that this was the standard and that alternatives would be too ridiculous to even consider. Who knew?
As for non-procreative couples, the possibility for adoption while providing the necessary mother/father circumstance makes that legal marriage legitimate.
Or, homos should not be allowed to adopt and children should not be forced into homes missing a gender parent. Cruel and rude and a violation of a human right.

Coerce what concessions?

Treating same gender couples exactly the same as my wife and I is not a concession- it is equal treatment before the law.

Marriage law doesn't care about procreation. When we got married there was no presumption or expectation or requirement that we would have a child.

Why am I not surprised you are also in favor of not allowing homosexuals to adopt the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents- preferring that they wait 3 or more years for some heterosexual to be the parents that their own heterosexual parents weren't- now that is cruel- and rude- and a violation of a human right.

 

[Syriusly]

the potential for procreation. has been debunked: toddle along.

No it hasn't. Try again.

Oh it has.

It has been the losing argument in every failed court case trying to prevent marriage equality for same gender couples.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rosh is down to where r my keys, saintmike, and Pop23 as stalwarts: what a losing quartet.

 

[hipeter924]

the potential for procreation. has been debunked: toddle along.

No it hasn't. Try again.

Oh it has.

It has been the losing argument in every failed court case trying to prevent marriage equality for same gender couples.

In the next 5 years they will get more desperate, but it still won't get them anywhere. By the end of the decade same-sex marriage will be a fact of life in every US state, and that scares them or makes them angry.

In two decades the GOP will be forced to admit LGBT groups into their party, and same-sex marriage opponents will only exist in fringe evangelical groups.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

the potential for procreation. has been debunked: toddle along.

No it hasn't. Try again.

Oh it has.

It has been the losing argument in every failed court case trying to prevent marriage equality for same gender couples.

In the next 5 years they will get more desperate, but it still won't get them anywhere. By the end of the decade same-sex marriage will be a fact of life in every US state, and that scares them or makes them angry.

In two decades the GOP will be forced to admit LGBT groups into their party, and same-sex marriage opponents will only exist in fringe evangelical groups.

Unlike you I don't allow mob think and mob rule to usurp logic and reason.
A whole lot of people who are wrong don't make any thing right. What's more the popular take is still opposed to homo marriage. Activist judges are applying their own opinions in favor.

 

[Syriusly]

the potential for procreation. has been debunked: toddle along.

No it hasn't. Try again.

Oh it has.

It has been the losing argument in every failed court case trying to prevent marriage equality for same gender couples.

In the next 5 years they will get more desperate, but it still won't get them anywhere. By the end of the decade same-sex marriage will be a fact of life in every US state, and that scares them or makes them angry.

In two decades the GOP will be forced to admit LGBT groups into their party, and same-sex marriage opponents will only exist in fringe evangelical groups.

Unlike you I don't allow mob think and mob rule to usurp logic and reason.
A whole lot of people who are wrong don't make any thing right. What's more the popular take is still opposed to homo marriage. Activist judges are applying their own opinions in favor.

Oh you show your individuality by parroting the anti-gay marriage rhetoric- no 'mob think' for you. LOL.

More Americans now favor gay marriage than oppose it- not that that matters when it comes to whether a law is constitutional or not.

And as usual- whenever anyone says someone is an 'activist judge'- they refer to any judgement that they disagree with.

Conservatives never call judges 'activist judges' when they overturn popular state laws regarding guns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the potential for procreation. has been debunked: toddle along.

No it hasn't. Try again.

Oh it has.

It has been the losing argument in every failed court case trying to prevent marriage equality for same gender couples.

In the next 5 years they will get more desperate, but it still won't get them anywhere. By the end of the decade same-sex marriage will be a fact of life in every US state, and that scares them or makes them angry.

In two decades the GOP will be forced to admit LGBT groups into their party, and same-sex marriage opponents will only exist in fringe evangelical groups.

Unlike you I don't allow mob think and mob rule to usurp logic and reason.
A whole lot of people who are wrong don't make any thing right. What's more the popular take is still opposed to homo marriage. Activist judges are applying their own opinions in favor.

Oh you show your individuality by parroting the anti-gay marriage rhetoric- no 'mob think' for you. LOL.

More Americans now favor gay marriage than oppose it- not that that matters when it comes to whether a law is constitutional or not.

And as usual- whenever anyone says someone is an 'activist judge'- they refer to any judgement that they disagree with.

Conservatives never call judges 'activist judges' when they overturn popular state laws regarding guns.

Rosh has self described perfectly. He is a goober.

 

[PratchettFan]

Want are you talking about?
Some people might object to legal homo marriage on logic grounds.

I have yet to see an objection based upon logic.

Feel free to show us some.

There is no objection based upon logic. Only fear.

How many times does it have to be explained that homos cannot procreate with each other and only heteros can? This is the only dynamic that should require any legal intervention. Otherwise it is completely a personal issue. It doesn't get any more logical than that.

Yes. I have heard that excuse, but it does not stand up. There is no legal obligation for a couple to procreate in order to be married. People incapable of procreating are not prevented from getting married. People beyond child bearing years are not prevented from getting married. Are you suggesting that should change?

And there is no reason for the law to coerce concessions from others per marriage except for the potential for procreation. I'm convinced that when marriage was deemed a legal thing it was assumed that this was the standard and that alternatives would be too ridiculous to even consider. Who knew?
As for non-procreative couples, the possibility for adoption while providing the necessary mother/father circumstance makes that legal marriage legitimate.
Or, homos should not be allowed to adopt and children should not be forced into homes missing a gender parent. Cruel and rude and a violation of a human right.

As I said, just an excuse. The real reason is just prejudice. You don't like them, so they aren't real citizens. I see no reason they should accept that and there is no valid legal reason for it. That is why they are winning. Good for them.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No it hasn't. Try again.

Oh it has.

It has been the losing argument in every failed court case trying to prevent marriage equality for same gender couples.

In the next 5 years they will get more desperate, but it still won't get them anywhere. By the end of the decade same-sex marriage will be a fact of life in every US state, and that scares them or makes them angry.

In two decades the GOP will be forced to admit LGBT groups into their party, and same-sex marriage opponents will only exist in fringe evangelical groups.

Unlike you I don't allow mob think and mob rule to usurp logic and reason.
A whole lot of people who are wrong don't make any thing right. What's more the popular take is still opposed to homo marriage. Activist judges are applying their own opinions in favor.

Oh you show your individuality by parroting the anti-gay marriage rhetoric- no 'mob think' for you. LOL.

More Americans now favor gay marriage than oppose it- not that that matters when it comes to whether a law is constitutional or not.

And as usual- whenever anyone says someone is an 'activist judge'- they refer to any judgement that they disagree with.

Conservatives never call judges 'activist judges' when they overturn popular state laws regarding guns.

Rosh has self described perfectly. He is a goober.

Another non-response. I guess you're admitting you're wrong on this issue. That's step one.

 

[PratchettFan]

the potential for procreation. has been debunked: toddle along.

No it hasn't. Try again.

Oh it has.

It has been the losing argument in every failed court case trying to prevent marriage equality for same gender couples.

In the next 5 years they will get more desperate, but it still won't get them anywhere. By the end of the decade same-sex marriage will be a fact of life in every US state, and that scares them or makes them angry.

In two decades the GOP will be forced to admit LGBT groups into their party, and same-sex marriage opponents will only exist in fringe evangelical groups.

If things go as I hope they will, it will be a fact of life this year.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I have yet to see an objection based upon logic.

Feel free to show us some.

There is no objection based upon logic. Only fear.

How many times does it have to be explained that homos cannot procreate with each other and only heteros can? This is the only dynamic that should require any legal intervention. Otherwise it is completely a personal issue. It doesn't get any more logical than that.

Yes. I have heard that excuse, but it does not stand up. There is no legal obligation for a couple to procreate in order to be married. People incapable of procreating are not prevented from getting married. People beyond child bearing years are not prevented from getting married. Are you suggesting that should change?

And there is no reason for the law to coerce concessions from others per marriage except for the potential for procreation. I'm convinced that when marriage was deemed a legal thing it was assumed that this was the standard and that alternatives would be too ridiculous to even consider. Who knew?
As for non-procreative couples, the possibility for adoption while providing the necessary mother/father circumstance makes that legal marriage legitimate.
Or, homos should not be allowed to adopt and children should not be forced into homes missing a gender parent. Cruel and rude and a violation of a human right.

As I said, just an excuse. The real reason is just prejudice. You don't like them, so they aren't real citizens. I see no reason they should accept that and there is no valid legal reason for it. That is why they are winning. Good for them.

Not prejudice. Reason.
I've explained with no legit rebuttal yet. Just disparagement and some attempts at common agreement to solidify your unreasonable assessments. Like if others side with you it somehow supplants reason and logic regardless. Very weak.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no objection based upon logic. Only fear.

How many times does it have to be explained that homos cannot procreate with each other and only heteros can? This is the only dynamic that should require any legal intervention. Otherwise it is completely a personal issue. It doesn't get any more logical than that.

Yes. I have heard that excuse, but it does not stand up. There is no legal obligation for a couple to procreate in order to be married. People incapable of procreating are not prevented from getting married. People beyond child bearing years are not prevented from getting married. Are you suggesting that should change?

And there is no reason for the law to coerce concessions from others per marriage except for the potential for procreation. I'm convinced that when marriage was deemed a legal thing it was assumed that this was the standard and that alternatives would be too ridiculous to even consider. Who knew?
As for non-procreative couples, the possibility for adoption while providing the necessary mother/father circumstance makes that legal marriage legitimate.
Or, homos should not be allowed to adopt and children should not be forced into homes missing a gender parent. Cruel and rude and a violation of a human right.

As I said, just an excuse. The real reason is just prejudice. You don't like them, so they aren't real citizens. I see no reason they should accept that and there is no valid legal reason for it. That is why they are winning. Good for them.

Not prejudice. Reason.
I've explained with no legit rebuttal yet. Just disparagement and some attempts at common agreement to solidify your unreasonable assessments. Like if others side with you it somehow supplants reason and logic regardless. Very weak.

No. Pure prejudice and that is all. You have made that abundantly clear.