JUDGE BLOCKS NEBRASKA SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN

[Skylar]

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.

Nor does it make something wrong when an increasingly marginalized minority like yourself insists it must be so.

And judges are supposed to protect rights. You only call them 'Activist' when you disagree with them. If they do the exact same thing and you agree.....then they're defenders of freedom. Where by any rational standard, its the same process in both instances.

We'll be looking back at your ilk in 20 years like we look back at opponents of interracial marriage today. Enjoy your legacy. You've earned it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Your procreation argument is garbage. No one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

It's a good response to your simple "I don't like them, thus they can have their rights like I do."

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The only attempt you have made is to say 'procreation' and then to claim adoption by homosexuals is a violation of human rights.

Not only is that not logic, its just stupid, and irrational.

 

[quorthon]

Who really wants this sh*t? Are they so many gays? If I were gay I would prefer to keep offstages.

 

[Skylar]

Who really wants this sh*t? Are they so many gays? If I were gay I would prefer to keep offstages.

And some gays do. Others want to be married and receive the same rights and protections as anyone else. Gays, like straights, should be able to make that choice for themselves....rather than having the State make it for them.

 

[quorthon]

And some gays do. Others want to be married and receive the same rights and protections as anyone else. Gays, like straights, should be able to make that choice for themselves....rather than having the State make it for them.

But in fact they will have extra rights and extra protection that will cause additional expenditures.

 

[Skylar]

And some gays do. Others want to be married and receive the same rights and protections as anyone else. Gays, like straights, should be able to make that choice for themselves....rather than having the State make it for them.

But in fact they will have extra rights and extra protection that will cause additional expenditures.

They don't have 'extra rights'. They want to get married, just like everyone else. The restriction that prevents it is arbitrary, as it has nothing to do with fulfilling the requirements of marriage. Like interracial marriage bans before it, the ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And gay marriage bans don't.

 

[|electric|foxy|]

They want to get married, just like everyone else.

can't stop laughing
but it's hard to find a partner, so they usually decide to marry the same-sex person