SCOTUS divided over SSM

[BluesLegend]

Negative, I don't give a rats ass about any gay issue. But I recognize over reach when I see it and the type of behavior that would give the SCOTUS pause. $135,000 damage award for refusing to bake a cake? Yes that is precisely how gays are shooting themselves in the foot.

Whichever way this ruling goes it will still have zero effect on state public accommodation laws.

All I'm saying is gays are on the path to a bitch slapping. Keep agitating, keep attacking Christians, makes no difference to me.

Yeah...yeah....you're a tough guy. You and 20 of your friends will take on a gay, if you can get them alone. We know. You're so fierce.

Ahahaha what's a gay going to do swing their purse at me

hopefully kick your cowardly butt.

The freaks would run home to their momma's crying.

 

[jillian]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

that is like saying that Clarence Thomas should have recused from the voters rights case because he voted while black.

what idiocy.

besides there is no recusal rule for the supreme court. and by your (lack of) logic, anyone who has performed a heterosexual wedding would have to recuse too.

such is the problem when people like you try to opine about the courts.

 

[jillian]

Whichever way this ruling goes it will still have zero effect on state public accommodation laws.

All I'm saying is gays are on the path to a bitch slapping. Keep agitating, keep attacking Christians, makes no difference to me.

Yeah...yeah....you're a tough guy. You and 20 of your friends will take on a gay, if you can get them alone. We know. You're so fierce.

Ahahaha what's a gay going to do swing their purse at me

hopefully kick your cowardly butt.

The freaks would run home to their momma's crying.

you mean the freaks who attacked them?

probably.

 

[Skylar]

The rich in their depravity turn to unnatural pleasures of the same sex. Before the fall of the great Republic of Rome, morals eroded and rich homosexuals found pleasure with young slave boys. I wonder if their lust was leading them to pedophilia.

Rome fell because of civil wars and mass migrations out of Asia.

Not butt fucking.

Learn history and then post

SassyIrishChick does not know history at all.

You're such a fake, dude. Now sh

Rome fell because of civil wars and mass migrations out of Asia.

Not butt fucking.

Learn history and then post

I'll gladly put my knowledge of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire against yours.

Shall we dance?

You're clueless, go dance with yourself

Laughing......nothing but excuses why you won't discuss Roman History?

Gee, how did I know that was coming?

Leading causes of the fall of the Roman Empire...

Germanic tribal invasions. The mistake of dividing the Empire into halves and the rise of the western Empire. Over expansion, government corruption and the watering down of the military.

Civil wars and mass migration? Pfffft...you're a moron

The Crisis of the Third Century was a string of civil wars lasting about 50 years that radically weakened and transformed the Roman military machine. As every casualty was a roman soldier. It gutted both the leadership and the footman core of the Roman military and forced them to rely heavily on foreign conscripts and mercenaries as auxiliaries. By the late empire there were often as many Goths in the Roman military auxillaries as there were in the armies they fought.

These auxiliaries were not standardized. They didn't use traditional roman military tactics, they didn't use the gladius, they didn't wear the banded metal armor of Republic and Early Empire Roman troops. They were largely a rabble. And they were the backbone of the Roman military in the late empire.

Worse, as military conquest was the standard method of passing power from one emperor to the next and usurpers were killing usurpers for the office of Emperor, more and more 'escort armies' were kept near the Emperor to defend him from other wannabes. With these 'escorts' sometime comprising 1/10th of the entire Roman military and composed of the best troops.Almost all of the escort armies were core Roman troops, not foreign auxiliaries.

Meaning that the Roman military was robbed of both numbers and quality it could apply to the field by this practice.

And these troops were sorely needed. As at the same time the Germanic tribes were going ape shit with over a dozen major uprisings and key battles. That's twice the number of conflicts in only 50 years than in the 200 years that preceded it.

There was relative stability for the span on a single Emperor's reign....and then the Empire plunged back into civil war for another 20 years. With civil war greeting virtually every transition of power from one emperor until the collapse of the Empire.

But civil wars had nothing to do with it? There's virtually no historian alive even remotely familiar with the Roman empire that wouldn't place at least some blame for the Empire's collapse on these civil wars. With many citing it as a primary impetus of it.

And while the tribes that attacked Rome were Germanic, Sasanian, the Carpi and others, these groups were they were pushed into Roman territory by massive Asian migrations of the Huns, the Slavs, the Avars, the Bulgars and others. The Huns attacked the Visigoths long before they attacked the Romans. And it was this great migration out of Asia that spelled the death knell of the roman Empire.

According to who? According to the Romans:

"However, the seed and origin of all the ruin and various disasters that the wrath of Mars aroused ... we have found to be (the invasions of the Huns)"

Ammianus Marcellinus

You were saying, Sassy?

 

[BluesLegend]

All I'm saying is gays are on the path to a bitch slapping. Keep agitating, keep attacking Christians, makes no difference to me.

Yeah...yeah....you're a tough guy. You and 20 of your friends will take on a gay, if you can get them alone. We know. You're so fierce.

Ahahaha what's a gay going to do swing their purse at me

hopefully kick your cowardly butt.

The freaks would run home to their momma's crying.

you mean the freaks who attacked them?

probably.

I'm not trying to be mean, but they are a freak of nature are they not?

 

[jillian]

Yeah...yeah....you're a tough guy. You and 20 of your friends will take on a gay, if you can get them alone. We know. You're so fierce.

Ahahaha what's a gay going to do swing their purse at me

hopefully kick your cowardly butt.

The freaks would run home to their momma's crying.

you mean the freaks who attacked them?

probably.

I'm not trying to be mean, but they are a freak of nature are they not?

then you're just ignorant.

and no.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The rich in their depravity turn to unnatural pleasures of the same sex. Before the fall of the great Republic of Rome, morals eroded and rich homosexuals found pleasure with young slave boys. I wonder if their lust was leading them to pedophilia.

Rome fell because of civil wars and mass migrations out of Asia.

Not butt fucking.

Learn history and then post

SassyIrishChick does not know history at all.

You're such a fake, dude. Now sh

Learn history and then post

I'll gladly put my knowledge of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire against yours.

Shall we dance?

You're clueless, go dance with yourself

Laughing......nothing but excuses why you won't discuss Roman History?

Gee, how did I know that was coming?

Leading causes of the fall of the Roman Empire...

Germanic tribal invasions. The mistake of dividing the Empire into halves and the rise of the western Empire. Over expansion, government corruption and the watering down of the military.

Civil wars and mass migration? Pfffft...you're a moron

The Crisis of the Third Century was a string of civil wars lasting about 50 years that radically weakened and transformed the Roman military machine. As every casualty was a roman soldier. It gutted both the leadership and the footman core of the Roman military and forced them to rely heavily on foreign conscripts and mercenaries as auxiliaries. By the late empire there were often as many Goths in the Roman military auxillaries as there were in the armies they fought.

These auxiliaries were not standardized. They didn't use traditional roman military tactics, they didn't use the gladius, they didn't wear the banded metal armor of Republic and Early Empire Roman troops. They were largely a rabble. And they were the backbone of the Roman military in the late empire.

Worse, as military conquest was the standard method of passing power from one emperor to the next and usurpers were killing usurpers for the office of Emperor, more and more 'escort armies' were kept near the Emperor to defend him from other wannabes. With these 'escorts' sometime comprising 1/10th of the entire Roman military and composed of the best troops.Almost all of the escort armies were core Roman troops, not foreign auxiliaries.

Meaning that the Roman military was robbed of both numbers and quality it could apply to the field by this practice.

And these troops were sorely needed. As at the same time the Germanic tribes were going ape shit with over a dozen major uprisings and key battles. That's twice the number of conflicts in only 50 years than in the 200 years that preceded it.

There was relative stability for the span on a single Emperor's reign....and then the Empire plunged back into civil war for another 20 years. With civil war greeting virtually every transition of power from one emperor until the collapse of the Empire.

But civil wars had nothing to do with it? There's virtually no historian alive even remotely familiar with the Roman empire that wouldn't place at least some blame for the Empire's collapse on these civil wars. With many citing it as a primary impetus of it.

And while the tribes that attacked Rome were Germanic, Sasanian, the Carpi and others, these groups were they were pushed into Roman territory by massive Asian migrations of the Huns, the Slavs, the Avars, the Bulgars and others. And it was this great migration out of asia that spelled the death knell of the roman Empire.

According to who? According to the Romans:

"However, the seed and origin of all the ruin and various disasters that the wrath of Mars aroused ... we have found to be (the invasions of the Huns)"

Ammianus Marcellinus

You were saying, Sassy?

I was saying you're a clueless dumbphuck. I rest my case. There were many factors that caused the fall of the Roman Empire and they were all intertwined. You went with two as the reasons...and failed miserably doing so.

Unimpressed by your lack of knowledge on this subject. You may run along now, Skippy

 

[deltex1]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

Jake is pledged to Howey...promised to get him preggers no matter how long it takes.

 

[deltex1]

I am working in the yard, Irish...the fags will have to wait...

 

[Katzndogz]

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

Is marriage a normal human condition....in the format it is right now?

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I am working in the yard, Irish...the fags will have to wait...

Let'em wait, it's not like they are important or anything

 

[NYcarbineer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/u...oberts-into-ruling-for-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — In a telling moment at Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that he may have found a way to cast a vote in favor of the gay and lesbian couples in the case.

“I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case,” he said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Goddam! He's practically quoting me from awhile back.

What I said last month:

"A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry that same woman.

That is discrimination. That is allowing the man to do something denied to the woman."

Glad I could be of help, Johnny Boy.

lol

Bill O Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and equal protection of the laws . Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is marriage a normal human condition....in the format it is right now?

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

The human population can survive without the homosexual minority reproducing.

Afterall, we survived Jesus being celibate.

 

[Skylar]

Is marriage a normal human condition....in the format it is right now?

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

A different 'genus'? You do know that genus is above species in the taxonomy heirachy, right? The 'homo' in homo sapien sapien? With the word 'homo' meaning human.

You're quite literally claiming that homosexuals aren't human.

 

[Skylar]

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

The human population can survive without the homosexual minority reproducing.

Afterall, we survived Jesus being celibate.

The Apocrypha might dispute parts of your post....

 

[deltex1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/u...oberts-into-ruling-for-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — In a telling moment at Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that he may have found a way to cast a vote in favor of the gay and lesbian couples in the case.

“I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case,” he said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Goddam! He's practically quoting me from awhile back.

What I said last month:

"A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry that same woman.

That is discrimination. That is allowing the man to do something denied to the woman."

Glad I could be of help, Johnny Boy.

lol

Bill O Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and equal protection of the laws . Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Let Tom and Sue marry Joe...that way Tom can screw son Joey when he's in kinder...that's what kind of society is free!

 

[bodecea]

Whichever way this ruling goes it will still have zero effect on state public accommodation laws.

All I'm saying is gays are on the path to a bitch slapping. Keep agitating, keep attacking Christians, makes no difference to me.

Yeah...yeah....you're a tough guy. You and 20 of your friends will take on a gay, if you can get them alone. We know. You're so fierce.

Ahahaha what's a gay going to do swing their purse at me

hopefully kick your cowardly butt.

The freaks would run home to their momma's crying.

You obviously don't know (or at least don't know that you know) many gay people. Try anything....and it would be fun to see what happens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

The human population can survive without the homosexual minority reproducing.

Afterall, we survived Jesus being celibate.

The Apocrypha might dispute parts of your post....

There silliness is two-fold

1. Homosexuals don't generally reproduce whether they are married or not. Denying a gay person a marriage license hardly causes he or she to magically desire having babies.

2. Many Christian churches regard celibacy as something to be revered.

 

[bodecea]

Is marriage a normal human condition....in the format it is right now?

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

And we have children too. But if you are so afraid that the species will not continue with legalized gay marriage....you've got some serious knowledge gaps to tackle.

 

[Katzndogz]

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

The human population can survive without the homosexual minority reproducing.

Afterall, we survived Jesus being celibate.

marriage is a human institution. not a biological condition. it comes from civilization, not biology. Whereas, according to you homosexuality is a biological condition.

again, your logic is falling apart with each new post.

So...without civilization there isn't marriage? You might want to tell hunter gatherer tribes that, they have marriage too.....but it's still a human construct.

And straight is a biological condition too......and straights are allowed to marry. Why is one biological condition allowed to legally (a human construct) marry but not another biological condition?

What are you saying here? That gays aren't biologically human beings? Are they biologically a separate species?

My goodness how did you get from Point A to Uranus?

Following your lead.

Biologically the imperitive is to mate and produce offspring. It's called preservation of the species. In homosexuals the biological imperative has gone haywire. They don't have the same biological impetus. Their biology is deformed. They don't have a different biological condition. That would make them a separate genus. They have the same biology. It's just a warped version.

A different 'genus'? You do know that genus is above species in the taxonomy heirachy, right? The 'homo' in homo sapien sapien? With the word 'homo' meaning human.

You're quite literally claiming that homosexuals aren't human.

That's why I posed the question to Bodecea. She was claiming that gays have a different biological condition.