SCOTUS divided over SSM

[bodecea]

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!

You need to build the legal basis for such things.....I wish you luck.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

He meant to say 'genius', but as he explained ... there's no way 'I' should be in that word.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

 

[Anathema]

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.

The species of homo sapien will endure, though significantly devolved by the absolute and total lack of any morality, values, or understanding of the Tranditional Way of Human Life. So, in fact, it would be better for the homo sapien to become extinct than to allow this to happen.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

He meant to say 'genius', but as he explained ... there's no way 'I' should be in that word.

I said exactly what I meant to say which was asking you why you feel that homosexuals have a separate biological condition which would make them not fully human. Stop evading. Do you think gays and lesbians have a different biology?

 

[g5000]

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.

The species of homo sapien will endure, though significantly devolved by the absolute and total lack of any morality, values, or understanding of the Tranditional Way of Human Life. So, in fact, it would be better for the homo sapien to become extinct than to allow this to happen.

What's the matter? Can't get it up?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

He meant to say 'genius', but as he explained ... there's no way 'I' should be in that word.

I said exactly what I meant to say which was asking you why you feel that homosexuals have a separate biological condition which would make them not fully human. Stop evading. Do you think gays and lesbians have a different biology?

It's not the biology it's the mental makeup

 

[g5000]

You see? The only logically consistent position for a same sex marriage opponent is for them to also take a giant leap backward and outlaw gay sex.

It isn't the married tax return that gets to them. It's the sex.

 

[g5000]

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.

Please explain how Adam or Steve collecting Social Security survivor's benefits affects your ability to procreate.

When Adam and Steve get married, does everyone else's penises on the street go flaccid? Is that how it works?

Your ideas of biology as it relates to the government gifts showered on married people fascinate me.

After all, that is all gays are asking for: The same government gifts the rest of us get for being married.

 

[bodecea]

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.

He meant to say 'genius', but as he explained ... there's no way 'I' should be in that word.

I said exactly what I meant to say which was asking you why you feel that homosexuals have a separate biological condition which would make them not fully human. Stop evading. Do you think gays and lesbians have a different biology?

No one else's but your words.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the far right hetero fascists have fallen on their swords.

 

[g5000]

I said exactly what I meant to say which was asking you why you feel that homosexuals have a separate biological condition which would make them not fully human.

Just like negroes aren't fully human, right?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Let me guess. You believe you aren't a bigot.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

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.

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

There is no such thing as being biologically drawn to the same gender. The biological imperitive isn't to have sex. It is to mate. The biology is to preservation of the species.

The biology in gays is deformed. It's warped. But it's the same biology.

 

[Katzndogz]

I said exactly what I meant to say which was asking you why you feel that homosexuals have a separate biological condition which would make them not fully human.

Just like negroes aren't fully human, right?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Let me guess. You believe you aren't a bigot.

Ask bodecea why she thinks gays are biologically different. After all I was just addressing the rather outrageous comment that gays have a different biology.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One would think that, with so many other far more pressing problems across the world (pollution, deforestation, wars, resources going scarce, Islamic terrorism, financial inequality, racism/bigotry) that this issue should really be a no-brainer.

People are taking a legal issue and turning it into an emotional issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

There is no such thing as being biologically drawn to the same gender. The biological imperitive isn't to have sex. It is to mate. The biology is to preservation of the species.

The biology in gays is deformed. It's warped. But it's the same biology.

Then why can human females enjoy sex even when they're not ovulating?

 

[g5000]

I said exactly what I meant to say which was asking you why you feel that homosexuals have a separate biological condition which would make them not fully human.

Just like negroes aren't fully human, right?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Let me guess. You believe you aren't a bigot.

Ask bodecea why she thinks gays are biologically different. After all I was just addressing the rather outrageous comment that gays have a different biology.

Blacks are biologically different, are they not? So one must conclude they are "not fully human", by your own Tard Logic™.

Geezus. Do you assholes hear yourselves? Do you actually listen to what you are saying?

Same bullshit, different decade.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I said exactly what I meant to say which was asking you why you feel that homosexuals have a separate biological condition which would make them not fully human.

Just like negroes aren't fully human, right?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Let me guess. You believe you aren't a bigot.

Ask bodecea why she thinks gays are biologically different. After all I was just addressing the rather outrageous comment that gays have a different biology.

If heterosexual attraction is biological, then it must be biochemical, which means that an alteration of a person's biochemistry could effect a change in which gender they were attracted to.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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. 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?

Yepp. It was the barbarians who passed over and around the 7th hill who did in the Roman Empire, not buttfucking.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I said exactly what I meant to say which was asking you why you feel that homosexuals have a separate biological condition which would make them not fully human.

Just like negroes aren't fully human, right?

Same bullshit, different decade.

Let me guess. You believe you aren't a bigot.

Ask bodecea why she thinks gays are biologically different. After all I was just addressing the rather outrageous comment that gays have a different biology.

Blacks are biologically different, are they not? So one must conclude they are "not fully human", by your own Tard Logic™.

Geezus. Do you assholes hear yourselves? Do you actually listen to what you are saying?

Same bullshit, different decade.

They are every bit as primitive and regressive as they were 60 years ago.