SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Syriusly]

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?

Human females do not go into season as other animals do. They can mate at any time. Although women in close proximity to one another will ovulate at the same time.

Women aren't a separate species and still have a biological urge to mate. And an urge to mate with a particular kind of man.

Not all of us, Toots.

Right, and you are here to tell us that its normal for a human female to have the urge to mate with another human female?

Geez, just accept that you have an illness and seek treatment.

It isn't 'normal' as in most people don't do that.

But then again- it isn't normal to go to Synogogue either.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Human females do not go into season as other animals do. They can mate at any time. Although women in close proximity to one another will ovulate at the same time.

Women aren't a separate species and still have a biological urge to mate. And an urge to mate with a particular kind of man.

Not all of us, Toots.

Geez, just accept that you have an illness and seek treatment.

And on that note- what is the medical treatment for the disease you keep claiming homosexuals have?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

He's asking a question, dum-dum. It's a stupid question too.

 

[bodecea]

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

So you are saying that homosexuality is not a choice then?

we are not talking about what I think, I have been pointing out the inconsistency of the gay agenda arguments, first its a genetic condition, then its a birth condition, then its a choice, then its not a choice.

you guys are all over the place on this depending on how the arguments flow.

But, since you asked what I think. I think that in most cases homosexuality is a choice. In a very small % it may be a genetic abnormality. Either way, its an abnormal human condition and should not be sanctioned as normal.

You submitted your awesome, not-to-fail arguments to the anti-gay marriage lawyers in time, didn't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Thanks for proving the point, dum-dum. Churches dont allow people to get married who are pledged to celibacy.

 

[Syriusly]

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide 'benefits to Amy who wants to leave everything to and care for her fishing buddy Steve, but has not interest in marrying him and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass?

Oh wait- if Amy does want the benefits- she can just marry Steve, whether she wants to fuck him in the ass or not.

What I- a heterosexual who believes in equality believes- is that Amy and Steve and Luke and Steve should both have exactly the same rights to marry each other, exactly the same rights as my wife and I enjoy.

If you don't want to enter into a life long partnership with someone by marrying them, then don't do so. But those who are willing to make that commitment should be able to do so, without any regard to whether Amy or Steve or Beth or Bill want to engage in ass-fuckery.

So you're going to force Amy to marry Steve just because she likes him and want to provide for him...but does not want to marry him? Not fair.

If you want to ride the roller coaster, you have to get on the roller coaster.

No you do not get to ride the roller coaster, if you are not willing to ride the roller coaster.

 

[Redfish]

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

So you are saying that homosexuality is not a choice then?

we are not talking about what I think, I have been pointing out the inconsistency of the gay agenda arguments, first its a genetic condition, then its a birth condition, then its a choice, then its not a choice.

you guys are all over the place on this depending on how the arguments flow.l.

I am not- my position is pretty straight forward- really its immaterial.
Completely irrelevant whether someone's sexual orientation is a choice or something that is innate.

Why do you think it is relevant- and why do you think that justifies discrimination?

When did I ever say that discrimination was justified? answer: never

Being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not discrimination. The word marriage does not define discrimination.

If this was really about rights, equality, and discrimination, you would be fine with civil unions for gays that would provide all of the "cash and prizes" that you claim go to married couples.

but thats not what this is about. Its only about the word marriage. you want the govt to mandate that society as a whole accept homosexuality as normal and use of the word marriage somehow makes you think you can change the minds of a majority of human beings.

until you admit your true agenda, this will never be over.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

Only, you are absolutely in no position to judge that.
Because exactly the same could be said of the conservative judges, you fucking moron.

 

[Redfish]

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

So you are saying that homosexuality is not a choice then?

we are not talking about what I think, I have been pointing out the inconsistency of the gay agenda arguments, first its a genetic condition, then its a birth condition, then its a choice, then its not a choice.

you guys are all over the place on this depending on how the arguments flow.

But, since you asked what I think. I think that in most cases homosexuality is a choice. In a very small % it may be a genetic abnormality. Either way, its an abnormal human condition and should not be sanctioned as normal.

You submitted your awesome, not-to-fail arguments to the anti-gay marriage lawyers in time, didn't you?

they already had them. they are shared by a vast majority of human beings on planet earth.

I don't know how the SC will rule. They may rule for you because they feeeeeeeeeeeel sorry for you. they may not.

if they rule against you will you STFU and accept that ruling?

 

[konradv]

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse. Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont. That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

I don't think any judge needs to recuse themselves from any case in which they weren't personally involved. If there's s problem, that needs to dealt with at confirmation, like when Bork invoked a mythical "original intent" doctrine, when simple logic tells you the entire Constitutional Convention couldn't possibly have had the same intent.

 

[The Rabbi]

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

So you are saying that homosexuality is not a choice then?

we are not talking about what I think, I have been pointing out the inconsistency of the gay agenda arguments, first its a genetic condition, then its a birth condition, then its a choice, then its not a choice.

you guys are all over the place on this depending on how the arguments flow.l.

I am not- my position is pretty straight forward- really its immaterial.
Completely irrelevant whether someone's sexual orientation is a choice or something that is innate.

Why do you think it is relevant- and why do you think that justifies discrimination?

When did I ever say that discrimination was justified? answer: never

Being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not discrimination. The word marriage does not define discrimination.

If this was really about rights, equality, and discrimination, you would be fine with civil unions for gays that would provide all of the "cash and prizes" that you claim go to married couples.

but thats not what this is about. Its only about the word marriage. you want the govt to mandate that society as a whole accept homosexuality as normal and use of the word marriage somehow makes you think you can change the minds of a majority of human beings.

until you admit your true agenda, this will never be over.

It was never about marriage. There is no state in the union where gay marriage is illegal. No gays have been hauled off to jail because they had a wedding ceremony.
It is not really about benefits either, as you say.
So if it isnt about marriage, and it isnt about benefits, what is it about? You are correct. It is about shoving the gay agenda up our collective asses and destroying bedrock institutions of this society. First they came after the boy scouts. Since then its been on and on. Every institution is being subjected to assault by the gayhaddis.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Human females do not go into season as other animals do. They can mate at any time. Although women in close proximity to one another will ovulate at the same time.

Women aren't a separate species and still have a biological urge to mate. And an urge to mate with a particular kind of man.

Not all of us, Toots.

Geez, just accept that you have an illness and seek treatment.

And on that note- what is the medical treatment for the disease you keep claiming homosexuals have?

there may not be one. but neither is there a treatment for other medical conditions. Mental illnesses are difficult to treat.

 

[The Rabbi]

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse. Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont. That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

I don't think any judge needs to recuse themselves from any case in which they weren't personally involved. If there's s problem, that needs to dealt with at confirmation, like when Bork invoked a mythical "original intent" doctrine, when simple logic tells you the entire Constitutional Convention couldn't possibly have had the same intent.

It would be nice if every now and then you did some research before shooting off your stupid mouth on here.
Here's the US Code:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

 

[Redfish]

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

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

See my post with the US code quoted. Kagan must recuse herself.

 

[deltex1]

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide 'benefits to Amy who wants to leave everything to and care for her fishing buddy Steve, but has not interest in marrying him and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass?

Oh wait- if Amy does want the benefits- she can just marry Steve, whether she wants to fuck him in the ass or not.

What I- a heterosexual who believes in equality believes- is that Amy and Steve and Luke and Steve should both have exactly the same rights to marry each other, exactly the same rights as my wife and I enjoy.

If you don't want to enter into a life long partnership with someone by marrying them, then don't do so. But those who are willing to make that commitment should be able to do so, without any regard to whether Amy or Steve or Beth or Bill want to engage in ass-fuckery.

So you're going to force Amy to marry Steve just because she likes him and want to provide for him...but does not want to marry him? Not fair.

If you want to ride the roller coaster, you have to get on the roller coaster.

No you do not get to ride the roller coaster, if you are not willing to ride the roller coaster.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide 'benefits to Amy who wants to leave everything to and care for her fishing buddy Steve, but has not interest in marrying him and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass?

Oh wait- if Amy does want the benefits- she can just marry Steve, whether she wants to fuck him in the ass or not.

What I- a heterosexual who believes in equality believes- is that Amy and Steve and Luke and Steve should both have exactly the same rights to marry each other, exactly the same rights as my wife and I enjoy.

If you don't want to enter into a life long partnership with someone by marrying them, then don't do so. But those who are willing to make that commitment should be able to do so, without any regard to whether Amy or Steve or Beth or Bill want to engage in ass-fuckery.

So you're going to force Amy to marry Steve just because she likes him and want to provide for him...but does not want to marry him? Not fair.

If you want to ride the roller coaster, you have to get on the roller coaster.

No you do not get to ride the roller coaster, if you are not willing to ride the roller coaster.

What if the merry go round provides me the same things the roller coaster provides you...why ask the government to force me to ride the roller coaster?

 

[Statistikhengst]

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

See my post with the US code quoted. Kagan must recuse herself.

No, she must not. You are a full-idiot.