SCOTUS divided over SSM

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Don't listen to what gays are saying, observe militant gay's actions that will tell you all you need to know.

As I suspected you got nothing.

Don't get huffy with me, I'm not a SCOTUS justice. I will laugh and mock gays if the SCOTUS swats down their over reach.

There is nothing to get huffy about considering you have offered nothing. I am sure if the SCOTUS rules against your position you will be mocked and laughed at as well.

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.

Is the baker some religious authority; or, is the Right overreaching under color of religious authority, again.

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Is there an obligation to reproduce in any religious discipline?

I think the Mormons......but I could be wrong on that..

 

[defcon4]

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.

If you remember 60 years ago you must be 70 years old!!!! 'Still active, huh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why shouldnt Kagan have to recuse herself? She has made her opinions on the matter obvious, plus she is a lesbian herself. based on the Code I posted those are grounds for recusal. So you can argue either the Code is somehow invalid, the Code means something other than it obviously means, or Kagan has not made her opinions known already.

You haven't explained why being an NRA member ruling on gun control would be any different. I say they're the same. You need to tell us why they aren't. Wouldn't their opinions be just as obvious?

Deflection noted.
I've already answrred your stupid question.

 

[Marxist]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Jesus christ, get the fuck out of here.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Jesus christ, get the fuck out of here.

Not a chance, skid mark.

 

[Marxist]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Jesus christ, get the fuck out of here.

Not a chance, skid mark.

Sexist, homophobic, and a nutter.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Jesus christ, get the fuck out of here.

Not a chance, skid mark.

Sexist, homophobic, and a nutter.

Does that mean you won't let your kids play with mine anymore?

 

[Marxist]

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Jesus christ, get the fuck out of here.

Not a chance, skid mark.

Sexist, homophobic, and a nutter.

Does that mean you won't let your kids play with mine anymore?

If me and my girlfriend decide to have kids, I would, since I'd hope your children won't be as insane as you.

 

[martybegan]

It will go 6-3 in favor

5-4 against forcing states to change their own marriage contract.
7-2 in favor of forcing states to accept valid marriage contracts from other states, no matter what they allow.

You're probably right, but Kennedy was very quiet during the arguments made for state recognition of marriage contracts from other states - meaning either he'd already decided that he was against forcing states to change their own marriage contract laws and this was his way of sort-of straddling the issue or he'd already decided for national recognition of SSM. Or I'm reading into his silence too much...

I honestly think the 2nd argument is a no-brainer, as all States recognize other States marriage contracts no matter what the base differences in qualifications. So if you get married with your parents permission in say New Hampshire which allows for marriage by "special cause" or in reality pregnancy at 14 for males and 13 for females, (with parental permission) you are still married if you move to Washington, which requires 17 as a minimum unless a judge waives the requirement.

To me the 2nd question didn't warrant the discussion of the first, because the constitution and precedent are clear with regards to full faith and credit.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Jesus christ, get the fuck out of here.

Not a chance, skid mark.

Sexist, homophobic, and a nutter.

Does that mean you won't let your kids play with mine anymore?

If me and my girlfriend decide to have kids, I would, since I'd hope your children won't be as insane as you.

Jury's still out on that one. One of them went a little psycho on the X-Box console last week.

 

[Marxist]

Jesus christ, get the fuck out of here.

Not a chance, skid mark.

Sexist, homophobic, and a nutter.

Does that mean you won't let your kids play with mine anymore?

If me and my girlfriend decide to have kids, I would, since I'd hope your children won't be as insane as you.

Jury's still out on that one. One of them went a little psycho on the X-Box console last week.

Psycho in terms of being a homophobic idiot.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not a chance, skid mark.

Sexist, homophobic, and a nutter.

Does that mean you won't let your kids play with mine anymore?

If me and my girlfriend decide to have kids, I would, since I'd hope your children won't be as insane as you.

Jury's still out on that one. One of them went a little psycho on the X-Box console last week.

Psycho in terms of being a homophobic idiot.

Throwing it across the room.

 

[konradv]

Deflection noted. I've already answrred your stupid question.

You've answered nothing. This is typical for you, i.e. refusing to answer questions and then blaming everything on the other guy. What happened to personal responsibility? If you've answered the question, cite the post. IMO, it's all a delusion. Get some professional help.

 

[The Rabbi]

Deflection noted. I've already answrred your stupid question.

You've answered nothing. This is typical for you, i.e. refusing to answer questions and then blaming everything on the other guy. What happened to personal responsibility? If you've answered the question, cite the post. IMO, it's all a delusion. Get some professional help.

I amswered your question. You dont get to decide what's an answer and what isnt.
Now you're merely quibbling and deflecting without engaging the subject.
Why do you think Kagan should not have to recuse herself?

 

[konradv]

I amswered your question. You dont get to decide what's an answer and what isnt. Now you're merely quibbling and deflecting without engaging the subject.Why do you think Kagan should not have to recuse herself?

I DO get to decide if there's been an answer to a question I asked. There has been no answer. Simply saying "NO" to a question that didn't ask for a "yes or no" answer isn't sufficient. If you've done more and I missed it, why haven't you cited your answer as asked? Logic says the reason is because there is no such answer and you're just engaging in another of your typical run-arounds hoping I"ll just give up. To be fair I'll answer your question again. If Kagan had to recuse herself, you'd have to recuse half the SC on just about any question. Since I've repeated my answer, how about doing me the courtesy of your doing the same?

 

[The Rabbi]

I amswered your question. You dont get to decide what's an answer and what isnt. Now you're merely quibbling and deflecting without engaging the subject.Why do you think Kagan should not have to recuse herself?

I DO get to decide if there's been an answer to a question asked. T here has been no answer. Simply saying "NO" to a question that didn't ask for a "yes or no" answer isn't sufficient. If you've done more and I missed it, why haven't you cited your answer as asked? Logic says the reason is because there is no such answer and you're just engaging in another of your typical run-arounds hoping I"ll just give up .

You are a tiresome useless peice of shit.
You're dismissed.

 

[konradv]

You are a tiresome useless peice of shit. You're dismissed.

TYPICAL! If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. All you do is post nonsense, call names and then lie about what you did post.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4 Section 2.