SCOTUS divided over SSM

[martybegan]

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

No matter how much you all try the "race and orientation aren't the same"...the bigotry and the discrimination DO remain the exact same...and will have the same end result...the marginalization of the bigots.

by force if necessary, right? You don't even realize you are a bigot yourself when it comes to people of faith.

People of faith have nothing to do with civil marriage. The same people of faith had the same problems with interracial marriage. It's irrelevant how "people of faith" feel about me marrying.

But you will force them to accept you or go out of business, of course.

And yes, all of this is related before you start wallowing about it being two separate issues.

 

[Syriusly]

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

No, the Republicans have done a great job keeping the religious stupids upset about that, talking big and doing nothing.

They won't have as much luck with this.

The issue is once SSM advocates win on this, they go hard for the next group of targets, which is anyone who doesn't want to play along. So an increase in PA prosecutions, coupled with attempts to screw over religious institutions will follow.

You talk like that's a bad thing...

Screwing over religious assholes, that's music to my ears, baby.

Americans like the idea of equality, but hate bullies, and Gay rights advocates are more and more becoming the bullies.

What BS.

For years and years, homosexuals were actually bullied- and attacked- and murdered- for the 'crime' of being gay.

Laws were passed to deny them employment- laws were passed to make sex for them illegal. Police routinely harrased them. Gay men were regularly targeted for assault and police ignored the crimes.

Americans didn't hate those bullies.

More recently there have been cases of homosexuals actually standing up for their legal rights- and advocating boycotts against individuals and business's that they disagree with.

Just as American Conservatives and Christian groups continue to do to this day.

What you call bullying is nothing compared to what has happened to homosexuals- and is exactly what is being done by the homophobic bigots to homosexuals to this day.

And Americans are not 'hating' those bullies now either.

Standing up for your legal rights is not bullying.

Even when its homosexuals standing up for their rights.

So basically you are all for "payback's a bitch?"

Go cry me a river.....

No- I am pointing out that your whining about bullying is nothing but crocodile tears- you don't complain about the 'bullying'(criticism/calls for boycott) against homosexuals, you just cry victim when homosexuals stand up for their rights.

 

[martybegan]

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

 

[martybegan]

Just like Roe V Wade made abortion go away?

No, the Republicans have done a great job keeping the religious stupids upset about that, talking big and doing nothing.

They won't have as much luck with this.

The issue is once SSM advocates win on this, they go hard for the next group of targets, which is anyone who doesn't want to play along. So an increase in PA prosecutions, coupled with attempts to screw over religious institutions will follow.

You talk like that's a bad thing...

Screwing over religious assholes, that's music to my ears, baby.

Americans like the idea of equality, but hate bullies, and Gay rights advocates are more and more becoming the bullies.

What BS.

For years and years, homosexuals were actually bullied- and attacked- and murdered- for the 'crime' of being gay.

Laws were passed to deny them employment- laws were passed to make sex for them illegal. Police routinely harrased them. Gay men were regularly targeted for assault and police ignored the crimes.

Americans didn't hate those bullies.

More recently there have been cases of homosexuals actually standing up for their legal rights- and advocating boycotts against individuals and business's that they disagree with.

Just as American Conservatives and Christian groups continue to do to this day.

What you call bullying is nothing compared to what has happened to homosexuals- and is exactly what is being done by the homophobic bigots to homosexuals to this day.

And Americans are not 'hating' those bullies now either.

Standing up for your legal rights is not bullying.

Even when its homosexuals standing up for their rights.

So basically you are all for "payback's a bitch?"

Go cry me a river.....

No- I am pointing out that your whining about bullying is nothing but crocodile tears- you don't complain about the 'bullying'(criticism/calls for boycott) against homosexuals, you just cry victim when homosexuals stand up for their rights.

When you find proof that somehow I have bashed, hurt, or done anything to oppress gay people, or support anyone who does you will have a point. Until then, kindly sod off. Your retreat to this line of "logic" shows you have nothing more than "you hate gay people" as a counter to my arguments.

 

[Seawytch]

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

 

[martybegan]

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

 

[Syriusly]

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

No matter how much you all try the "race and orientation aren't the same"...the bigotry and the discrimination DO remain the exact same...and will have the same end result...the marginalization of the bigots.

by force if necessary, right? You don't even realize you are a bigot yourself when it comes to people of faith.

People of faith have nothing to do with civil marriage. The same people of faith had the same problems with interracial marriage. It's irrelevant how "people of faith" feel about me marrying.

But you will force them to accept you or go out of business, of course..

You mean like virtually every special interest group has done in America since the 1900's?

Which do you object to- boycotts- or demanding protection under the law?

 

[Seawytch]

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Sure...we've been big bullies since 1967.

 

[Syriusly]

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Welcome to the world of being a bully. At least own up to it.

Yes- that is what bullies do- demand not to be discriminated against.

Those damn bullies who demanded equal employment opportunities!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Huh?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

Where did I say SSM is the same thing as Hetero sexual marriage? Please cite.

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

The whole crux of the 14th amendment argument is equal protection under the law. If they are not equal, then the whole 14th amendment argument goes away.

ROFL Equal protection of ALL CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, GAY, ... Equal protection does not mean if you are heterosexual or if you are white.

Equal protection under the law, the law is a marriage contract, so if you want to use the 14th to extended it to gay couples, SSM and OSM have to be equal.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[RKMBrown]

Huh?

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

Where did I say SSM is the same thing as Hetero sexual marriage? Please cite.

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

The whole crux of the 14th amendment argument is equal protection under the law. If they are not equal, then the whole 14th amendment argument goes away.

ROFL Equal protection of ALL CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, GAY, ... Equal protection does not mean if you are heterosexual or if you are white.

Equal protection under the law, the law is a marriage contract, so if you want to use the 14th to extended it to gay couples, SSM and OSM have to be equal.

Equal under the law... does not mean that black people are white people or that gay marriages are other sex marriages, it means that they are treated equally under the law.

 

[Kosh]

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Another gay is being race comparison..

 

[Syriusly]

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Another gay is being race comparison..

Another example of poor reading comprehension.

 

[Seawytch]

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

and considering every victory on your side seems to just embolden you to go after private citizens who disagree with you, forgive me if I don't seem to trust you on any of this.

No one said they were.

But both are nonetheless entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state.

And of course, no protections for bakers.

Nope. They have to serve interracial couples in all 50 states...gays in a few.

Another gay is being race comparison..

Nope. It's a bigots are bigots comparison. Only the target changes.

 

[Pop23]

JOE: ain't you heard.

There IS NO PROCREATION requirement in marriage.

And may I add, two male siblings can't make them there babies.

Get with it JOE. Or do you just think it's icky?

There's no requirement, but there is a potential. So that's why it's illegal.

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

^ retard thinks women can't get pregnant.

^dumbass thinks members of the same sex can get each other pregnant.

 

[Pop23]

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

There is no such thing as "gay marriage."

There is just marriage- whether by two gays or two straights.

And soon, two siblings.

^ dumb ass is fighting for marriage between siblings.

^dumbass can't make an argument as to why this taboo is any less objectionable to his taboo

 

[RKMBrown]

JOE: ain't you heard.

There IS NO PROCREATION requirement in marriage.

And may I add, two male siblings can't make them there babies.

Get with it JOE. Or do you just think it's icky?

There's no requirement, but there is a potential. So that's why it's illegal.

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

^ retard thinks women can't get pregnant.

^dumbass thinks members of the same sex can get each other pregnant.

^Dumb ass has never heard of surrogacy.

 

[Skylar]

JOE: ain't you heard.

There IS NO PROCREATION requirement in marriage.

And may I add, two male siblings can't make them there babies.

Get with it JOE. Or do you just think it's icky?

There's no requirement, but there is a potential. So that's why it's illegal.

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

^ retard thinks women can't get pregnant.

^dumbass thinks members of the same sex can get each other pregnant.

What relevance does the ability to procreate have with marriage? No one is excluded from marriage for being unable to procreate.

No one.

Why then would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

 

[Pop23]

Potential when the partners are both the same sex????

Really JOE???

Please, be so kind to explain this cuz, for more than a year I've been claiming that. (Clears his throat).........

Opposite gender coupling has made each and every baby ever born.

So Joe, name the child created by same sex coupling?

I think you are a little confused.

We don't let siblings marry because they might produce genetically damaged children who will vote Republican and shit.

Gays aren't going to produce kids. Oh, they could use surrogates and adoption and artificial insemination.

How do same sex siblings produce defective children Joe?

You smoking that whacky tobacky?

So Pop, which country allows sibling marriages as a result of their having same sex marriage? Denmark has had them since 1989. How slippery is this slope of yours, Pops? How many years do we have to wait for your little slippery slope wet dream?

And explain to us how this it will be the gays that "open the door" to the sibling marriages you're dreaming about since it wasn't the gays that established that marriage was a fundamental right? Shouldn't you blame it on the Lovings?

Yet another deflection.

Why is it that SSSM is excluded when SSM is not.

The arguments are exactly the same.

SSSM = same sex sibling marriage.

 

[martybegan]

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

No matter how much you all try the "race and orientation aren't the same"...the bigotry and the discrimination DO remain the exact same...and will have the same end result...the marginalization of the bigots.

by force if necessary, right? You don't even realize you are a bigot yourself when it comes to people of faith.

People of faith have nothing to do with civil marriage. The same people of faith had the same problems with interracial marriage. It's irrelevant how "people of faith" feel about me marrying.

But you will force them to accept you or go out of business, of course..

You mean like virtually every special interest group has done in America since the 1900's?

Which do you object to- boycotts- or demanding protection under the law?

I object to using government to punish them for you, and i object to the bully mob tactics like we saw with Memories Pizza.