Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[HeyNorm]

no need to. you find it icky, therefore you want to deny others what you can legally have.

it really is that bottom line.

pun intended.

Interesting, so your saying that you find heterosexual intercourse “icky”?

And why would I find anything “icky” as it relates to straight same sex marriage? Yet still I oppose all same sex marriage.

 

[playtime]

Point out where I did so. In fact, I pointed out that, prior to obergfell, everyone had the right to marry, regardless of sexuality.

& you feel differently now ... why?

 

[playtime]

Interesting, so your saying that you find heterosexual intercourse “icky”?

i am a born & raised hetero female, & married to a male for 37 years.

so, uh ... no.

 

[HeyNorm]

& you feel differently now ... why?

Nope, as long as the two partners consist of one man and one woman, as was the case prior to obergfell, I see no problem with allowing such a marriage.

 

[playtime]

Nope, as long as the two partners consist of one man and one woman, as was the case prior to obergfell, I see no problem with allowing such a marriage.

on pure 'legal;' grounds, only?

sorry - i just don't buy it.

 

[HeyNorm]

on pure 'legal;' grounds, only?

sorry - i just don't buy it.

Ok, I accept you don’t buy it.

But the arguments are what they are.

 

[playtime]

Ok, I accept you don’t buy it.

But the arguments are what they are.

so, for only legal reasons, right?

 

[HeyNorm]

so, for only legal reasons, right?

We are speaking of the law, so yes. And the legal standards used to change the law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Point out where I did so. In fact, I pointed out that, prior to obergfell, everyone had the right to marry, regardless of sexuality.

Before Obergefell, gay people in some states COULD NOT MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME GENDER who they were physically and romatically attracted to. Straight people always could marry the person who they were physically and romatically attracted to.

That is the descriminination the YOU advocate

And please spare us the lame as bullshit that you tried before about attraction not being a requirement. We are not talking about requirements. We are talking about rights

I am still waiting for you to come clean about why you really want to punish gays and their children by depriving them of marriage. This one man=one woman mantra is just the symtom of some unerlying disease

 

[HeyNorm]

Before Obergefell, gay people in some states COULD NOT MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME GENDER who they were physically and romatically attracted to. Straight people always could marry the person who they were physically and romatically attracted to.

That is the descriminination the YOU advocate

And please spare us the lame as bullshit that you tried before about attraction not being a requirement. We are not talking about requirements. We are talking about rights

I am still waiting for you to come clean about why you really want to punish gays and their children by depriving them of marriage. This one man=one woman mantra is just the symtom of some unerlying disease

Before obergfell, no one could marry someone of the same sex regardless of their sexuality, but they could, regardless of their sexuality marry.

What are you yapping about again.

And people not sexually or romantically attracted to their partners are, nowhere in the law, prohibited to marry.

 

[Redfish]

I explained why. "Most" is not "all" In addition Civil rights are to be determind the Constitution , not the will of tjhe people

wrong, our rights come from God, not any government, and being mentally confused is an illness not a right.

 

[Redfish]

the real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal mammalian condition. THAT is the real issue that neither side is willing to discuss.

 

[Redfish]

I explained why. "Most" is not "all" In addition Civil rights are to be determind the Constitution , not the will of tjhe people

so your fear is that your perverted lifestyle might be prohibited in some states? I think I get it.

 

[AsherN]

the real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal mammalian condition. THAT is the real issue that neither side is willing to discuss.

It is.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, point out a single place in which I said gay people were ever denied the right to marry.

And yes, incest is current illegal, as was same sex marriage. But we have one person on this thread that believes that incest apparently should be legal except for a parent marrying his/her own child. That person is on your side Joe, not mine.

You miss the point, as usual. The act of incest is illegal, not the act of marrying a blood relative (or even an adopted relative). Therefore, incestuous relationships cannot be sanctified by marriage.

Before Lawrence v. Texas struck them down, the acts that gay people engaged in to pleasure themselves - anal and oral - were illegal in most states, which is why marriage licenses couldn't be granted. When that happened, gay marriage became inevitable.

Now this talk about your desire to exclude soldiers, who have been severely wounded in combat, that suffered body altering injuries, making them unable to “consumate”, denial of the right to marry.

Would seem like kind of a waste to me, but okay. Point was, if she gets to the pant-dropping point of the marriage and finds out he has no equipment, she has grounds to have the marriage annulled.

Are you the bedroom police Joe? And as we progress with this discussion, I sure hope you realize that couples get to individually define what happiness is within their unions, not you Joe.

I agree. Which is why you religious bigots need to sit down and shut the fuck up about gay marriage.

 

[JoeB131]

Since you bolded the importance of a couple to consumate, did you know there are only a few ways to accomplish this?

And I doubt you've ever experienced any of them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Before obergfell, no one could marry someone of the same sex regardless of their sexuality, but they could, regardless of their sexuality marry.

What are you yapping about again.

And people not sexually or romantically attracted to their partners are, nowhere in the law, prohibited to marry.

You see. This is exactly what I meant when I said that your “one man-one woman” trope is just the symptom. It’s clear that your hate and disregard for gay people runs much deeper than can be explained simply by an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Indeed, you are displaying a callous disregard for gay people and seemingly do not even afford them the right to happiness and fulfillment.

Proof is when you keep repeating things like gays could have married someone of the opposite sex and that the law says nothing about being sexually or romantically attracted . Either you do not have the capacity to understand how hurtful that is or you don’t care. In either case you are seriously fucked up in the head. Maybe that argument would have worked in an era of arranged marriages when no one had a reasonable expectation of fulfillment and happiness. But the year is 2022 when everyone has the opportunity to find love and happiness. Everybogy that is except gays in your twisted mind. Clearly you do not even regard them as fully human.

I don’t know what to attribute it to but some things come to mind. Maybe you never found happiness and fulfillment and are resentful of others who have, especially those that are part of a group who are easy to vilify.

Maybe you harbor some unexpressed religious beliefs

Maybe you have issues with your own sexuality and need to put as much distance as possible between you and “them”

Maybe you are threatened by the changes in society that you don’t understand and can’t adjust to.

That last point may partially explain your clinging to the one man-one woman thing. However, the fact that you have been educated about the damage that is done by the discrimination that you advocate makes it clear to me that there has got to be more to it than just a need to cling to tradition.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

so your fear is that your perverted lifestyle might be prohibited in some states? I think I get it.

My perverted lifestyle? What is it that you think that you know about my lifestyle?

 

[HeyNorm]

You miss the point, as usual. The act of incest is illegal, not the act of marrying a blood relative (or even an adopted relative). Therefore, incestuous relationships cannot be sanctified by marriage.

Before Lawrence v. Texas struck them down, the acts that gay people engaged in to pleasure themselves - anal and oral - were illegal in most states, which is why marriage licenses couldn't be granted. When that happened, gay marriage became inevitable.



Would seem like kind of a waste to me, but okay. Point was, if she gets to the pant-dropping point of the marriage and finds out he has no equipment, she has grounds to have the marriage annulled.


I agree. Which is why you religious bigots need to sit down and shut the fuck up about gay marriage.

Joe, fun fact, a couple too closely related can not have a marriage license issued. It would be against the law.

Fun fact # 2, there is no physical required to have a marriage license issued. Do you understand the difference between a void contract and one that is voidable Joe?

Appears you don’t. Glad I could point you in the direction to learn something today.

And Joe, I’m sure the brave Marine and his wife would love to teach you something about love, but I’d caution him, you ain’t too bright.

 

[HeyNorm]

And I doubt you've ever experienced any of them.

Poor ol Joe, been losing so damn badly he starts the personal attacks.