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

[JoeB131]

Fun fact: did you know that, if a black woman goes through a medical examination, the doctor can determine she is a woman, with no real physical characteristics different than any other woman, with the exception of skin color. And if you noticed Joe, all woman have at least 1 skin color.

But if a guy went through a physical examination, the doctor couldn’t define his sexuality by doing such an examination. He would just have to take his word for it.

Actually, you can usually tell just by looking at his butthole. That's why they army used to make us all bend over and grab our ankles.

Not sure why this disqualifies anyone from getting the legal protections of marriage.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, someday when you need a mechanic, or god forbid a doctor that can perform a life saving surgery on you, you can thank opposite sex unions for producing the person doing the work!

And by your own argument, marriage should not exist in the first place because incest, child marriage and forced unions are illegal anyway.

Except we don't need marriage to produce children. 35% of kids today are born out of wedlock. Furthermore, thanks to in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy, gay people are just as capable of having children as straight people.

 

[HeyNorm]

Actually, you can usually tell just by looking at his butthole. That's why they army used to make us all bend over and grab our ankles.

Not sure why this disqualifies anyone from getting the legal protections of marriage.

So woman don’t engage in anal sex Joe?

Interesting, really.

 

[HeyNorm]

Except we don't need marriage to produce children. 35% of kids today are born out of wedlock. Furthermore, thanks to in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy, gay people are just as capable of having children as straight people.

So you continue to argue there is no need for the institution to exist.

Go with that Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

So woman don’t engage in anal sex Joe?

Interesting, really.

Sure they do... but that's not what you asked. You asked how a doctor can tell a man is gay by physical examination. Like you didn't know from all the gay porn you must be watching.

So you continue to argue there is no need for the institution to exist.

There's no NEED for the institution, but some people WANT the institution.

The advantage for marriage is so that a couple can have legal rights related to joint property, visitation, the right to make medical decisions, and yes, the right to parent children conceived naturally or in other ways. There are also disadvantages to marriage, like filing at a higher tax rate and the liability of divorce.

But you really haven't given me a good reason why gay couple shouldn't have the right to get married, other than you think it's icky.

 

[Seymour Flops]

"“We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal.”

Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?

Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried? Mitch McConnell? Mayor Pete?

Democrats are evil. Never forget it.

Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?

Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried? Mitch McConnell? Mayor Pete?

Democrats are evil. Never forget it.

For once, I'm going to side with Democrats, evil though are, no sarcasm. Same-sex and inter-racial couples indeed need more protection than a USSC decision, subject to change by a later USSC decision. Saying that we don't need to guarantee their rights because no one is trying to take them away rings hollow when those rights have been non-existent in the past.

Democrats, I just agreed with you about something so read this with an open mind: How it sounds to you when Republicans say we don't need to protect the integrity of marriage because we can't name someone who is going to take away marriage rights it exactly how it sounds to me when you say we don't need to protect the integrity of elections because we can't name people who have cheated in elections.

 

[JoeB131]

Democrats, I just agreed with you about something so read this with an open mind: How it sounds to you when Republicans say we don't need to protect the integrity of marriage because we can't name someone who is going to take away marriage rights it exactly how it sounds to me when you say we don't need to protect the integrity of elections because we can't name people who have cheated in elections.

Except we know that there are people who want to attack the integrity of marriage, from the idiot clerk who won't issue a marriage license to same sex couples to the asshole bakers who won't bake a cake with two plastic ladies on top.

The problem with you guys who scream about "election integrity" is that what you really want is to make it harder for poor people to vote. And given your history of shit like Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests, people have a right to be concerned about being given an anal probe when showing up to vote.

 

[HeyNorm]

Sure they do... but that's not what you asked. You asked how a doctor can tell a man is gay by physical examination. Like you didn't know from all the gay porn you must be watching.



There's no NEED for the institution, but some people WANT the institution.

The advantage for marriage is so that a couple can have legal rights related to joint property, visitation, the right to make medical decisions, and yes, the right to parent children conceived naturally or in other ways. There are also disadvantages to marriage, like filing at a higher tax rate and the liability of divorce.

But you really haven't given me a good reason why gay couple shouldn't have the right to get married, other than you think it's icky.

So what’s the compelling state interest Joe? None, right? Thanks for assisting a small fringe of people that wants it dismantled.

And I don’t think dudes raped in prison are gay Joe. You? The doctor, defining a rape victim as gay was jumping to a conclusion Joe. An assumption. He can determine race however with standard testing.

 

[JoeB131]

So what’s the compelling state interest Joe? None, right? Thanks for assisting a small fringe of people that wants it dismantled.

And I don’t think dudes raped in prison are gay Joe. You? The doctor, defining a rape victim as gay was jumping to a conclusion Joe. An assumption. He can determine race however with standard testing.

Actually, prison rape is rarer than you think. What is more common in prison is people who turn to homosexuality because that's all they have available to them.

 

[HeyNorm]

Actually, prison rape is rarer than you think. What is more common in prison is people who turn to homosexuality because that's all they have available to them.

Joe, you just admitted a doctor can’t determine sexuality through a physical examination unless you think that rape victims are gay.

And you also clearly implied that homosexuality is nurture, not nature.

Please stop Joe, same sex marriage supporters should be embarrassed that you are on their side.

 

[22lcidw]

My girlfriend would argue otherwise. But here's the thing. I'm white and she's Asian, and once upon a time, within my lifetime, in fact, our relationship would have been illegal in many states because we aren't of the same racial group. Then people realized such laws are kind of silly. Same thing here.

Give me a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

You know damn well that Hetero marriage is hard work. Divorces were eased many decades ago but the payment by the breadwinner for alimony and child support exists and can be debilitating. To cheapen the sacrament of marriage affected all of us no matter what. This is no game. Half of the millennial males will not even consider getting married. That is destructive. The costs of what we are doing is immense. The ideas sound good. The push to put these ideas into practice affect other sound institutions.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Except we know that there are people who want to attack the integrity of marriage, from the idiot clerk who won't issue a marriage license to same sex couples to the asshole bakers who won't bake a cake with two plastic ladies on top.

Yes that is true.

Also true that we know that there are people who want to attack the Integrity of elections. Many more such people than bakers who don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple or clerks willing to be fired rather than issue a legal marriage license to a same-sex couple.

Just because the mainstream media refuses to recognize such people, does not mean that they don't exist.

The problem with you guys who scream about "election integrity" is that what you really want is to make it harder for poor people to vote. And given your history of shit like Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests, people have a right to be concerned about being given an anal probe when showing up to vote.

Not true. Poor people are able to show photo ID when they apply for welfare and other benefits. Black people are just as capable of getting a driver's license as white people, be wailing of the idiotic Democrats notwithstanding.

Speaking of democrats, it was Democrats who used poll taxes and literacy tests to stop black people from voting. Republican have been all about black people voting since they fought for that in the civil war.

The lie that election security means no voting for poor people is promulgated by assholes and believed by morons. Democrats have zero interest in truth or fairness. All they care about is getting what they want when they want it. That's the difference between the modern day student loan deadbeat type Democrat and the working class Democrats of the past.

 

[Captain Caveman]

So gay people, who have the misfortune of living in a backwrd, shit hole red stae should be subjected to the whims of knuckle draging moronic bigots?

Click on personal life. Not all gays wanted gay marriage legalised.

Christopher Biggins - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So what’s the compelling state interest Joe? None, right? Thanks for assisting a small fringe of people that wants it dismantled.

Hey Normy. I am watching this and there are some things that I just can’t let go. Are you asking what the compelling interest of government is to ALLOW same sex marriage? If so it just further highlights your ignorance of how things work. In this case, government ( the states ) sought to deny the ability of gay couples ( same sex couples if you prefer) to marry . The burden of proof is then on those states to articulate a compelling government interest in NOT ALLOWING those marriages .

The high court applied a standard of strict scrutiny and found that there was no compelling interest in denying marriage to gay couples given that fact that marriage is treated as a right for opposite sex couples because-and I know that you hate this-they are "similarly situated". That is how Obergefell was decided

Now Normy, perhaps you would like to tell us what compelling government interest YOU think that there is in denying marriage to gay couples

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Click on personal life. Not all gays wanted gay marriage legalised.

Christopher Biggins - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So what.? That is one man's opinion. Maybeyou could fine a few more like him. It has no bearing on the issue at hand.

 

[HeyNorm]

Hey Normy. I am watching this and there are some things that I just can’t let go. Are you asking what the compelling interest of government is to ALLOW same sex marriage? If so it just further highlights your ignorance of how things work. In this case, government ( the states ) sought to deny the ability of gay couples ( same sex couples if you prefer) to marry . The burden of proof is then on those states to articulate a compelling government interest in NOT ALLOWING those marriages .

The high court applied a standard of strict scrutiny and found that there was no compelling interest in denying marriage to gay couples given that fact that marriage is treated as a right for opposite sex couples because-and I know that you hate this-they are "similarly situated". That is how Obergefell was decided

Now Normy, perhaps you would like to tell us what compelling government interest YOU think that there is in denying marriage to gay couples

Glad you came back

The compelling state interest is, that if the state bases marriage on sexuality, it must rescind all bigamy and multiple partner laws to accommodate bisexuality.

Clear enough?

 

[Captain Caveman]

So what.? That is one man's opinion. Maybeyou could fine a few more like him. It has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Not one, many.

Just like some Lefties support X,y, and z, some don't. Some Righties support a,b, and c, some don't. Only thickos think all gays support gay marriage, what's your take on it!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not one, many.

Just like some Lefties support X,y, and z, some don't. Some Righties support a,b, and c, some don't. Only thickos think all gays support gay marriage, what's your take on it!

Now we do not think that all gays support gay marriage. Do you know that all straight people do not support straight marriage?

Now that we havegotten that out of the way, do ypu have anything relevant to contribute to the topic?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Glad you came back

The compelling state interest is, that if the state bases marriage on sexuality, it must rescind all bigamy and multiple partner laws to accommodate bisexuality.

Clear enough?

Actually, that is a rather thoughtful observation. Bi sexual people might actually have a case if they were to pursue it. But that is not a state interest. It is a bi sexual interest that has yet to be raised. The courts were not compelled to ensure that everyoneis accomodated when the question of bisexual accomodation and plural marriage was not before the court. So there is still no compelling state interest that should delay same sex marriage untill the issue of bisexuality is raised and resolved. But, nice try

 

[Captain Caveman]

Now we do not think that all gays support gay marriage. Do you know that all straight people do not support straight marriage?

Now that we havegotten that out of the way, do ypu have anything relevant to contribute to the topic?

Yes, back to #2,270