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

[HeyNorm]

I have never advocated excluding anyone from marriage. You are the self proclaimed bigot, and yiu still lack the charachter and the confidence in your convictions to explain why

Yes I say same sex marriage is gay marriage. While the obergefell ruling does not mention "gay marriage" or gay people no one can deny that the intent of removing gender from the requirement was for the benefit of gay people. The result of course is that any two people of the same gender can marry but few if any have. So yes same sex marriage is gay marriage. Clear now

Now you're pushing the issue of including bi sexuals in a way that would allow them to marry more than one person-presumedly a man and a woman. Being fuly aware of the fact that that is just another of your troll tactics to obfucate the real issue, lets see what that would look like. We could do one of two thing

1. Pass laws saying the bi sexuals but only bi sexuals can marry more than one person ......but waite now. You have an aversion to oppening up an institution to a "nitch sexuality only results in more discrimination-AND YOU ARE RIGHT for once. I can just hear all of the other peoplewho are not bi but who want to get into the plural marriage game crying foul. Then of course there would be the messy issue of determining who is actually bi. Another question that would come up is: If a Bi personwants to marry both a man and a woman, would they also be required to be bi inorder to bepart of it.

2. Or we can approach it like we did with "gay marriage" where we simply removed the gender requirement without regards to sexuality. In the case bisexual marriage, we could simply modify the number of people someone, anyone can marry-again-without regards to sexuality. But unlike with same sex marriage where few people who are not gay choose to partake , this plural marriage might be very appealing to people all accross the spectrum of sexual orientation. Now THAT would open the flood gats.

Well this was just an excercise because I know you really don't want any of that . You just want to talk about it, use it to call others bigots if they don't embrace it while denying that you are a bigot and doing everything possible to avoid discussing your reasons for not wanting to allow GAY MARRIAGE' Got it Bubba?

And NO ONE is buying that bovine excrement about you opposing same sex marriage because the government is not accomodating bi people and therefore discriminating against them ARE WE CLEAR?

Wait? A bisexual would have to prove he’s a bisexual? How would one do that? Submit to a physical examination? There are no distinct physical characteristics between a straight person, a gay person and a bisexual person, all of the same sex. Are there? And even dna testing can’t determine this.

If we are to believe that a gay person can’t marry because of sexuality pre obergfell, then why are we to believe a bisexual person can marry after?

Try being a bit less bigoted in your thinking.

Besides, the current law is still prejudiced toward certain people wishing to marry still.

I would oppose their marriage, as I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.

But that’s for another day.

And, can you explain just how you know that only a few straight same sex marriages exist when the question of sexuality does not appear on the marriage license application? Hell, even if it did, what documentation exists that the applicants are?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wait? A bisexual would have to prove he’s a bisexual? How would one do that? Submit to a physical examination? There are no distinct physical characteristics between a straight person, a gay person and a bisexual person, all of the same sex. Are there? And even dna testing can’t determine this.

Damn kid!! YOu reading comprehension is as abysmal as your writing skills. I agreed with you. I said that laws and policies based on sexuality are ill advised. They are unworkable for a number of reasons. You really need to get an adult, or a special ed teacher to help you with your reading andwriting

 

[HeyNorm]

Damn kid!! YOu reading comprehension is as abysmal as your writing skills. I agreed with you. I said that laws and policies based on sexuality are ill advised. They are unworkable for a number of reasons. You really need to get an adult, or a special ed teacher to help you with your reading andwriting

Great, whew, then you agree that obergfell opened the door to the destruction of an institution that has lasted through many centuries.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If we are to believe that a gay person can’t marry because of sexuality pre obergfell, then why are we to believe a bisexual person can marry after?

Try being a bit less bigoted in your thinking.

Jesus Fucking Christ! You call me bigoted when youkeep posting this stupid and hatful shit??!! Pre Gay Mariage - Agay person could only marry a person of the opposite sex depriving them of a truely fullfilling marriage. YOU being ok with that make YOU a FUCKING BIGOT. And what the fuck is that about a bi sexual? Any body can marry anybody else regardless of sexuality. How fucking stupid are you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Great, whew, then you agree that obergfell opened the door to the destruction of an institution that has lasted through many centuries.

Marriage? How was it destroyed exactly? Your armor is showing a crack. Finally a glimmer of what you really believe Tell us all about what has happened to marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I would oppose their marriage, as I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.

But I'm the bigot??!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Where it applies is that public policy is supposed to reflect a consensus by the public. If people disagree on personal policies, those should remain optional.

Where even Libertarians have no issue with state govt involved in "domestic partnerships" "civil unions" "guardian or estate agreements" that are neutral of any social implications or beliefs, we could have a consensus on that.

First of all, the current consensus is that Gay marriage is acceptable. Secondly, regardless of consensus, we as a Constitutional Rebublic to not decide matters of rights by consensus. If these people do not believe in gay marriage, just don't get gay married and leave others alone.

 

[HeyNorm]

But I'm the bigot??!!

Yes, I am clear I hold the same standard to all regardless of sexuality.

 

[HeyNorm]

Marriage? How was it destroyed exactly? Your armor is showing a crack. Finally a glimmer of what you really believe Tell us all about what has happened to marriage.

Because it was always, prior to obergfell only a contract that could be entered into by only two people.

I know of no other civil contract that was allowed to limit the numbers of participants in such an agreement. It was indeed unique in that way.

Hate to see this venerable institution be destroyed over frivolous claims that a niche couldn’t participate in it, which had been proven false.

 

[HeyNorm]

Jesus Fucking Christ! You call me bigoted when youkeep posting this stupid and hatful shit??!! Pre Gay Mariage - Agay person could only marry a person of the opposite sex depriving them of a truely fullfilling marriage. YOU being ok with that make YOU a FUCKING BIGOT. And what the fuck is that about a bi sexual? Any body can marry anybody else regardless of sexuality. How fucking stupid are you?

Wait, what? So the claim I can’t have truly fulfilling marriage if I’m only really happy with 6 woman was all I needed to allow such?

Interesting.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, I am clear I hold the same standard to all regardless of sexuality.

Bullshit. You support the ability of heterosexuals to marry for love and sexual attraction but do not extend that ability to gay people .

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wait, what? So the claim I can’t have truly fulfilling marriage if I’m only really happy with 6 woman was all I needed to allow such?

Interesting.

Stop trolling and lets get back to how gay marriage has destroyed an intitution

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because it was always, prior to obergfell only a contract that could be entered into by only two people.

I know of no other civil contract that was allowed to limit the numbers of participants in such an agreement. It was indeed unique in that way.

Hate to see this venerable institution be destroyed over frivolous claims that a niche couldn’t participate in it, which had been proven false.

What the fuck is this crap now? A slippery slope logical fallacy.? We've had same sex marriage for quite some time now. Where is the social movement to open it up to more than two people? It is only brought up by clowns like you inorder to distract , confuse and sow fear. This is just another pathetic attempt to excuse your bigotry

 

[HeyNorm]

Bullshit. You support the ability of heterosexuals to marry for love and sexual attraction but do not extend that ability to gay people .

No one said that a heterosexual must or even need to be in love or sexually attracted to their partner. Hell, you didn’t even have to be a heterosexual. Even so, there is no way to prove one is heterosexual to begin with you big silly.

 

[HeyNorm]

What the fuck is this crap now? A slippery slope logical fallacy.? We've had same sex marriage for quite some time now. Where is the social movement to open it up to more than two people? It is only brought up by clowns like you inorder to distract , confuse and sow fear. This is just another pathetic attempt to excuse your bigotry

There you go being a bigot again. Because you got your way, exclude the other niche sexualities

 

[HeyNorm]

Stop trolling and lets get back to how gay marriage has destroyed an intitution

Can you name another civil contract that, by law can only be entered into by two people? But we know that there are niche sexualities that require more than two, and unless we cater to all, we should cater to none.

Wouldn’t you agree. After all, fair is fair.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have never advocated excluding anyone from marriage

Such as a creepy 75-year-old man wanting to “marry” a three-year-old boy?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Republican-controled States.

Republicans are evil. Never forget that.

 

[JoeB131]

Why not allow someone to withdraw money from the bank account by walking up the counter and saying, "Hi I'm Joe B. Here to clean out his - I mean my - account."

Voting isn't the same as closing out a bank account.
I do bank transactions all the time, and they never check my ID.

 

[JoeB131]

Such as a creepy 75-year-old man wanting to “marry” a three-year-old boy?

Or a creepy 35 year old cult leader marrying a 14 year old girl.

Oh, wait, that was Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism.