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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Civil unions yes, but redefining marriage no. Liberals are wanting pedophiles to be accepted as normal now.

Wrong.

The measure has nothing to do with marriage as religious ritual.

Religious institutions remain at liberty to discriminate against gay and interracial couples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Keep in mind, sexual irregulars went from being FELONS under most states' laws to being free to enjoy their sexual activities with no interference from the Authorities, along with being free to pledge their unending faithful commitment to one another, with no outside interference whatsoever. (In fact, when monogamous relationships among gay men are more motivated by fear of the spread of disease than anything else.)

But this wasn't enough. They had to RE-DEFINE the most fundamental relationship of the human condition: marriage. Homosexual marriage is an absurdity. They cannot produce offspring, they cannot constitute a family unless you completely redefine "family" at the same time.

The Gay Mafia demands, not tolerance, but a societal and legal EMBRACE, recasting our most fundamental institutions for their benefit.

They are, along with the rest of the political Left, evil.

This is a lie.

The measure addresses only state marriage contract law pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Private conservative organizations and individuals remain at liberty to be racists and bigots and discriminate against gay Americans and Americans of color.

 

[HeyNorm]

Wrong.

The measure has nothing to do with marriage as religious ritual.

Religious institutions remain at liberty to discriminate against gay and interracial couples.

Correct, it is a civil contract limited, like no other I can think of, between two separate individuals that, for some odd reason excludes those closely related. Which makes a lot of sense if it was only opposite sex couples who can engage such a contract, but only limited sense for same sex gay couples and absolutely no sense for same sex straight couples.

I can’t think of another civil contract limited to such a small number of participants.

But, now to be fair, since sexuality is now a reason to be married, there are sexualities that require more than two. So even that could be thrown out the window.

But, I remain steadfast in opposition to same sex marriage, regardless of the sexuality of the partners.

 

[JoeB131]

But, I remain steadfast in opposition to same sex marriage, regardless of the sexuality of the partners.

Yet you can't give a coherent reason WHY it's a bad idea.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Correct, it is a civil contract limited, like no other I can think of, between two separate individuals that, for some odd reason excludes those closely related. Which makes a lot of sense if it was only opposite sex couples who can engage such a contract, but only limited sense for same sex gay couples and absolutely no sense for same sex straight couples.

I can’t think of another civil contract limited to such a small number of participants.

But, now to be fair, since sexuality is now a reason to be married, there are sexualities that require more than two. So even that could be thrown out the window.

But, I remain steadfast in opposition to same sex marriage, regardless of the sexuality of the partners.

And as an ignorant, hateful bigot, you're at liberty to do so, this measure doesn't change that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Sounds like your circling the drain here kid. Is this really your best shot?. Deal with my pont. If you had it your way, gay people, unlike straight people, WOULD NOT have the opportunity to marry for romantic love and attraction. You're just distracting from the issue and your bigotry with this crap about proving sexuality or what people must do. FUCKIG BIGOT and a COWARD

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

You are a sjick puppy

 

[HeyNorm]

Sounds like your circling the drain here kid. Is this really your best shot?. Deal with my pont. If you had it your way, gay people, unlike straight people, WOULD NOT have the opportunity to marry for romantic love and attraction. You're just distracting from the issue and your bigotry with this crap about proving sexuality or what people must do. FUCKIG BIGOT and a COWARD

Sure they can silly bean, they just have to do so with someone of the opposite sex.

 

[HeyNorm]

And as an ignorant, hateful bigot, you're at liberty to do so, this measure doesn't change that.

How am I a bigot? I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.

 

[HeyNorm]

Yet you can't give a coherent reason WHY it's a bad idea.

Oh, I have Joe. The group dynamic is incredibly different.

Know why there is this silly rule about “not too closely related”? Joe?

It’s all because one group might make faulty bloodlines. And that group isn’t same sex.

Group dynamics Joe, group dynamics.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, I have Joe. The group dynamic is incredibly different.

Know why there is this silly rule about “not too closely related”? Joe?

It’s all because one group might make faulty bloodlines. And that group isn’t same sex.

Group dynamics Joe, group dynamics.

There's actually more to it than that, which is why adopted siblings can't marry or legally have sex.

Which has nothing to do with why gays should be allowed to get married.

 

[HeyNorm]

There's actually more to it than that, which is why adopted siblings can't marry or legally have sex.

Which has nothing to do with why gays should be allowed to get married.

I’m all ears Joe. Hit us with this wisdom.

Grooming perhaps?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Not necessarily . It depends on what sort of “niche “ we are talking about . Each must be evaluated on its own merits and assessed in terms of the impact on those involved society as a whole . Remember the lesson that I tried to get across to you on how, when the government tries to restrict or deny something that someone sees as a right, they must articulate a compelling government interest in doing so? Probably not . Now in the case of same sex marriage, the states were not able to meet that criteria.
There is no end to the possible “niche sexualities “ that might arise, some that could be very harmful. Suppose that a group started to push the idea that we should go back to arranged marriages and the consent was not necessary.? Do we automatically cater to that. ?

In the case of plural marriage as I have said before there is a whole new set of legal and societal implications that have to be considered. Out systems are based on the marriage of TWO adults. Plural marriage has the potential to upend the social order and legal system. I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or that I oppose it. I and just saying that it is not a given and we do not have to “cater to all or to none”
But I understand where you are coming from, You are desperately pushing this latest of a long list of bogus reasons why you oppose same sex marriage even though plural marriage is no where on the horizon and the fact that it would be a tough sell politically and the government might just be able to meet that standard of a compelling interest in not allowing it. But keep trying Maybe someday you hit on something that sticks

 

[JoeB131]

I’m all ears Joe. Hit us with this wisdom.

Um, you are the one who is making an assertation. Why shouldn't gay be allowed to marry each other.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh, I have Joe. The group dynamic is incredibly different.

Know why there is this silly rule about “not too closely related”? Joe?

It’s all because one group might make faulty bloodlines. And that group isn’t same sex.

Group dynamics Joe, group dynamics.

WHAT!!???

 

[HeyNorm]

WHAT!!???

Did you know that same sex couples can’t create children, but opposite sex, regardless of sexuality, can?

That’s a hugely different dynamic.

 

[HeyNorm]

Not necessarily . It depends on what sort of “niche “ we are talking about . Each must be evaluated on its own merits and assessed in terms of the impact on those involved society as a whole . Remember the lesson that I tried to get across to you on how, when the government tries to restrict or deny something that someone sees as a right, they must articulate a compelling government interest in doing so? Probably not . Now in the case of same sex marriage, the states were not able to meet that criteria.
There is no end to the possible “niche sexualities “ that might arise, some that could be very harmful. Suppose that a group started to push the idea that we should go back to arranged marriages and the consent was not necessary.? Do we automatically cater to that. ?

In the case of plural marriage as I have said before there is a whole new set of legal and societal implications that have to be considered. Out systems are based on the marriage of TWO adults. Plural marriage has the potential to upend the social order and legal system. I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or that I oppose it. I and just saying that it is not a given and we do not have to “cater to all or to none”
But I understand where you are coming from, You are desperately pushing this latest of a long list of bogus reasons why you oppose same sex marriage even though plural marriage is no where on the horizon and the fact that it would be a tough sell politically and the government might just be able to meet that standard of a compelling interest in not allowing it. But keep trying Maybe someday you hit on something that sticks

Sounds like you are just reaching for reasons to discriminate. Surely it can’t harm things, right?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Voting isn't the same as closing out a bank account.

Right, nothing is exactly the same as anything else. That's the Democrats fall back position for every analogy that goes against them.

Orwell talked about that in 1984. The book, not the year.

Voting is much more important than closing a bank account.

I do bank transactions all the time, and they never check my ID.

Which bank is this whose policy is to give out its depositors' money without requiring an ID? I will check with them to verify that.

Or not.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Did you know that same sex couples can’t create children, but opposite sex, regardless of sexuality, can?

That’s a hugely different dynamic.

Holy fucking shit! We are right back to square 1 This is where it all started. I have lost track of all of the pathetically stupid reasons what you oppose same sex/GAY marriage

Do you know that some opposite sex couples can't create children?

Do you remember when you admitted that you were ok with opposite sex couples who could not create children getting married? Do you understand how that exposed you as a bigot and a liar? A bigot because you hold gays to a different standard, and a liar because you would not admit your double standard until I dragged it out of you.

So why the fuck are you bringing this up again now. ? Do you enjoy being humiliated? You are a mess Kid!

 

[HeyNorm]

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.

Civil rights, but rights in general are often left up to legislative bodies.

Just not to long ago, the right to work was left up to the executive branch and/or regulatory commissions.

But this is not a civil rights issue.