Tennessee Seeks tonBar Same Sex Marriage

[Likkmee]

TN ought to first get rid of inner family marriage.

 

[80zephyr]

Say what?? "What do you think society does? We enforce moral values everyday. Its why people don't openly fuck in public. Or screw kids.
And unless you are OK with an "everything goes" society, you are also deciding what is moral and what isn't."

So in your moronic world, sex in public and child abuse is equivalent to two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender getting married? What the fuck is wrong with you.? Could you really be that stupid?

If its not equivalent, you are now passing a moral judgment on society. Because people are the only ones who decide what is moral and what is not.

Murder could be moral, and in some countries it is. See, you are a bigot, just like I am, I just have a tiny higher moral standard than you do.

Mark

Give me a fucking break with that bigotry bullshit. You are terribly confused. It is one thing to make a judgement about morality on a personal level, and quite another to codify your sense of morality into law. To prohibit something by law, one must go beyond the nebulous issue of "morality" and demonstrate how it harms others or society as a whole. Murder and child abuse clearly are harmful. On the other hand, opponents of same sex marriage- who bleat about morality- have failed miserably to show how it is harmful in any way. Just please, just cut the crap already.

Bullshit. There are many things that we regulate that aren't harmful. Hell, in my area, homes are REQUIRED to have some masonry or stone on the front of the house.

Remember this, EVERY law or rule is a restriction on someones freedom. You seem to completely disagree with society only when it comes to sex, it appears.

Mark

More horseshit! I did not say that we don't prohibit anything that is not harmful. I said that there is a distinction to be made between that which is harmful and that which is based strictly on ones moral sensibilities. Yes, laws are restrictions on freedom Some make sense and are rational, others are not. Again, prohibiting same sex marriage has not been shown to be rational. I disagree only when it comes to sex? What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't even about sex. It's about marriage.

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Say what?? "What do you think society does? We enforce moral values everyday. Its why people don't openly fuck in public. Or screw kids.
And unless you are OK with an "everything goes" society, you are also deciding what is moral and what isn't."

So in your moronic world, sex in public and child abuse is equivalent to two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender getting married? What the fuck is wrong with you.? Could you really be that stupid?

If its not equivalent, you are now passing a moral judgment on society. Because people are the only ones who decide what is moral and what is not.

Murder could be moral, and in some countries it is. See, you are a bigot, just like I am, I just have a tiny higher moral standard than you do.

Mark

Give me a fucking break with that bigotry bullshit. You are terribly confused. It is one thing to make a judgement about morality on a personal level, and quite another to codify your sense of morality into law. To prohibit something by law, one must go beyond the nebulous issue of "morality" and demonstrate how it harms others or society as a whole. Murder and child abuse clearly are harmful. On the other hand, opponents of same sex marriage- who bleat about morality- have failed miserably to show how it is harmful in any way. Just please, just cut the crap already.

Bullshit. There are many things that we regulate that aren't harmful. Hell, in my area, homes are REQUIRED to have some masonry or stone on the front of the house.

Remember this, EVERY law or rule is a restriction on someones freedom. You seem to completely disagree with society only when it comes to sex, it appears.

Mark

More horseshit! I did not say that we don't prohibit anything that is not harmful. I said that there is a distinction to be made between that which is harmful and that which is based strictly on ones moral sensibilities. Yes, laws are restrictions on freedom Some make sense and are rational, others are not. Again, prohibiting same sex marriage has not been shown to be rational. I disagree only when it comes to sex? What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't even about sex. It's about marriage.

Do you ever wonder why they're all so obsessed with gay sex? I never think about the sex lives of anyone, gay or straight, but they sure do about gay men....a lot!

Well, I would say that many-although not all have harbor fears and doubts about their own sexuality. Others just have some weird ideas about sex and sexuality. I wonder more about what their lives are actually like.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Say what?? "What do you think society does? We enforce moral values everyday. Its why people don't openly fuck in public. Or screw kids.
And unless you are OK with an "everything goes" society, you are also deciding what is moral and what isn't."

So in your moronic world, sex in public and child abuse is equivalent to two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender getting married? What the fuck is wrong with you.? Could you really be that stupid?

If its not equivalent, you are now passing a moral judgment on society. Because people are the only ones who decide what is moral and what is not.

Murder could be moral, and in some countries it is. See, you are a bigot, just like I am, I just have a tiny higher moral standard than you do.

Mark

Give me a fucking break with that bigotry bullshit. You are terribly confused. It is one thing to make a judgement about morality on a personal level, and quite another to codify your sense of morality into law. To prohibit something by law, one must go beyond the nebulous issue of "morality" and demonstrate how it harms others or society as a whole. Murder and child abuse clearly are harmful. On the other hand, opponents of same sex marriage- who bleat about morality- have failed miserably to show how it is harmful in any way. Just please, just cut the crap already.

Bullshit. There are many things that we regulate that aren't harmful. Hell, in my area, homes are REQUIRED to have some masonry or stone on the front of the house.

Remember this, EVERY law or rule is a restriction on someones freedom. You seem to completely disagree with society only when it comes to sex, it appears.

Mark

More horseshit! I did not say that we don't prohibit anything that is not harmful. I said that there is a distinction to be made between that which is harmful and that which is based strictly on ones moral sensibilities. Yes, laws are restrictions on freedom Some make sense and are rational, others are not. Again, prohibiting same sex marriage has not been shown to be rational. I disagree only when it comes to sex? What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't even about sex. It's about marriage.

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where. If anyone thinks that there is no rational basis for any law that prohibits a practice, they are free to pursue through the courts or petition their law makers. You do realize that throughout all of this, neither you or anyone else has made a logical argument about why same sex marriage should not be legal. All that you seem to be able to do is fling dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. It ain't sticking.

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[Silhouette]

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where....

You’ve allowed as how it could be a rationale basis for denial; then subjectively waived your hand to swipe it away; as if that elephant in the living room doesn’t exist.

Problem is that it’s the USSC’s job to anticipate how precedent will affect future verdicts. This is/was made especially compelling in Obergefell because of the Brown v Utah case pending in lower courts & known in the press at the time.

The Court isn’t allowed the luxury of arbitrarily picking favorites when it comes to alternative lifestyles getting married.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where....

You’ve allowed as how it could be a rationale basis for denial; then subjectively waived your hand to swipe it away; as if that elephant in the living room doesn’t exist.

Problem is that it’s the USSC’s job to anticipate how precedent will affect future verdicts. This is/was made especially compelling in Obergefell because of the Brown v Utah case pending in lower courts & known in the press at the time.

The Court isn’t allowed the luxury of arbitrarily picking favorites when it comes to alternative lifestyles getting married.

I have not subjectively done anything and as usual, you are blathering senselessly. Obergefell set no precedent that would support plural marriage . Read the fucking opinion and show us how you think that it does. I've allowed that " it could be a rationale basis for denial; " What the fuck does that mean?. You get more bizarre with each post.

 

[80zephyr]

If its not equivalent, you are now passing a moral judgment on society. Because people are the only ones who decide what is moral and what is not.

Murder could be moral, and in some countries it is. See, you are a bigot, just like I am, I just have a tiny higher moral standard than you do.

Mark

Give me a fucking break with that bigotry bullshit. You are terribly confused. It is one thing to make a judgement about morality on a personal level, and quite another to codify your sense of morality into law. To prohibit something by law, one must go beyond the nebulous issue of "morality" and demonstrate how it harms others or society as a whole. Murder and child abuse clearly are harmful. On the other hand, opponents of same sex marriage- who bleat about morality- have failed miserably to show how it is harmful in any way. Just please, just cut the crap already.

Bullshit. There are many things that we regulate that aren't harmful. Hell, in my area, homes are REQUIRED to have some masonry or stone on the front of the house.

Remember this, EVERY law or rule is a restriction on someones freedom. You seem to completely disagree with society only when it comes to sex, it appears.

Mark

More horseshit! I did not say that we don't prohibit anything that is not harmful. I said that there is a distinction to be made between that which is harmful and that which is based strictly on ones moral sensibilities. Yes, laws are restrictions on freedom Some make sense and are rational, others are not. Again, prohibiting same sex marriage has not been shown to be rational. I disagree only when it comes to sex? What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't even about sex. It's about marriage.

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where. If anyone thinks that there is no rational basis for any law that prohibits a practice, they are free to pursue through the courts or petition their law makers. You do realize that throughout all of this, neither you or anyone else has made a logical argument about why same sex marriage should not be legal. All that you seem to be able to do is fling dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. It ain't sticking.

Logical, rational, sane thought is all that is needed to decide whether gays should marry or not. Marriage is about having a family, and two men or two women cannot do that biologically. Hell, polygamy makes more sense.

Mark

 

[rightwinger]

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where....

You’ve allowed as how it could be a rationale basis for denial; then subjectively waived your hand to swipe it away; as if that elephant in the living room doesn’t exist.

Problem is that it’s the USSC’s job to anticipate how precedent will affect future verdicts. This is/was made especially compelling in Obergefell because of the Brown v Utah case pending in lower courts & known in the press at the time.

The Court isn’t allowed the luxury of arbitrarily picking favorites when it comes to alternative lifestyles getting married.

The Roberts Court will be known for Obergfell
It’s finest decision

 

[80zephyr]

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where....

You’ve allowed as how it could be a rationale basis for denial; then subjectively waived your hand to swipe it away; as if that elephant in the living room doesn’t exist.

Problem is that it’s the USSC’s job to anticipate how precedent will affect future verdicts. This is/was made especially compelling in Obergefell because of the Brown v Utah case pending in lower courts & known in the press at the time.

The Court isn’t allowed the luxury of arbitrarily picking favorites when it comes to alternative lifestyles getting married.

The Roberts Court will be known for Obergfell
It’s finest decision

Since it was in violation of our usual process, I doubt that. That decision is one of the reasons that most Americans feel that the courts have become politicized.
The court should have turned it back to the states, just like when women won the right to vote. Todays court would have just told us their "right was there all along".

No, it wasn't.

Mark

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Give me a fucking break with that bigotry bullshit. You are terribly confused. It is one thing to make a judgement about morality on a personal level, and quite another to codify your sense of morality into law. To prohibit something by law, one must go beyond the nebulous issue of "morality" and demonstrate how it harms others or society as a whole. Murder and child abuse clearly are harmful. On the other hand, opponents of same sex marriage- who bleat about morality- have failed miserably to show how it is harmful in any way. Just please, just cut the crap already.

Bullshit. There are many things that we regulate that aren't harmful. Hell, in my area, homes are REQUIRED to have some masonry or stone on the front of the house.

Remember this, EVERY law or rule is a restriction on someones freedom. You seem to completely disagree with society only when it comes to sex, it appears.

Mark

More horseshit! I did not say that we don't prohibit anything that is not harmful. I said that there is a distinction to be made between that which is harmful and that which is based strictly on ones moral sensibilities. Yes, laws are restrictions on freedom Some make sense and are rational, others are not. Again, prohibiting same sex marriage has not been shown to be rational. I disagree only when it comes to sex? What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't even about sex. It's about marriage.

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where. If anyone thinks that there is no rational basis for any law that prohibits a practice, they are free to pursue through the courts or petition their law makers. You do realize that throughout all of this, neither you or anyone else has made a logical argument about why same sex marriage should not be legal. All that you seem to be able to do is fling dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. It ain't sticking.

Logical, rational, sane thought is all that is needed to decide whether gays should marry or not. Marriage is about having a family, and two men or two women cannot do that biologically. Hell, polygamy makes more sense.

Mark

Complete horseshit rejected by numerous federal courts, The ability to " reproduce" in the manner that you approve of is not, and never has been a condition of marriage . Many straight couples do not reproduce in the usual way either. But same sex couple - like those straight couples do indeed have families, establish homes, are productive members of the community and most of all, are parents to the children who are in their care by whatever means. Your argument against same sex marriage- if in fact it can be called an argument at all , is truly pathetic.

There are couple who can reproduce " biologically' but are terrible parents while there are many others-gay and straight - who cannot but are great parents. Try to understand the difference between making a baby and nurturing a child,

So tell us now, Should hetero couples who cannot reproduce on their own as a couple without any "help" Be denied the right to marry? Answer honestly. If the answer is no, you are exposed to be full of shit

 

[Kittymom1026]

Give me a fucking break with that bigotry bullshit. You are terribly confused. It is one thing to make a judgement about morality on a personal level, and quite another to codify your sense of morality into law. To prohibit something by law, one must go beyond the nebulous issue of "morality" and demonstrate how it harms others or society as a whole. Murder and child abuse clearly are harmful. On the other hand, opponents of same sex marriage- who bleat about morality- have failed miserably to show how it is harmful in any way. Just please, just cut the crap already.

Bullshit. There are many things that we regulate that aren't harmful. Hell, in my area, homes are REQUIRED to have some masonry or stone on the front of the house.

Remember this, EVERY law or rule is a restriction on someones freedom. You seem to completely disagree with society only when it comes to sex, it appears.

Mark

More horseshit! I did not say that we don't prohibit anything that is not harmful. I said that there is a distinction to be made between that which is harmful and that which is based strictly on ones moral sensibilities. Yes, laws are restrictions on freedom Some make sense and are rational, others are not. Again, prohibiting same sex marriage has not been shown to be rational. I disagree only when it comes to sex? What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't even about sex. It's about marriage.

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where. If anyone thinks that there is no rational basis for any law that prohibits a practice, they are free to pursue through the courts or petition their law makers. You do realize that throughout all of this, neither you or anyone else has made a logical argument about why same sex marriage should not be legal. All that you seem to be able to do is fling dung at the wall and hope that something sticks. It ain't sticking.

Logical, rational, sane thought is all that is needed to decide whether gays should marry or not. Marriage is about having a family, and two men or two women cannot do that biologically. Hell, polygamy makes more sense.

Mark

Two married people ARE a family. What about the man and women who don't want children but still want to get married? Should they be denied a marriage license? Heck, there is one member here who specifically said he didn't marry to have kids, but to have a wife who would "obey" him. Can't remember his screen name, but his avi says Grumpy Old Man. I'm sure you know who I'm referring to. So should he have been denied the right to get married?
Also, many people are sterile for one reason or another, but still fall in love and want to make a life with the person they love. The key word here is....LOVE.
I have some very good friends who are same sex married couples, and they are compassionate, intelligent, and loving people. I read daily how hetero couples abuse and torture both their biological, adopted, and foster children. Many innocent kids die in their custody.
I also know a gay couple who adopted two boys. One was born with fetal alcohol syndrome and the other was born addicted to drugs. they walked the floor with those babies while they screamed in pain. they got them the best medical care and then when they got older, got tutors for them so that they would be able to progress to the level of their class. Oh, and these guys were white, and both boys were black. They had a female black friend who had a daughter, and she came in regularly to teach the boys about their heritage and culture. They cried like babies at each adoption hearing when the judge approved the adoption. I'm still in touch with them and the boys are in their teens and still thriving.
So tell me Einstein, how many straight white couples do you know who would spend the time and money do anything like that? NOT THAT MANY, if any at all!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Then laws against polygamy aren't rational either?

Mark

Maybe not. I have not taken a stand on that issue so putting that out there as a red herring and straw man fallacy will get you no where....

You’ve allowed as how it could be a rationale basis for denial; then subjectively waived your hand to swipe it away; as if that elephant in the living room doesn’t exist.

Problem is that it’s the USSC’s job to anticipate how precedent will affect future verdicts. This is/was made especially compelling in Obergefell because of the Brown v Utah case pending in lower courts & known in the press at the time.

The Court isn’t allowed the luxury of arbitrarily picking favorites when it comes to alternative lifestyles getting married.

The Roberts Court will be known for Obergfell
It’s finest decision

Since it was in violation of our usual process, I doubt that. That decision is one of the reasons that most Americans feel that the courts have become politicized.
The court should have turned it back to the states, just like when women won the right to vote. Todays court would have just told us their "right was there all along".

No, it wasn't.

Mark

In violation of the "usual process" What the fuck does that mean? Sounds like you also have a problem with the 19th amendment. The right might have been there but if the states are denying that right, the courts or Congress must step in.

 

[P@triot]

There are plenty of families out there who are being raised by single parents and most all of them turn out just fine.

Left-wing lies get more bizarre as the left-wing liars get more radical and more bizarre. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children from single parent homes are fucked up.

• Children of single-parent homes underachieve academically

• Children of single-parent homes suffer emotionally

 

[P@triot]

There are plenty of families out there who are being raised by single parents and most all of them turn out just fine.

Left-wing lies get more bizarre as the left-wing liars get more radical and more bizarre. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children from single parent homes are fucked up. Children who grow up in single-parent homes:

• Are twice as likely to drop out of high school

• Are 2.5 times as likely to become teen mothers

• Are 1.4 times as likely to be idle (out of school and out of work)

• Have lower grade point averages

• Have lower college aspirations

• Have poorer attendance records

• As adults, have higher rates of divorce

Stop making shit up you ignorant leftist.

The Consequences of Single Motherhood

 

[hjmick]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

You whities once had the right to own black slaves.

Wait... we can't do that anymore?

 

[Lysistrata]

There are plenty of families out there who are being raised by single parents and most all of them turn out just fine.

Left-wing lies get more bizarre as the left-wing liars get more radical and more bizarre. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children from single parent homes are fucked up. Children who grow up in single-parent homes:

• Are twice as likely to drop out of high school

• Are 2.5 times as likely to become teen mothers

• Are 1.4 times as likely to be idle (out of school and out of work)

• Have lower grade point averages

• Have lower college aspirations

• Have poorer attendance records

• As adults, have higher rates of divorce

Stop making shit up you ignorant leftist.

The Consequences of Single Motherhood

If you have single mothers, who have care of the children, raise them, house them, pay for them, comfort them, where are these childrens' fathers? Where are they? Off in some bar instead of giving baths, cuddling, telling bedtime stories.

If the women are there, doing these things day in and day out, where are the men?

 

[P@triot]

If the women are there, doing these things day in and day out, where are the men?

The men are off being irresponsible assholes (in most cases - in some the men are the responsible loving parent).

But that being said, WTF does that have to do with the issue? We’re not discussing the failures of men in this thread. Stay on topic.

 

[Lysistrata]

If the women are there, doing these things day in and day out, where are the men?

The men are off being irresponsible assholes (in most cases - in some the men are the responsible loving parent).

But that being said, WTF does that have to do with the issue? We’re not discussing the failures of men in this thread. Stay on topic.

YOU are the one who brought up "The Consequences of Single Motherhood" in YOUR posts #934 and #935.

You have absolutely business ordering me or anyone else around. You aren't the boss of anything.

Stop being an asshole. I know that it is hard for right-wing men to stop being assholes, but at least try.

All of those people weeping and knashing their teeth following Obergefell are just cretins, like the creeps in Tennessee who can't get on with their own lives.

 

[impuretrash]

There are plenty of families out there who are being raised by single parents and most all of them turn out just fine.

Left-wing lies get more bizarre as the left-wing liars get more radical and more bizarre. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children from single parent homes are fucked up. Children who grow up in single-parent homes:

• Are twice as likely to drop out of high school

• Are 2.5 times as likely to become teen mothers

• Are 1.4 times as likely to be idle (out of school and out of work)

• Have lower grade point averages

• Have lower college aspirations

• Have poorer attendance records

• As adults, have higher rates of divorce

Stop making shit up you ignorant leftist.

The Consequences of Single Motherhood

If you have single mothers, who have care of the children, raise them, house them, pay for them, comfort them, where are these childrens' fathers? Where are they? Off in some bar instead of giving baths, cuddling, telling bedtime stories.

If the women are there, doing these things day in and day out, where are the men?

You seem to have an axe to grind against males.