The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Skylar]

Nope. All of that is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. The Obergefell ruling didn't even mention polygamy. Let alone authorize it.

Once again you're offering us your imagination as the law. And then insisting that the Supreme Court on down is bound to whatever hapless batshit you make up.

Um, no. They aren't.

Um, sweetie.....you're not quoting the law. You're quoting yourself. And the imaginary nonsense you make up about the law is a vacuum. A meaningless void having no relevance to the actual law. No marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them. No state requires children or the ability to have them in order to get married. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted your imagination:

Remember, hon.....you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. And no one is bound by the vacuum of your imagination.

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

 

[80zephyr]

Precisely. My marriage is not threatened or under attack. That is a fear tactic of a group that is for freedom and liberty but for regulating marriage. Trivial folk.

Of course your marriage is under attack. Do you think that when divorce became mainstream, that those already married ever figured it would happen to them?

Does welfare affect your marriage? It could, if your wife or husband would consider a divorce when considering economic decisions.
If we have learned two things about people, is that they'll take the easy way out and that they will follow the rest of society doing it.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

Lol. You do realize that until recently, gay marriage wasn't recognized by anyone? And you are wrong about that. Polygamy has more of a history in humanity than gay marriage does.

As to making an argument for gay marriage, I don't have to. I simply want equal treatment under the laws, just like the gays got.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

Typical faggots like you getting what you want then refusing to acknowledge that others deserve what you claim you fought for.

Keep sucking dicks. It's all you're good at. Maybe you'll get AIDS.

Opposition to gay marriage is centered most strongly among the old. Its the only demo where support isn't already the majority. And that opposition has a shelf life. As your ilk take inevitable dirt naps, support for same sex marriage continues to climb.

I give it 10 years before we look back on your ilk with the same dumbfounded revulsion reserved today for segregationists and opposition to the 19th amendment.

Enjoy irrelevance.

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

This subject has NOTHING to do with segregation. Sexual deviancy is not the same as skin color.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

Lol. You do realize that until recently, gay marriage wasn't recognized by anyone? And you are wrong about that. Polygamy has more of a history in humanity than gay marriage does.

Not in our system of law. We have no basis of precedent or law to answer the unique legal questions that polygamy asks.

Where all the marriage laws that apply for straights apply for gays. Gays fought for access to the same benefits of marriage, same recognition, same licenses of marriage that straights enjoyed. And they won.

There's no place for *anyone* in the law for polygamy.

As to making an argument for gay marriage, I don't have to. I simply want equal treatment under the laws, just like the gays got.

Since polygamy is allowed for no one, there is no 'equal protection' violation when no one is allowed to enter into it under the law. Where marriage is most definitely available for folks.

 

[Skylar]

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

Typical faggots like you getting what you want then refusing to acknowledge that others deserve what you claim you fought for.

Keep sucking dicks. It's all you're good at. Maybe you'll get AIDS.

Opposition to gay marriage is centered most strongly among the old. Its the only demo where support isn't already the majority. And that opposition has a shelf life. As your ilk take inevitable dirt naps, support for same sex marriage continues to climb.

I give it 10 years before we look back on your ilk with the same dumbfounded revulsion reserved today for segregationists and opposition to the 19th amendment.

Enjoy irrelevance.

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

Which is why prohibition of alcohol, women not being allowed to vote, and Jim Crow laws are making such a resurgence, right?

Yes, ideas do die out. Especially ones that have no particular utility. And opposition to same sex marriage is largely being buried with senior citizens. The only age demographic where opposition is in the majority.

 

[80zephyr]

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

Lol. You do realize that until recently, gay marriage wasn't recognized by anyone? And you are wrong about that. Polygamy has more of a history in humanity than gay marriage does.

Not in our system of law. We have no basis of precedent or law to answer the unique legal questions that polygamy asks.

Where all the marriage laws that apply for straights apply for gays. Gays fought for access to the same benefits of marriage, same recognition, same licenses of marriage that straights enjoyed. And they won.

There's no place for *anyone* in the law for polygamy.

As to making an argument for gay marriage, I don't have to. I simply want equal treatment under the laws, just like the gays got.

Since polygamy is allowed for no one, there is no 'equal protection' violation when no one is allowed to enter into it under the law. Where marriage is most definitely available for folks.

You are limiting the number like others wanted to limit gender. You have drawn your moral "line in the sand" at protecting only two people who want to marry, while disregarding the rights of others.

Thats bigotry.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

Typical faggots like you getting what you want then refusing to acknowledge that others deserve what you claim you fought for.

Keep sucking dicks. It's all you're good at. Maybe you'll get AIDS.

Opposition to gay marriage is centered most strongly among the old. Its the only demo where support isn't already the majority. And that opposition has a shelf life. As your ilk take inevitable dirt naps, support for same sex marriage continues to climb.

I give it 10 years before we look back on your ilk with the same dumbfounded revulsion reserved today for segregationists and opposition to the 19th amendment.

Enjoy irrelevance.

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

Which is why prohibition of alcohol, women not being allowed to vote, and Jim Crow laws are making such a resurgence, right?

Yes, ideas do die out. Especially ones that have no particular utility. And opposition to same sex marriage is largely being buried with senior citizens. The only age demographic where opposition is in the majority.

Ideas die, and then come back. Neither of us know how it will play out.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

Lol. You do realize that until recently, gay marriage wasn't recognized by anyone? And you are wrong about that. Polygamy has more of a history in humanity than gay marriage does.

Not in our system of law. We have no basis of precedent or law to answer the unique legal questions that polygamy asks.

Where all the marriage laws that apply for straights apply for gays. Gays fought for access to the same benefits of marriage, same recognition, same licenses of marriage that straights enjoyed. And they won.

There's no place for *anyone* in the law for polygamy.

As to making an argument for gay marriage, I don't have to. I simply want equal treatment under the laws, just like the gays got.

Since polygamy is allowed for no one, there is no 'equal protection' violation when no one is allowed to enter into it under the law. Where marriage is most definitely available for folks.

You are limiting the number like others wanted to limit gender. You have drawn your moral "line in the sand" at protecting only two people who want to marry, while disregarding the rights of others.

As there is no recognized 'right to polygamy', how then are rights being violated?

There is a right to marriage. And both same sex and opposite sex couples can join in.

If you want polygamy, make your case.

 

[80zephyr]

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

Lol. You do realize that until recently, gay marriage wasn't recognized by anyone? And you are wrong about that. Polygamy has more of a history in humanity than gay marriage does.

Not in our system of law. We have no basis of precedent or law to answer the unique legal questions that polygamy asks.

Where all the marriage laws that apply for straights apply for gays. Gays fought for access to the same benefits of marriage, same recognition, same licenses of marriage that straights enjoyed. And they won.

There's no place for *anyone* in the law for polygamy.

As to making an argument for gay marriage, I don't have to. I simply want equal treatment under the laws, just like the gays got.

Since polygamy is allowed for no one, there is no 'equal protection' violation when no one is allowed to enter into it under the law. Where marriage is most definitely available for folks.

You are limiting the number like others wanted to limit gender. You have drawn your moral "line in the sand" at protecting only two people who want to marry, while disregarding the rights of others.

As there is no recognized 'right to polygamy', how then are rights being violated?

There is a right to marriage. And both same sex and opposite sex couples can join in.

If you want polygamy, make your case.

I already told you I don't have to. The gays made it for me. I simply want equal protection under the law.

That is all the "case" that should be needed, legally.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

Typical faggots like you getting what you want then refusing to acknowledge that others deserve what you claim you fought for.

Keep sucking dicks. It's all you're good at. Maybe you'll get AIDS.

Opposition to gay marriage is centered most strongly among the old. Its the only demo where support isn't already the majority. And that opposition has a shelf life. As your ilk take inevitable dirt naps, support for same sex marriage continues to climb.

I give it 10 years before we look back on your ilk with the same dumbfounded revulsion reserved today for segregationists and opposition to the 19th amendment.

Enjoy irrelevance.

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

Which is why prohibition of alcohol, women not being allowed to vote, and Jim Crow laws are making such a resurgence, right?

Yes, ideas do die out. Especially ones that have no particular utility. And opposition to same sex marriage is largely being buried with senior citizens. The only age demographic where opposition is in the majority.

Ideas die, and then come back. Neither of us know how it will play out.

Mark

So we should expect Slavery to make a huge comeback then? Opposition to women voting? A resurgence in recognition of the luminiferous ether and the efficacy of Alchemy?

Nope. Ideas die. Just like your ilk are. And with them, opposition to same sex marriage.

You *want* a resurgence of opposition to same sex marriage. So you imagine that it must return. Somehow. Someday. For some reason. Which is just the delusional cousin of Confirmation Bias.

Wish in one hand, spit in the other. Tell me which gets full first.

 

[Skylar]

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

Lol. You do realize that until recently, gay marriage wasn't recognized by anyone? And you are wrong about that. Polygamy has more of a history in humanity than gay marriage does.

Not in our system of law. We have no basis of precedent or law to answer the unique legal questions that polygamy asks.

Where all the marriage laws that apply for straights apply for gays. Gays fought for access to the same benefits of marriage, same recognition, same licenses of marriage that straights enjoyed. And they won.

There's no place for *anyone* in the law for polygamy.

As to making an argument for gay marriage, I don't have to. I simply want equal treatment under the laws, just like the gays got.

Since polygamy is allowed for no one, there is no 'equal protection' violation when no one is allowed to enter into it under the law. Where marriage is most definitely available for folks.

You are limiting the number like others wanted to limit gender. You have drawn your moral "line in the sand" at protecting only two people who want to marry, while disregarding the rights of others.

As there is no recognized 'right to polygamy', how then are rights being violated?

There is a right to marriage. And both same sex and opposite sex couples can join in.

If you want polygamy, make your case.

I already told you I don't have to. The gays made it for me. I simply want equal protection under the law.

Save of course, that they didn't. As they never argued for polygamy. Or even mentioned it. Neither did the Obergefell or Windsor rulings. You hallucinated all of that.

And as there is no recognized right to 'polygamy', how then can rights be violated by not recognizing it? REmmeber, no one can enter into polygamy. Whereas when gays argued their case before the Obergefell court, straights could get married.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

"A small majority"?

Did that sound right in your head?

This subject has NOTHING to do with segregation. Sexual deviancy is not the same as skin color.

Mark

Interracial couple was considered a "sexual deviancy" 50 years ago at the time of the Loving decision.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

"A small majority"?

Did that sound right in your head?

This subject has NOTHING to do with segregation. Sexual deviancy is not the same as skin color.

Mark

Interracial couple was considered a "sexual deviancy" 50 years ago at the time of the Loving decision.


>>>>

Yup. Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested in a raid of their home in the middle of the night.

Why then? Because the authorities were hoping to catch them in the act of interracial sex. Which was a felony. Alas, they were just sleeping in their own bed. Those fucking deviants.

 

[80zephyr]

Lol. You do realize that until recently, gay marriage wasn't recognized by anyone? And you are wrong about that. Polygamy has more of a history in humanity than gay marriage does.

Not in our system of law. We have no basis of precedent or law to answer the unique legal questions that polygamy asks.

Where all the marriage laws that apply for straights apply for gays. Gays fought for access to the same benefits of marriage, same recognition, same licenses of marriage that straights enjoyed. And they won.

There's no place for *anyone* in the law for polygamy.

As to making an argument for gay marriage, I don't have to. I simply want equal treatment under the laws, just like the gays got.

Since polygamy is allowed for no one, there is no 'equal protection' violation when no one is allowed to enter into it under the law. Where marriage is most definitely available for folks.

You are limiting the number like others wanted to limit gender. You have drawn your moral "line in the sand" at protecting only two people who want to marry, while disregarding the rights of others.

As there is no recognized 'right to polygamy', how then are rights being violated?

There is a right to marriage. And both same sex and opposite sex couples can join in.

If you want polygamy, make your case.

I already told you I don't have to. The gays made it for me. I simply want equal protection under the law.

Save of course, that they didn't. As they never argued for polygamy. Or even mentioned it. Neither did the Obergefell or Windsor rulings. You hallucinated all of that.

And as there is no recognized right to 'polygamy', how then can rights be violated by not recognizing it? REmmeber, no one can enter into polygamy. Whereas when gays argued their case before the Obergefell court, straights could get married.

Bullshit. Gays could marry. They had the EXACT rights of every other American.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

"A small majority"?

Did that sound right in your head?

This subject has NOTHING to do with segregation. Sexual deviancy is not the same as skin color.

Mark

Interracial couple was considered a "sexual deviancy" 50 years ago at the time of the Loving decision.


>>>>

Yes. A small majority is a little more than half of the young population.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

"A small majority"?

Did that sound right in your head?

This subject has NOTHING to do with segregation. Sexual deviancy is not the same as skin color.

Mark

Interracial couple was considered a "sexual deviancy" 50 years ago at the time of the Loving decision.


>>>>

When people can choose the color of their skin, you might have a point. Oh wait, in the age of liberalism, they probably can.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

"A small majority"?

Did that sound right in your head?

This subject has NOTHING to do with segregation. Sexual deviancy is not the same as skin color.

Mark

Interracial couple was considered a "sexual deviancy" 50 years ago at the time of the Loving decision.


>>>>

Nope.

sexual deviancy

Sexual excitement to the point of erection and/or orgasm, when the object of that excitement is considered abnormal in the context of the learned societal norms (paraphilia).

Mark

 

[mdk]

Bullshit. Gays could marry. They had the EXACT rights of every other American.

Mark

How did that arguement work out in almost every courtroom across the nation? How did it work out in 1967? Not so good it seems.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

"A small majority"?

Did that sound right in your head?

This subject has NOTHING to do with segregation. Sexual deviancy is not the same as skin color.

Mark

Interracial couple was considered a "sexual deviancy" 50 years ago at the time of the Loving decision.


>>>>

Yes. A small majority is a little more than half of the young population.

Mark

In every age demographic, equal access to marriage has increased over the last 20 years.

The "young" population is at 78 and 54 percent.


>>>>