A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

[Silhouette]

Why should I have to explain this? The SCOTUS is who settled it.

It was "settled" illegally using judicial-legislation which is a violation of the separate of powers. Obergefell had no Constitutional backing. There is no language whatsoever addressing deviant sex behaviors. Obergefell's 5 Justices attempted to add language that doesn't exist to the US Constitution, which is disallowed.

So what? Bitch and moan that you don’t like the SCOTUS decision to what end? Who can overturn the scotus decision? They are the highest court and when they rule, its over. Grow up.

You know it's funny you should bring that up. SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS. It happened in 2015 actually when Obergefell overturned Windsor 2013. And that by the SAME sitting Justices just two years after Windsor was "settled". Windsor used "states get to decide on marriage" as the means of awarding the woman Windsor her money. That opinion reaffirmed no less than 56 times in its writing that "absolutely and inarguably it's up to the states what marriage is or isn't." And that was indeed the proper and Constitutionally-supported decision. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Then just two years later, the court, overstepping its authority via the balance of powers, added brand new language to the Constitution by saying that the 14th Amendment (somehow, without any language whatsover indicating at all) covers just some practitioners of deviant sex behaviors (but not others like polyamorists/polygamists). It ripped the authority away from the states (overturning Windsor's 56-repeated assertions to the contrary) and put the fed in the business of (arbitrary, remember polygamists) cherry picking who can and cannot marry when it comes to just some deviant sex behaviors....who have no expressed nor insinuated Constitutional protections from the majority.

So, now we have the new conservative Justice replacing Scalia, who died I believe in part from utter shock and astonishment at Obergefell just a few months after it came down (read his dissenting opinion if you think this is a wild belief). Ginsburg is what, 105 years old? Her competence is surely in question because just a few weeks before the Court sat on Obergefell, she came out publicly to declare in an interview that she felt America was ready for gay marriage. That's illegal for a Justice to do. (Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

February 2017 (The Hearing had not happened yet)

Both Ginsburg, and Justice Elena Kagan — another member of the high court’s liberal wing — have presided at weddings for same-sex couples. And in an interview with Bloomberg Business last Wednesday, Ginsburg said that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to get used to nationwide marriage equality. Calls increase for Ginsburg to recuse herself in same-sex marriage case February 17, 2015

So SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS. And they can apparently do so fundamentally in two years time. It's been over two years since Obergefell's "voodoo" judicial-legislation. So buckle up.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why should I have to explain this? The SCOTUS is who settled it.

It was "settled" illegally using judicial-legislation which is a violation of the separate of powers. Obergefell had no Constitutional backing. There is no language whatsoever addressing deviant sex behaviors. Obergefell's 5 Justices attempted to add language that doesn't exist to the US Constitution, which is disallowed.

So what? Bitch and moan that you don’t like the SCOTUS decision to what end? Who can overturn the scotus decision? They are the highest court and when they rule, its over. Grow up.

You know it's funny you should bring that up. SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS. It happened in 2015 actually when Obergefell overturned Windsor 2013. And that by the SAME sitting Justices just two years after Windsor was "settled". Windsor used "states get to decide on marriage" as the means of awarding the woman Windsor her money. That opinion reaffirmed no less than 56 times in its writing that "absolutely and inarguably it's up to the states what marriage is or isn't." And that was indeed the proper and Constitutionally-supported decision. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Then just two years later, the court, overstepping its authority via the balance of powers, added brand new language to the Constitution by saying that the 14th Amendment (somehow, without any language whatsover indicating at all) covers just some practitioners of deviant sex behaviors (but not others like polyamorists/polygamists). It ripped the authority away from the states (overturning Windsor's 56-repeated assertions to the contrary) and put the fed in the business of (arbitrary, remember polygamists) cherry picking who can and cannot marry when it comes to just some deviant sex behaviors....who have no expressed nor insinuated Constitutional protections from the majority.

So, now we have the new conservative Justice replacing Scalia, who died I believe in part from utter shock and astonishment at Obergefell just a few months after it came down (read his dissenting opinion if you think this is a wild belief). Ginsburg is what, 105 years old? Her competence is surely in question because just a few weeks before the Court sat on Obergefell, she came out publicly to declare in an interview that she felt America was ready for gay marriage. That's illegal for a Justice to do. (Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009).

February 2017 (The Hearing had not happened yet)

Both Ginsburg, and Justice Elena Kagan — another member of the high court’s liberal wing — have presided at weddings for same-sex couples. And in an interview with Bloomberg Business last Wednesday, Ginsburg said that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to get used to nationwide marriage equality. Calls increase for Ginsburg to recuse herself in same-sex marriage case February 17, 2015

So SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS. And they can apparently do so fundamentally in two years time. It's been over two years since Obergefell's "voodoo" judicial-legislation. So buckle up.

Knock yourself out if you want to get your tail in a knot over this. Personally, it is not that important to me. I was, and still am opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that is redefining an institution, a definition which has always been in place (marriage is a union between a man and a woman). I never bought the argument that it was discrimination because a gay man can marry a lesbian woman. In other words, the right to marriage was not dependent on sexual orientation. I have always felt that there should be a separate institution for same sex couples. But in the end, it really makes little difference to me, because unlike you, I don’t think homosexuality is deviant. I think it is how some people are wired and you can’t pray the gay away.

 

[Silhouette]

Knock yourself out if you want to get your tail in a knot over this. Personally, it is not that important to me. I was, and still am opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that is redefining an institution, a definition which has always been in place (marriage is a union between a man and a woman). I never bought the argument that it was discrimination because a gay man can marry a lesbian woman. In other words, the right to marriage was not dependent on sexual orientation. I have always felt that there should be a separate institution for same sex couples. But in the end, it really makes little difference to me, because unlike you, I don’t think homosexuality is deviant. I think it is how some people are wired and you can’t pray the gay away.

Ah now suddenly when I make points you can't refute, you return to nonchalance....clever dodge. I'll note you concede a loss in this debate.

Gay marriage does make a difference in that it creates a contract that strips the state it's in of its share of the old contract: providing money to married subservient partners to the contract in exchange for those two people to provide both a mother and father to its future citizens for their best upbringing. The gay marriage contract not only does not deliver to the state's share in the deal, it strips children involved, for life, of either a mother or father.

It is truly the definition of "anti-marriage" as far as the other partners to the contract are concerned: the state and the state's children.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Knock yourself out if you want to get your tail in a knot over this. Personally, it is not that important to me. I was, and still am opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that is redefining an institution, a definition which has always been in place (marriage is a union between a man and a woman). I never bought the argument that it was discrimination because a gay man can marry a lesbian woman. In other words, the right to marriage was not dependent on sexual orientation. I have always felt that there should be a separate institution for same sex couples. But in the end, it really makes little difference to me, because unlike you, I don’t think homosexuality is deviant. I think it is how some people are wired and you can’t pray the gay away.

Ah now suddenly when I make points you can't refute, you return to nonchalance....clever dodge. I'll note you concede a loss in this debate.

Gay marriage does make a difference in that it creates a contract that strips the state it's in of its share of the old contract: providing money to married subservient partners to the contract in exchange for those two people to provide both a mother and father to its future citizens for their best upbringing. The gay marriage contract not only does not deliver to the state's share in the deal, it strips children involved, for life, of either a mother or father.

It is truly the definition of "anti-marriage" as far as the other partners to the contract are concerned: the state and the state's children.

You can declare a false victory in this debate if it makes you feel better (it’s a strategy often employed by lib snowflakes), but long after you’re gone men will be marrying men, and women will be marrying women, so ultimately you are on the losing side and you’re too myopic to realize it.

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research. I know adults who were raised in same sex households, and they are just fine. Get your bible out of your hand and open your mind.
Do children of gay parents develop differently?
In 2001, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, then sociologists at the University of Southern California, published a review of 21 previous studies of the children of homosexual parents (most of them lesbians). Almost uniformly, they wrote, the research found no systematic differences between children reared by a mother and father and those raised by same-sex parents.

 

[Silhouette]

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.

There's no research necessary. Gay marriage contracts upon their face banish any children implicitly anticipated to be involved from either a father or mother for life. There is no way to parse out that banishment other than "contractual-deprivation of a vital psychological need". Period.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.

There's no research necessary. Gay marriage contracts upon their face banish any children implicitly anticipated to be involved from either a father or mother for life. There is no way to parse out that banishment other than "contractual-deprivation of a vital psychological need". Period.

So are you working to pull children away from single parents too? It’s closed minded, dim witted folks like you that drove me from the Republican Party. I would wish you a happy life, but there is little chance that a person as empty headed and soulless as you will ever find peace and happiness......hmmm, maybe there is a god.

 

[Skylar]

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.

There's no research necessary. Gay marriage contracts upon their face banish any children implicitly anticipated to be involved from either a father or mother for life. There is no way to parse out that banishment other than "contractual-deprivation of a vital psychological need". Period.

Wrong as usual.

First, you're railing against same sex parenting. Which isn't predicated on marriage. If you outlaw same sex marriage, same sex parenting still happens. Same sex couples have been raising their own children for a very long time. So your proposed 'solution' (banning same sex marriage) does nothing to remedy your proposed problem (same sex parenting). Making your entire argument spectacularly pointless.

Second, the courts have repeatedly found that denying same sex couples marriage hurts their children. Explicitly contradicting you.

Third, no marriage is predicated on children or the ability to have them.

Rendering your argument worse than useless. As it remedies no harm, causes harm, and has nothing to do with the legal foundation of any marriage.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.

There's no research necessary. Gay marriage contracts upon their face banish any children implicitly anticipated to be involved from either a father or mother for life. There is no way to parse out that banishment other than "contractual-deprivation of a vital psychological need". Period.

So are you working to pull children away from single parents too? It’s closed minded, dim witted folks like you that drove me from the Republican Party. I would wish you a happy life, but there is little chance that a person as empty headed and soulless as you will ever find peace and happiness......hmmm, maybe there is a god.

Of course not. Sil is a single parent. Sil is railing against gay people being allowed to raise their own children.....despite single parenthood having the exact same detriments per her own 'logic'......only worse. As the child is denied the guidance, time and resources of the second parent in single parent households.

There is no logic or reason to Sil's perspective.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.

There's no research necessary. Gay marriage contracts upon their face banish any children implicitly anticipated to be involved from either a father or mother for life. There is no way to parse out that banishment other than "contractual-deprivation of a vital psychological need". Period.

So are you working to pull children away from single parents too? It’s closed minded, dim witted folks like you that drove me from the Republican Party. I would wish you a happy life, but there is little chance that a person as empty headed and soulless as you will ever find peace and happiness......hmmm, maybe there is a god.

Of course not. Sil is a single parent. Sil is railing against gay people being allowed to raise their own children.....despite single parenthood having the exact same detriments per her own 'logic'......only worse. As the child is denied the guidance, time and resources of the second parent in single parent households.

There is no logic or reason to Sil's perspective.

I have a feeling she is bitter, why I don’t know.

 

[Skylar]

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.

There's no research necessary. Gay marriage contracts upon their face banish any children implicitly anticipated to be involved from either a father or mother for life. There is no way to parse out that banishment other than "contractual-deprivation of a vital psychological need". Period.

So are you working to pull children away from single parents too? It’s closed minded, dim witted folks like you that drove me from the Republican Party. I would wish you a happy life, but there is little chance that a person as empty headed and soulless as you will ever find peace and happiness......hmmm, maybe there is a god.

Of course not. Sil is a single parent. Sil is railing against gay people being allowed to raise their own children.....despite single parenthood having the exact same detriments per her own 'logic'......only worse. As the child is denied the guidance, time and resources of the second parent in single parent households.

There is no logic or reason to Sil's perspective.

I have a feeling she is bitter, why I don’t know.

One can speculate. I prefer to simply demonstrate the absurdity of her arguments instead.

 

[Votto]

They can be married

/thread

They legalize gay marriage and it is still not enough. They must still convince every person on the planet it is OK.

Something tells me deep down they know better.

 

[Skylar]

Why should I have to explain this? The SCOTUS is who settled it.

It was "settled" illegally using judicial-legislation which is a violation of the separate of powers. Obergefell had no Constitutional backing. There is no language whatsoever addressing deviant sex behaviors. Obergefell's 5 Justices attempted to add language that doesn't exist to the US Constitution, which is disallowed.

So what? Bitch and moan that you don’t like the SCOTUS decision to what end? Who can overturn the scotus decision? They are the highest court and when they rule, its over. Grow up.

You know it's funny you should bring that up. SCOTUS can overturn SCOTUS. It happened in 2015 actually when Obergefell overturned Windsor 2013.

Obergefell didn't overturn Windsor. You grossly misunderstood Windsor. Windsor was about federal law. Obergefell about State law. Both were in favor of same sex couples, protecting their rights and freedoms.

Your gross misunderstandings don't translate into any constitutional crisis.

And that by the SAME sitting Justices just two years after Windsor was "settled". Windsor used "states get to decide on marriage" as the means of awarding the woman Windsor her money. That opinion reaffirmed no less than 56 times in its writing that "absolutely and inarguably it's up to the states what marriage is or isn't." And that was indeed the proper and Constitutionally-supported decision. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Again, you carefully ignore the key portion of the Windsor ruling....constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

And it was the constitutional right to marriage that the Courts cited in Obergefell. You omit this portion of the Windsor ruling from every citation of it. And then laughably pretend that because you ignored it, it didn't apply.

Um, how'd that work out for you?

And to further telegraph how ludicrously obvious the courts sentiment was in the Windsor ruling, Scalia's dissent in Windsor:

"In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will
take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated
beyond mistaking by today’s opinion......

....How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the
following substitutions in a passage from today’s opinion"

Justice Scalia in Dissent of the Windsor Ruling

Scalia accurately predicted the Obergefell court's ruling in favor of same sex marriage. Yet you ignored Scalia, ignored the Windsor ruling and insisted that you knew better how the court would rule in Obergefell.

Again, how'd willful ignorance work out for you?

 

[Skylar]

They can be married

/thread

They legalize gay marriage and it is still not enough. They must still convince every person on the planet it is OK.

Something tells me deep down they know better.

Something tells me, deep down, you're projecting.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A simple question? Why did it take a dozen paragraphs to set it up?

For ANY law on the books, it is possible to imagine a set of circumstances where the application of it would be "unjust" or silly or counterproductive.

Why not suppose the kids have "bonded" with a homeless prostitute drug addict, or an illegal alien who's being deported tomorrow?

Just because you can imagine a scenario where a law doesn't work as planned does not mean that the basic legal, historical, moral, and economic underpinnings of a law have to the thrown out. The first choice in any broken family, death, or abandonment situation is to find a parent, and if not a parent then another relative. It works 95% of the time. Judges normally have the discretion to be creative when all the facts and circumstances point to it. In the scenario you have imagined, there will probably be a relative of one of the natural parents who is trying to get custody, that that relative would probably get preference over the house-mate.

Some homosexual couples (mainly women) can be great parents and some NORMAL couples can be terrible parents. So what's your point, exactly?

Does this mean if you have to read more than one sentence, it's not simple?

 

[Votto]

They can be married

/thread

They legalize gay marriage and it is still not enough. They must still convince every person on the planet it is OK.

Something tells me deep down they know better.

Something tells me, deep down, you're projecting.

So let me ask you, let's say this guy had not been a jerk an abusive father.

Would it have been a great thing for the mother to just walk off with the other woman?

 

[Skylar]

They can be married

/thread

They legalize gay marriage and it is still not enough. They must still convince every person on the planet it is OK.

Something tells me deep down they know better.

Something tells me, deep down, you're projecting.

So let me ask you, let's say this guy had not been a jerk an abusive father.

Would it have been a great thing for the mother to just walk off with the other woman?

So you're just abandoning all your babble about the legalization of same sex marriage and what gays believe?

Your concession is accepted.

 

[Silhouette]

Except that nagging issue of the gay marriage contract banishing children for life from either a mother or father. No contract is allowed to banish a child from a psychological necessity. If it does, it's not merely open to challenge, but instead immediately void upon its face before its ink is dry. Such is the seriousness with which society places on the Infancy Doctrine's protections for children against adults who would otherwise be taking advantage of them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They can be married

/thread

They legalize gay marriage and it is still not enough. They must still convince every person on the planet it is OK.

Something tells me deep down they know better.

They freed the slaves but somehow that was not enough . The black folks wanted more too. Your thoughts??

 

[Silhouette]

A race of people is not = to deviant sex behaviors. There's some thoughts for you. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a slight insinuation of mention of protections for just some (but not other, like polygamy) sexual kinks. NADA. ZIP NOTHING.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They can be married

/thread

They legalize gay marriage and it is still not enough. They must still convince every person on the planet it is OK.

Something tells me deep down they know better.

They freed the slaves but somehow that was not enough . The black folks wanted more too. Your thoughts??

Actually, until the leftists infected the black community with their poisonous attitudes in the 60s, what they really wanted was just to be left alone to live their lives. It's a sad irony that just when they finally started to truly win recognition of that right, they got brainwashed into becoming the left's favorite token victim class, and shot the whole thing to Hell.