Another bizarre decision by the Supremes: A same-sex union is now a "marriage"?

[sealybobo]

I see where the Supreme Court has now ruled that same-sex "marriage" is now a "right".

Just one problem: Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

you are so stupid. when you walk up to a gay couple do you ask them if they're unionized? No you ask them if they're married.

Actually, I don't ask if a horse's tail is actually a leg. Because I know it isn't, regardless of what some misinformed law says. Such a law simply reflects the ignorance of the people who made it (or their willingness to lie), not the actual form and use of the horse's tail.

And I don't ask a gay couple if they're married, for the same reason.

your comparison is ridiculous. what to men who are married are doing is exactly what you straight people are doing when they're married. no your tail to leg analogy does it make any sense and besides you've lost the argument already so we're not going to continue to debate it. you lost haha

 

[Little-Acorn]

Now five pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.

(Clapping your hands over your ears, squeezing your eyes tight shut, and chanting "No it isn't, no it isn't, you're a poopy head, no it isn't, no it isn't" is not a refutation.)

Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind. Except, of course, a few very recent converts to the new religion of the ludicrous "men and women are the same" trope.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

 

[sealybobo]

not anymore. now marriage is win any two adults get married. gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage get used to it lol. I know it's going to take some time for you and my father to get used to it but get used to it they're here they're queer get used to it

See? Yet another poor dupe calling a tail a leg.... and trying desperately to pretend that tails have now turned into legs because someone made a law saying so.

It's about what I expect from someone who can't even spell "when".

I'm doing talk to text and I will not waste one second editing for you freak

 

[sealybobo]

not anymore. now marriage is win any two adults get married. gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage get used to it lol. I know it's going to take some time for you and my father to get used to it but get used to it they're here they're queer get used to it

See? Yet another poor dupe calling a tail a leg.... and trying desperately to pretend that tails have now turned into legs because someone made a law saying so.

It's about what I expect from someone who can't even spell "when".

if you could walk with a tail then maybe it would be a leg

 

[sealybobo]

Now five pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.

(Clapping your hands over your ears, squeezing your eyes tight shut, and chanting "No it isn't, no it isn't, you're a poopy head, no it isn't, no it isn't" is not a refutation.)

Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind. Except, of course, a few very recent converts to the new religion of the ludicrous "men and women are the same" trope.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

other than it being two men or two women what is the difference between gay and straight marriage?

 

[Little-Acorn]

not anymore. now marriage is win any two adults get married. gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage get used to it lol. I know it's going to take some time for you and my father to get used to it but get used to it they're here they're queer get used to it

See? Yet another poor dupe calling a tail a leg.... and trying desperately to pretend that tails have now turned into legs because someone made a law saying so.
It's about what I expect from someone who can't even spell "when".

I'm doing talk to text and I will not waste one second editing for you freak

And who considers editing and spelling words correctly to be "wasting time". And that namecalling constitutes an intelligent reply.

 

[sealybobo]

not anymore. now marriage is win any two adults get married. gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage get used to it lol. I know it's going to take some time for you and my father to get used to it but get used to it they're here they're queer get used to it

See? Yet another poor dupe calling a tail a leg.... and trying desperately to pretend that tails have now turned into legs because someone made a law saying so.
It's about what I expect from someone who can't even spell "when".

I'm doing talk to text and I will not waste one second editing for you freak

And who considers editing and spelling words correctly to be "wasting time".

for you it would be a complete waste of time for me to bother. now please tell me other than it being two men or two women what is the difference between two men being married and a man in the woman to marry? Other than the sex of the couples. and who cares what they did a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago today marriage is for any two adults get over it

 

[Little-Acorn]

for you it would be a complete waste of time for me to bother.

now please tell me other than it being two men or two women what is the difference between two men being married and a man in the woman to marry?

For you, it would be a complete waste of time for me to bother.

(see how it works?)

 

[sealybobo]

not anymore. now marriage is win any two adults get married. gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage get used to it lol. I know it's going to take some time for you and my father to get used to it but get used to it they're here they're queer get used to it

See? Yet another poor dupe calling a tail a leg.... and trying desperately to pretend that tails have now turned into legs because someone made a law saying so.
It's about what I expect from someone who can't even spell "when".

I'm doing talk to text and I will not waste one second editing for you freak

And who considers editing and spelling words correctly to be "wasting time". And that namecalling constitutes an intelligent reply.

oh but now I see I asked the question twice and none of you write winners will answer. besides it being two people of the same sex what is the difference between gay marriage in straight marriage? How come none of you will answer instead you deflect and worried about my god damn punctuation and grammar you c********* sucker

 

[Skylar]

Wow. Four pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.

The OP was refuted on the first page. The 'right' that you claim the Court 'now' affirmed.....has been affirmed for nearly 50 years.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[saveliberty]

You don't answer to me, but to God.

 

[Bfgrn]

I see where the Supreme Court has now ruled that same-sex "marriage" is now a "right".

Just one problem: Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

What Are the Differences between Marriage and Civil Unions?
There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in civil unions, including:

• Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
• The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
• Tax benefits available to married couples only
• Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
• Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance

- See more at: Marriage Compared to Civil Unions LegalMatch Law Library

 

[sealybobo]

Now five pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.

(Clapping your hands over your ears, squeezing your eyes tight shut, and chanting "No it isn't, no it isn't, you're a poopy head, no it isn't, no it isn't" is not a refutation.)

Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind. Except, of course, a few very recent converts to the new religion of the ludicrous "men and women are the same" trope.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

you won't answer my question? Besides it being two people of the same sex what is the difference between straight and gay marriage? There's a big difference between a tail and a leg but not very much difference between gay and straight marriage.

think about straight pornography and gay porn. do you call gay porn something other than porn because you don't want it ruin straight porn?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Poor Little Acorn. Stuck in the 20th century, while the rest of the world has moved on. Nobody to relate to but a small crowd of people who include visitors to the Creationist museum in Kentucky. I'm thinking that they will eventually form a commune in PA where they will live together, and no one will drive anything newer than a 1939 Ford, and use refrigerators with round compressors on top, with no freezer compartments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see where the Supreme Court has now ruled that same-sex "marriage" is now a "right".

Just one problem: Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

The only problem is your comprehensive ignorance of the law.

Clearly you haven't read the ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have exhibited such ignorance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LITTLE-ACORN SAID:

“Now five pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.”

Likely because it's ridiculous, ignorant idiocy.

Read the ruling, then explain how the premise of your thread has anything to do with the law.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[Little-Acorn]

Wow. Four pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.

The OP was refuted on the first page. The 'right' that you claim the Court 'now' affirmed.....has been affirmed for nearly 50 years.

So many leftist claims, so little evidence. (yawn)

As I said, marriage has been between man and woman for hundreds of centuries, ever since marriage was created. With the exception of a few very recent leftist wishful thinkers, no society has ever defined it differently. Calling a union between same sexes a marriage, is like calling a tail a leg. Giving it an obviously wrong name, doesn't make the name fit.

Unsurprisingly, the current leftists are among those giving it a name that doesn't fit it. They do that a lot... adding to their 0-for-everything record of failure.

 

[Little-Acorn]

“Now five pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.”
Likely because it's ridiculous, ignorant idiocy.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute it either.

 

[Skylar]

Wow. Four pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.

The OP was refuted on the first page. The 'right' that you claim the Court 'now' affirmed.....has been affirmed for nearly 50 years.

So many leftist claims, so little evidence. (yawn)

Just because you're not aware of the Loving V. Virginia ruling and its finding that marriage is a fundamental right doesn't mean that history magically morphs to meet your ignorance.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

As I said, marriage has been between man and woman for hundreds of centuries, ever since marriage was created. With the exception of a few very recent leftist wishful thinkers, no society has ever defined it differently.

And as was pointed out, 20 other societies already recognize same sex marriage. Nixing your nonsense claim that no society has ever done so in the 'history of mankind'.

Perhaps 'history of mankind' doesn't mean what you think it means. Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't know what you're talking about. Your fundamental assumptions are provably false.

Calling a union between same sexes a marriage, is like calling a tail a leg. Giving it an obviously wrong name, doesn't make the name fit.

Marriage is our invention. It is whatever we say it is. There is no 'inherent' definition of marriage. Marriage is merely a social construct that we made up to serve our society. And that construct in our society includes same sex couples.

Making your entire argument moot.

Unsurprisingly, the current leftists are among those giving it a name that doesn't fit it. They do that a lot... adding to their 0-for-everything record of failure.

Same sex marriage is legal in the entire country. I think you may be in denial on the left 'losing' on the issue.

 

[Skylar]

“Now five pages so far, and still nobody has refuted the OP.”
Likely because it's ridiculous, ignorant idiocy.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute it either.

Your argument has already been refuted. You were wrong the court 'now' claiming that marriage is a 'right'. They've long since already made that determination with the Loving v. Virginia decision.

You were wrong that no society has ever recognized same sex marriage in the history of the world. 20 other societies have already recognized same sex marriage.

And you were wrong on marriage no including same sex couples. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

Ignore as you will. Its not like the holes in your claims vanish just because you pretend they don't exist.