Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

[Zona]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

So is she gay or not? The righty's seem to really care yet, we have this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

What societies have 'promoted' homosexuality for the purpose, the specific intent, of reducing their population?

 

[JBeukema]

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.

Using that reasoning, not only must you deny same-sex couples ...

that reasoning need only support the contention that the heterosexual definition of marriage is not necessarily malicious.

You yourself said they said nothing of maliciousness, but of procreation.

Can't follow your own claims?

not a contract, silly. a licensed marriage.

Which is a legal contract recognized and enforced by the State. That's why it can have such legal ramifications as inheritance, guardianship of children, and possession of property.

clearly mutually exclusive.

Only if reality is of no concern to you.

i put reduction of the issue of marriage licenses to some kind of contract issue on par with my suicide metaphor with regard to honesty...

It is not a legal document? It does not bind two parties to terms of an agreement to be enforced by the courts should either party violate its terms?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

Pedophilia is criminal-assault.​

The only assault Gay people are guilty of, is the arousal they (indirectly) inspire, within you folks who're afraid of them.​

​

Oh So we're citin' LAW?

Well Homosexuality is Sodomy...

....And, if that's what two, consenting ADULTS decide to pursue, how does that impact you??​

Now you come back and say that Sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional...

So I can ask you how that effects you're argument regarding Pedophilia being Criminal Sexual Assualt?

A CHILD is hardly a consenting-ADULT.

Granted, good Christian parents have the Divine Right to assault/beat them, but that's only because children can't vote....or, are big-enough to fight-back.....but, they're much, much, MUCH too-young to consent to sex!!! (...And, most Adults know that.)

BTW....that's "...how that a-f-f-e-c-t-s you're argument...".​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Who gets to define "normal," anyways?

But that's for another thread...

It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

There are real ways in which there are population reduction methods. Homosexuality being "normalized" (normal is relative concept) is just barely a part of it.

Google Agenda 21, as well as all of that "overpopulation" stuff, etc. That's what you need to look out for.

Oscar, there's nothing difficult about definign normality... with regard to sexuality... as the biological design establishes that.

That said, Homosexuality is decidedly abnormal...

Species reaction to stress is hardly a theory... it's been studied for decades and the facts are indisputable; and of those facts, homosexuality is a function of stress on the species; population being just one potential aspect of stress.

But without regard to any of it... Homosexuality is a characteristic which is to be avoided... and this without consideration that Uncle Alice and Aunt Bob are 'super nice'.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So if same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right, why do so many conservatives feel the need to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT defining marriage?

You kiddin'??????​

"conservatives" are DEATHLY-afraid that one more group (Gays) is attempting to take "conservatives'" country, from them. Somehow, Gay-marriage is the ultimate tipping-point.​

ROFLMNAO...



Homosexuality is a natural reaction of the species to stress...​

You certainly do seem to be better-versed on the subject, than me.

So, tell me.....what's the source of all-o'-that stress.....and, how close have you come to turning-Gay???

​

 

[Oscar Wao]

I do agree on one point: It is NOT normal...why? Because "normal" is relative.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As every one of these sorts of threads demonstrates, if it goes on long enough, there is simply no compelling state interest in discriminating against those of the same sex marrying.
Presumably, in a democracy with a constitution designed to protect freedom, liberty, and equal rights, if the state cannot demonstrate a compelling interest in discriminating against gays in this instance, then the state should not allow it.

I can just hear our (entire) Black-population saying, "Oh....GREAT!!!!!"​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Using that logic if you are a pedophile not having the right to sex with children is also a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

DiamondDave (05-11-2010), Wicked Jester (Yesterday)


So that's three who can't tell the difference between two adults entering into a legal contract and sexual exploitation of a child who's not even old enough to consent

I think it's safe to say there's not need to bother reading any more of their posts.

I think it's best we keep-an-eye on their type.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

[It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

What societies have 'promoted' homosexuality for the purpose, the specific intent, of reducing their population?

Awwww, no.

Ya' know the type you're winding-up, don't you?!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

There are ways around saying a right doesn't exist in the Constitution.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

There are real ways in which there are population reduction methods. Homosexuality being "normalized" (normal is relative concept) is just barely a part of it.

Google Agenda 21, as well as all of that "overpopulation" stuff, etc. That's what you need to look out for.

Oscar, there's nothing difficult about definign normality... with regard to sexuality... as the biological design establishes that.

Ah, yes.....Intelligent Design.

​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are real ways in which there are population reduction methods. Homosexuality being "normalized" (normal is relative concept) is just barely a part of it.

Google Agenda 21, as well as all of that "overpopulation" stuff, etc. That's what you need to look out for.

Oscar, there's nothing difficult about definign normality... with regard to sexuality... as the biological design establishes that.

Ah, yes.....Intelligent Design.

​

Long Live The American Confederacy!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I do agree on one point: It is NOT normal...why? Because "normal" is relative.

You mean, like....a Red Stater relative; i.e. Cousin???

​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pedophilia is criminal-assault.​

The only assault Gay people are guilty of, is the arousal they (indirectly) inspire, within you folks who're afraid of them.​

​

Oh So we're citin' LAW?

Well Homosexuality is Sodomy...

....And, if that's what two, consenting ADULTS decide to pursue, how does that impact you??

Why... it's the LAW!

Now you come back and say that Sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional...

So I can ask you how that effects you're argument regarding Pedophilia being Criminal Sexual Assualt?

A CHILD is hardly a consenting-ADULT.​

​

Oh! SO the issue is the legality relevant to the age of consent?

Interesting...

Are you aware of the homosexual organization which advocates for RIGHTS for Homosexuals to pursue children for sex?
​

NAMBLA
National Man-Boy Love Association
​

Now that is an organization founded BY HOMOSEXUALS... FOR: Homosexuals... Their goal is to promote the cultural understanding and tolerance for loving sexual relationships between Men and Boys.

Now these people and their allies in the APA have stated their belief that many children actually benefit from Adult/child sexual relationships.

Many of your perversion promoting Comrades, on this very site, have written at LENGTH on the cultures around the world and throughout history; wherein adult/child sexual relationships are a right of passage... explaining how these relationships are loving mentorships...

They're predominately focused upon the lowering of the 'age of consent'... the redefining of the concept: "Child"...

​

​

Granted, good Christian parents have the Divine Right to assault/beat them, but that's only because children can't vote....or, are big-enough to fight-back.....but, they're much, much, MUCH too-young to consent to sex!!! (...And, most Adults know that.)


BTW....that's "...how that a-f-f-e-c-t-s you're argument...".

​

Yeah... That's NAMBLA alright... Arguing that Christian's are holding them back with our archain religious dogma.

But we don't usually get too many confessions this early in the game...

Tell me, do you know Shogun?​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

[It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

What societies have 'promoted' homosexuality for the purpose, the specific intent, of reducing their population?

None that I know of... Why do you ask?

 

[antagon]

Using that reasoning, not only must you deny same-sex couples ...

that reasoning need only support the contention that the heterosexual definition of marriage is not necessarily malicious.

You yourself said they said nothing of maliciousness, but of procreation.

Can't follow your own claims?

keep it real.

the argument is about precluding application of the loving decision, which the hernandez argued impinged on the intent of the definition - malicious intent or non-malicious. my term is malicious; the hernandez said something like 'bigoted, ignorant'.

at any rate, the quote applies to the application of loving, not gay rights directly, as you'd stretched it.

not a contract, silly. a licensed marriage.

Which is a legal contract recognized and enforced by the State. That's why it can have such legal ramifications as inheritance, guardianship of children, and possession of property.

clearly mutually exclusive.

Only if reality is of no concern to you.

let's see if, with concern for reality, this issue entails mutual exclusivity of a prenup and a marriage license:

a marriage license and a marriage contract are not the same thing.

you need a license to have a state-recognized marriage.

you dont need a contract to have a state-recognized marriage.

you dont need to have a license to sign a contract.

you certainly dont need a contract to pull a license

i put reduction of the issue of marriage licenses to some kind of contract issue on par with my suicide metaphor with regard to honesty...

It is not a legal document? It does not bind two parties to terms of an agreement to be enforced by the courts should either party violate its terms?

a non sequitur to the issue of definitions in marriage licenses by way of contracts and marriage licenses being mutually exclusive in my reality described above.

why not just elect a politician who'd change the definition in the state?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[It's not that difficult... Nature defines it... Innees mate with outees... except where the species is stressed and procreation is being discouraged.

Again... note that where the goal is to reduce the population (Regression...) Homosexuality is promoted... Isn't it hysterical that the Progressives always seem to be promoting Regression?

What societies have 'promoted' homosexuality for the purpose, the specific intent, of reducing their population?

None that I know of... Why do you ask?

Because you said it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What societies have 'promoted' homosexuality for the purpose, the specific intent, of reducing their population?

None that I know of... Why do you ask?

Because you said it.

Nope...

I said that where NATURE intends to reduce the population Homosexuality is promoted...

Surely you're not arguing that Homosexuality has an effect on population which is something other than reduction?

If ya do, please take the time to PM the Gunny and let him know... I'm sure that he'll be happy to explain it to ya.

 

[JBeukema]

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

So then a state can either have a legal contract called 'marriage' or not.

Now the matter becomes one of discrimination in issuing and recognizing that contract based on race, gender, etc. SCOTUS already established precedent by specifically addressing such discrimination in Loving v. Virginia.

Hi, you have received -141 reputation points from RetiredGySgt.
Reputation was given for this post.

I guess RGS is all for discrimination