Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[Unkotare]

An infant can continue for hours or days without being fed. (Not that anyone would do such a thing.)
.....

If you knew that human (just like the HUMAN it was minutes before in the womb) would grow up to vote Republican, you'd be first in line with a meat cleaver. Be honest, ghoul.

 

[Unkotare]

s.... The number of babies born is way more than the nation needs .....

Absolutely wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

.....y to help control the birth rate. It is something that greatly helps the nation.

Quite the opposite.

 

[HeyNorm]

In general black women get less healthcare even if their physician is black.

Maybe I needed to make my point more clearly.

Decisions have consequences.

Glad I could clear that up.

 

[martybegan]

Get the facts .. the baker thought laughing about what he did on Facebook would be good for business.

You have a Fascist bent. Is that typical of Mormons?

You think I'm a mormon?

Are you a JoeB clone or stooge?

 

[Calypso Jones]

Except when you try to prevent them from getting married.

Give me a good reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Otherwise we're done.

They've been getting married for at least 10 years...but now...incrementalism..and they want more.....they want to shut up christians who say....'this isn't right'...and it isn't.

But in actuality...IT is only a distraction...a distraction to keep you occupied and away from the twitter exposes, the ukraine money laundering deal, the fact that your grocery prices are going up, and inflation is getting worse...and more.

 

[JoeB131]

Recognizing full personhood for black people had some significant implications.

Which is probably why we still haven't done it (Sarcasm).

So what? It was wrong to deny their personhood, and to deny them what, even then, we recognized as basic human rights, no matter what benefits we had to gain by treating them as less than human, no matter the cost of recognizing them as fully human..

Recognizing them as human didn't take away rights from any other group of Americans.

At the end of the day, you are going to force women to carry pregnancies they don't want. It's simply not as practical as going down to the plantation and telling all the slaves they are free now.

Such a law would be unenforceable.

 

[JoeB131]

They've been getting married for at least 10 years...but now...incrementalism..and they want more.....they want to shut up christians who say....'this isn't right'...and it isn't.

Quite the contrary, you can say whatever you want. You just can't break the law.

But in actuality...IT is only a distraction...a distraction to keep you occupied and away from the twitter exposes, the ukraine money laundering deal, the fact that your grocery prices are going up, and inflation is getting worse...and more.

Twitter is a big nothingburger, and inflation is finally coming down after Trump fucked up supply chains.

 

[JoeB131]

If you knew that human (just like the HUMAN it was minutes before in the womb) would grow up to vote Republican, you'd be first in line with a meat cleaver. Be honest, ghoul.

Well, no, the great thing is you Republicans abort your own kids and ask Jesus for forgiveness.

Liberals are smart enough to use contraception.

 

[AsherN]

Biden promised to sign the law on same-sex marriage. He explained this by caring about future generations of LGBT youth.
Has something new appeared in biology? What are the "future generations" of LGBT people? Budding?
Or is everything much more prosaic, forcible removal of children from normal families and transfer to degenerates?

You do understand that a hetero couple can have gay children, right?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Canadian Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian ambassador because of the embassy's tweet that the family is a man + a woman + children
"Russian homophobic propaganda is not welcome here!" — the Federal Minister of Canada, an open lesbian Pascal Saint-Onge, indignantly declared.
In response, the Russian Embassy invited the Minister to think and answer how she herself was born.

You should think about how children are born

Children are conceived or otherwise come to be in the care of parents in a variety of ways

Gay and Lesbian couples have children and they are parents to those children

Homophobic propaganda is not welcome here!"

 

[Ringo]

You do understand that a hetero couple can have gay children, right?

A hetero couple can also have an extremely ugly girl, but this does not mean that she can be nominated for the Miss Universe beauty pageant. Usually such girls understand, that they have no place in such contests. But some political faggots don't realize, that their habits can't be considered normal. Probably something with their brains...

 

[HeyNorm]

You do understand that a hetero couple can have gay children, right?

Male to female union is required for the existence of every human being. Even those who live a fetish lifestyle.

 

[BackAgain]

I think Cruz is wrong. On this one. Smart guy. But off the mark here.

I cannot come up with a good answer to the question of why any person’s private, consensual (and non assaultive) behavior is or should be any of the government’s business.

 

[HeyNorm]

I think Cruz is wrong. On this own. Smart guy. But off the mark here.

I cannot come up with a good answer to the question of why any person’s private, consensual (and non assaultive) behavior is or should be any of the government’s business.

And the government has never forced anyone to reveal the same.

 

[BackAgain]

And the government has never forced anyone to reveal the same.

Some states have gone as far as doing authorized peeping Tom surveillance to capture homosexual relations in the act.
It is not the business of any State government, either. Imho.

 

[HeyNorm]

Some states have gone as far as doing authorized peeping Tom surveillance to capture homosexual relations in the act.
It is not the business of any State government, either. Imho.

I’ll need a citation on that one.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Some states have gone as far as doing authorized peeping Tom surveillance to capture homosexual relations in the act.
It is not the business of any State government, either. Imho.

When ? In the 60's Prior to Lawrence V Texas?

 

[BackAgain]

I’ll need a citation on that one.

I vaguely recalled that it was in Georgia. I thought it might be this case:

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

But I now don’t think so. The Hardwick case eventually held that States could outlaw sodomy.

This SCOTUS decision was later itself overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

The facts of one of the cases (I don’t recall which one at the moment, but I think it was Lawrence (?)) was as follows:

Apparently the cops were called about a “gun” being drawn in a fight (argument) between three gay men. It was a false report, but how would the cops know that? The cop in question walked into the room and saw two guys engaged in anal sex. (The other cop saw them engaged in oral sex?)

So the cases don’t appear to be the one I’m thinking of.

 

[BackAgain]

When ? In the 60's Prior to Lawrence V Texas?

Yes. I am indeed talking about history.