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

[BlindBoo]

If faggots aren't free to pack fudge.......are any of us really free? .....

Closeti Man. They've had those rights for a long time now. This isn't that fight.

 

[Skylar]

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

Check Loving v. Virginia. They already ddi that in 1967.

You're a little late to the party.

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.

Save the 20 other countries that already do. And now us. Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is.

This decision was utterly predictable. Down the breakdown of the justices and the rulings they would cite as precedent. You didn't see it coming....because you don't know what you're talking about.

20 other countries do it?

That's justification?

That's an explicit contradiction to the bullshit claim that no society or religion defined marriage as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind.

20 other nations already do. And we do too.

Perhaps 'history of mankind' doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[auditor0007]

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 do realize that the US is not the first country to legalize same sex marriage, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's nothing "bizarre" about the ruling, it's an appropriate, consistent, and conservative application of settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where the states may not deny gay Americans access to marriage law.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

 

[AceRothstein]

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 don't get to define what a marriage is.

 

[AceRothstein]

And a bizarre decision? Maybe if you're fucking retarded.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 10 years.

Thousands and thousands of same gender couples are legally married.

You can refuse to accept that- or not- really immaterial.

 

[Syriusly]

But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Says you.

I say it not only can be marriage- I say, as a man married to my wife for over 20 years- its about time.

 

[Defiant1]

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 don't get to define what a marriage is.

In Florida is the Florida Constitution allowed to define it?

SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

 

[AceRothstein]

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 don't get to define what a marriage is.

In Florida is the Florida Constitution allowed to define it?

SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

The Supreme Court just said no.

 

[Skylar]

But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Says you. And legally speaking, you're nobody.

 

[initforme]

This issue is of little importance in the end. How is it going to affect a white married for 51 years to the same woman, 76 year old man? Of what threat is it to me?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Wow. Four 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?

 

[AceRothstein]

Wow. Four 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.)

It has been refuted, you just want to keep on being ignorant.

 

[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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

I don't....and won't. I might ask them if they are playing house

 

[sealybobo]

Wow. Four 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?

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

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

 

[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".