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

[Vandalshandle]

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.

Wow! marriage has been defined as being between one woman and one man for hundreds of centuries! That includes prehistory, and pre civilization. Who would have known that marriage had been defined before marriage even existed! And, though same sex marriages were outlawed after Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity, they never existed in the first place, so he was just doing it to make a point, I guess....

 

[Vandalshandle]

The silence is deafening. Maybe a little music will help:

 

[Freewill]

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?

It makes no difference what we think, they are going to do what they want regardless of laws, tradition or morality.

 

[Skylar]

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?

It makes no difference what we think, they are going to do what they want regardless of laws, tradition or morality.

You don't define the laws or morality. And discrimination because of tradition is merely a circular argument. Were you discriminate because you've discriminated. Your evidence and your conclusion is the same thing.

No thank you.

 

[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.

Your argument has already been refuted.

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

Marriage is whatever we say it is.

Gotta love these leftist fanatics. You can point out to them all day that giving something a wrong name doesn't make the name fit. They reply with, "If we say it fits, then it does so fit!"

Like talking to a wall. Except a wall is smart enough to not keep telling the same unsupported lie over and over.

Clearly the leftists are trying to follow their mentor's dictat, "If you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe it, and it becomes The Truth."

And they just can't believe their mentor is wrong. Their entire world would collapse if he was.

 

[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.

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

You can pretend that the Loving v. Virginia decision doesn't exist. You can pretend that it didn't find marriage to be a fundamental right. You can pretend that 20 other societies before us didn't recognize same sex marriage. You can ignore the fact that each society defines marriage for itself. But its not like the ruling, those 20 other societies, and the changing definition of marriage vanishes merely because you pretend they do.

Ignore as you will. But be aware....the world simply doesn't disappear when you close your eyes.

Gotta love these leftist fanatics. You can point out to them all day that giving something a wrong name doesn't make the name fit. They reply with, "If we say it fits, then it does so fit!"

There's no such thing as an 'inherent' definition of marriage. Marriage is defined by every society that uses it. And our society defines marriage as including same sex couples. Just like 20 other societies do.

Again, ignore as you will. Its not like any of this changes just because you pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

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

You can always tell when you're talking to the extreme wing of the big-govt-left party.

You can point out all day to them, that calling a tail a leg doesn't make the name fit.

Their only reply is that government has made a law saying it does, so therefore it does fit.

Their entire world is based on what government tells them. They accept in unquestionably... and target for destruction anybody who dares not to.

They regard government the way savages regard idols. It can do no wrong, it creates and shapes their entire existence, whatever it says is automatically the way things really are. Plain facts pale and wither before the force and majesty of government... to them at least.

And these poor simps wonder why fewer and fewer people listen to them.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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

You can always tell when you're talking to the extreme wing of the big-govt-left party.

You can point out all day to them, that calling a tail a leg doesn't make the name fit.

Their only reply is that government has made a law saying it does, so therefore it does fit.

Their entire world is based on what government tells them,

They regard government the way savages regard idols. It can do no wrong, it creates and shapes their entire existence, whatever it says is automatically the way things really are. Plain facts pale and wither before the force and majesty of government... to them at least.

And these poor simps wonder why fewer and fewer people listen to them.

Notice you don't actually address any point I've made or even disagree with me.

You were simply wrong. You were wrong on the court 'now' recognizing marriage as a right. They've recognized it as a right for nearly 50 years. You just didn't know what you were talking about.

You were wrong on no society in the history of mankind using same sex marriage. 20 other societies before us did exactly that. You just didn't know what you were talking about.

You were wrong on marriage having an inherent definition. Marriage is a social construct that each society defines. And in our society it includes same sex couples.

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

 

[Little-Acorn]

You can pretend that the Loving v. Virginia decision doesn't exist. You can pretend that it didn't find marriage to be a fundamental right.

BTW, have you noticed how these desperate leftist fanatics try to twist what you said, into something you didn't say, and then bash you for that? The above is a typical example.

When they can't refute what you actually said, they lapse into lying about it and pretending as hard as they can.

Their tactics never change, despite their repeated failures and steadily dwindling base.

 

[Skylar]

You can pretend that the Loving v. Virginia decision doesn't exist. You can pretend that it didn't find marriage to be a fundamental right.

BTW, have you noticed how these desperate leftist fanatics try to twist what you said, into something you didn't say, and then bash you for that?

So you didn't say this?

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

Because I'm pretty sure you did. And marriage has been a right for nearly 50 years. As the Loving decision makes ludicrously clear. All the Obergefell decision did was remove unequal protection under the law for gays.

You didn't claim this?

No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind.

Because I'm pretty sure you did. And you're obviously wrong. As 20 other societies before us recognized marriage as a union between two men or two women.

You didn't claim this?

Just one problem: Marriage is a union between man and woman.

Because I'm pretty sure you did. And marriage has no inherent definition. Its a social construct that is defined by the society that uses it. We define marriage as including a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Just like 20 societies before us do.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter. Gay marriage is still the law of the land no matter how tightly you close your eyes.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Give up, Skylar. Little Acorn is not going to understand the law until becoming a baker for a living, and refuses to bake a wedding cake for a SS couple. However, at that point, the law will become clear, even to Little Acorn.....

 

[Little-Acorn]

Give up, Skylar. Little Acorn is not going to understand the law until becoming a baker for a living, and refuses to bake a wedding cake for a SS couple. However, at that point, the law will become clear, even to Little Acorn.....

Typical leftist response. We managed to make a new law that defies all of history and human nature. If anybody doesn't agree, we'll throw him in jail until he changes his tune.

Back to the subject:
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?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Give up, Skylar. Little Acorn is not going to understand the law until becoming a baker for a living, and refuses to bake a wedding cake for a SS couple. However, at that point, the law will become clear, even to Little Acorn.....

Typical leftist response. We managed to make a new law that defies all of history and human nature. If anybody doesn't agree, we'll throw him in jail until he changes his tune.

Back to the subject:
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?

I'm pretty sure that robo-posting is against the rules.....

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'm pretty sure that robo-posting is against the rules.....

Then stop doing it.

Hint: Try responding to the actual OP instead.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm pretty sure that robo-posting is against the rules.....

Then stop doing it.

Hint: Try responding to the actual OP instead.

Little, I had an aunt who had dementia. Among other things, she believed that government agents were hiding in her unfinished attic, recording all of her thoughts. I was a teenager at the time, I I used to try to reason with her. Even at that age, i quickly learned that logic and facts had no impact on her. In fact, it was frustrating as hell. Instead, I started just having fun with her. For example, whenever I visited her, I wore a microphone on my shirt, but convinced her that I was actually her defence attorney, and was recording her "good thoughts" in case she ever needed them in her defense in court.

So, If you will, would you type in a little larger font? It copies so much better that way.

 

[Bfgrn]

Give up, Skylar. Little Acorn is not going to understand the law until becoming a baker for a living, and refuses to bake a wedding cake for a SS couple. However, at that point, the law will become clear, even to Little Acorn.....

Typical leftist response. We managed to make a new law that defies all of history and human nature. If anybody doesn't agree, we'll throw him in jail until he changes his tune.

Back to the subject:
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?

Only a few years ago the very same argument was made about interracial marriage. I already pointed out the vast difference between marriage and civil unions. Yet you bring up the same argument.

We, the people managed to make America a more perfect union, where ALL Americans are more equal under the law.

Now please sit down so you don't faint when I reveal this unknown truth to you...the earth is not flat.

 

[BULLDOG]

Give up, Skylar. Little Acorn is not going to understand the law until becoming a baker for a living, and refuses to bake a wedding cake for a SS couple. However, at that point, the law will become clear, even to Little Acorn.....

Typical leftist response. We managed to make a new law that defies all of history and human nature. If anybody doesn't agree, we'll throw him in jail until he changes his tune.

Back to the subject:
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?

Good shrooms.....right?

 

[Little-Acorn]

As always, no response to the actual OP. Just diversions, insults, subject changes, and hysteria from the left, with zero factual backup that applies to the actual OP.

Apparently these people are hoping that if they continue to inject their usual nonsense and garbage, it will somehow reflect on the OP.

Desperate tactics, but they have nothing else.

Back to the subject:
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?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

As always, no response to the actual OP. Just diversions, insults, subject changes, and hysteria from the left, with zero factual backup that applies to the actual OP.

Apparently these people are hoping that if they continue to inject their usual nonsense and garbage, it will somehow reflect on the OP.

Desperate tactics, but they have nothing else.

Back to the subject:
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?

Their marriages are now as valid as yours or mine. That rain you feel is you pissing into the wind, while no ones gives a fuck...

 

[Skylar]

Give up, Skylar. Little Acorn is not going to understand the law until becoming a baker for a living, and refuses to bake a wedding cake for a SS couple. However, at that point, the law will become clear, even to Little Acorn.....

Typical leftist response. We managed to make a new law that defies all of history and human nature. If anybody doesn't agree, we'll throw him in jail until he changes his tune.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, 20 other societies already recognize same sex marriage. Destroying your 'all of history' nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

As for your claims regarding 'human nature', you'll have to get a little more specific. Given your track record of inaccuracy, I'm not hopeful you'll manage a cohesive argument.

Oh, and finally, who is being put in jail for not agreeing? Or are you arguing pure emotion now?

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.

Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman. In some societies, the numbers are flexible too, with far more than 2 partners. Marriage is defined by the society that uses it. And we define it in our society to include same sex couples.

You can ignore this fact. But it won't matte either way.

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.

Nope. We'll call it marriage. "Separate but equal' has an absolute shit record for one major reason: those trying to impose the separation do so because they believe what they are separating themselves from isn't' equal. Nixing their stated purpose from the get go.

Try again.