BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[martybegan]

It’s like playing whack a mole. It’s both debatable and irrelevant if it’s a new concept. Equal protection isn’t just for old concepts. It’s for all concepts where it applies. As we both agree, marriage is a concept where it applies since we both agree that equal protection applies to letting people of one race marry people of another race.

To ban same sex marriage you must discriminate based on gender. There’s no other way to do it.

It’s would have been very easy to say back in the 60s they the “proper forums” for interracial marriage was in the states legislatures.

It simply doesn't apply via judicial action because it is not truly equal to the concept of marriage as we have had it for millennia.

Incorrect, because as I keep saying SSM is about sexuality not race, and race being covered by equal protection is correct, sexuality being covered by equal protection is not.

 

[Marener]

Like with Plessey and Roe, Obergfell was judicial over-reach not based on the constitution, but based on what the majority wanted personally.

Plessy has more in common with Dobbs than Roe.

Roe, Loving, Obergfell all limited government authority.

Plessy and Dobbs expand it.

 

[Marener]

It simply doesn't apply via judicial action because it is not truly equal to the concept of marriage as we have had it for millennia.

Incorrect, because as I keep saying SSM is about sexuality not race, and race being covered by equal protection is correct, sexuality being covered by equal protection is not.

You’re still missing what the equal part of equal protection applies to. It doesn’t apply to the marriage. It applies to the people. People need to be treated equally.

You can’t ban same sex marriage without discriminating and treating people differently based on gender. You simply can’t. That’s a fact. You ignore it.

If you are treating a man equally to a woman, then you must allow both of them to marry the same gender.

 

[martybegan]

Plessy has more in common with Dobbs than Roe.

Roe, Loving, Obergfell all limited government authority.

Plessy and Dobbs expand it.

Dobbs just sent it back to the right level of government. Roe said the courts have the power in the abortion debate, which is actually worse because the federal courts aren't accountable to the people. (which is correct in most cases, just not things like Roe)

Obergfell also expanded government power but saying the courts outweigh the State legislatures on the topic of marriage.

 

[martybegan]

You’re still missing what the equal part of equal protection applies to. It doesn’t apply to the marriage. It applies to the people. People need to be treated equally.

You can’t ban same sex marriage without discriminating and treating people differently based on gender. You simply can’t. That’s a fact. You ignore it.

If you are treating a man equally to a woman, then you must allow both of them to marry the same gender.

It applies to marriage, the case was about the marriage contract. you can't say it isn't about marriage when it was only about marriage.

Again, sexuality, not gender. the ban would apply to both genders equally.

 

[Curried Goats]

The lack of attraction to the opposite sex makes it harder for them to pass on their genes, which is the purpose of biological organisms. born, live, procreate, die.

Apparently not humans. We aren't like every other animal are we? In fact we can pass laws that say it's okay for members of the opposite sex to reject you. What sense does that make if your purpose is simply to pass your genes on?

Something in them is broken if they don't have the desire biologically to procreate, just like something in my eyes are broken as I can't see right without glasses.

And you get to decide that for them? Same with heterosexuals who don't want to have kids. You get to determine they're broken because you get to determine their desires? Have you listened to that argument?

 

[Marener]

Dobbs just sent it back to the right level of government. Roe said the courts have the power in the abortion debate, which is actually worse because the federal courts aren't accountable to the people. (which is correct in most cases, just not things like Roe)

Obergfell also expanded government power but saying the courts outweigh the State legislatures on the topic of marriage.

Lots of things aren’t accountable to the people. Like laws mandating segregation.

Plessy sent it to the states too. Just like Dobbs.

Saying a government can’t do something limits their power. It doesn’t expand the power of the courts.

And we’ve always known that the courts can outweigh the state legislatures, but only when the state legislatures pass unconstitutional laws.

 

[martybegan]

Apparently not humans. We aren't like every other animal are we? In fact we can pass laws that say it's okay for members of the opposite sex to reject you. What sense does that make if your purpose is simply to pass your genes on?

And you get to decide that for them? Same with heterosexuals who don't want to have kids. You get to determine they're broken because you get to determine their desires? Have you listened to that argument?

What the point in claiming that heterosexuality isn't the default condition for our species?

Is it the default condition for or species, yes or no?

Are you saying there is no default condition? Two hands and two feet aren't the default? A 4 chamber heart isn't the default?

 

[martybegan]

Lots of things aren’t accountable to the people. Like laws mandating segregation.

Plessy sent it to the states too. Just like Dobbs.

Saying a government can’t do something limits their power. It doesn’t expand the power of the courts.

And we’ve always known that the courts can outweigh the state legislatures, but only when the state legislatures pass unconstitutional laws.

Oh it does expand the power of the courts, which we see when progressives get their hands on a majority.

 

[Marener]

It applies to marriage, the case was about the marriage contract. you can't say it isn't about marriage when it was only about marriage.

Again, sexuality, not gender. the ban would apply to both genders equally.

It applies to people who are getting married.

Bans on interracial marriage applied to both races equally. It’s still obviously discriminatory.

 

[Marener]

Oh it does expand the power of the courts, which we see when progressives get their hands on a majority.

It doesn’t expand the power of the courts. It limits the power of the states.

The courts always had the power to limit the states.

 

[martybegan]

It applies to people who are getting married.

Bans on interracial marriage applied to both races equally. It’s still obviously discriminatory.

Again, no because race and gender are one thing, sexuality is another.

 

[martybegan]

It doesn’t expand the power of the courts. It limits the power of the states.

The courts always had the power to limit the states.

There is limiting power of the States, and taking power from the States.

Roe was a taking, same as Obergfell.

Loving was a taking, but a right taking because the 14th clearly applies in the case of race.

 

[Marener]

Again, no because race and gender are one thing, sexuality is another.

That’s a pathetic response. It doesn’t even address what I’ve said.

A ban on interracial marriage applies to both races equally. The state says you can marry anyone you want as long as it’s someone of your race.

Same as a ban on sex marriage. Applies to both genders. The state says you can marry anyone you want as long as it isn’t someone of your gender.

Both equally discriminatory.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I should make some things known for the sake of clarity. I am not dogmatic about abortion; that would be my wife. I like pointing out hypocrisy. I don't like abortion, but I can see where it can be necessary sometimes. I also dislike killing people, but that has to be done sometimes too. Many Russians that we're killing with our weapons in Ukraine are not bad people. They are just in the wrong place, wearing the wrong clothes.

I find it interesting the proponents of abortion have a hard time admitting that aborting is, in fact, killing. The same people opposed the death penalty; many of them have no problem killing a baby for any reason. Many proponents of abortion are also pacifists and don't believe in killing, but evidently, that doesn't apply to the unborn.

Again, babies are already born, so nobody is killing babies, they are killing or aborting fetuses.

I have no problem with saying an abortion is killing fetuses. I just like to use the most appropriate words that decides a situation.

As I pointed out before, if you say your sister just killed a human, what does that mean? That she killed a guy at a bar the night before or she had an abortion?

If she said she aborted a fetus, then their is no ambiguity.

And what is wrong with the word pre-born? It is my construct and is just as valid as any other construct. You know what it means, and when it comes to words, that's all that matters.

Nothing really wrong with saying preborn, it is just an odd thing to say.

How come you don't use the word postborn instead of baby?

 

[martybegan]

That’s a pathetic response. It doesn’t even address what I’ve said.

A ban on interracial marriage applies to both races equally. The state says you can marry anyone you want as long as it’s someone of your race.

Same as a ban on sex marriage. Applies to both genders. The state says you can marry anyone you want as long as it isn’t someone of your gender.

Both equally discriminatory.

No, they are not, because gender isn't being discriminated in this case, sexuality is.

 

[Marener]

No, they are not, because gender isn't being discriminated in this case, sexuality is.

How do you discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on gender?

Tell me.

 

[Marener]

There is limiting power of the States, and taking power from the States.

Roe was a taking, same as Obergfell.

Loving was a taking, but a right taking because the 14th clearly applies in the case of race.

Limit. Taking. I don’t give a shit what word you use.

Dobbs has more in common with Plessy than Obergfell or Roe.

 

[martybegan]

How do you discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on gender?

Tell me.

Because they are different.

The thing is I would vote for SSM to be legal in my State, and would OK with the courts forcing other States to recognize said SSM licenses even if they don't issue their own. My issue is I simply don't see a constitutional right to one via forcing a State to issue a SSM license if they don't want to.

 

[hadit]

Sorry, but "I don't want to be a parent" isn't a good reason, it's a selfish reason.

And as for non fatal genetic defects, that smacks of Eugenics.

Do you support abortions because a fetus is a girl, or what if we can figure out a fetus is going to be gay?

It's been my contention for a long time that, should we identify a "gay gene" and develop a pre-natal test for it, that we would see an epic battle between the gay lobby and the abortion lobby.