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

[martybegan]

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

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

Dobbs was fixing the fuckup that was Roe. Roe should have never happened.

 

[Curried Goats]

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

I don't know because that isn't my claim, it's yours.

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

No. There is no default condition for our species with regards to sexual orientation just as there are none with skin tone, hair color, or height.

Are you saying there is no default condition?

Not with sexual orientation just as there is no default for height, hair color, or weight.

Two hands and two feet aren't the default? A 4 chamber heart isn't the default?

Are you arguing that people born with only one arm shouldn't be allowed to marry?

 

[Marener]

Because they are different.

That’s not a ******* answer.

Jesus, you consider yourself one of the “big boys”? Pathetic.

You can’t discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on gender. The fact you can’t explain how this is wrong demonstrates your intellectual bankruptcy.

You have a constitutional right of equal protection. If you aren’t allowed to marry someone based solely on your gender, then you’re not getting equal protection.

 

[Marener]

Dobbs was fixing the fuckup that was Roe. Roe should have never happened.

Dobbs is the modern day Plessy.

Imagine if in the 1890s, the courts had ruled against segregation and instead of society moving on, the conservatives made it their mission to appoint enough judges to “fix” that, finally doing so 50 years later, sending the issue back to the states “where it belonged”.

That’s what’s going on here.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Probably. the thing is to me there probably isn't one set reason someone is same sex attracted. Some could be due to genetics, some due to environment, and some just due to not having a strong feeling one way or another. People try to fit everything into one reason, to make them not have to think too much.

 

[martybegan]

That’s not a ******* answer.

Jesus, you consider yourself one of the “big boys”? Pathetic.

You can’t discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on gender. The fact you can’t explain how this is wrong demonstrates your intellectual bankruptcy.

You have a constitutional right of equal protection. If you aren’t allowed to marry someone based solely on your gender, then you’re not getting equal protection.

It's an answer, you just don't agree with it.

 

[martybegan]

Dobbs is the modern day Plessy.

Imagine if in the 1890s, the courts had ruled against segregation and instead of society moving on, the conservatives made it their mission to appoint enough judges to “fix” that, finally doing so 50 years later, sending the issue back to the states “where it belonged”.

That’s what’s going on here.

Dobbs is righting a wrong.

Roe was based on a made up right, same as Obergfell.


Plessey was based on the made up concept of separate being equal in the case of race relations, which it clearly couldn't be.

 

[martybegan]

I don't know because that isn't my claim, it's yours.

No. There is no default condition for our species with regards to sexual orientation just as there are none with skin tone, hair color, or height.

Not with sexual orientation just as there is no default for height, hair color, or weight.

Are you arguing that people born with only one arm shouldn't be allowed to marry?

So is heterosexuality the human default?

Let me answer that, yes, it is, If it wasn't it would lead to the end of the species.

I'm saying a person being born with only one arm isn't the default.

 

[Marener]

It's an answer, you just don't agree with it.

It’s not. You don’t have an answer.

“It’s different” doesn’t even come close to being an answer. It’s pathetic you think it does.

I’ll ask it again. Try harder this time. How do you discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on gender?

 

[Marener]

Dobbs is righting a wrong.

Roe was based on a made up right, same as Obergfell.


Plessey was based on the made up concept of separate being equal in the case of race relations, which it clearly couldn't be.

Plessy believed that the states could make things separate without making them unequal. Want to know how? Easy. They said that their segregation laws applied equally to both races. Black kids couldn’t go to white kids schools. But white kids couldn’t go to black kids schools either.

Sound familiar? It should. It’s your excuse for making same sex marriage a state issue.

To get to Plessy, you’d have to ignore different treatment or different people to allow government additional authority. That’s what you want with Roe. That’s what you want with Obergfell. To ignore different treatment to allow additional government authority on how to live our lives.

 

[martybegan]

It’s not. You don’t have an answer.

“It’s different” doesn’t even come close to being an answer. It’s pathetic you think it does.

I’ll ask it again. Try harder this time. How do you discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on gender?

I have an answer.

because you aren't discriminating in this case based on gender, both genders are treated equally in the scenario.

 

[Marener]

I have an answer.

because you aren't discriminating in this case based on gender, both genders are treated equally in the scenario.

How are both genders being treated equally if one gender can marry a man and one gender can’t?

They aren’t.

 

[martybegan]

Plessy believed that the states could make things separate without making them unequal. Want to know how? Easy. They said that their segregation laws applied equally to both races. Black kids couldn’t go to white kids schools. But white kids couldn’t go to black kids schools either.

Sound familiar? It should. It’s your excuse for making same sex marriage a state issue.

To get to Plessy, you’d have to ignore different treatment or different people to allow government additional authority. That’s what you want with Roe. That’s what you want with Obergfell. To ignore different treatment to allow additional government authority on how to live our lives.

In that case you were dealing with multiple issues, education, transportation, commerce, legal, and others. In the case of SSM you are only dealing with one thing, the marriage contract, more particularly, who you have to issue a marriage contract to.

I find people like you comical when you talk about government authority, when you probably side with the couple over the whole forcing the baker to bake a wedding cake thing, or forcing the photographer to work a same sex wedding.

 

[martybegan]

How are both genders being treated equally if one gender can marry a man and one gender can’t?

They aren’t.

the woman can't marry a woman either.

Only in a given State however. If they got married in a State where SSM was voted in, my version of obergfell would have had their license recognized in all States.

 

[Curried Goats]

So is heterosexuality the human default?

Not for homosexual humans.

Let me answer that, yes, it is, If it wasn't it would lead to the end of the species.

And? Some people are more than happy to not pass on their DNA. You are not responsible for the direction of our entire species.

I'm saying a person being born with only one arm isn't the default.

Which means what to you? In what way would you treat them differently by law because of this? You don't think one armed people should be allowed to marry?

 

[Marener]

the woman can't marry a woman either.

Only in a given State however. If they got married in a State where SSM was voted in, my version of obergfell would have had their license recognized in all States.

Black kid can’t go to a white kid school. White kid can’t go to a black kid school.

Is that equal protection? Nope.

A man can’t marry a man because they’re a man. If they were a woman, they’d be allowed to. That’s not equal protection. That’s limiting their freedom based on their gender.

 

[Marener]

In that case you were dealing with multiple issues, education, transportation, commerce, legal, and others. In the case of SSM you are only dealing with one thing, the marriage contract, more particularly, who you have to issue a marriage contract to.

I find people like you comical when you talk about government authority, when you probably side with the couple over the whole forcing the baker to bake a wedding cake thing, or forcing the photographer to work a same sex wedding.

Plessy was overturned in a number of decisions. The multiple issues were addressed basically one by one. That includes Loving.

Your legal beliefs don’t have any foundation. The only reason you accept Loving is because it was so long ago. At the time, it was also deemed massive overreach by conservatives like yourself. The Warren court was the most liberal court in the history of the nation and it’s what conservatives have been trying to undo ever since.

 

[martybegan]

Not for homosexual humans.

And? Some people are more than happy to not pass on their DNA. You are not responsible for the direction of our entire species.

Which means what to you? In what way would you treat them differently by law because of this? You don't think one armed people should be allowed to marry?

Nature is responsible for how species work. Sorry, but heterosexuality is default for sexually reproducing species.

My issue with this is people trying to justify life choices without acknowledging the default human condition. It's part of the whole need for acceptance rather than tolerance, and why said acceptance is forced on people by SJW "warriors" like you.

 

[martybegan]

Black kid can’t go to a white kid school. White kid can’t go to a black kid school.

Is that equal protection? Nope.

A man can’t marry a man because they’re a man. If they were a woman, they’d be allowed to. That’s not equal protection. That’s limiting their freedom based on their gender.

Race isn't sexuality, despite your desire of "If I say it is, it is"

 

[martybegan]

Plessy was overturned in a number of decisions. The multiple issues were addressed basically one by one. That includes Loving.

Your legal beliefs don’t have any foundation. The only reason you accept Loving is because it was so long ago. At the time, it was also deemed massive overreach by conservatives like yourself. The Warren court was the most liberal court in the history of the nation and it’s what conservatives have been trying to undo ever since.

I accept loving because it was correct, race is a factor in equal protection with regards to marriage. Sexuality isn't.

And I notice you dodged replying on my comment about the forced acceptance imposed on the bakers and photographers I mentioned.