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

[Roudy]

You are confused. The law is non-partisan

It should be enforced when anyone keeps patients from entering a clinic, verbally harasses them, and physically assaulting them - without any discrimination by the police based upon the political affiliation of the accused or the victims.

Presumably, the police did not check anyone's political affiliation before enforcing the law.

Do you have credible evidence to the contrary?

After the last 6 years of watching the FBI, judiciary, the FBI and the media lose all credibility whatsoever, you have no leg to stand on. The law is non partisan, but those that enforce it, aka the Democrats and their installed plants in the judiciary and law enforcement, are not. Apparently the law only applies if you're not a Democrat.

 

[martybegan]

You’re afraid to answer the question and are just going to ***** about it.

I didn’t realize you were such a *****.

I did answer the overall question, you just don't like my answer.

 

[Marener]

I did answer the overall question, you just don't like my answer.

Nah. You refused to answer the specific question that demonstrates your dead end logic.

You called it a gotcha because that was the best excuse you could come up with for being terrified to come up with an answer.

You logic hits a dead end when you refuse to say whether both races were treated equally under interracial marriage bans.

 

[martybegan]

Nah. You refused to answer the specific question that demonstrates your dead end logic.

You called it a gotcha because that was the best excuse you could come up with for being terrified to come up with an answer.

You logic hits a dead end when you refuse to say whether both races were treated equally under interracial marriage bans.

If your only refuge is attempted gotchas, you have no actual faith in your points.

 

[Marener]

If your only refuge is attempted gotchas, you have no actual faith in your points.

It’s not a gotcha. It really isn’t. You are just making excuses to hide from the dead end of your logic.

I’ll lay it out for you.

You claim gay marriage bans are equal because treat both genders the same. Men can’t marry men. Women can’t marry women. Equal. Supposedly.

But you won’t say whether interracial marriage bans treated races equally or unequally. Proponents of these bans claimed they were equal. Blacks can’t marry whites. White can’t marry blacks. Equal. Supposedly.

You know that interracial marriage bans weren’t treating races equally. You know this. The fact you won’t say it demonstrates your intellectual bankruptcy.

You won’t say it because you’d have to admit that your statement about gay marriage bans treating genders equally is actually false for the exact same reason.

Where am I wrong?

 

[martybegan]

It’s not a gotcha. It really isn’t. You are just making excuses to hide from the dead end of your logic.

I’ll lay it out for you.

You claim gay marriage bans are equal because treat both genders the same. Men can’t marry men. Women can’t marry women. Equal. Supposedly.

But you won’t say whether interracial marriage bans treated races equally or unequally. Proponents of these bans claimed they were equal. Blacks can’t marry whites. White can’t marry blacks. Equal. Supposedly.

You know that interracial marriage bans weren’t treating races equally. You know this. The fact you won’t say it demonstrates your intellectual bankruptcy.

You won’t say it because you’d have to admit that your statement about gay marriage bans treating genders equally is actually false for the exact same reason.

Where am I wrong?

Because once again you ignore that sexuality is the crux of the issue for SSM, not gender.

 

[Curried Goats]

Because once again you ignore that sexuality is the crux of the issue for SSM, not gender.

They said nothing at all about sexuality.

 

[Marener]

Because once again you ignore that sexuality is the crux of the issue for SSM, not gender.

I haven’t ignored it whatsoever. I’ve been explaining at length how mistaken that is. Your claim that I’ve “ignored it” is absolutely delusional.

You claimed that genders are treated equally by same sex marriage bans.

Will you ever say whether races are treated equally by interracial marriage bans?

Or are you too big of a *****?

 

[martybegan]

They said nothing at all about sexuality.

But it's the whole issue.

 

[martybegan]

I haven’t ignored it whatsoever. I’ve been explaining at length how mistaken that is. Your claim that I’ve “ignored it” is absolutely delusional.

You claimed that genders are treated equally by same sex marriage bans.

Will you ever say whether races are treated equally by interracial marriage bans?

Or are you too big of a *****?

Your explanation requires you to ignore it.

but SSM is about sexuality not gender, so the comparison is worthless.

 

[Marener]

Your explanation requires you to ignore it.

but SSM is about sexuality not gender, so the comparison is worthless.

You’re the one that claimed the genders were treated equally by same sax marriage bans.

Are you now trying to hide from that?

 

[martybegan]

You’re the one that claimed the genders were treated equally by same sax marriage bans.

Are you now trying to hide from that?

I'm saying that the matter, while accurate, is moot because the issue at hand is sexuality, not gender.

In Loving the issue was race.

 

[Marener]

I'm saying that the matter, while accurate, is moot because the issue at hand is sexuality, not gender.

In Loving the issue was race.

Imagine if someone tried to claim that interracial marriage ban wasn’t about race.

That’s how stupid your claim sounds. Even you admit that you can’t have a same sex marriage ban without focusing on gender. Yet you claim it’s not the issue.

 

[martybegan]

Imagine if someone tried to claim that interracial marriage ban wasn’t about race.

That’s how stupid your claim sounds. Even you admit that you can’t have a same sex marriage ban without focusing on gender. Yet you claim it’s not the issue.

It makes sense if you look at SSM as sexuality.

No one ever questioned genders in marriage before now because there was never a question before the past two decades.

The issue of inter-racial or inter-tribal marriages has been around for millennia.

 

[Curried Goats]

But it's the whole issue.

It's the whole issue for you. Just as the discomfort with interracial intimacy was the whole issue for the people opposed to interracial marriage. It's the same exact thing.

 

[martybegan]

It's the whole issue for you. Just as the discomfort with interracial intimacy was the whole issue for the people opposed to interracial marriage. It's the same exact thing.

No, it isn't. My discomfort is using the Constitution as a bludgeon when the legislatures are the proper procedure for things like allowing SSM.

 

[Marener]

It makes sense if you look at SSM as sexuality.

No one ever questioned genders in marriage before now because there was never a question before the past two decades.

The issue of inter-racial or inter-tribal marriages has been around for millennia.

Interracial marriage bans were instituted from the start of the nation and maintained unbroken until Loving. According to that ****** Scalia, that means that the Supreme Court had no power to overturn state bans. Scalia doesn’t care what tribes did millennia ago. It’s irrelevant to that shit bag. He only considers what existed since the foundation of our nation.

Scalia, like you, would have been against Loving because you’d come up with a shit excuse for how races were treated equally like you came up with a shit excuse as to how genders are treated equally.

 

[martybegan]

Interracial marriage bans were instituted from the start of the nation and maintained unbroken until Loving. According to that ****** Scalia, that means that the Supreme Court had no power to overturn state bans. Scalia doesn’t care what tribes did millennia ago. It’s irrelevant to that shit bag. He only considers what existed since the foundation of our nation.

Scalia, like you, would have been against Loving because you’d come up with a shit excuse for how races were treated equally like you came up with a shit excuse as to how genders are treated equally.

your Scalia hatred is telling. I lean toward Strict Construction, but not as much as him or Thomas.

And your assumptions on him would be wrong.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, it isn't. My discomfort is using the Constitution as a bludgeon when the legislatures are the proper procedure for things like allowing SSM.

The Constitution is legislation and the Supreme Court found same sex marriages were protected under the 14th Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution is legislation and the Supreme Court found same sex marriages were protected under the 14th Amendment.

The Constitution is not legislation, it's the Constitution. Legislation is created under it's rules by the legislature.

Obergfell was based on flawed logic, just like Plessey and Roe.

More like Roe, as it assumed substantive due process, which is a bullshit legal concept.