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

[martybegan]

That’s not strict constructionism. That’s originalism.

A constructionist would say that if they wanted equal protection to only apply to race, they would have said so.

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Don’t tell me you believe the authors of the reconstruction amendments were still racist as shit. They were. Claiming they intended interracial marriage to be banned by the 14th amendment is ******* stupid.

They didn't. That's why loving happened to fix the errors of the legislatures and various miscegenation laws.

And the supporters of the Reconstruction Amendments were the radical republicans, some of the least racist people around at the time.

 

[martybegan]

It's been around since people have been around.

No, it hasn't.

As a legal desire, it's only been a topic of conversation for the past few decades.

 

[Curried Goats]

Try plugging a male socket into a male socket or a female socket into a female socket and get back to me on that.

I'm not asking you about electric sockets, I'm asking you to explain your argument.

Race doesn't change the plumbing, sexuality does in this case.

You said it intrinsically changed the marriage, now you're talking about plumbing, make a coherent argument.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not asking you about electric sockets, I'm asking you to explain your argument.

You said it intrinsically changed the marriage, now you're talking about plumbing, make a coherent argument.

If someone didn't tell you the difference between men and women when you were a kid, that explains your confusion now.

 

[Curried Goats]

If someone didn't tell you the difference between men and women when you were a kid, that explains your confusion now.

That's a silly straw man. I asked you to explain you argument that sexuality intrinsically changes a marriage.

 

[martybegan]

That's a silly straw man. I asked you to explain you argument that sexuality intrinsically changes a marriage.

The whole point of marriage was as a contract between two people of the opposite sex for the purpose of joining assets and providing for progeny to be legalized and taken care of.

There's nothing wrong with changing that, but trying to pretend SSM has always been part of the concept is retconning and Orwellian at the same time.

 

[Curried Goats]

The whole point of marriage was as a contract between two people of the opposite sex for the purpose of joining assets and providing for progeny to be legalized and taken care of.

And why would this stop being the case for same-sex couples?

There's nothing wrong with changing that, but trying to pretend SSM has always been part of the concept is retconning and Orwellian at the same time.

No one is pretending anything. The Court ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional per the 14th Amendment which has not always existed.

 

[martybegan]

And why would this stop being the case for same-sex couples?

No one is pretending anything. The Court ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional per the 14th Amendment which has not always existed.

Because of the obvious biological differences.

Obergfell was just as bad as Roe in making shit up.

 

[Curried Goats]

Because of the obvious biological differences.

What does biology have to do with sharing assets or providing for progeny?

Obergfell was just as bad as Roe in making shit up.

Making shit up isn't an argument, it's just a complaint.

 

[Marener]

They didn't. That's why loving happened to fix the errors of the legislatures and various miscegenation laws.

And the supporters of the Reconstruction Amendments were the radical republicans, some of the least racist people around at the time.

The miscegenation laws were backed by numerous court decisions which supported them based on the same rhetoric you use to deny privileges to same sex couples.

 

[martybegan]

What does biology have to do with sharing assets or providing for progeny?

Making shit up isn't an argument, it's just a complaint.

Again, ask your parents to go over that part with you if you are confused.

 

[martybegan]

The miscegenation laws were backed by numerous court decisions which supported them based on the same rhetoric you use to deny privileges to same sex couples.

Those courts were wrong, just as courts were wrong with Roe and Obergfell. And Plessey for that matter.

I also have a big problem with Chevron based deference, and don't get me started on the Lemon test for establishment cases.

 

[Curried Goats]

Again, ask your parents to go over that part with you if you are confused.

Another straw man, I'm asking you because it's your argument. You do understand that being homosexual doesn't make one infertile right? That's also biology if you need me to explain it to you.

 

[martybegan]

The miscegenation laws were backed by numerous court decisions which supported them based on the same rhetoric you use to deny privileges to same sex couples.

Those courts were wrong, just as courts were wrong with Roe and Obergfell. And Plessey for that matter.

I also have a big problem with Chevron based deference, and don't get me started on the Lemon test for establishment cases.

Another straw man, I'm asking you because it's your argument. You do understand that being homosexual doesn't make one infertile right? That's also biology if you need me to explain it to you.

It sure puts a damper on your desire and ability to procreate.

The whole concept of marriage has always been about men AND women, and sometimes multiple women, but always to each other, for the purpose of setting up some legal structure over joining two unrelated people (or sort of related people if you were a Hapsburg) for the purpose of progeny and the place in the world of those progeny.

The idea of SSM is relatively new, only a few decades old.

 

[Curried Goats]

It sure puts a damper on your desire and ability to procreate.

Even heterosexuals couples can have trouble conceiving, so what?

The whole concept of marriage has always been about men AND women, and sometimes multiple women, but always to each other, for the purpose of setting up some legal structure over joining two unrelated people (or sort of related people if you were a Hapsburg) for the purpose of progeny and the place in the world of those progeny.

I don't care about appeals to tradition.

The idea of SSM is relatively new, only a few decades old.

So are condoms and ultrasounds I'm struggling to find the relevance.

 

[martybegan]

Even heterosexuals couples can have trouble conceiving, so what?

I don't care about appeals to tradition.

So are condoms and ultrasounds I'm struggling to find the relevance.

I'm talking about purpose, not application, and the reason why courts aren't the arena for radical changes like this, Legislatures are.

Of course you don't, you are a nihilist, and probably at least a Trotskyist.

 

[Marener]

Those courts were wrong, just as courts were wrong with Roe and Obergfell. And Plessey for that matter.

I also have a big problem with Chevron based deference, and don't get me started on the Lemon test for establishment cases.

Lol. Clearly you’re feeling vulnerable because you couldn’t even describe your philosophy right, Mr thinks they’re a strict constructionist without actually believing that.

You don’t have a judicial philosophy other than arriving at the end you want. Neither does Scalia.

If Obergfell was wrong, so is Loving. They rely on the exact same judicial logic.

 

[martybegan]

Lol. Clearly you’re feeling vulnerable because you couldn’t even describe your philosophy right, Mr thinks they’re a strict constructionist without actually believing that.

You don’t have a judicial philosophy other than arriving at the end you want. Neither does Scalia.

Then why do I support SSM as long as it's legislatively enacted?

The whole history of progressivism is the result justifies any method. Just look at Roe.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm talking about purpose, not application, and the reason why courts aren't the arena for radical changes like this, Legislatures are.

The Courts decided the legislation of the 14th Amendment supported those changes.

Of course you don't, you are a nihilist, and probably at least a Trotskyist.

I'm not a nihilist, I just think you're full of shit.

 

[martybegan]

The Courts decided the legislation of the 14th Amendment supported those changes.

I'm not a nihilist, I just think you're full of shit.

The courts were wrong.

So no denying you are a Trotskyist?