Elena Kagan Is a Blithering Idiot!

[WinterBorn]

Consenting adults is a pretty stable line. It covers everyone who would be capable of voluntarily joining in the sex act.

Well... there ya go.

Now... that IS a long list right there.

I mean, after all who wouldn't voluntarily join in the sex with a loving, caring person that they trust?

LOL! I say it here and it comes out THERE!

Any consenting adult should be able to engage in whatever sexual acts they choose, without having to get prior approval by the masses or the gov't. It really is that simple.

 

[saveliberty]

You stop at consenting adults, why do you deny consenting people?

Clearly it does not believe in equal protection under the law for EVERYONE.

Yep, so it comes down to whose ruler do we use for the inequality line. Some group of deviants is always going to want to push it further.

Consenting adults is a pretty stable line. It covers everyone who would be capable of voluntarily joining in the sex act.

Not all have the same adult mental capacities.

Which is why we, as a society, set an age at which a person can be assumed to be mature enough to make that decision, barring documentable mental disabilities. And that is why having sex with children or the mentally retarded is illegal, but having sex with someone of the same gender is not.

You are back peddling. Creating different classes of people, I dare say inequality.

 

[WinterBorn]

Clearly it does not believe in equal protection under the law for EVERYONE.

Yep, so it comes down to whose ruler do we use for the inequality line. Some group of deviants is always going to want to push it further.

Consenting adults is a pretty stable line. It covers everyone who would be capable of voluntarily joining in the sex act.

Not all have the same adult mental capacities.

Which is why we, as a society, set an age at which a person can be assumed to be mature enough to make that decision, barring documentable mental disabilities. And that is why having sex with children or the mentally retarded is illegal, but having sex with someone of the same gender is not.

You are back peddling. Creating different classes of people, I dare say inequality.

There are always different classes of people. That has never been up for debate. We take away the rights of criminals. We protect those unable to care for themselves. But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law.

What you want is to deny this equal protection to people based on the fact that you think homosexuality is "yucky". It doesn't work that way.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There are always different classes of people. That has never been up for debate. We take away the rights of criminals. We protect those unable to care for themselves. But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law.

But... they did break the law. Until foolishly, the law was changed... . So, in that, we can be sure that: "The Law", has nothing to do with this.

Sadly; for your feckless argument, foolishly altering the law to accommodate degeneracy, does not convert the unsound, degenerative, thus immoral behavior, that was forbidden by the law, into sound, sustainable generative moral behavior when such is licensed by the law.

What you want is to deny this equal protection to people based on the fact that you think homosexuality is "yucky". It doesn't work that way.

No one was denying anyone any protection. There is no right to promote degeneracy... period.

But hey... in fairness to you, if you understood what right are, from where they come and how they're sustained, you would have known that.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are always different classes of people. That has never been up for debate. We take away the rights of criminals. We protect those unable to care for themselves. But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law.

But... they did break the law. Until foolishly, the law was changed... . So, in that, we can be sure that: "The Law", has nothing to do with this.

Sadly; for your feckless argument, foolishly altering the law to accommodate degeneracy, does not convert the unsound, degenerative, thus immoral behavior, that was forbidden by the law, into sound, sustainable generative moral behavior when such is licensed by the law.

What you want is to deny this equal protection to people based on the fact that you think homosexuality is "yucky". It doesn't work that way.

No one was denying anyone any protection. There is no right to promote degeneracy... period.

But hey... in fairness to you, if you understood what right are, from where they come and how they're sustained, you would have known that.

Oh please, the laws that were broken were written either to harass gays (Sodomy laws) or by fundamentalists trying to form a theocracy.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, harms no one. The fact that you get so bent out of shape about it is beside the point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh please, the laws that were broken were written either to harass gays (Sodomy laws)

HEY LOOK! It's Relativism... offering a feckless rationalization to avoid the accountability for its OWN ARGUMENT!

Recall Reader that only two posts back, the Relativist cited above was ALL ABOUT "THE LAW!". Now we find that it's only about laws which serve its own subjective needs.

LOL! COLOR ME SHOCKED! Go figure... right?

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh please, the laws that were broken were written either to harass gays (Sodomy laws)

HEY LOOK! It's Relativism... offering a feckless rationalization to avoid the accountability for its OWN ARGUMENT!

Recall Reader that only two posts back, the Relativist cited above was ALL ABOUT "THE LAW!". Now we find that it's only about laws which serve its own subjective needs.

LOL! COLOR ME SHOCKED! Go figure... right?

Oh look! You want to claim the laws have always been right? Or that any law that ever existed should still be here?

I get that you hate those damn fags. It is obvious.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Kagan is an ACLU alumni. While she is dedicated to ending Constitutional governance and civil rights, she isn't stupid. Her pet monkey Sotomayor is stupid, but not Kagan. Kagan is evil, like Ginsburg - though a bit less so than the old Stalinist.

 

[saveliberty]

There are always different classes of people. That has never been up for debate. We take away the rights of criminals. We protect those unable to care for themselves. But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law.

What you want is to deny this equal protection to people based on the fact that you think homosexuality is "yucky". It doesn't work that way.

See the bold part? That is the definition of inequality.

Then there's this part:

"But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law."

We deny white people equal access to education and employment under laws written for just that purpose. The government creates inequality. It redistributes wealth all the time, again inequality.

Hey look! I just gave you a few new causes.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are always different classes of people. That has never been up for debate. We take away the rights of criminals. We protect those unable to care for themselves. But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law.

What you want is to deny this equal protection to people based on the fact that you think homosexuality is "yucky". It doesn't work that way.

See the bold part? That is the definition of inequality.

Then there's this part:

"But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law."

We deny white people equal access to education and employment under laws written for just that purpose. The government creates inequality. It redistributes wealth all the time, again inequality.

Hey look! I just gave you a few new causes.

Me? Am I to fight all the causes while you sit back? Ok. That tells us a lot.

 

[saveliberty]

There are always different classes of people. That has never been up for debate. We take away the rights of criminals. We protect those unable to care for themselves. But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law.

What you want is to deny this equal protection to people based on the fact that you think homosexuality is "yucky". It doesn't work that way.

See the bold part? That is the definition of inequality.

Then there's this part:

"But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law."

We deny white people equal access to education and employment under laws written for just that purpose. The government creates inequality. It redistributes wealth all the time, again inequality.

Hey look! I just gave you a few new causes.

Me? Am I to fight all the causes while you sit back? Ok. That tells us a lot.

Sorry I thought I saw you volunteer.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are always different classes of people. That has never been up for debate. We take away the rights of criminals. We protect those unable to care for themselves. But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law.

What you want is to deny this equal protection to people based on the fact that you think homosexuality is "yucky". It doesn't work that way.

See the bold part? That is the definition of inequality.

Then there's this part:

"But we do not deny equal protection to people who are capable of making their own decisions and who have not broken the law."

We deny white people equal access to education and employment under laws written for just that purpose. The government creates inequality. It redistributes wealth all the time, again inequality.

Hey look! I just gave you a few new causes.

Me? Am I to fight all the causes while you sit back? Ok. That tells us a lot.

Sorry I thought I saw you volunteer.

I do volunteer quite often. It is very fulfilling.

 

[saveliberty]

I do volunteer quite often. It is very fulfilling.

Very true, good for you and those you help. Same here.

 

[candycorn]

They can proclaim anything they want. Nothing is changed for me. I do not, and will not, accept any 2 gay people as being married. Not ever. I don't care what papers they have, what ceremony they went through, or anything else. Millions of Americans no doubt, think exactly the same.

Earth to you...nobody cares what you think.

As for your post, criminals committed a crime, the mentally unstable are a danger to themselves or others, ebola patients are inflicted communicable disease, and your hiring someone better qualified.

There are no pre-requisites for marriage and it is no danger to you or anyone else if two persons get married. Christ, you are a ******* idiot.

That you're purposefully and willfully separating yourself from thinking people....all we can say is "thank you".

 

[protectionist]

And the poor, deranged souls who are afflicted with the mental illness, homosexuality, are in dire need of help, to overcome their sickness. And guys like you Bulldog, and you Paddy,, are just harming them all the more by encouraging them, thereby inhibiting their healing and restoration of normal health.

I can't think of many things more debased than this extreme harm you are inflicting on them. For this, you should be arrested and punished severely, and if the laws were what they should be, you would be. Eventually, they probably will be corrected, and then you will get your just punishment.

I don't think the degradation of our morality will slow down or stop anytime soon or pretty much ever. At least not until social order breaks down and civilization collapses.

After all the Godless libtards starve to death a society may rise up and function as it should, until people start defying the law of natural selection again and start breeding generations of sniveling bed wetters who will be similar to the hordes of moonbats that walk among us now.

It's a cyclical thing. All great empires collapse under the weight of their oxygen thieves.

Good post. Well said.

 

[protectionist]

Let's see, married so we can have abnormal sex and create a family by unnatural means and force people to accept us as normal. The only natural part is being in love, but you can love an animal, property or a fence post, so...

Funny that you don't seem to mind straight couples having abnormal sex or creating a family by unnatural means.

And no one says you have to accept anything. You are not required to treat everyone equally. But the gov't is.

First sentence changes the subject for no apparent reason.

Second sentence is flat wrong. >>

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/0...iscrimination/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...cake/22771685/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ch...on-case-32167/

 

[protectionist]

Oh, so you DO object to straight couples having abnormal sex and creating families by unnatural means?

More changing subject. Going off topic.

 

[protectionist]

They can proclaim anything they want. Nothing is changed for me. I do not, and will not, accept any 2 gay people as being married. Not ever. I don't care what papers they have, what ceremony they went through, or anything else. Millions of Americans no doubt, think exactly the same.

Earth to you...nobody cares what you think.

As for your post, criminals committed a crime, the mentally unstable are a danger to themselves or others, ebola patients are inflicted communicable disease, and your hiring someone better qualified.

There are no pre-requisites for marriage and it is no danger to you or anyone else if two persons get married. Christ, you are a ******* idiot.

That you're purposefully and willfully separating yourself from thinking people....all we can say is "thank you".

Wrong from top to bottom.

1. YOU CARE, or you wouldn't have responded to my post.

2. You're attempting to discredit the examples, but you have not done that. The examples are valid as they were. They simply show that not everyone is always treated EQUALLY, for whatever the reasons, refuting the notion that everyone must always be treated equally. You refuted nothing.

3. No danger to anyone if two persons (same sex) get married ? These links refute that >>
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/0...iscrimination/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...cake/22771685/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ch...on-case-32167/

4. Your crude attempts at verbal abuse fell flat on their face, due to your previous 3 sentences being trounced.

 

[candycorn]

They can proclaim anything they want. Nothing is changed for me. I do not, and will not, accept any 2 gay people as being married. Not ever. I don't care what papers they have, what ceremony they went through, or anything else. Millions of Americans no doubt, think exactly the same.

Earth to you...nobody cares what you think.

As for your post, criminals committed a crime, the mentally unstable are a danger to themselves or others, ebola patients are inflicted communicable disease, and your hiring someone better qualified.

There are no pre-requisites for marriage and it is no danger to you or anyone else if two persons get married. Christ, you are a ******* idiot.

That you're purposefully and willfully separating yourself from thinking people....all we can say is "thank you".

Wrong from top to bottom.

1. YOU CARE, or you wouldn't have responded to my post.

2. You're attempting to discredit the examples, but you have not done that. The examples are valid as they were. They simply show that not everyone is always treated EQUALLY, for whatever the reasons, refuting the notion that everyone must always be treated equally. You refuted nothing.

3. No danger to anyone if two persons (same sex) get married ? These links refute that >>
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/0...iscrimination/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...cake/22771685/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ch...on-case-32167/

4. Your crude attempts at verbal abuse fell flat on their face, due to your previous 3 sentences being trounced.

Keep entertaining yourself with your delusions loser.
You've been discredited thoroughly.

 

[Dot Com]

She may be a Supreme Court justice, but Elena Kagan is a blithering idiot. In the discourse over Same Sex Marriage, she told the attorney representing SSM bans, John Bursch, you can't decide who is going to get equal treatment by law, and who isn't.

EARTH TO ELENA: We do exactly that EVERY DAY when we lock up criminals and put them in jails. Is their treatment equal ? Of course not. It's not supposed to be. Every time we put someone in a mental institution we do that. Every time we quarantine someone with Ebola we do that., Every time we hire someone to a job because they are qualified to do it, and don't hire someone else (who isn't qualified) we do that.

Elena isn't making any profound statement about equal treatment. All she is did is be an Activist judge, molding the discussion into how she wanted it to result. This is not even a smart ploy, since it is so obviously ridiculous, no matter the outcome.

This is a pure example of the absurdity of putting people on a supreme court for life. They should be able to be recalled by a public vote.

And what the other 4 justices who voted to allow SSM, said is probably just as stupid, I just happened to tune in and hear the response from Kagan.

Your puerile grasp of the 14th Amendment makes this entire thread little more than an example of how badly home schooling is harming this nation.

^ that protectionist CrusaderFrank