Is Kim Davis wrong? Or is the Supreme Ct wrong about requiring acceptance of same-sex "marriage"?

[mudwhistle]

Link

Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal.

The rationale by Justice Kennedy for same-sex marriage was tha marriage makes children safe.

Okay. Lol

What a huge lie that is.

Prove it

That easy, Studley! SCOTUS - Loving v. Virginia (1967). 16 States had anti-miscegenation statutes on the books and when the Loving's contested the Virginia statute, it was found violative of Amendment XIV's due process clause, and thereby allowing persons of different races to marry without obstruction and closing the books on all the other anti-miscegenation statutes in other States!

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

The point is your claim in post #130 was in error, not correct, FALSE! Here are the false claims in that post;

"Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal." [Emphasis Added]

Then in another post following to another down the line you challenged another. Obviously you figured that no one would recall Loving! But I'm an old guy with a not so bad memory.

1. You claimed that miscegenation was popular. There is no evidence of that at all, and your claim was false!

2. You claimed that Southern Democrats were the last to "sign on" to miscegenation. You failed to note that they were made moot by the Supremes on June 12, 1967, and your claim was false!

3.You claimed no harm came from miscegenation. You neglected to note the people serving time in many states back in the day because it was a crime in numerous States, and your claim was false!

4. You claimed miscegenation mystically and magically became legal without stating how because it would put the lie to your other assertions. The anti-miscegenation statutes across the nation were made moot by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967 and you claim was false!

Don't try to quibble about the number of States with anti-miscegenation laws and that "only" 1/3 of the States were violating the Constitutional rights of citizens because of their bigotry! That is totally irrelevant. You were wrong all the way around! Your claims were either irrelevant or in gross error!

Next time, don't try to baffle others with bullshit.

Which is what you're trying to do.....baffle me with bullshit.
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
Taking your obvious sarcasm aside, there was no mystical or magical reason it happened....and I never said it did.

Doesn't matter if you can find a Gallop poll that was "magically" provided to you by someone....about what everyone thought about mixed marriages back in 67', it was an average, not the same in every state. Obviously some states didn't believe in it(16), and the rest (34) didn't seem to give a shit, not enough to make a law banning it. So to me, that means most of America pretty much went along with it, no complaints. At least that was the way it was where I lived. You see.....every state is a little bit different. Move as much as I do and you discover this.

 

[Syriusly]

Arraigned marriages, political marriages, marriages between cousins, marriages between minors have all been part of the marriage picture.

And always between a man and a woman. That's always been, and always will be, an essential, defining characteristic of marriage. The means of determining which man marries which woman, under what circumstances may change, but the pairing of male and female will not.

Except of course the one constant about marriage is change.

And same gender marriage has been legal in parts of the United States for 11 years now- so clearly that part also changes.

 

[Syriusly]

Link

Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal.

The rationale by Justice Kennedy for same-sex marriage was tha marriage makes children safe.

Okay. Lol

What a huge lie that is.

Prove it

I did...you ignored it.

Need it again? Okay..

The SCOTUS ruled against the OVERWHELMING opinion of the American people in 1965...which allowed YOU to be married to your wife. You're okay with that "tyranny" though I'll bet...

Maybe he isn't- maybe he is still upset that the 'will of the people' to forbid mixed race marriages was thwarted.

He's in an interracial marriage...that's the irony of his position.

Maybe he blames the court for his marriage.......

 

[Syriusly]

What a huge lie that is.

Prove it

I did...you ignored it.

Need it again? Okay..

The SCOTUS ruled against the OVERWHELMING opinion of the American people in 1965...which allowed YOU to be married to your wife. You're okay with that "tyranny" though I'll bet...

So be it. If anyone wanted to fight it, they could.
First they have to prove the harm mixed couples caused........

If anyone wants to fight same-sex marriages they still can.

And they did. Clerks refused to issue licenses to couples like you.

Same bigots, different decade.

For a totally different reason of course.

Show me where it says in the Bible that mixed marriages were not allowed. Abraham married an Egyptian. Show me where Christianity says that interracial marriages are a sin?

LOL?

Really?

Show me where it says in the Bible that same gender marriages are not allowed?
Show me where in the Bible that it says that same gender marriages between women are a sin?

However, I can show you where in the Bible that Christians are told to obey the law- and to obey authority.

I can show you where in the Bible where Jesus forbids remarriage and divorce- except for the husband- if the woman was unfaithful- and this clerk has been married 4 times.

Really want to go down the slippery slope of using the Bible to rationalize one kind of bigotry but not another?

 

[Syriusly]

What a huge lie that is.

Prove it

That easy, Studley! SCOTUS - Loving v. Virginia (1967). 16 States had anti-miscegenation statutes on the books and when the Loving's contested the Virginia statute, it was found violative of Amendment XIV's due process clause, and thereby allowing persons of different races to marry without obstruction and closing the books on all the other anti-miscegenation statutes in other States!

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

The point is your claim in post #130 was in error, not correct, FALSE! Here are the false claims in that post;

"Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal." [Emphasis Added]

Then in another post following to another down the line you challenged another. Obviously you figured that no one would recall Loving! But I'm an old guy with a not so bad memory.

1. You claimed that miscegenation was popular. There is no evidence of that at all, and your claim was false!

2. You claimed that Southern Democrats were the last to "sign on" to miscegenation. You failed to note that they were made moot by the Supremes on June 12, 1967, and your claim was false!

3.You claimed no harm came from miscegenation. You neglected to note the people serving time in many states back in the day because it was a crime in numerous States, and your claim was false!

4. You claimed miscegenation mystically and magically became legal without stating how because it would put the lie to your other assertions. The anti-miscegenation statutes across the nation were made moot by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967 and you claim was false!

Don't try to quibble about the number of States with anti-miscegenation laws and that "only" 1/3 of the States were violating the Constitutional rights of citizens because of their bigotry! That is totally irrelevant. You were wrong all the way around! Your claims were either irrelevant or in gross error!

Next time, don't try to baffle others with bullshit.

Which is what you're trying to do.....baffle me with bullshit.
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
Taking your obvious sarcasm aside, there was no mystical or magical reason it happened....and I never said it did.

Doesn't matter if you can find a Gallop poll that was "magically" provided to you by someone....about what everyone thought about mixed marriages back in 67', it was an average, not the same in every state. Obviously some states didn't believe in it(16), and the rest (34) didn't seem to give a shit, not enough to make a law banning it. So to me, that means most of America pretty much went along with it, no complaints. At least that was the way it was where I lived. You see.....every state is a little bit different. Move as much as I do and you discover this.

So in other words- when the facts contradict your claims- you ignore the facts.

More people in America support same gender marriage now- than supported mixed race marriages after the Supreme Court ruled that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Matter of fact, support for mixed race marriages didn't rise to the current level of support for same gender marriage until the mid 1990's.

You started off this nonsense by claiming that the Supreme Court's decision was not legitimate because it was not widely accepted. When confronted with the Supreme Court making your own marriage possible was even less widely accepted, you flail around trying to come up with a rationalization.

 

[Syriusly]

That's pathetic even for you. Still can't come up with that demonstrable harm can you?

P
Statistics show higher than normal suicides, higher than normal adverse sexual lifestyles.....and eventually it will show higher than normal divorce.

Btw, you guys justified your arguments by painting all straight couples with the same broad brush. Truth is, you need a license to drive, to own a pet, even to vote, but they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.

Some of them don't deserve the privilege.

So Veterans and overweight people shouldn't be able to marry?

WTF are you babbling about!!!

You held up suicide rates and health issues as a demonstrable harm in allowing gays to marry each other. Using your twisted logic, veterans and fat people shouldn't marry. Stupid huh?

Oh....you think all veterans are suicidal. I think you're confusing veterans with active-duty personnel.
.

Just like you claim that all gays are suicidal.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Homosexuality is a sin. I always has been. Mixed marriages has not been frowned on until fairly recently. It's a leftover from slavery. But 2000 - 4000 years ago mixed marriage was normal. As a matter of fact it is downright beneficial....because it mixes up the gene-pool and givse [sic] us fewer birth defects.

It seems that when Europeans travelled to other continents, and found humans there that were very much different in appearance from themselves, they tended very strongly to think of those others as some lesser sort of creature, not fully human. This made it easy, here in the Americas, to conquer the natives that they found here, and take over the continents for themselves. And when those natives turned out not to make very good slaves, this same tendency made it easy to collect natives from Africa to be used for that purpose.

We know better, now. We know that we are all the same species. It's not difficult to see how someone who is utterly convinced that the creatures that were found in the Americas and in Africa were less than human, would look at certain passages in the Bible, and interpret them to support this view. But from the understanding that we now have, those passages don't say that at all. Where concerns are raised in the Bible about mixed marriages it is clearly not about race at all, but religion. The concern was that a man would be led astray by a wife who didn't share his faith. This was notoriously one of Solomon's big problems—he took many wives from among the heathens, and he allowed them to lead him astray.


But the Bible is absolutely clear about issues of sexual morality, including homosexuality. The Bible is clear about marriage being between a man and a woman, and it is clear about such marriage being the only appropriate and acceptable setting for sexual intimacy. And even if you disregard the Bible, and God, and religion, this standard of sexual morality still makes sense, and ultimately proves to be what is best for human societies. It is no coincidence that a similar structure of marriage and family is found in nearly every successful human society of any size, that has ever existed anywhere in the world, without regard to what religions may or may not have influenced those societies.

 

[mudwhistle]

You pointed out that homosexuals have a higher rate of suicides than normal- she was pointing out- accurately- that veterans have a higher rate of suicide also.

So- should we judge homosexuals and veterans the same based upon their shared higher incidences of suicide?

Aaaaannnnnddddd....

Crickets.

Guess you forgot that typing takes time......especially on a cell with a fucked up spellchecker.

Uh huh...if it makes you feel better.

Well, if you think that I'm spending my day waiting around for your smart-assed remarks so I can respond immediately, I think you need to grow up.

And yet you managed to post over and over without addressing any of the points.

Do you really want to issue marriage licenses based on a mental health test? I think birtherism should be a disqualification.

Now you're really going out in the weeds.

*****....you, or somebody, brought it up. Hell, I was using a cell.....not a big screen. You had me at a disadvantage, expecting me to type 75 wpm on a cell with a screwed up auto-correct. Sometimes my signal sucks on post. Somebody burned up the microwave tower last month. So try to bear with me.

To answer your question, can you name any issues that make mixed marriages bad? I named some real possibilities with respect to same-sex marriage....and obviously your smart-ass remark tells me that you've had it thrown at you more times than you can count.

#1... The high probability of an unstable family environment, not to mention the very real possibility of AIDS. Those are real reasons.....and of course they are pathetic.

Go ahead and say it.

Pathetic......and valid.

You know, about 30 years ago, our children were supposed to be sheltered from sex. In a gay family, it's kind of tough to do that. How is the kid going to explain his two moms to his classmates?

Well, either the person asking the question needs to be suspended and maybe sued, and/or the whole school must now undergo sensitivity training so they will learn to love homosexuals, and realize all of the wonderful things they bring children, families, and fuzzy little puppies.

*Smack*

 

[Syriusly]

I did...you ignored it.

Need it again? Okay..

The SCOTUS ruled against the OVERWHELMING opinion of the American people in 1965...which allowed YOU to be married to your wife. You're okay with that "tyranny" though I'll bet...

So be it. If anyone wanted to fight it, they could.
First they have to prove the harm mixed couples caused........

If anyone wants to fight same-sex marriages they still can.

And they did. Clerks refused to issue licenses to couples like you.

Same bigots, different decade.

For a totally different reason of course.

Show me where it says in the Bible that mixed marriages were not allowed. Abraham married an Egyptian. Show me where Christianity says that interracial marriages are a sin?

Here's the ones the bigots used.

Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth. Again God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds. ~ Genesis

so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness (TRESPASS or SIN) the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost." Ezra 9:1-2



10Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. 11Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. 14Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. 15"Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same. (NIV)Exodus 34:10-16

14Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? (NRSV) 2Corinthians 6:14

It doesn't matter if YOU believe it...they did. I don't believe your interpretation is right either.

Explain what this has to do with Christianity.

This is the warnings in the Old Testament for the Hebrews taken out of Egypt. Abraham was before Moses. But even then the fact that he took and Egyptian woman into his home was not taboo. So he took Hagar as his wife who gave birth to Ishmael who was the father of the Arabs.

I guess it can be a problem at times.

Here is the thing- you want to argue with her about the bible and mixed race marriages- she doesn't agree with the Bible- she doesn't agree that the Bible says it banned mixed race marriages.

But that was the argument of Christians in the 1960's.

Christians who proclaimed that Whites should not marry blacks and that blacks and whites should not intermingle.

I don't agree with them- but just like you- they were making the same claims- based upon the same Bible.

And they failed as miserably as the Far Right Conservative Christians failed when it came to banning same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuality is a sin. I always has been. Mixed marriages has not been frowned on until fairly recently. It's a leftover from slavery. But 2000 - 4000 years ago mixed marriage was normal. As a matter of fact it is downright beneficial....because it mixes up the gene-pool and givse [sic] us fewer birth defects.

But the Bible is absolutely clear about issues of sexual morality, including homosexuality. The Bible is clear about marriage being between a man and a woman, and it is clear about such marriage being the only appropriate and acceptable setting for sexual intimacy. And even if you disregard the Bible, and God, and religion, this standard of sexual morality still makes sense, and ultimately proves to be what is best for human societies. It is no coincidence that a similar structure of marriage and family is found in nearly every successful human society of any size, that has ever existed anywhere in the world, without regard to what religions may or may not have influenced those societies.

The Bible barely mentions homosexuality. I assume you don't want to bring Leviticus in- unless you want to have a discussion about how Christians ignore virtually every other part of Leviticus.

The 10 Commandments? Not one mention of homosexuality.

Jesus's greatest commandments? Again- not avoiding homosexuality.

Jesus did very clearly tell his followers not to divorce and remarry- something that Kim Davis has violated 3 times now.

What you are left with is Paul talking to his followers about sinners- which included men who had sex with men.

But then you also are left with Paul telling Christians to obey authority- that all authority comes from God.

Another part of the Bible that Kim Davis seems to have no problem ignoring.

 

[Syriusly]

Aaaaannnnnddddd....

Crickets.

Guess you forgot that typing takes time......especially on a cell with a fucked up spellchecker.

Uh huh...if it makes you feel better.

Well, if you think that I'm spending my day waiting around for your smart-assed remarks so I can respond immediately, I think you need to grow up.

And yet you managed to post over and over without addressing any of the points.

Do you really want to issue marriage licenses based on a mental health test? I think birtherism should be a disqualification.

Now you're really going out in the weeds.

*****....you, or somebody, brought it up. Hell, I was using a cell.....not a big screen. You had me at a disadvantage, expecting me to type 75 wpm on a cell with a screwed up auto-correct. Sometimes my signal sucks on post. Somebody burned up the microwave tower last month. So try to bear with me.

Don't blame the equipment for operator failure.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Christian Taliban

Except they don't blow people up over it like muslims do which is why the homofascists hypocritically steer clear of muslims.

It's a funny thing. Those on the far-wrong are filled with utter hatred and contempt for basic standards of sexual morality. They hate Christians, because Christians are generally perceived as the ones who stand for these standards that wrong-wingers so hate. Yet wrong-wingers tend to be very favorably disposed toward Muslims, with it mostly being those of us on the right (but not including myself) who hate Muslims.

Islam tends to stand for pretty much the same sexual moral standards that Christianity does, often much more strictly so. It liberals were consistent, they would hate Muslims at least as much as they hate Christians, for exactly the same reason that they hate Christians. But then consistency isn't exactly one of the defining features of wrong-wing ideology.

 

[Syriusly]

Aaaaannnnnddddd....

Crickets.

Guess you forgot that typing takes time......especially on a cell with a fucked up spellchecker.

Uh huh...if it makes you feel better.

Well, if you think that I'm spending my day waiting around for your smart-assed remarks so I can respond immediately, I think you need to grow up.

And yet you managed to post over and over without addressing any of the points.

Do you really want to issue marriage licenses based on a mental health test? I think birtherism should be a disqualification.

#1... The high probability of an unstable family environment, not to mention the very real possibility of AIDS. Those are real reasons.....and of course they are pathetic.

Where is the proof of this 'unstable family environment'? Same actual arguments that were made against mixed race marriages- and that were laughed out of court.

'the very real possibility of AIDS'? Really? Don't you even see the complete fallacy of that argument?

We don't prevent people who have higher rates of genetic diseases from marrying- and those are completely unpreventable- but AIDS is completely preventable- and even if both parents got AIDS that would at most lower their overall life expectancy now by 10 years or so.

But aside from holding homosexuals to a standard you hold no other persons to- you want to ban lesbian couples from marrying- even though they have a lower likelihood of contracting AIDs than a hetero couple. Which just goes to show that your rationalizations are just- rationalizations with no basis in fact.

 

[Syriusly]

The exact same system that "forced" his interracial marriage on a very unwilling (80%) populace.

Link

Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal.

The rationale by Justice Kennedy for same-sex marriage was tha marriage makes children safe.

Okay. Lol

What a huge lie that is.

Prove it

I did...you ignored it.

Need it again? Okay..

The SCOTUS ruled against the OVERWHELMING opinion of the American people in 1965...which allowed YOU to be married to your wife. You're okay with that "tyranny" though I'll bet...

Once again.....you're mixing apples and oranges.

Homosexuality is a sin. I always has been. Mixed marriages has not been frowned on until fairly recently. It's a leftover from slavery. But 2000 - 4000 years ago mixed marriage was normal. As a matter of fact it is downright beneficial....because it mixes up the gene-pool and givse us fewer birth defects.

And what does that have to do with her point? Nothing of course.

I did...you ignored it.

Need it again? Okay..

The SCOTUS ruled against the OVERWHELMING opinion of the American people in 1965...which allowed YOU to be married to your wife. You're okay with that "tyranny" though I'll bet...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

What a huge lie that is.

Prove it

That easy, Studley! SCOTUS - Loving v. Virginia (1967). 16 States had anti-miscegenation statutes on the books and when the Loving's contested the Virginia statute, it was found violative of Amendment XIV's due process clause, and thereby allowing persons of different races to marry without obstruction and closing the books on all the other anti-miscegenation statutes in other States!

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

The point is your claim in post #130 was in error, not correct, FALSE! Here are the false claims in that post;

"Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal." [Emphasis Added]

Then in another post following to another down the line you challenged another. Obviously you figured that no one would recall Loving! But I'm an old guy with a not so bad memory.

1. You claimed that miscegenation was popular. There is no evidence of that at all, and your claim was false!

2. You claimed that Southern Democrats were the last to "sign on" to miscegenation. You failed to note that they were made moot by the Supremes on June 12, 1967, and your claim was false!

3.You claimed no harm came from miscegenation. You neglected to note the people serving time in many states back in the day because it was a crime in numerous States, and your claim was false!

4. You claimed miscegenation mystically and magically became legal without stating how because it would put the lie to your other assertions. The anti-miscegenation statutes across the nation were made moot by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967 and you claim was false!

Don't try to quibble about the number of States with anti-miscegenation laws and that "only" 1/3 of the States were violating the Constitutional rights of citizens because of their bigotry! That is totally irrelevant. You were wrong all the way around! Your claims were either irrelevant or in gross error!

Next time, don't try to baffle others with bullshit.

Which is what you're trying to do.....baffle me with bullshit.
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
Taking your obvious sarcasm aside, there was no mystical or magical reason it happened....and I never said it did.

Doesn't matter if you can find a Gallop poll that was "magically" provided to you by someone....about what everyone thought about mixed marriages back in 67', it was an average, not the same in every state. Obviously some states didn't believe in it(16), and the rest (34) didn't seem to give a shit, not enough to make a law banning it. So to me, that means most of America pretty much went along with it, no complaints. At least that was the way it was where I lived. You see.....every state is a little bit different. Move as much as I do and you discover this.

You're as intellectually bankrupt as they come. It's nothing to do with polls its about the anti-miscegenation laws in 1/3 of the States which were found unconstitutional, dipstick. You're just trying to change the narrative to avoid addressing you painfully obvious errors.

You find a single phrase you think you can twist to avoid admitting your blatant errors. The point was and still is those anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional AND you were WRONG, in ERROR and now one can easily attribute intellectual dishonesty to your character traits.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Christian Taliban

Except they don't blow people up over it like muslims do which is why the homofascists hypocritically steer clear of muslims.

It's a funny thing. Those on the far-wrong are filled with utter hatred and contempt for basic standards of sexual morality. They hate Christians, because Christians are generally perceived as the ones who stand for these standards that wrong-wingers so hate. Yet wrong-wingers tend to be very favorably disposed toward Muslims, with it mostly being those of us on the right (but not including myself) who hate Muslims.

Islam tends to stand for pretty much the same sexual moral standards that Christianity does, often much more strictly so. It liberals were consistent, they would hate Muslims at least as much as they hate Christians, for exactly the same reason that they hate Christians. But then consistency isn't exactly one of the defining features of wrong-wing ideology.

I've been making this point for years. They go after Christianity because it represents a greater threat to their segregationist view and divisive agendas and that is that most Christians are white people. The Christian thing is an excuse and opportunity to attack white majorities.
Lefties are totally hypocritical on these religion issues but they're never challenged because the media are lefties.

 

[Syriusly]

[ And always between a man and a woman. That's always been, and always will be, an essential, defining characteristic of marriage. The means of determining which man marries which woman, under what circumstances may change, but the pairing of male and female will not.

Marriage is an artificial construct....quite frequently it's between one man and many women. Or one man and one woman, and then another woman, and then another woman. It's often been, one man and one woman arranged by others over property.

It has a natural basis in biology and the needs of future generations. It binds a man and a woman together, holding them jointly responsible for each other, and for any children that may result from their union. Without it, the natural tendency is for men to sow their wild oats as far and as wide as they can, and to leave women to bear the entire burden of caring for themselves and their children. Good deal for the men, but a very bad deal for the women or the children..

Our society doesn't care whether people marry and have children. There is no requirement for a couple to want to have children, and in some cases states actually require that a couple prove that they cannot bear children before they will allow them to marry.

This is again the problem with this argument- the whole marriage is for procreation argument fails because Society does not enforce that for heterosexuals.

Married parents can divorce. Unmarried couples can have children.

Preventing same gender couples from marrying only prevents their children from having married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

Christian Taliban

Except they don't blow people up over it like muslims do which is why the homofascists hypocritically steer clear of muslims.

American Muslims don't. Christians and Muslims in other countries do.

No, pretty much just the muslims do.
So what about homos attacking Islam the way they go after Christians? They don't because they're afraid to in spite of the indoctrination you spew that suggests religions are equal opportunity mass murderers.

Show me the Muslim clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses because of her faith- and 'homos' will be attacking her in the exact same way.

 

[mudwhistle]

Prove it

That easy, Studley! SCOTUS - Loving v. Virginia (1967). 16 States had anti-miscegenation statutes on the books and when the Loving's contested the Virginia statute, it was found violative of Amendment XIV's due process clause, and thereby allowing persons of different races to marry without obstruction and closing the books on all the other anti-miscegenation statutes in other States!

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

The point is your claim in post #130 was in error, not correct, FALSE! Here are the false claims in that post;

"Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal." [Emphasis Added]

Then in another post following to another down the line you challenged another. Obviously you figured that no one would recall Loving! But I'm an old guy with a not so bad memory.

1. You claimed that miscegenation was popular. There is no evidence of that at all, and your claim was false!

2. You claimed that Southern Democrats were the last to "sign on" to miscegenation. You failed to note that they were made moot by the Supremes on June 12, 1967, and your claim was false!

3.You claimed no harm came from miscegenation. You neglected to note the people serving time in many states back in the day because it was a crime in numerous States, and your claim was false!

4. You claimed miscegenation mystically and magically became legal without stating how because it would put the lie to your other assertions. The anti-miscegenation statutes across the nation were made moot by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967 and you claim was false!

Don't try to quibble about the number of States with anti-miscegenation laws and that "only" 1/3 of the States were violating the Constitutional rights of citizens because of their bigotry! That is totally irrelevant. You were wrong all the way around! Your claims were either irrelevant or in gross error!

Next time, don't try to baffle others with bullshit.

Which is what you're trying to do.....baffle me with bullshit.
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
Taking your obvious sarcasm aside, there was no mystical or magical reason it happened....and I never said it did.

Doesn't matter if you can find a Gallop poll that was "magically" provided to you by someone....about what everyone thought about mixed marriages back in 67', it was an average, not the same in every state. Obviously some states didn't believe in it(16), and the rest (34) didn't seem to give a shit, not enough to make a law banning it. So to me, that means most of America pretty much went along with it, no complaints. At least that was the way it was where I lived. You see.....every state is a little bit different. Move as much as I do and you discover this.

You're as intellectually bankrupt as they come. It's nothing to do with polls its about the anti-miscegenation laws in 1/3 of the States which were found unconstitutional, dipstick. You're just trying to change the narrative to avoid addressing you painfully obvious errors.

You find a single phrase you think you can twist to avoid admitting your blatant error. The point was and still is those anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional AND you were WRONG, in ERROR and now one can easily attribute intellectual dishonesty to your character traits.

1/3 of the states....gotcha. 2/3 to me means a majority.

Sell it to someone who will buy it, prick.

 

[Syriusly]

Christian Taliban

Except they don't blow people up over it like muslims do which is why the homofascists hypocritically steer clear of muslims.

It's a funny thing. Those on the far-wrong are filled with utter hatred and contempt for basic standards of sexual morality. They hate Christians, because Christians are generally perceived as the ones who stand for these standards that wrong-wingers so hate. Yet wrong-wingers tend to be very favorably disposed toward Muslims, with it mostly being those of us on the right (but not including myself) who hate Muslims.

Islam tends to stand for pretty much the same sexual moral standards that Christianity does, often much more strictly so. It liberals were consistent, they would hate Muslims at least as much as they hate Christians, for exactly the same reason that they hate Christians. But then consistency isn't exactly one of the defining features of wrong-wing ideology.

I've been making this point for years. They go after Christianity because it represents a greater threat to their segregationist view and divisive agendas and that is that most Christians are white people. The Christian thing is an excuse and opportunity to attack white majorities.
Lefties are totally hypocritical on these religion issues but they're never challenged because the media are lefties.

LOL.

For 2000 years Christians have attacked homosexuals. And I mean really attacked- often murdering them just for being gay. Passing laws to criminalize being gay- executing them for being gay- imprisoning them for being gay.

Christians in the last 50 years have passed laws trying to have gays fired as teachers, passed laws forbidding them from marrying and passed laws preventing the recognition of civil unions.

Yes- in the United States- Christians are the biggest threat to homosexuals- American Muslims are not able to pass such laws, not able to promote the same type of intolerance as the Christian anti-gay activists have done.

IF and when American Muslims pose the same threat- well I imagine homosexuals will insist that they follow the law also.

Because even if you are a Christian- or a Muslim- you are still required to follow the law.