It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time, it means there are no other governmental bodies to appeal to after the Supreme Court when it comes to determining constitutionality of law. It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.

Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time...
Uhm... hey idiot... that's EXACTLY what it means!

...It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.
Yes, indeed it is!

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Court can SAY whatever they want. THEY are NOT the final arbiters. THE PEOPLE are.

The Courts are the final arbiters of the law.

If the People disagree with the law, then they can change the law.

 

[Syriusly]

...cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating...

, I'll remind you that bigots can always justify their positions. ALWAYS!

You prove that with every post you make.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage..

History of same gender marriage

2001- Netherlands becomes the first country to allow same sex marriage.
2003- Belgium
2004- Massachusetts becomes the first state in the United States to allow same sex marriage- its been legal for 11 years in the United States.
2005- Canada

You are not very familiar with the history of man are you?

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.
Then find another name to call it.
.

Oh marriage works perfectly fine as a name.

But if you want to start a campaign to change the name in your state- feel free to do so. Maybe you can call it a 'civil union'?

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.
Then find another name to call it.

There is no religious justification behind state marriage.
Then you can call it something else and it shouldn't matter.

It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights.
Then redefine the laws and call it that.

The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.
Well, that's funny because I don't have a church. I know a great deal about Christian religion and I do believe in a Spiritual Creator, but I am a Spiritualist and not a Religionist. The problem I have with all this is, as I have stated countless times, the role of government in dictating what we define as marriage. I am a very 'neutral' party in this but I am most often castigated by the left as being "anti-gay" or whatever. I am opposed to government involvement in the institution of marriage, particularly at the federal level. It's simply not their business and not within their constitutional authority to define marriage for everyone. At best, it is a State issue.... but even there, I don't condone the State telling ME what I can consider to be marriage. Whether gay or traditional. That should be left for ME to decide and if I want to put limitations or conditions on it with like-minded persons in my state, that should be done through the ballot box.

As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.
Twelve years ago, homosexuality was illegal in some states. At the time of the Loving decision, if anyone would have said that it would eventually lead to same-gender marriage, you would have been laughed out of the room. Yet, that is the 'go-to' case for gay marriage. I think it is YOU who lacks basic understanding of how our laws work. You see.... they can change!
.

So you think that Loving was a bad decision?

Because when Virginia defended its mixed race ban- supporters of the mixed race ban said that ending the ban would lead to incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You know- like you claim Obergefel will do.

So do you think Loving was a bad decision?

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

 

[Pop23]

What we are witnessimg are the final emotional throws of bigots who have to come to grips with the rest of society for some reason no longer supporting their bigotry.

No, what you are witnessing is otherwise tolerant and rational people becoming frustrated because they can't ever seem to do enough for gays. You keep pushing and pushing for something you're never going to have...

You see, what you really want is to be accepted as normal... but you're not normal, are you? You realize what you do is wrong and abnormal for human beings and you seek to have your abnormal behavior accepted and legitimized... but you know that it never will be. No amount of tolerance will ever suffice, you'll keep on pushing until society pushes back, and they will.

Gays just want to be accepted for what that are.

Problem is, what they are is strange.

So being accepted as strange little oddballs isn't good enough, so........

Just tellin it like it is folks.

 

[Boss]

You are the one who started a call for...

No, I didn't start a "call for" anything. I stated my opinion on a subject. You see, there is a big difference between you and I. When it comes to my opinion, it is something I have thought about and formed without regard to whether anyone else agrees with me. I understand from the very beginning that my opinion might not be the popular opinion... might not even be the correct opinion. I believe I have the freedom to express it, and if others agree with it, perhaps it can one day be the basis for law but I have no preconceived expectations.

You, on the other hand, rely on your political puppeteer to tell you what your opinion is and you fight fervently for that opinion to be forged into law and imposed on everybody against their will because you believe that is your duty to society. The concept of your opinion not being shared by others or being wrong is one you cannot entertain because this would render your political agenda meaningless and you can't have that. Of course, this causes you to believe that whenever you see someone express an opinion which contradicts you, as "calling for" something... because that is always the case with YOUR opinions.

 

[Boss]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people.

 

[Boss]

Gays just want to be accepted for what that are.

Too bad... it ain't gunna happen in this life. Sorry!

If THAT is the purpose in all this, it's a losing proposition.

 

[Boss]

Oh marriage works perfectly fine as a name.

Obviously, it does not.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people.

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

 

[Boss]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage..

History of same gender marriage

2001- Netherlands becomes the first country to allow same sex marriage.
2003- Belgium
2004- Massachusetts becomes the first state in the United States to allow same sex marriage- its been legal for 11 years in the United States.
2005- Canada

You are not very familiar with the history of man are you?

LMFAOoo.... Oh, okay.... let me clarify...

For 99.999% of human history humans survived without government-sanctioned same sex marriage. Only since 2001 it has become a thing.

...Better? ...Good! Here's some Vaseline!

 

[Boss]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people.

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

Why would I want such a law?

 

[Syriusly]

You are the one who started a call for...

No, I didn't start a "call for" anything. I stated my opinion on a subject. You see, there is a big difference between you and I. When it comes to my opinion, it is something I have thought about and formed without regard to whether anyone else agrees with me. I understand from the very beginning that my opinion might not be the popular opinion... might not even be the correct opinion. I believe I have the freedom to express it, and if others agree with it, perhaps it can one day be the basis for law but I have no preconceived expectations.

You, on the other hand, rely on your political puppeteer to tell you what your opinion is and you fight fervently for that opinion to be forged into law and imposed on everybody against their will because you believe that is your duty to society. The concept of your opinion not being shared by others or being wrong is one you cannot entertain because this would render your political agenda meaningless and you can't have that. Of course, this causes you to believe that whenever you see someone express an opinion which contradicts you, as "calling for" something... because that is always the case with YOUR opinions.

Yes you did- I have posted your full OP-this time I will edit it to the pertinent calls for action.

Sure it was done in a passive aggressive fashion- so you can be mealy mouthed about denying this is what you said- but here it is.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.....


When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!....

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is norm

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage..

History of same gender marriage

2001- Netherlands becomes the first country to allow same sex marriage.
2003- Belgium
2004- Massachusetts becomes the first state in the United States to allow same sex marriage- its been legal for 11 years in the United States.
2005- Canada

You are not very familiar with the history of man are you?

LMFAOoo.... Oh, okay.... let me clarify...

For 99.999% of human history humans survived without government-sanctioned same sex marriage. Only since 2001 it has become a thing.

...Better? ...Good! Here's some Vaseline!

Are you chaffed so you need that Vaseline?

You were mistaken- I will accept that you made a mistake rather than that you were lying when you claimed that 'not ever in the history of man'.

The history of marriage is a history of change. For most of the history of man, in most cultures, marriage included one man and multiple women. That is not a valid reason why we must accept polygamous marriage.

'Tradition' was an argument that was attempted in Obergefel- and also in Loving- failed both times- and for the same reason.

 

[Boss]

You are the one who started a call for...

No, I didn't start a "call for" anything. I stated my opinion on a subject. You see, there is a big difference between you and I. When it comes to my opinion, it is something I have thought about and formed without regard to whether anyone else agrees with me. I understand from the very beginning that my opinion might not be the popular opinion... might not even be the correct opinion. I believe I have the freedom to express it, and if others agree with it, perhaps it can one day be the basis for law but I have no preconceived expectations.

You, on the other hand, rely on your political puppeteer to tell you what your opinion is and you fight fervently for that opinion to be forged into law and imposed on everybody against their will because you believe that is your duty to society. The concept of your opinion not being shared by others or being wrong is one you cannot entertain because this would render your political agenda meaningless and you can't have that. Of course, this causes you to believe that whenever you see someone express an opinion which contradicts you, as "calling for" something... because that is always the case with YOUR opinions.

Yes you did- I have posted your full OP-this time I will edit it to the pertinent calls for action.

Sure it was done in a passive aggressive fashion- so you can be mealy mouthed about denying this is what you said- but here it is.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.....


When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!....

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is norm

There is no "call for" anything in what you posted.
Sorry! Not there, passive, aggressive or otherwise!

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people.

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

Why would I want such a law?

You said and I quote

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people

And I asked whether you would accept- not whether you would want this law:

Okay- so if the "People'- i.e. Congress- passes a law outlawing Judaism in the United States- then you think that the People should rule Supreme?

 

[Boss]

Are you chaffed so you need that Vaseline?

You were mistaken- I will accept that you made a mistake rather than that you were lying when you claimed that 'not ever in the history of man'.

No, I din't make a mistake, I was obviously talking about until "NOW" in this age when suddenly we have to have something we've never needed before... Gay Marriage. You're just too dense and stupid to see context and too bigoted in your views to entertain thoughts outside your viewpoint.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

So you think that the 'people' should legislate morality?

Like maybe making it illegal for a adult child to disobey his mother or father?

Or making it illegal for an unmarried man or woman to have private consensual sex?

Or making it illegal to sell contraceptives?

I think The People should ultimately legislate everything.
I do not believe we are slaves to a government, I believe we are free people.

So you believe the Court was wrong in Loving v. Virginia?