SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Luddly Neddite]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

Yes there is, two loving members of the same sex want to get married, yes, genders do matter, when it comes to *******, what does it matter there? Marriage destruction? LOL. Do you think two gay men getting married destroys marriage? You must have a shitty marriage then.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

Hmmmm, that was a very, very weird argument. How about a man and an octupus. Were you thinking of that, too???

I would suspect that the SC would limit its ruling to human beings. Sorry, about your love for your octupus

Statistheihitler knew he was "different" from other boys.

If you are talking about me being hung

I would be enormously surprised if these justices did not uphold same sex marriage. Then overturn incest laws. Then lower the age of consent to ten. Then issue business licenses for animal brothels like was done in Germany.

If you are referring to Germany for all of the things you wrote, you are very, very wrong.

In Germany, there is age of consent at 17, just as in the USA. Incest and bestiality are forbidden in Germany. And have never heard of an animal brothel in my life.

Are you drunk?

Why yes, I think you are drunk as a skunk.

 

[Redfish]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

Yes there is, two loving members of the same sex want to get married, yes, genders do matter, when it comes to *******, what does it matter there? Marriage destruction? LOL. Do you think two gay men getting married destroys marriage? You must have a shitty marriage then.

thats your opinion and you have a right to it, just as those who disagree with you have a right to their opinions. When citizens of a democracy have a difference of opinion, they put the issue to a vote and the majority vote prevails for all citizens.

its really quite simple, and works very well. What you want is minority rule. Your user name defines you well.

 

[Nosmo King]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

The tyranny of the majority.

 

[g5000]

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

The slippery slope in this case is entirely fallacious, whether you realize it or not.

 

[g5000]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

Please explain how homosexual marriages will cause you to no longer to be able to get it up and procreate.

 

[Stephanie]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

Who on earth ever said Scalia and his brother wackos we're going to rule in favor of civil rights?

I'm always amazed you claim to be a lawyer. when you go off and say dumb things like this.

this isn't a CIVIL rights case and you know it. How you of all people can go around and distort and mislead people in this manner is shameful. You took an oath or was that a lie too?

 

[Nosmo King]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

What does thd marriage license provide? What does it create? A next-of-kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. The incestuous primrose path you are so fearful of simply does not exist in the context of the marriage contract.

 

[Statistikhengst]

They better stay out of this. This isn't a case for them as it had NOTHING to do with our Constitutional laws.

They rule on this we might as will hang it up and just turn over our Lives to the judges in Black robes.

Yeah, fuckin'-eh, Staph!! You tell 'em!

 

[g5000]

Adam and Steve got married and Iceweasel was never again able to get a hardon and make babies...

The human race quickly died out.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm always amazed you claim to be a lawyer. when you go off and say dumb things like this.

this isn't a CIVIL rights case and you know it. How you of all people can go around and distort and mislead people in this manner is shameful

I am amazed that you claim to be a homo sapiens when you cannot even rhyme two basic sentences together without at least one spelling or punctuation error.

Are you drunk?

 

[mdk]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

The fact that she's gay herself would be enough for recusal.

Speculation does not a fact make. What evidence do you have that Kagan is a homosexual?

 

[martybegan]

It will go 6-3 in favor

5-4 against forcing states to change their own marriage contract.
7-2 in favor of forcing states to accept valid marriage contracts from other states, no matter what they allow.

too much confusion would result from such a ruling. I refuse to predict what they will decide. The said Obozocare was legal to there is no telling where they will go with this one.

Not really, they could grandfather in the previously issued certificates, and states already handle marriage certs from out of State that don't exactly match their requirements.

 

[Meathead]

Is there anybody besides me who could not care less?

 

[Katzndogz]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

Hmmmm, that was a very, very weird argument. How about a man and an octupus. Were you thinking of that, too???

I would suspect that the SC would limit its ruling to human beings. Sorry, about your love for your octupus

Statistheihitler knew he was "different" from other boys.

If you are talking about me being hung

I would be enormously surprised if these justices did not uphold same sex marriage. Then overturn incest laws. Then lower the age of consent to ten. Then issue business licenses for animal brothels like was done in Germany.

If you are referring to Germany for all of the things you wrote, you are very, very wrong.

In Germany, there is age of consent at 17, just as in the USA. Incest and bestiality are forbidden in Germany. And have never heard of an animal brothel in my life.

Are you drunk?

Why yes, I think you are drunk as a skunk.

Your ignorance is not my problem. Are you just really stupid or did you just smoke up a bowl. You always brag about your drug use anyway. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll go with really stupid.

http://www.dailymail

 

[Stephanie]

I'm always amazed you claim to be a lawyer. when you go off and say dumb things like this.

this isn't a CIVIL rights case and you know it. How you of all people can go around and distort and mislead people in this manner is shameful

I am amazed that you claim to be a homo sapiens when you cannot even rhyme two basic sentences together without at least one spelling of punctuation error.

Are you drunk?

the poor clowns has nothing but insults, not just to me but to everyone on the board. But for some reason....... they are ALLOWED to get away with this shit.

If you people haven't yet put someone as nasty as this on ignore yet. well I feel for ya

 

[Stephanie]

Is there anybody besides me who could not care less?

I don't care, but it's just NOT a case the Supreme court should be taking up

 

[g5000]

Is there anybody besides me who could not care less?

I don't care, but it's just NOT a case the Supreme court should be taking up

Thank you for making it blazingly obvious you have absolutely no clue about the cases they are reviewing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They better stay out of this. This isn't a case for them as it had NOTHING to do with our Constitutional laws.

They rule on this we might as will hang it up and just turn over our Lives to the judges in Black robes.

They have always had the power, Stephanie, and your opinion has NOTHING to do with our laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

Limited thought of a limited mind.

yes, that describes most of your posts quite accurately. thanks for the honesty.

Thank you for proving the point that I was talking about you, a concrete learner.