Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

They would have to choose a side that most identifies with their particular beliefs.

Do you want to live disarmed in a high crime high tax country? Do you want to live with way overpriced alternative energy? Do you want to live in an open border country where the government caters to them more than you? Do you want to live where industry and business in general is running away from your country to ours? Do you want to live in a country that panders to criminals and has such disdain and restrictions on police they are virtually useless? Then move to the Democrat country.

Do you want to live armed with low taxes? Do you want to live with much less crime? Do you want to live where jobs are nearly endless? Do you want to pay much less money for fuel? Do you want to live in a country where prisons are actually prisons and offer a real deterrent to crime? Do you want to live in a country where only real women are considered women and real men are considered men? Then move to the Republican country.
And then when moderates disagree with you, you'll want them thrown out of their own country.

Sorry, life doesn't work that way. If you don't want to live in the U.S. which comprises all ideologies -- then you get the fuck out, not others you can't get along with.
 
Case in point.

1630296136576.png
 
That’s perfectly fine with me. Social norms are what they are. So if it were Govt would you be OK with it? Cause Ontario wanted to do so.
When social norms conflict with law, government often acts. This usually occurs when social norms of isolated sociopolitical group's norms are not shared by most of nation. This occurred in South in 50's and 60's over racial injustice and in 21st century with gay marriage. Also in late 20th century in regard to the failure of the equal right for women.
 
Yeah, I noticed you can't turn it off.
Notice the last time I initiated a convo between us? It’s been you stalking me. Your OCD is off the rails and it amuses me.

You’re like a retarded parrot: Shortbus…Kwak…shortbus…kwak…

Come on man. Go stalk elsewhere. Thank you in advance.

Truth over Facts
 
When social norms conflict with law, government often acts. This usually occurs when social norms of isolated sociopolitical group's norms are not shared by most of nation. This occurred in South in 50's and 60's over racial injustice and in 21st century with gay marriage. Also in late 20th century in regard to the failure of the equal right for women.
I asked You a question and you told me some weird diatribe. You were obviously raised poorly.
 
Notice the last time I initiated a convo between us? It’s been you stalking me. Your OCD is off the rails and it amuses me.

You’re like a retarded parrot: Shortbus…Kwak…shortbus…kwak…

Come on man. Go stalk elsewhere. Thank you in advance.

Truth over Facts
LOLOL

You poor thing, you really are as deranged as you say you are. In reality, you started talking about me. As always, your obsession with me is noted and laughed at.
 
Looks like this thread is coming to end and rightly so. The Supreme Court's actions making gay marriage legal was not about religious marriages but it was perceived to be. It was about the legal aspect of marriage; that is freedom of choice in legal marriage, a replay of the court striking down the ban on interracial marriage. I suspect that the 21st century will continue to move toward more freedom of individual choice in all areas of society.
 
Last edited:
Looks like this thread is coming to end and rightly so. The Supreme Court's actions making gay marriage legal was not about religious marriages but it was perceived to be. It was about the legal aspect of marriage; that is freedom of choice in legal marriage, a replay of the court striking down the ban on interracial marriage. I suspect that the 21st century will continue to move toward more freedom of individual choice in all areas of society.
It was about equal access to rights. Marriage, being a fundamental right, is not proprietary to straight people.
 
I find myself wondering what the Founding Fathers would have done if they knew that in the future marriages between people of the same sex would be allowed.

I’ll bet they would have prohibited same sex marraige in the Constitution.
 
No. You talk about me in everything you post. You're so obsessed with me, you talk about me in your signature.
You’re forever immortalized in my wall of morons and that eats at you. That is outstanding. I own your ass. Every time someone reads my posts they realize you’re an idiot. Ha ha ha ha. Doesn’t mean I stalk you.


OCD old fool.
 
It would be great for normal people. We could preserve the tradition of marriage as it's been for the many generations and since the founding of this country until liberals Fd it up for us. It's one of the many reasons I think it's time to have two countries instead of one. By dividing the country between liberals and conservatives, it would solve most all of our problems. I do hope there is a movement soon to start the process. You wouldn't have to put up with us, and we wouldn't have to put up with you, and everybody would be happy.
So....you believe only religious people are normal? What next? Only christian religious people are normal? Then only Baptist christian religious people are normal? And so on?

And what exactly IS the "tradition of marriage" you speak of?
 

Forum List

Back
Top