Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Opposite sex couples can procreate. If they are two closely related, they could have offspring with a defective bloodline that can cause harm to the offspring, and to offspring of following generations.

No shit! There are other reasons as well, if you want to get into some of the social reasons for marriage such as creating new families, but this is not the place

 

[Skylar]

You keep arguing the wrong point, and refuse to debate the point I am trying to make. Either you are stupid, or know you will sound like a controlling SJW cuck if you try to make your point.


So Churches should be forced to provide same sex ceremonies?

The wrong point, says you. I prefer my judgment to yours on issue of law, rights and freedom on issues of same sex marriage, thank you.

As your arguments always devolve into you insisting that you are the supreme legal authority.

 

[martybegan]

No, removing Obergefell would eliminate the right to marry for same sex couples in dozens of conservative states. Something conservatives are very eager to do.

'cuz Jesus said so'.

Thus, the federal law to protect same sex marriage.

To marry, but not be married. Full faith and credit would allow them to stay married if they got hitched outside the State and came back.

The federal law actually doesn't require States to ISSUE anything, just recognize licenses.

Have you read the law and the parts I am questioning?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is not a concern of same sex couples, no matter the sexuality of the partners.

If I have to explain why same sex couples would not have this as a concern, well, then I think you should go find a hobby.

Again, No shit, so what?

And what exactly does that have to do with your fuzzy reasons for not allowing gay people to marry? This is just another one of your bizarre curve balls intended to obfuscate the issue

 

[martybegan]

The wrong point, says you. I prefer my judgment to yours on issue of law, rights and freedom on issues of same sex marriage, thank you.

As your arguments always devolve into you insisting that you are the supreme legal authority.

And your responses always end up arguing that my opinion is an opinion, something I have never claimed otherwise.

You don't argue on the merits because you probably aren't smart enough to, and you know it.

 

[Skylar]

To marry, but not be married. Full faith and credit would allow them to stay married if they got hitched outside the State and came back.

The federal law actually doesn't require States to ISSUE anything, just recognize licenses.

Have you read the law and the parts I am questioning?

The legal right to marry is what Obergefell protects. And the federal law protects.

 

[bodecea]

No one was taking away interracial marriage between a man and a woman—damned liars.

Not now they aren't.

 

[Skylar]

Not now they aren't.

Fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights are the basis of interracial marriage rights as much as they are same sex marriage rights, or the right to contraception, or the right to sex between consenting adults.

"Trust us, we wouldn't try to overturn precedent and settled law' schtick demands a healthy skepticism from a public who watched supreme court nominees straight up lie under oath on this exact topic.

Especially when republicans are actively trying to dismantle fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights as part of their campaign to strip federal rights from citizens to turn them into crimes.

As marty demonstrated for us...'cuz Jesus said so'.

 

[HeyNorm]

It was not clear that you were talking about closly related opposite sex couples. You by your own admission can't articulate why gay couples can't marry

I made no distinction based on the sexuality of the same sex couples. Where did that come from.

Many opposite sex couples have gay members of the couples.

Whacko man!

 

[martybegan]

The legal right to marry is what Obergefell protects. And the federal law protects.

The federal law only says States have to recognize it, not issue it. Read the law.

 

[martybegan]

Fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights are the basis of interracial marriage rights as much as they are same sex marriage rights, or the right to contraception, or the right to sex between consenting adults.

"Trust us, we wouldn't try to overturn precedent and settled law' schtick demands a healthy skepticism from a public who watched supreme court nominees straight up lie under oath on this exact topic.

Especially when republicans are actively trying to dismantle fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights as part of their campaign to strip federal rights from citizens to turn them into crimes.

As marty demonstrated for us...'cuz Jesus said so'.

And you are arguing "because X says so"

Why is one invalid and the other not to be questioned?

 

[HeyNorm]

Again, No shit, so what?

And what exactly does that have to do with your fuzzy reasons for not allowing gay people to marry? This is just another one of your bizarre curve balls intended to obfuscate the issue

How am I obfuscating? No matter what sexuality the members of a same sex couple, it is impossible for them to breed together to create offspring.

Oh!, maybe you thought they could? Is that your confusion?

 

[Skylar]

And you are arguing "because X says so"

Why is one invalid and the other not to be questioned?

I'm arguing that 'cuz Jesus said so' is a poor reason to strip people of the right to marry.

So poor in fact, that it collapsed under scrutiny in the cultural debate over gay marriage, with your ilk losing in their attempt to prevent same sex couples from exercising the right to same sex marriage.

So poor, in fact......that they usually flee from even a discussion on why gay marriage is wrong or shouldn't be protected. As you did for about a page and a half before your 'cuz Jesus said so' argument.

 

[HeyNorm]

When did I ever say it was evil?

The issue with this law is it can be read by some as extending to individuals as opposed to just government, as the supporters propose. It provides protections for churches and clergy, but not to individual person's rights to free exercise.

The concern is that it would make federal the current overuse of PA laws to punish people for their own free exercise right use.

I have a feeling that the baker would be opposed to supplying a cake for a straight same sex marriage as well. So where’s the discrimination based on sexuality in the first place?

Oh, right, gays think the right extending the right to marry someone of their own sex only applies to them.

 

[martybegan]

I'm arguing that 'cuz Jesus said so' is a poor reason to strip people of the right to marry.

So poor in fact, that it collapsed under scrutiny in the cultural debate over gay marriage, with your ilk losing in their attempt to prevent same sex couples from exercising the right to same sex marriage.

So poor, in fact......that they usually flee from even a discussion on why gay marriage is wrong or shouldn't be protected. As you did for about a page and a half before your 'cuz Jesus said so' argument.

Due to a shit SC decision in Obergfell, based on the same flawed logic in Roe.

Again, are you for forcing Churches to officiate and hose Same Sex Weddings?

I am not against SSM, I am against using the courts to force it instead of letting Legislatures change marriage laws.

It's too new of a concept to be lumped in with interracial marriage, which is what Obergfell tried to do.

 

[martybegan]

I have a feeling that the baker would be opposed to supplying a cake for a straight same sex marriage as well. So where’s the discrimination based on sexuality in the first place?

Oh, right, gays think the right extending the right to marry someone of their own sex only applies to them.

The baker in the largest of these cases doesn't even make Halloween cakes because of his Religious beliefs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I made no distinction based on the sexuality of the same sex couples. Where did that come from.

Many opposite sex couples have gay members of the couples.

Whacko man!

You have all sorts of couples. Some people are bi. Some are gay but may not be out. The issure is, should SAME SEX COUPLES be allowed to legally marry?. If not why not. Just try to deal with that

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How am I obfuscating? No matter what sexuality the members of a same sex couple, it is impossible for them to breed together to create offspring.

Oh!, maybe you thought they could? Is that your confusion?

Oh we are back to that. Good grief. Some they can't "breed " together. I did not think that they could smart ass. But what does that have to do with marriage, if anything ?

You never did answer this: If not allowing marriage for same sex couples on the basis of their inability to"breed" (to use your crude term) how do you justify allowing opposite sex coupke who can't "breed" to marry.

Lets so just how full of shit you are.

 

[HeyNorm]

You have all sorts of couples. Some people are bi. Some are gay but may not be out. Is issure is, should SAME SEX COUPLES be allowed to legally marry?. If not why no. Just try to deal with that

Then why are the rules to marry based on only those of the opposite sex couple? Maybe this similarly situated argument was silly in the first place.

Now go out and have a great day!

 

[Skylar]

Due to a shit SC decision in Obergfell, based on the same flawed logic in Roe.

Oh, the conservative intent to strip our citizens of a myriad of rights and turn them into crimes is well telegraphed.

Given the power, conservatives would re-criminalize homosexuality, strip gay couple of the right to marry, strip Americans of the right to contraception, strip Americans of the right to privacy, and eliminate prohibitions on interracial marriage bans.

To start.

Thus the push back like this federal law. It won't be the last push back.

'Cuz Jesus said so' is a garbage argument for stripping people of their rights. As 2022 demonstrated, the electorate isn't fond of conservatives attempting to codify their religion into our laws.