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

[Bob Blaylock]

Once again you are proving yourself to being a liar, a fraud and a bigot. You think that you’re slick....and you are but only because you are slime.

This is discussion has been and still is about the LEGAL ACCESS to same sex, gay marriage. It is about what you said in that regard. Now you are once again showing your cowardice and refusing to own up to it. So you move the goal posts to try to make it about what you did not say instead of what you did say .

You are not smart enough to gas light me by denying what you said or claiming that you meant something else. For the record, by the time Obergefell was decided gay were able to marry in most states, but if it is overturned many more states that were forced to accept same sex marriage by the lower courts could prohibit it again. In addition, if the majority of congressional Republicans had there way, those states would not have to recognize marriages from other states.

It does not matter what you said or did not say . Those are the facts and I am quite sure that you would be ok with all of it. Unless you are talking about something other than legal marriage with this tripe, your post is pointless and duplicitous. If you are talking about something other than legal marriage, it is still pointless and duplicitous

That fact is, as I have said, you have admitted to being opposed to same sex gay marriage and by your own admission, lied about the reason for you opposition. Now do I have to shove it all in your face again?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Hetero males are more the danger of being pedophiles than any other demographic.

Faggots make up less than 4% of the population, but account for almost half of all childfuckers.

Little boys are sexually abused almost as often as little boys.

It sure as Hell is not hetero males who molest boys. By definition, anyone who is hetero is only sexually interested in the opposite sex.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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!

The rules are not based on opposite sex couples. Gender has been taken out of the equation. Before legalization of same sex marriage, gender was used as an arbitrary factor. It was not mentioned in law. It was just assumed that marriage was opposite sex couples. States started to expressly prohibit it when gays started to demand equality. Now they have it

 

[HeyNorm]

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

Well, I would think if the baker would agree, and I see no reason he wouldn’t, to supply cake to a couple that was made up of a lesbian and a gay man, then his problem is solved. right?

His refusal to supply cake to same sex couples, regardless of sexuality, but agrees to supply cake to an opposite sex gay couple would comply with discrimination laws, PLUS he would be able to comply with biblical teaching as they only care if the couple are opposite sex.

Damn, that was easy.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

Meanwhile RKBA isn't a right at all, right? Even though it's explicit.

No, they would not. Most of them just don't want their kids being told women can have penises.


well then "fuck jezus said so" is just as bad of a reason to strip someone of their rights.

 

[martybegan]

Well, I would think if the baker would agree, and I see no reason he wouldn’t, to supply cake to a couple that was made up of a lesbian and a gay man, then his problem is solved. right?

His refusal to supply cake to same sex couples, regardless of sexuality, but agrees to supply cake to an opposite sex gay couple would comply with discrimination laws, PLUS he would be able to comply with biblical teaching as they only care if the couple are opposite sex.

Damn, that was easy.

We shouldn't have to do such mental acrobatics and just tell the couple to go to another baker.

 

[HeyNorm]

The rules are not based on opposite sex couples. Gender has been taken out of the equation. Before legalization of same sex marriage, gender was used as an arbitrary factor. It was not mentioned in law. It was just assumed that marriage was opposite sex couples. States started to expressly prohibit it when gays started to demand equality. Now they have it

Huh, then why the qualification as to “not closely related”?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I can understand you not getting that. Just like you don't get why men would support women's rights...or white people would support equal rights for minorities.

…or non-pedophiles support the rights of pedophiles to fuck children?

 

[HeyNorm]

We shouldn't have to do such mental acrobatics and just tell the couple to go to another baker.

Absolutely no acrobatics required. He just doesn’t supply cakes to same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality.

Seems a win/win to me. It can’t be discrimination when you exclude 100% of those eligible.

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile RKBA isn't a right at all, right? Even though it's explicit.

No, they would not. Most of them just don't want their kids being told women can have penises.


well then "fuck jezus said so" is just as bad of a reason to strip someone of their rights.

Meanwhile, conservatives are eager to strip Americans of their rights. The right to privacy. The right to equal protection under the law. The right to same sex marriage. The right to not have their bedroom activities between consenting adults regulated by the State. The right to marry someone of a different 'race'. The right to contraception.

Just to start.

All to impose their extreme religious ideology on an unwilling public.

No thank you. You're going to get push back as you try and strip people of their rights

 

[HeyNorm]

Meanwhile, conservatives are eager to strip Americans of their rights. The right to privacy. The right to equal protection under the law. The right to same sex marriage. The right to not have their bedroom activities between consenting adults regulated by the State. The right to marry someone of a different 'race'. The right to contraception.

All to impose their extreme religious ideology on an unwilling public.

No thank you.

No, it was the gay argument that wanted government intrusion into the bedroom. Remember the “we are similarly situated because some opposite sex couples can’t procreate” crap?

 

[martybegan]

Meanwhile, conservatives are eager to strip Americans of their rights. The right to privacy. The right to equal protection under the law. The right to same sex marriage. The right to not have their bedroom activities between consenting adults regulated by the State. The right to marry someone of a different 'race'. The right to contraception.

Just to start.

All to impose their extreme religious ideology on an unwilling public.

No thank you. You're going to get push back as you try and strip people of their rights

Where is the right to privacy in the Constitution?

All of the others are boogeymen.

You want to strip Americans of free exercise rights.

The only ideology being pushed these days is SJW woke bullshit, like women can have penises.

 

[Skylar]

No, it was the gay argument that wanted government intrusion into the bedroom. Remember the “we are similarly situated because some opposite sex couples can’t procreate” crap?

It was not.

When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving in Virginia....they did so in an attempt to catch them in another criminal act: interracial sex. Had they caught Richard and Mildred in the act of marital relations in their own bedrooom, they would have been charged with even more serious crimes.

These are the protections that consevatives are eager to strip from Americans, so your bedroom activity between consenting adults can be regulated by the state.

Even allowing the police to raid your house in the middle of the night to try and arrest you for consensual sex with your spouse.

The conservative mindset is a horror of authoritarianism.

As for 'procreation' as an argument against gay marriage, no state requires children or the capacity to produce them as a pre-requisite to marry.

Why then would we invent an imaginary, non-existent standard that no one is held to......to prevent same sex couples from marrying?

 

[Skylar]

Where is the right to privacy in the Constitution?

All of the others are boogeymen.

You want to strip Americans of free exercise rights.

The only ideology being pushed these days is SJW woke bullshit, like women can have penises.

Now we're just discussing why I'm right in my assertion that conservatives are trying to strip Americans of their rights and turn them into crimes.

 

[HeyNorm]

It was not.

When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving in Virginia....they did so in an attempt to catch them in another criminal act: interracial sex. Had they caught Richard and Mildred in the act of marital relations in their own bedrooom, they would have been charged with even more serious crimes.

These are the protections that consevatives are eager to strip from Americans, so your bedroom activity between consenting adults can be regulated by the state.

Even allowing the police to raid your house in the middle of the night to try and arrest you for consensual sex with your spouse.

The conservative mindset is a horror of authoritarianism.

As for 'procreation' as an argument against gay marriage, no state requires children or the capacity to produce them as a pre-requisite to marry.

Why then would we invent an imaginary, non-existent standard that no one is held to......to prevent same sex couples from marrying?

Loving is not an issue. Interracial marriage is not an issue. Well it is, but only to gay folks, which are roughly 3% of the population, so no real threat.

The requirements for marriage are that the two cannot be closely related and that they must be old enough to meet consent concerns.

So, why then must they not be too closely related?

Go ahead.

 

[HeyNorm]

Now we're just discussing why I'm right in my assertion that conservatives are trying to strip Americans of their rights and turn them into crimes.

You realize that most Americans wouldn’t really care if they lose the right to marry a member of their same sex.

You do realize the right to marry same sex is not based on sexuality, right? And few straight people would EVER want to partake of it.

 

[Skylar]

You realize that most Americans wouldn’t really care if they lose the right to marry a member of their same sex.

You do realize the right to marry same sex is not based on sexuality, right? And few straight people would EVER want to partake of it.

Actually, support for same sex marriage is quite strong.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Inches Up to New High of 71%

​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Huh, then why the qualification as to “not closely related”?

WTF! You answered that question yourself! Do you think that it is at all possible fro you to deal with the topic of legal same sex marriage and stop throwing all of this shit at the wall hoping to distract. I am not going to forget what I asked:

"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."

Did you forget that you finally admitted that you would let such opposite sex couples to marry, which exposed your big lie about the "breeding" requirement that only exists in your mind? But now we have come full circle. I will hold your feet to the fire until you explain how same sex couples who cany"breed" are different that opposite sex couples who "can't breed"

 

[HeyNorm]

Actually, support for same sex marriage is quite strong.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Inches Up to New High of 71%​

​

​

I never mentioned support for. What I did say was most people, afforded the “right” to marry the same sex, could care less if that right was removed from them. And that’s 97% of the total population.

In comparison, I would expect the vast majority, regardless of sexuality, appreciate that they have the right to marry outside their race.

 

[HeyNorm]

WTF! You answered that question yourself! Do you think that it is at all possible fro you to deal with the topic of legal same sex marriage and stop throwing all of this shit at the wall hoping to distract. I am not going to forget what I asked:

"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."

Did you forget that you finally admitted that you would let such opposite sex couples to marry, which exposed your big lie about the "breeding" requirement that only exists in your mind? But now we have come full circle. I will hold your feet to the fire until you explain how same sex couples who cany"breed" are different that opposite sex couples who "can't breed"

How do I justify it? They are a part of the specific demographic group. That’s kind of clear.

Some within that group suffer from a reproductive disability. Are you saying same sex couples can’t procreate because of a reproductive disability?