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

[HeyNorm]

Except gays can have kids through in-vitro fertilization or adoption or hiring surrogates.



The fear of being murdered by a bigot like you like Matt Shephard was?

1. I never claimed anyone could not marry the sperm or egg donor.

2. To be a bigot I would be ok with straights marrying as a same sex couple but exclude gays. I oppose both.

Your claim that I am a bigot fails once again.

 

[Redfish]

Cruz lied when he said that marriage has always been a state matter. That is true only withing limits that he ignored

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

afer.org

Cruze lied. We did not

where is marriage mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights? Its not, therefore it is NOT a federal issue and that is all Cruz said. Why are you lefties so scared of letting the people of each state vote on gay marriage and abortion? Try to answer honestly if you can.

 

[JoeB131]

1. I never claimed anyone could not marry the sperm or egg donor.

2. To be a bigot I would be ok with straights marrying as a same sex couple but exclude gays. I oppose both.

Your claim that I am a bigot fails once again.

No, guy, you are just being silly at this point. There's no reason for straights to marry as a same-sex couple. There's no reason for gays to marry the opposite sex.

People should be able to marry whoever they want, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

 

[HeyNorm]

No, guy, you are just being silly at this point. There's no reason for straights to marry as a same-sex couple. There's no reason for gays to marry the opposite sex.

People should be able to marry whoever they want, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

Thanks, so two brothers should be able to marry?

If not, explain as to why? And why limit this to just two?

And as far as being silly?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now let’s get back to the discussion about how you think that just because we don’t force women to give birth, you think a same sex couple is similar to an opposite sex couple.

What is it that I think??! "Just because we don't force women......."WHAT??! Were is that bizarre shit coming from? This is the same shit that yu have been doing all along. When you get bogged down in your old bullshit, you come up with some new bullshit in an attempt to gaslight me and troll the topc.

I told you exactly what I think about why SAME SEX couples are essentially te same as opposite sex couples and it did not include anything about women not being forced to givebirth.

The discussion about who should be able to marry is OVER. You have been exposed as a bigot who has no valid argument against marriage for SAME SEX COUPLES.

Having established that you're a bigot since your wish to deny SAME SEX couples the ability to marry really has nothing to do with having children -since you admit that that criteria does not apply to opposite sex couples-there is only one thing left to discuss. That is WHAT IS THE REAL REASON that you are a bigot.

Clearly you harbor considerable irrational animosity . You want to punish people and their children for being gay by denying them the financial and legal security of marriage for reason that are unknown because you have been to much of a coward to disclose your reasons. You are a pathetic fool! Grow a ******* spine and say what is on your diseased mind
]

 

[HeyNorm]

What is it that I think??! "Just because we don't force women......."WHAT??! Were is that bizarre shit coming from? This is the same shit that yu have been doing all along. When you get bogged down in your old bullshit, you come up with some new bullshit in an attempt to gaslight me and troll the topc.

I told you exactly what I think about why SAME SEX couples are essentially te same as opposite sex couples and it did not include anything about women not being forced to givebirth.

The discussion about who should be able to marry is OVER. You have been exposed as a bigot who has no valid argument against marriage for SAME SEX COUPLES.

Having established that you're a bigot since your wish to deny SAME SEX couples the ability to marry really has nothing to do with having children -since you admit that that criteria does not apply to opposite sex couples-there is only one thing left to discuss. That is WHAT IS THE REAL REASON that you are a bigot.

Clearly you harbor considerable irrational animosity . You want to punish people and their children for being gay by denying them the financial and legal security of marriage for reason that are unknown because you have been to much of a coward to disclose your reasons. You are a pathetic fool! Grow a ******* spine and say what is on your diseased mind
]

Before I destroy your argument, show one place where I made a bigoted comment.

I will wait.

 

[JoeB131]

Thanks, so two brothers should be able to marry?

If not, explain as to why? And why limit this to just two?

And as far as being silly?

Same reason a brother and sister can't marry. Incest is against the law. Same reason that you can't marry a nine-year old. Pedophilia is against the law. Same reason you can't marry more than one person. Bigamy is against the law.

Now, at one time, my having a relationship with my Chinese girlfriend would have been against the law, but the laws changed. But you can't make an argument against it other than bigotry. Same thing with gays getting married.

Incest is against the law for good reasons.

 

[HeyNorm]

Same reason a brother and sister can't marry. Incest is against the law. Same reason that you can't marry a nine-year old. Pedophilia is against the law. Same reason you can't marry more than one person. Bigamy is against the law.

Now, at one time, my having a relationship with my Chinese girlfriend would have been against the law, but the laws changed. But you can't make an argument against it other than bigotry. Same thing with gays getting married.

Incest is against the law for good reasons.

Two brothers can’t marry because they would pass defective genes onto their offspring??

How’s that work Joe?

Now who’s being silly?

Oh, and it just occurred to me that, since marriage is not about procreation, then why assume it involves sex in the first place? Obviously a straight same sex couple would not join in a sexual relationship. The only possible sexual relations in a same sex marriage between partners, would be if both partners were gay and that doesn’t create a child anyway.

Bizarre requirement for same sex couples, wouldn’t you say, Joe?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Before I destroy your argument, show one place where I made a bigoted comment.

I will wait.

I won't keep you waiting:
First lets review the definition of bigotry:

big·ot·ry
[ˈbiɡətrē]

NOUN

1. obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:
   "the difficulties of combating prejudice

"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion" Your belief and opinion that you have expressed that SAME SEX couples should not be able to marry for no reason other than the fact that they are gay and therefore "different"

While you tried to justfy it based on there inability to have children one on one that argument fell flat when you admitted that you would hold opposite sex couples who could not have children to a different standard and would allow them to marry,

I will add that the argument about conceiving children has NEVER been seccessfully argued.

With that argument dead in the water, it is apparent that you harbor deep prejudice towards gay people not withstading the fact that you won't admit it or say why. But there is no other explaiantion

The bottom line is that you support a restictive and exclusionary policy for a group for no reasonable or rational reason.

Read more:

Why is opposition to gay marriage bigoted?

Answer (1 of 5): I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle: I don't think the government should grant ANYBODY a marriage, whether they be straight or LGBT. The problem with marriage is that it is a religious institution to begin with. Somewhere along the line, government start...

www.quora.com

The idea that people don't deserve equal treatment based on their sexual orientation is bigoted, therefore any decision that follows from that is, by it's very nature, bigoted. Any argument made against equality of marriage in a secular society doesn't hold up.

Every argument against gay marriage boils down to, "I don't like it, gay people are gross," or "Religion says it's bad." Neither of those arguments should have any bearing on a decision made by a secular government. Marriage is an institution that is maintained by the state in the US, not by religion.

Now, what exactly do you think that you are going to destroy? I can't wait to see what sort of bizarre bullshit you come up with

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

where is marriage mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights? Its not, therefore it is NOT a federal issue and that is all Cruz said. Why are you lefties so scared of letting the people of each state vote on gay marriage and abortion? Try to answer honestly if you can.

Fish, Equal protection under the law and due process are in the constitution. I documented the fact that the SCOTUS has, on numerous occaisions ruled that the states domain over marriage is not absolute. While marriageitself can besaid to bea state matter, that does not mean that it can beadministered ina way that violates individual rights.

You are the ones who should be afraid of putting those issues to a popular vote an, in fact abortion had been voted on in a number of syayes recently. It did no go well for concervatives.

The right to same sex marriage would also prevail in most states . But the fact is that issues of rights should not be left to the people or the states because there will always be cases where righhts are voted down and the rule of law ignored. This is a Constitutional Republic. It is not a Federation of states tat can do whatever the hell they want.

 

[HeyNorm]

I won't keep you waiting:
First lets review the definition of bigotry:


"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion" Your belief and opinion that you have expressed that SAME SEX couples should not be able to marry for no reason other than the fact that they are gay and therefore "different"

While you tried to justfy it based on there inability to have children one on one that argument fell flat when you admitted that you would hold opposite sex couples who could not have children to a different standard and would allow them to marry,

I will add that the argument about conceiving children has NEVER been seccessfully argued.

With that argument dead in the water, it is apparent that you harbor deep prejudice towards gay people not withstading the fact that you won't admit it or say why. But there is no other explaiantion

The bottom line is that you support a restictive and exclusionary policy for a group for no reasonable or rational reason.

Read more:

Why is opposition to gay marriage bigoted?

Answer (1 of 5): I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle: I don't think the government should grant ANYBODY a marriage, whether they be straight or LGBT. The problem with marriage is that it is a religious institution to begin with. Somewhere along the line, government start...

www.quora.com

Now, what exactly do you think that you are going to destroy? I can't wait to see what sort of bizarre bullshit you come up with

Your word salad means nothing.

Two people, not closely related only make sense if those two can create a child within the Union.

I am not the bigot, that would be you. Unless you have an explanation as to how a Union between 2 same sex individuals can create a child, you have nothing except a pipe dream.

 

[HeyNorm]

where is marriage mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights? Its not, therefore it is NOT a federal issue and that is all Cruz said. Why are you lefties so scared of letting the people of each state vote on gay marriage and abortion? Try to answer honestly if you can.

Gays can marry anybody of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

They just think straight sex is icky.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your word salad means nothing.

It means nothing to you beause you have shit for brains

 

[HeyNorm]

It mesnd nothing to you beause you have shit for brains

Shit for brains would be a substantial upgrade for you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Two people, not closely related only make sense if those two can create a child within the Union.

Same shit different post. You are totally obtuse. Marriage is many things and serves many purposes besides making babies . You are stuck in the mud. Is this how you were going to suposidly " destroy" my argument. You're destroying yourself

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am not the bigot, that would be you. Unless you have an explanation as to how a Union between 2 same sex individuals can create a child, you have nothing except a pipe dream.

That makes no ******* sence. How am I the bigot when I am not trying to exclude anyone from marriage except someone who wants to marry his or her minor child. So much for destroying me.

And I an STILL waiting for you to step up and admit what the real reasons are for you wanting to punish gays AND THEIR CHILDREN

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It means nothing to you beause you have shit for brains

Wow, now you are really showing your superior intellect!

 

[HeyNorm]

Same shit different post. You are totally obtuse. Marriage is many things and besides making babies . You are stuck in the mud. Is this how you were going to suposidly " destroy" my argument. You're destroying yourself

Thank you. Now explain the reasoning for the couple to not be closely related.

You are a laugh a minute.

 

[HeyNorm]

Wow, now you are really showing your suprior intellect!

A superior intellect, replying to his own post.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gays can marry anybody of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

Now THAT is bigoted bullshit that I previously excoriated you on. You're actually saying that gays do not have the right marry someone who they are emotionally and physically attracted to what that right is understood among heterosexuals. No only do you not respect the rights of individuals, you are degrading the institution of marriage andreducing to a loveless buisness arrangement. I have to want what sort of relationships you have if any.