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

[HeyNorm]

Actually, that is a rather thoughtful observation. Bi sexual people might actually have a case if they were to pursue it. But that is not a state interest. It is a bi sexual interest that has yet to be raised. The courts were not compelled to ensure that everyoneis accomodated when the question of bisexual accomodation and plural marriage was not before the court. So there is still no compelling state interest that should delay same sex marriage untill the issue of bisexuality is raised and resolved. But, nice try

Hey, I didn’t want the change in the first place as I saw what opening the door would create.

The state now has an interest to provide accommodation to all sexualities.

It’s kind of bigoted to argue the interest does not exist.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, back to #2,270

OK < So you don't have anything relevant to say. By-by

 

[Captain Caveman]

OK < So you don't have anything relevant to say. By-by

If you go back to my post #2,270, it clearly states the relevance to the thread. You're not a full shilling.

 

[HeyNorm]

Click on personal life. Not all gays wanted gay marriage legalised.

Christopher Biggins - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Interesting on two points:

One, he proves the point that’s gays were never excluded from marriage as has often been claimed

And two, a gay man, having been married in the past to a woman, agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Seems he should know best.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Interesting on two points:

One, he proves the point that’s gays were never excluded from marriage as has often been claimed

And two, a gay man, having been married in the past to a woman, agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Seems he should know best.

Thank you, it's a shame TheProgressivePatriot can't read links and grasp relevancy.

Christopher Biggins is one the few homosexuals with their head screwed on.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hey, I didn’t want the change in the first place as I saw what opening the door would create.

The state now has an interest to provide accommodation to all sexualities.

It’s kind of bigoted to argue the interest does not exist.

Look Normy, your constant charges of bigotry against everyone has long since worn thin, so stop it. You might get more respect. And here, you are suggesting that I am a bigot because I argue the interest does not exist? That is another annoying and childish thing that you do. I made no such argument . I said that the accommodation of bisexual has NOT BEEN RAISED AS AN ISSUE. To be clear, I am not arguing for or against the accommodation of bi people, so again, please stuff the bigot bullshit

Now what door is it that gay marriage opened, Plural marriage? I am not aware if any movement to implement it. The fact is that you can’t argue that the right of gay people to marry one other person of the same gender is in anyway tied to the idea that a person can marry more than once person. The prohibition on plural marriage existed long before gay marriage. There is no compelling government interest in prohibiting gay marriage because bisexuals can’t marry two people. That is not what a compelling government interest is And, you can’t expect gays to wait for the right to marry until an issue, which is not actually a current issue, and may never be an issue is resolved
Another fact is that plural marriage is infinitely more complex as a legal and social issue. Gay were able to argue that they were “similarly situated” in relation to opposite sex couples because in both cases, it involved people who wished to be in a relationship with one other person. Bisexuals who want to marry more than one person have no other group who can marry more than one person to point to and claim that they are being treated differently.

Now having said that, I can see were bisexuals might have a valid argument if they claim discrimination because gay and straight people are being accommodated and they are not. And as I said the counter argument is that no one can marry more than one person so there is no discrimination. It would be interesting to see how it would all shake out in the legal system and political arena. Bisexuals are certainly free to organize and pursue the matter through the courts and the law making process. My guess is that the would have a lot to overcome and that the country is just not ready for plural marriage. But then again, there wa a time not long ago when it was not ready for gay marriage

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, can you think of any ACTUAL compelling government interests in banning gay marriage?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you, it's a shame TheProgressivePatriot can't read links and grasp relevancy.

Christopher Biggins is one the few homosexuals with their head screwed on.

Look boys. The thread is about the legal arguments for and against same sex marriage. I am not the one having trouble grasping something

 

[HeyNorm]

You just keep putting your foot in your mouth.

How many times in your post did you mention “gay marriage”? A dozen, maybe more?

Including an accommodation, based on sexuality, not sex, already opened the door.

And changing the number individuals within a marriage to accommodate a sexuality is minor in comparison to the Union of one man to one woman, regardless of their sexualities.

Got it bigot?

 

[HeyNorm]

Look boys. The thread is about the legal arguments for and against same sex marriage. I am not the one having trouble grasping something

Even though, you still look silly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You just keep putting your foot in your mouth.

How many times in your post did you mention “gay marriage”? A dozen, maybe more?

Including an accommodation, based on sexuality, not sex, already opened the door.

And changing the number individuals within a marriage to accommodate a sexuality is minor in comparison to the Union of one man to one woman, regardless of their sexualities.

Got it bigot?

OK **** head. I thought for in minute that there was a chance of our communicating on a rational level but I was clearly wrong. I use same sex marriage and gay marriage interchangeably You cling to a false distinction as a diversionary tactic in order to avoid dealing with the real issue.

You really think that going from a marriage of two to a plural marriage is minor? How stupid are you? Clearly you have not thought much about it. I would go into it but I will not suborn your latest attempt to troll the thread off into a new tangent. Plus I don't think that you are bright enought to understand.

And here you are calling be a bigot again after I clearly said that I was not taking a stand against plural marriage but just that I have concerns about it and see it as a separate issue. While I at least look for ways to acccomodtae others while you dig deep for excuses to exclude gays. You're a sick joke without a punchline. So, you can **** off again. Grow the **** up

 

[HeyNorm]

OK **** head. I thought for in minute that there was a chance of our communicating on a rational level but I was clearly wrong. I use same sex marriage and gay marriage interchangeably You cling to a false distinction as a diversionary tactic in order to avoid dealing with the real issue.

You really think that going from a marriage of two to a plural marriage is minor? How stupid are you? Clearly you have not thought much about it. I would go into it but I will not suborn your latest attempt to troll the thread off into a new tangent. And here you are calling be a bigot again after I clearly said that I was not taking a stand against plural marriage but just that I have concerns about it and see it as a separate issue. So, you can **** off again. Grow the **** up

Now, we have a law that makes the qualification of two individuals, not closely related……….

Obviously the above is only applicable to opposite sex couples, unless you want to add, in the case of same sex couples, their sperm or egg donors can not be closely related………

Of legal age and have the ability to freely consent.

YEAH, PP, now that makes all the sense in the damn world!

You just look dumber and dumber as this conversation progresses.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now, we have a law that makes the qualification of two individuals, not closely related……….

Obviously the above is only applicable to opposite sex couples, unless you want to add, in the case of same sex couples, their sperm or egg donors can not be closely related………

Of legal age and have the ability to freely consent.

YEAH, PP, now that makes all the sense in the damn world!

You just look dumber and dumber as this conversation progresses.

**** off troll! None of that even makes sense. Try dealing with the points that I make instead of comming back with an inane word salad rant.I would not call this a conversation. You do not know how to converse like an adult

 

[otto105]

Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search

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

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.

www.newsweek.com

-------------------------------------
I just knew it would come up soon.

Good olde teddy should take care of his house first.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, you just admitted a doctor can’t determine sexuality through a physical examination unless you think that rape victims are gay.

And you also clearly implied that homosexuality is nurture, not nature.

Please stop Joe, same sex marriage supporters should be embarrassed that you are on their side.

Uh, no, you really are going off on twenty different tangents to avoid admitting your own homophobia.
Also, sexual orientation is hardly a choice.

That you can't answer the simple question- what compelling reason is there for preventing gays from marrying? You don't have one.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes that is true.

Also true that we know that there are people who want to attack the Integrity of elections. Many more such people than bakers who don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple or clerks willing to be fired rather than issue a legal marriage license to a same-sex couple.

Just because the mainstream media refuses to recognize such people, does not mean that they don't exist.

Nope. Whenever you guys talk about "integrity of election", you are really saying, "We are upset poor people showed up and threw Trump out on his ass."

Not true. Poor people are able to show photo ID when they apply for welfare and other benefits. Black people are just as capable of getting a driver's license as white people, be wailing of the idiotic Democrats notwithstanding.

Well, no, they really aren't if they move frequently or aren't at a fixed address.

Speaking of democrats, it was Democrats who used poll taxes and literacy tests to stop black people from voting. Republican have been all about black people voting since they fought for that in the civil war.

Actually, Republicans pretty much gave up on that after Rutherford B. Hayes stole the presidency in 1876.

The lie that election security means no voting for poor people is promulgated by assholes and believed by morons. Democrats have zero interest in truth or fairness. All they care about is getting what they want when they want it. That's the difference between the modern day student loan deadbeat type Democrat and the working class Democrats of the past.

Except that whenever you guys pull this shit, like "Cleaning up the voting rolls", you end up throwing a lot of poor people off the voting rolls who were entitled to vote, and didn't know they had been removed until they showed up on election day.

We should be making it EASIER to vote, not harder.

 

[HeyNorm]

Uh, no, you really are going off on twenty different tangents to avoid admitting your own homophobia.
Also, sexual orientation is hardly a choice.

That you can't answer the simple question- what compelling reason is there for preventing gays from marrying? You don't have one.

Wait, what. In your prison scenario you claimed homosexuality was indeed a choice.

When are you going to start standing by your own words!

 

[JoeB131]

Wait, what. In your prison scenario you claimed homosexuality was indeed a choice.

Except that prison sex isn't about choice, it's about dominance. But you probably already know that from your time as a prison *****.

No wonder you are so angry at the gays.

 

[HeyNorm]

Except that prison sex isn't about choice, it's about dominance. But you probably already know that from your time as a prison *****.

No wonder you are so angry at the gays.

You are a laugh a minute Joe.

I was going to ask you earlier how you knew so much about prison sex, but I have way too much class for that.

But it’s clear you don’t.

And Joe, why would a qualification in the marriage law exist that gay or straight same sex partners be “not closely related”?

 

[JoeB131]

I was going to ask you earlier how you knew so much about prison sex, but I have way too much class for that.

Your the one who brought prison sex up... but we know that you probably got traded for a pack of smokes.

And Joe, why would a qualification in the marriage law exist that gay or straight same sex partners be “not closely related”?

For the same reason why it's there for straight couples, or even adopted families.

Incest is already against the law. Pedophilia is against the law. Bigamy is against the law. That's why your "Slipperly slope" arguments are silly.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search

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

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.

www.newsweek.com

-------------------------------------
I just knew it would come up soon.

The SCOTUS decision, is its decision. He should just move on to other topics. The heart wants who the heart wants. For all I care some woman can marry her favorite horse. I just don't want to witness what goes on behind the stable doors.