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

[Seymour Flops]

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."



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



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



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.

You're just making claims with no support.

Name some these homeless people who showed up to vote and were turned away.

I'm all for easy. ID at registration and the same ID to vote. Simple

If Democrooks were so concerned about homeless voters they'd meet them on the streets or at the shelter and take them to get state ID.

Hey! Then they could clean threm up and find them jobs!

 

[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.

Let me give you a word of advise kid. Learn how to organize your thoughts. Learn how to write in coherent sentences and how to put those sentences into a concise and cogent paragraph . Clearly state your position-the conclusion that you have come to- and formulate your premise to support that conclusion using facts and logic. I don’t know if what you are trying to express reflects a fundamentally confused and immature thought process or if it is just a matter of your lacking the skills to express yourself in writing but something is wrong with you.

In any case, your writing is a mess. You might know what it is you want to say but no one else does. Everything that you say is a jumbles mess of poorly constructed and fuzzy thoughts . A third grader in special ed could do better. Clean up your act. Take a writing course. Get an adult to help you. Do something!

 

[HeyNorm]

Let me give you a word of advise kid. Learn how to organize your thoughts. Learn how to write in coherent sentences and how to put those sentences into a concise and cogent paragraph . Clearly state your position-the conclusion that you have come to- and formulate your premise to support that conclusion using facts and logic. I don’t know if what you are trying to express reflects a fundamentally confused and immature thought process or if it is just a matter of your lacking the skills to express yourself in writing but something is wrong with you.

In any case, your writing is a mess. You might know what it is you want to say but no one else does. Everything that you say is a jumbles mess of poorly constructed and fuzzy thoughts . A third grader in special ed could do better. Clean up your act. Take a writing course. Get an adult to help you. Do something!

Or seek out a more intelligent audience?

 

[Unkotare]

Let me give you a word of advise [sic] kid. ...

Wow........

 

[HeyNorm]

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



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.

Um, Joe, I asked how, during a physical examination just how the examiner could tell a gay from a straight man?

Then I added that this examiner could indeed find a physical distinction between a black woman and one of a different raced woman.

Your reaction was that the examiner making his determination because of the gays rectum.

Then I had to remind you that some straight men get anal raped.

You sure seemed to know a lot about prison rape. Almost like you’ve been there.

Hey Joe, why the bigotry toward bisexuals?

Do you find that they have straight sex sometimes icky?

Is that why you don’t want them happily married to the ones they love?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Now that's what we need. Writing advice from an illiterate, incoherent moron.

Let me give you a word of advise kid. Learn how to organize your thoughts. Learn how to write in coherent sentences and how to put those sentences into a concise and cogent paragraph . Clearly state your position-the conclusion that you have come to- and formulate your premise to support that conclusion using facts and logic. I don’t know if what you are trying to express reflects a fundamentally confused and immature thought process or if it is just a matter of your lacking the skills to express yourself in writing but something is wrong with you.

In any case, your writing is a mess. You might know what it is you want to say but no one else does. Everything that you say is a jumbles mess of poorly constructed and fuzzy thoughts . A third grader in special ed could do better. Clean up your act. Take a writing course. Get an adult to help you. Do something!

 

[JoeB131]

You're just making claims with no support.

Name some these homeless people who showed up to vote and were turned away.

I'm all for easy. ID at registration and the same ID to vote. Simple

If Democrooks were so concerned about homeless voters they'd meet them on the streets or at the shelter and take them to get state ID.

Except that's exactly what they did, and that's what you are complaining about....

 

[JoeB131]

Um, Joe, I asked how, during a physical examination just how the examiner could tell a gay from a straight man?

Then I added that this examiner could indeed find a physical distinction between a black woman and one of a different raced woman.

Your reaction was that the examiner making his determination because of the gays rectum.

Then I had to remind you that some straight men get anal raped.

And not sure what any of that had to do with marriage, other than your attempt to distract from answering the question.

What valid reason do you have for two gay people not being able to get married. No distractions about your anal rape fantasies or incest or whatever else you are watching on Pornhub.com, just straight up, answer the question... other than your bigotry, what compelling reason is there to deny two gay people a marriage license if they otherwise are consenting, non-related adults.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Except that's exactly what they did, and that's what you are complaining about....

I hope they did, but I haven't heard about it. Sure you're not just making that up, again?

I complain about not requiring voter ID, not about Democrats or anyone else helping people get them.

 

[HeyNorm]

And not sure what any of that had to do with marriage, other than your attempt to distract from answering the question.

What valid reason do you have for two gay people not being able to get married. No distractions about your anal rape fantasies or incest or whatever else you are watching on Pornhub.com, just straight up, answer the question... other than your bigotry, what compelling reason is there to deny two gay people a marriage license if they otherwise are consenting, non-related adults.

The argument is, once again, what individual has been denied access to marriage? It’s been demonstrated that all individuals have equal access to it.

Because you can’t find someone who would agree to a marriage with you, then I would try harder or lower your standards.

Opening up a time honored institution to one niche sexuality make discriminating against any other sexuality the poster child for discrimination.

Just because you don’t want to do the work required does not meet the standard definition of discrimination.

 

[JoeB131]

he argument is, once again, what individual has been denied access to marriage? It’s been demonstrated that all individuals have equal access to it.

Well, they do now. But you want to deny it to some people.

You just haven't given anyone a good reason other than you think it's icky.

So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married?

 

[JoeB131]

I hope they did, but I haven't heard about it. Sure you're not just making that up, again?

I complain about not requiring voter ID, not about Democrats or anyone else helping people get them.

There's no reason for voter ID. If you can walk up to the voting place, tell them your name and your address, that should be enough.

If you mail in your ballot, that should be enough. We allow tax returns and census information to be collected by mail. Why not ballots?

Oh, that's right. Because poor people vote by mail.

 

[HeyNorm]

Well, they do now. But you want to deny it to some people.

You just haven't given anyone a good reason other than you think it's icky.

So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married?

You don’t listen Joe. What is your defense in denying a bisexual from marrying two other people? Because it’s illegal?

You and your arguments are a joke. And I’ve demonstrated that dozens of times.

 

[JoeB131]

You don’t listen Joe. What is your defense in denying a bisexual from marrying two other people? Because it’s illegal?

Yes, bigamy is illegal. Whether it should be or not, is a matter for debate. I'd personally have no problem with polygamy, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

We have polygamy now, except one is called the "Wife" and the other is called "the mistress".

You and your arguments are a joke. And I’ve demonstrated that dozens of times.

So do you have a compelling reason why gays can't get married without going into ten other topics.

Look, man, I get it, you don't like the gay stuff. Especially after that one time at camp, we all know you have a case of the not-gays.

But at least come up with a coherent reason for your position.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There's no reason for voter ID. If you can walk up to the voting place, tell them your name and your address, that should be enough.

Enough to vote as many times as you want.

If you mail in your ballot, that should be enough. We allow tax returns and census information to be collected by mail. Why not ballots?

Why not allow someone to withdraw money from the bank account by walking up the counter and saying, "Hi I'm Joe B. Here to clean out his - I mean my - account."

Oh, that's right. Because poor people vote by mail.

No! *sob, sob* they cannot afford stamps, you insensitive brute!

 

[HeyNorm]

Yes, bigamy is illegal. Whether it should be or not, is a matter for debate. I'd personally have no problem with polygamy, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.

We have polygamy now, except one is called the "Wife" and the other is called "the mistress".


So do you have a compelling reason why gays can't get married without going into ten other topics.

Look, man, I get it, you don't like the gay stuff. Especially after that one time at camp, we all know you have a case of the not-gays.

But at least come up with a coherent reason for your position.

Gays have always married Joe. By limiting the number of participants in a marriage, you have actually created a more discriminatory policy that more closely resembles traditional marriage, and is far more productive.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gays have always married Joe. By limiting the number of participants in a marriage, you have actually created a more discriminatory policy that more closely resembles traditional marriage, and is far more productive.

You are so full of shit. You're just flam baiting here. I seriously doubt that someone who opposes same sex marriage realy wants to allow bisexuals to marry more than one person so that they can be with more then one gender. You lie about our position on those matters and call us bigots.

Then you keep repeating that same sick shit about how gays always could marry ( someone of the opposite sex) providing beyond a doubt who the real bigot is

And you STILL have not come up with a straight and honest answer as to why gays people should not be able to marry someone of their own gender

 

[HeyNorm]

You are so full of shit. You're just flam baiting here. I seriously doubt that someone who opposes same sex marriage realy wants to allow bisexuals to marry more than one person so that they can be with more then one gender. You lie about our position on those matters and call us bigots.

Then you keep repeating that same sick shit about how gays always could marry ( someone of the opposite sex) providing beyond a doubt who the real bigot is

And you STILL have not come up with a straight and honest answer as to why gays people should not be able to marry someone of their own gender

Oh, I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality. But if sexuality, and remember, you claim same sex marriage is gay marriage, then excluding any other niche sexuality should be equally as repulsive.

Clear now?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh, I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality. But if sexuality, and remember, you claim same sex marriage is gay marriage, then excluding any other niche sexuality should be equally as repulsive.

Clear now?

I have never advocated excluding anyone from marriage. You are the self proclaimed bigot, and yiu still lack the charachter and the confidence in your convictions to explain why

Yes I say same sex marriage is gay marriage. While the obergefell ruling does not mention "gay marriage" or gay people no one can deny that the intent of removing gender from the requirement was for the benefit of gay people. The result of course is that any two people of the same gender can marry but few if any have. So yes same sex marriage is gay marriage. Clear now

Now you're pushing the issue of including bi sexuals in a way that would allow them to marry more than one person-presumedly a man and a woman. Being fuly aware of the fact that that is just another of your troll tactics to obfucate the real issue, lets see what that would look like. We could do one of two thing

1. Pass laws saying the bi sexuals but only bi sexuals can marry more than one person ......but waite now. You have an aversion to oppening up an institution to a "nitch sexuality only results in more discrimination-AND YOU ARE RIGHT for once. I can just hear all of the other peoplewho are not bi but who want to get into the plural marriage game crying foul. Then of course there would be the messy issue of determining who is actually bi. Another question that would come up is: If a Bi personwants to marry both a man and a woman, would they also be required to be bi inorder to bepart of it.

2. Or we can approach it like we did with "gay marriage" where we simply removed the gender requirement without regards to sexuality. In the case bisexual marriage, we could simply modify the number of people someone, anyone can marry-again-without regards to sexuality. But unlike with same sex marriage where few people who are not gay choose to partake , this plural marriage might be very appealing to people all accross the spectrum of sexual orientation. Now THAT would open the flood gats.

Well this was just an excercise because I know you really don't want any of that . You just want to talk about it, use it to call others bigots if they don't embrace it while denying that you are a bigot and doing everything possible to avoid discussing your reasons for not wanting to allow GAY MARRIAGE' Got it Bubba?

And NO ONE is buying that bovine excrement about you opposing same sex marriage because the government is not accomodating bi people and therefore discriminating against them ARE WE CLEAR?

 

[emilynghiem]

So what.? That is one man's opinion. Maybeyou could fine a few more like him. It has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Where it applies is that public policy is supposed to reflect a consensus by the public. If people disagree on personal policies, those should remain optional.

Where even Libertarians have no issue with state govt involved in "domestic partnerships" "civil unions" "guardian or estate agreements" that are neutral of any social implications or beliefs, we could have a consensus on that.

And if both prochoice and prolife taxpayers agree to let citizens fund the health care policies of their choice, and not impose costs or conditions on others outside of that group's consent on policies, then we could have a consensus on health care and benefits.