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

[HeyNorm]

Well, Bigamy is still against the law, so that isn't going to happen.





Yes, you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true. But it is the Big Lie. The election was fine. Trump lost.

You guys don't want to safeguard elections, you just want to make it harder for minorities and poor people to vote. Full stop.



But that's the point, stupid... most of those transactions are done without identification. An online app isn't a person checking your ID. Frankly, I haven't even SEEN anyone from my bank in person in months, but yet I do dozens of transactions every month. Most of them electronic.

Cuz it’s illegal? You crack me up. Joe lives in a world that nothing ever changes.

You crack me up.

 

[JoeB131]

Cuz it’s illegal? You crack me up. Joe lives in a world that nothing ever changes.

You crack me up.

Except no one is advocating for changing the bigamy laws... that's the thing.

 

[HeyNorm]

Except no one is advocating for changing the bigamy laws... that's the thing.

You are the group that included sexuality as the reason for changing from traditional marriage, not me Joe. Now you want to exclude groups from it because they don’t fit in?

That’s hypocrisy at its finest.

They, members of this other sexuality, are supposed to live lives unhappy that they can’t marry because their sexuality is different than yours?

Give the compelling State interest to exclude this group?

Where have we heard that before Joe?

You crack me up.

 

[JoeB131]

You are the group that included sexuality as the reason for changing from traditional marriage, not me Joe. Now you want to exclude groups from it because they don’t fit in?

No, they are legally prohibited from getting married because bigamy is against the law. Change the law, I'd have no problem with thruples. Heck, given the housing crisis in this country, group marriages MIGHT be the way to go.

The problem with threesomes is someone always goes away disappointed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, they are legally prohibited from getting married because bigamy is against the law. Change the law, I'd have no problem with thruples. Heck, given the housing crisis in this country, group marriages MIGHT be the way to go.

The problem with threesomes is someone always goes away disappointed.

Normy is just being a whiney pain in the ass Troll Bot. There is no way that he really cares about this invented plight of bisexuals, or that he would really support plural marriage

 

[HeyNorm]

Normy is just being a whiney pain in the ass. There is no way that he really cares about this invented plight of bisexuals, or that he would really support plural marriage

As long as your niche is protected, screw the rest, right?

 

[HeyNorm]

As long as your niche is protected, screw the rest, right?

But you are right, I would not support it, regardless of the sexuality of the participants

 

[HeyNorm]

Except no one is advocating for changing the bigamy laws... that's the thing.

Actually you are. Your entire argument is that, sexuality of the individuals that compose the group should not exclude that group from marriage whoever they want, regardless of the demographic makeup of that group.

And I ask the same question I have asked you before, now that the law has been changed from marriage being compromised of simply two biological units required to create offspring, to one without that qualification, then what is the compelling state interest in excluding any number of individuals to qualify, based on sexuality? Obviously it excluded bisexuals, a sexuality, only because of an arbitrary number that exists nowhere else with civil contracts.

Remember, traditional marriage never excluded sexuality as long as they were of opposite sex partners.

Have you found another civil contract that limits the participation to only two?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are the group that included sexuality as the reason for changing from traditional marriage, not me Joe. Now you want to exclude groups from it because they don’t fit in?

That’s hypocrisy at its finest.

They, members of this other sexuality, are supposed to live lives unhappy that they can’t marry because their sexuality is different than yours?

Give the compelling State interest to exclude this group?

Where have we heard that before Joe?

You crack me up.

Hey Normy!. No one here has taken a position on whether or not there is any compelling government or societal interest in banning plural marriage so why are you challenging people on that point? It just makes you sound like the whiney trill that you are

You are such a phony sack of shit it makes me want to puke. On one hand to repeatedly suggest that gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex- their sexuality and happiness be damned. NOW, you are admonishing someone for allegedly wanting to exclude bisexuals and deprive them of “happiness”- because of their sexuality (WHICH ACTUALLY INVOLVES SAME SEX MARRIAGE THAT YOU OPPOSE) .

You don’t even realize how stupid and hypocritical that is do you?
Instead of continuing your sick and childish games, do this. Keeping in mind that there is a legal process to in order to determine if there is any compelling reasons to prohibit plural marriage, consider what it would actually look like and what issues would arise if implemented. For instance consider:

1 .If we were to expand the number of people one can marry, are we talking about one marrying several others, or a group marriage where everyone is married to everyone else. ?

1a. If we are just talking about on bisexual person(person A) who marries and male and a female (rather than a group marriage) what is the legal status/ arrangement between the two who marry person A .? Also, can they be brother and sister?

2. In each of those cases, how would income tax filings be handled? How many people can be part of a joint return?

3. How would social security and other government benefits be distributed and can conflicts be avoided?

4. If a child is born to one participant of the marriage, what are the legal rights and responsibilities of the others? ( Currently, when a child in born in a marriage, the spouse is a presumptive legal parent even in same sex marriages) In the case of plural marriage, that might be a little murky and various participants may want different levels of participation and responsibility

5. If a participant becomes incapacitated, who among the spouses would make medical decisions and how would conflicts be resolved in the absence of an advanced directive?

6. How would inheritance and inheritance handled in the absence of a will?

These are just some of the issues to be considered. I am not saying that any of them are insurmountable but they do demonstrate why we cannot plunge headlong into group marriage without considering how it would actually work, or not.

One thing is clear and that is that it would be a major upheaval to our legal a social systems necessitating a consideration of whether or not there are compelling reasons to avoid going there

Now get to work!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As long as your niche is protected, screw the rest, right?

That is what you are saying .See post 379

 

[HeyNorm]

Hey Normy!. No one here has taken a position on whether or not there is any compelling government or societal interest in banning plural marriage so why are you challenging people on that point? It just makes you sound like the whiney trill that you are

You are such a phony sack of shit it makes me want to puke. On one hand to repeatedly suggest that gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex- their sexuality and happiness be damned. NOW, you are admonishing someone for allegedly wanting to exclude bisexuals and deprive them of “happiness”- because of their sexuality (WHICH ACTUALLY INVOLVES SAME SEX MARRIAGE THAT YOU OPPOSE) .

You don’t even realize how stupid and hypocritical that is do you?
Instead of continuing your sick and childish games, do this. Keeping in mind that there is a legal process to in order to determine if there is any compelling reasons to prohibit plural marriage, consider what it would actually look like and what issues would arise if implemented. For instance consider:

1 .If we were to expand the number of people one can marry, are we talking about one marrying several others, or a group marriage where everyone is married to everyone else. ?

1a. If we are just talking about on bisexual person(person A) who marries and male and a female (rather than a group marriage) what is the legal status/ arrangement between the two who marry person A .? Also, can they be brother and sister?

2. In each of those cases, how would income tax filings be handled? How many people can be part of a joint return?

3. How would social security and other government benefits be distributed and can conflicts be avoided?

4. If a child is born to one participant of the marriage, what are the legal rights and responsibilities of the others? ( Currently, when a child in born in a marriage, the spouse is a presumptive legal parent even in same sex marriages) In the case of plural marriage, that might be a little murky and various participants may want different levels of participation and responsibility

5. If a participant becomes incapacitated, who among the spouses would make medical decisions and how would conflicts be resolved in the absence of an advanced directive?

6. How would inheritance and inheritance handled in the absence of a will?

These are just some of the issues to be considered. I am not saying that any of them are insurmountable but they do demonstrate why we cannot plunge headlong into group marriage without considering how it would actually work, or not.

One thing is clear and that is that it would be a major upheaval to our legal a social systems necessitating a consideration of whether or not there are compelling reasons to avoid going there

Now get to work!

What a completely bigoted response. The individuals within the plural marriage can determine much of the above on there own.

And I love the portions where you make it the IRS business to determine the makeup of the participants. Are you really this desperate.

A bisexual partnership would simply be seeking a fulling marriage based on their niche sexuality in no different way than a gay same sex unit. All they really want is the same protection that you have, right.

And you still haven’t brought forward another civil contract that limits participants to only two, have you? The IRS and the courts don’t seem to have the problem with them that you appear to have.

Again, you opened this door, not me.

 

[HeyNorm]

That is what you are saying .See post 379

See post 381.

Amazing how you handed marriage over to the IRS and Social Security Administration.

What a bigot you are.

You opened the door, not me, deal with it.

 

[HeyNorm]

That is what you are saying .See post 379

I don’t belong to a niche, unless you have now lowered you’re argument to redefining that word as well.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually you are. Your entire argument is that, sexuality of the individuals that compose the group should not exclude that group from marriage whoever they want, regardless of the demographic makeup of that group.

They can marry whoever they want... they just can only marry one under current law.

And I ask the same question I have asked you before, now that the law has been changed from marriage being compromised of simply two biological units required to create offspring, to one without that qualification, then what is the compelling state interest in excluding any number of individuals to qualify, based on sexuality? Obviously it excluded bisexuals, a sexuality, only because of an arbitrary number that exists nowhere else with civil contracts.

There isn't one. I have no problem with plural marriage. But until you get the law changed, you are out of luck. Not that you could get one woman to look at you, much less two.

 

[HeyNorm]

They can marry whoever they want... they just can only marry one under current law.



There isn't one. I have no problem with plural marriage. But until you get the law changed, you are out of luck. Not that you could get one woman to look at you, much less two.

Nice insult Joe, but I’ve had way more than my share of beautiful ladies in my time. If you need some lessons, let me know. You crack me up.

And you affirmed that, indeed, obergfell will eventually lead to plural marriage, which your side argued was a slippery slope conspiracy theory.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What a completely bigoted response. The individuals within the plural marriage can determine much of the above on there own.

And I love the portions where you make it the IRS business to determine the makeup of the participants. Are you really this desperate.

A bisexual partnership would simply be seeking a fulling marriage based on their niche sexuality in no different way than a gay same sex unit. All they really want is the same protection that you have, right.

And you still haven’t brought forward another civil contract that limits participants to only two, have you? The IRS and the courts don’t seem to have the problem with them that you appear to have.

Again, you opened this door, not me.

Holy ******* shit Normy!! THIS is your response?. You get big time troll points for this. Just more charges of bigotry while in no way addressing the concerns that I raised. Clearly you are not even smart enough to understand what I trying to get accross or that I am not speaking against plural marriage but mearly injecting some reality into the idea. You need to calm the **** down.

Whatever is left of you mind works in strange ways as evidenced in part by your turning my point that there are issues that would have tobe considered with the IRS to " you make it the IRS business to determine the makeup of the participants".

Interesting how you have NOTHING TO say about any of the other issues that I raised regarding plural marriage. Also interesting is the fact that seem to fail to see the hypocrissy in opposing same sex marriage with push plural marriage for bi sexuals that would of course involve people of the same sex in a marriage . How ******* stupid is that!!?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

See post 381.

Amazing how you handed marriage over to the IRS and Social Security Administration.

What a bigot you are.

You opened the door, not me, deal with it.

See post 386 and call your psychiatrist

 

[Wapasha]

No, it is not one-sided at all:

Forty-nine percent of all Americans — including a majority of Republicans and half of all self-described independents — believe there will either be "a lot" or "some" fraud this fall, an indication of how pervasive disinformation about the 2020 election has spread and how much trust in democracy has eroded in just two years.

I'm not sure about the "pervasive disinformation" about the 2020 election process. We did have states which violated their own state election laws, by making sudden changes to the ways ballots are cast, dropped off, counted and verified. So there does not seem to be anything preventing these sudden changes being made in the future. Which casts a long shadow over the integrity of the voting process.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm not sure about the "pervasive disinformation" about the 2020 election process. We did have states which violated their own state election laws, by making sudden changes to the ways ballots are cast, dropped off, counted and verified. So there does not seem to be anything preventing these sudden changes being made in the future. Which casts a long shadow over the integrity of the voting process.

Yes, and the Democrats dismissal of that long shadow is the act of people who don't think things through. They are happy to win the next election, and don't care whether the election is perceived as fair or not.

Meanwhile they ridicule non-Democrats for "clinging to guns or religion." Here is some advice for Democrats: My dudes, you do NOT want to put people who cling to guns and religion in a position of thinking that elections are not fair and therefore the peaceful democratic process does not include them.

If those heavily armed and religious people decide that enough is enough, and move to violently overthrow the government Democrats alone voted for with non-Democrat votes being meaningless due to the cheating, who do you think will stop them?

You?

The FBI?

The woke-led military?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They can marry whoever they want... they just can only marry one under current law.



There isn't one. I have no problem with plural marriage. But until you get the law changed, you are out of luck. Not that you could get one woman to look at you, much less two.

INCEL Maybe?