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

[Bob Blaylock]

There is nothing in the Constitution about Fags and trannys.

Nor any basis on which to assume that anyone who had any role in writing the original Constitution, or any of the Amendments that have been added since then, would have considered such sexual deviants worthy of the support that the Constitution is now being twisted and corrupted to give them.

 

[rightwinger]

The free exercise of religion is itself a civil right, and one specifically, explicitely and in no uncertain terms protected by the constitution.

You are free to exercise your religion
Just not force it on others

 

[Seymour Flops]

You are free to exercise your religion
Just not force it on others

I never would.

 

[rightwinger]

I never would.

Unfortunately on issues like homosexuality, abortion it is forced on others

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are free to exercise your religion
Just not force it on others

I never would.

Unfortunately on issues like homosexuality, abortion it is forced on others

Yes, it is.

Homosexuality and related perversions are being forced on young children in public schools.

And abortion is being forced on the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings; who are murderer in cold blood.

Sexual perversion and murder are Satan's religion.

It isn't religion that you object to being forced on others. It is inly god religion that you find objectionable. You're perfectly fine with evil religion being forced on others.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Unfortunately on issues like homosexuality, abortion it is forced on others

Homosexuality for or against isn't forced on anyone by me.

Abortion is murder, so no one has a right to do it.

Nothing to do with religion. I knew that abortion kills a human being when I was an atheist, because science is science.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gays can't concieve. With each other ,that is.

So what?. Some hetero sexual couples can't either. Should they not be able to call it marriage? When did concieving a child become a requirement for marriage?

 

[HeyNorm]

We have two demographic groups.

1. A group made up of couples which are composed of those of opposite sex individuals.

2. A group made up of couples which are composed of those of the same sex individuals.

Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, only the demographic group #1 can produce offspring, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly different.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We have two demographic groups.

1. A group made up of couples which are composed of those of opposite sex individuals.

2. A group made up of couples which are composed of those of the same sex individuals.

Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, only the demographic group #1 can produce offspring, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly different.

Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, BOTH demographics can be, and in fact are PARENTS to children who come to be in their care in a variety of ways, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly alike

 

[HeyNorm]

Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, BOTH demographics can be, and in fact are PARENTS to children who come to be in their care in a variety of ways, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly alike

Are they? One group is reliant on the other group to become a “parent”, and the two remain incredibly different.

 

[AsherN]

Are they? One group is reliant on the other group to become a “parent”, and the two remain incredibly different.

Both groups have couples that can't or don't want children
Both groups have couples that will adopt and/or use inseminations to conceive.

They have a lot more similarities than you want to admit.

 

[HeyNorm]

Both groups have couples that can't or don't want children
Both groups have couples that will adopt and/or use inseminations to conceive.

They have a lot more similarities than you want to admit.

True, but only one of the groups are necessary for the existence of the species, making the difference ultimately important. The existence of the second group? Not so much.

The difference is remarkable although some, less important similarities do exist.

 

[bodecea]

Nor any basis on which to assume that anyone who had any role in writing the original Constitution, or any of the Amendments that have been added since then, would have considered such sexual deviants worthy of the support that the Constitution is now being twisted and corrupted to give them.

You want us to go COMPLETELY with what the Founding Fathers considered? No women voting (or having any rights)....still having chattel slavery of black people...only those with property getting the vote...the genocide of Native Americans...children as property and labor?

 

[AsherN]

True, but only one of the groups are necessary for the existence of the species, making the difference ultimately important. The existence of the second group? Not so much.

The difference is remarkable although some, less important similarities do exist.

So what do you do with heterosexual couples who 1) are infertile, 2) too old to bear children, 3) don't want children?

Marriage is about a LOT more than procreation. It's about 2 consenting adults who decide to spend the rest of their life together. Now, Government has decided that to make that commitment official confers financial and legal advantages. And you want to deny those rights to a portion of the population

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, BOTH demographics can be, and in fact are PARENTS to children who come to be in their care in a variety of ways, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly alike

Only opposite-sex couples can provided a child with a proper set of parents, a father and a mother.

The vast majority of children, even those raised under degenerate conditions, will grow up to be heterosexual, and will want to form relationships with the opposite sex.

My father and my mother provided a vital set of examples for me, from which to learn how to relate to my own wife. My father showed me how to be a man, how to be a husband, and my mother showed me what to expect in a wife. If I had not had these examples to see, as I was growing up, I cannot imagine that my own relationship with my wife would be nearly as functional as it is.

God set us up the way he did for a reason. God established the order of marriage, and of the family build upon that marriage, upon a father and a mother producing and raising children, teaching them by example to continue in this order.

God knew what He was doing when he set us up this way. When we defy this order, when we defy God, we only produce inferior results.

The whole order of marriage, family, and procreation is deeply essential to Mankind's success and happiness. And this is where one of our biggest vulnerabilities is to Satan's malevolent influence; where he can deceive us and lead us on false paths, with us being oblivious to the harm that is being done to us as individuals, and as societies, as we pursue false happiness that ultimately leads to misery.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nor any basis on which to assume that anyone who had any role in writing the original Constitution, or any of the Amendments that have been added since then, would have considered such sexual deviants worthy of the support that the Constitution is now being twisted and corrupted to give them.

You want us to go COMPLETELY with what the Founding Fathers considered? No women voting (or having any rights)....still having chattel slavery of black people...only those with property getting the vote...the genocide of Native Americans...children as property and labor?

The great men whom God raised up to found this nation, and to write its Constitution, wisely anticipated that there might be changes brought about by advances in sociology, technology, and other causes, and recognition in later generations of errors made by those that came before; and they wisely included in the Constitution, a process for amending it to reflect any such advances.

It is wholly dishonest to try to argue that the Constitution, as it presently stands, supports any “right” for a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized nd treated as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage. I feel safe in saying that of all the men who have contributed in any way to any words written in the Constitution, not one would have agreed with this preposterous assertion. Not one. I say that if any of them thought that any of their words might be twisted to mean any such thing, that they would have chosen their words more carefully to prevent it.

If you want the Constitution to mean that a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage should be treated as genuine marriage, then there is only one way to make it so, and that is to get a new Amendment ratified to the Constitution to that effect.

Good luck with that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are they? One group is reliant on the other group to become a “parent”, and the two remain incredibly different.

Wrong. Gay men produce sperm and donate it to a woman of any sexual orientation . Lesbians can carry the child of a sperm donor who may be gay or straight. Same sex couples are not reliant on straight people

What exactly is your point with this "incredibly different: stuff and why does it matter? This thread is about gay marriage. Are you implying this artificial difference has something to do with the marriage isse? .

 

[AsherN]

View attachment 730815

The great men whom God raised up to found this nation, and to write its Constitution, wisely anticipated that there might be changes brought about by advances in sociology, technology, and other causes, and recognition in later generations of errors made by those that came before; and they wisely included in the Constitution, a process for amending it to reflect any such advances.

It is wholly dishonest to try to argue that the Constitution, as it presently stands, supports any “right” for a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized nd treated as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage. I feel safe in saying that of all the men who have contributed in any way to any words written in the Constitution, not one would have agreed with this preposterous assertion. Not one. I say that if any of them thought that any of their words might be twisted to mean any such thing, that they would have chosen their words more carefully to prevent it.

If you want the Constitution to mean that a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage should be treated as genuine marriage, then there is only one way to make it so, and that is to get a new Amendment ratified to the Constitution to that effect.

Good luck with that.

They also would not have agreed on Black men being free, women voting, non-landowners voting and a myriad of other things. The Constitution is a great document for it's time. It is also a great foundation. But to argue that it cannot be interpreted with today's values and can only be done with what the Founding Fathers knew then is absurd.

 

[HeyNorm]

Wrong. Gay men produce sperm and donate it to a woman of any sexual orientation . Lesbians can carry the child of a sperm donor who may be gay or straight. Same sex couples are not reliant on straight people

What exactly is your point with this "incredibly different: stuff and why does it matter? This thread is about gay marriage. Are you implying this artificial difference has something to do with the marriage isse? .

That certainly was a nice deflection. But in each and every creation of offspring, regardless of sexuality, a male component and a female component is required.

Thanks.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They also would not have agreed on Black men being free, women voting, non-landowners voting and a myriad of other things. The Constitution is a great document for it's time. It is also a great foundation. But to argue that it cannot be interpreted with today's values and can only be done with what the Founding Fathers knew then is absurd.

Blacks being freed*, women voting†, non-landowners voting‡, did not happen by the Constitution being “interpreted with today's values”.

These things happened by legitimately amending the Constitution, through the process that is set up to do so, to change its meaning according to those “today's values”.

Do you even understand the difference between amending the Constitution, and merely claiming that it supports something which, as it stands, it clearly does not?

———
* The Thirteenth through Fifteenth Amendments

† The Nineteenth Amendment

‡ As far as I can tell, the Constitution never limited voting to landowners. That's just how voting was established at lower levels of law. The Constitution has never been amended, either, to specifically grant voting rights to non-landowners, but it is a valid extrapolation from such Amendments as the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to hold that all citizens eighteen years of age or older are entitled to vote. I suppose Congress could pass a law that restricted voting only to landowners, and states could pass similar laws; and such a law would stand, as laws currently stand denying voting rights to such groups as convicted felons.