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

[HeyNorm]

What a bunch of bullshit! I know and you you know what you meant. More sick games! Where are all of the same sex couples who are not gay?

Oh, so you admit the lie. Well that’s a start I suppose. Do these same sex couples who are not gay supposed to report to you?

Why the bigotry?

 

[HeyNorm]

How the **** am I trying to limit anyones rights. YOU are tiresome , Answere my questions in 1836 or get the **** out of here

Sorry dude, the right is to same sex couples to marry. Sexuality is not a requirement.

Get a clue.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry dude, the right is to same sex couples to marry. Sexuality is not a requirement.

Get a clue.

No ******* shit! I never said that sexuality was a requirement. But you are Still not answeruing those questions. !

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh, so you admit the lie. Well that’s a start I suppose. Do these same sex couples who are not gay supposed to report to you?

Why the bigotry?

What lie am I admitting to., ? What bigotry?. Did I ever say that two people of the same sex who are not gay cannot marry? How stupid are you? Do you eally thhink that you are smart enough to gaslight me ? Grow a spineand answe my wuestions!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. I said the CONCEPT of marriage. Call it something else. Gays can't concieve. With each other ,that is.

Wrong.

There’s no reason to ‘call it something else.’

The ‘concept’ of marriage is a legal contract entered into by two individuals – whether that union can produce offspring or not is legally irrelevant.

 

[HeyNorm]

What lie am I admitting to., ? What bigotry?. Did I ever say that two people of the same sex who are not gay cannot marry? How stupid are you? Do you eally thhink that you are smart enough to gaslight me ? Grow a spineand answe my wuestions!

What bigotry? Why making the assumption that same sex marriage is simply a gay issue, when clearly the right, afforded was to all, regardless of sexuality.

Now the question is, why, when the two demographic groups are not similar in nature, they must be covered as same.

 

[Hossfly]

The issue is about gay marriage. Let the mentally ill critters be married. There's nothing we can do here on earth. But rest assured, in the end God will divorce them and they will die. That means their souls will be in oblivion for eternity.

 

[HeyNorm]

The issue is about gay marriage. Let the mentally ill critters be married. There's nothing we can do here on earth. But rest assured, in the end God will divorce them and they will die. That means their souls will be in oblivion for eternity.

Not really, the Supreme Court created a right to same sex individuals to marry. Gays make up an incredible tiny amount of those eligible to marry their own sex, but to listen to them, they are the super majority.

 

[tahuyaman]

Then what is the job of the Supreme Court?

It's not to legislate from the bench.


It's to ensure our legislative and administrative branches dont impose unconstitutional laws.

 

[tahuyaman]

It’s absolutely relevant. Are you trying to limit people rights?

Not at all

 

[tahuyaman]

What destabilization? 2 loving people making a life together?

Who says they can't do that?

 

[beautress]

Good. Marriage is a religious concept. Why not just call it something else? Domestic Partnership ,for example? Same rights.

The Supreme Court should have ruled as you said, San Souci. They should call themselves a Domestic Partnership, and leave it at that. I'm afraid this will be the straw that broke the back of unification of the states.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What bigotry? Why making the assumption that same sex marriage is simply a gay issue, when clearly the right, afforded was to all, regardless of sexuality.

Now the question is, why, when the two demographic groups are not similar in nature, they must be covered as same.

OK, that’s it ! I have had enough of your duplicitous bullshit. You are a pain in the ass troll and shameless flame baiter. This topic is about same sex marriage and the Obergefell decision. It is about gay marriage.
Yet, you spent day blathering about the inability ( of same sex couples) to conceive a child and how they are different from opposite sex couples without ever once mentioning marriage or how the issue of child baring relates to the issue of marriage

You clearly lack the intestinal fortitude, integrity and intellectual capacity to clearly state your position on gay marriage or to formulate a defense of that position-whatever it might be.

And now, having been smacked down on your idiotic bullshit about child bearing and the difference between same sex and opposite sex couples- you spring what you think is a clever trap and claim that it is not about gay couples but rather same sex couples.

The fact is that you are not nearly as clever as you think that you are. Far from it! Proof is the fact that I never took a position on the non existent issue of straight same sex couples and actually could not care less about any who want to marry-if they exist at all.

That is just another dishonest distraction as is your stupidly calling me a bigot for “making it about gay couples and not all “same sex couples” All that accomplished was to make yourself look even more stupid.

We are done here. You have wasted enough of my time. Let me know if and when you are ready to have an honest, adult conversation about same sex marriage and the Obergefell decision. And yes it is about gay couples. I will not be holding my breath

 

[Clipper]

Only by depraved sexual perverts and their allies.

Why is Lyin Ted ranting & raving about gay marriage when he can never remove the stink of Trump's ass off his face?

 

[HeyNorm]

OK, that’s it ! I have had enough of your duplicitous bullshit. You are a pain in the ass troll and shameless flame baiter. This topic is about same sex marriage and the Obergefell decision. It is about gay marriage.
Yet, you spent day blathering about the inability ( of same sex couples) to conceive a child and how they are different from opposite sex couples without ever once mentioning marriage or how the issue of child baring relates to the issue of marriage

You clearly lack the intestinal fortitude, integrity and intellectual capacity to clearly state your position on gay marriage or to formulate a defense of that position-whatever it might be.

And now, having been smacked down on your idiotic bullshit about child bearing and the difference between same sex and opposite sex couples- you spring what you think is a clever trap and claim that it is not about gay couples but rather same sex couples.

The fact is that you are not nearly as clever as you think that you are. Far from it! Proof is the fact that I never took a position on the non existent issue of straight same sex couples and actually could not care less about any who want to marry-if they exist at all.

That is just another dishonest distraction as is your stupidly calling me a bigot for “making it about gay couples and not all “same sex couples” All that accomplished was to make yourself look even more stupid.

We are done here. You have wasted enough of my time. Let me know if and when you are ready to have an honest, adult conversation about same sex marriage and the Obergefell decision. And yes it is about gay couples. I will not be holding my breath

You want an honest discussion about same sex marriage but want to exclude the vast majority of individuals that are allowed access to it?

You, by the constant ranting about this thing you reference as “gay marriage”, in and of itself shows clearly why traditional marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships should fall under separate legal standing.

Here’s a clue:

Gay individuals can, often do, have, and likely will continue to be involved in “traditional” marriage. But only those that are “gay” can be a part of “gay” marriage.

Two completely different sets of rules.

Sorry you won’t understand this. I wouldn’t expect any.

 

[tahuyaman]

Why is Lyin Ted ranting & raving about gay marriage when he can never remove the stink of Trump's ass off his face?

Brilliant!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You want an honest discussion about same sex marriage but want to exclude the vast majority of individuals that are allowed access to it?

You are still lying!!When the **** did I ever say that I wanted to exclude anyone? I call it gay marriage because it is gay people who marry someone of the same gender. I have no problem with anyone who is not gay doing the same. But, who are they are where are they? I'm sure that there are a few isolated cases but that does not chage the fact that you are just trolling with this shit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You, by the constant ranting about this thing you reference as “gay marriage”, in and of itself shows clearly why traditional marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships should fall under separate legal standing.

Here’s a clue:

Gay individuals can, often do, have, and likely will continue to be involved in “traditional” marriage. But only those that are “gay” can be a part of “gay” marriage.

Two completely different sets of rules.

Ah! A glimmer of substance and honesty! So you want two separate systems of marrige? So who is it that can be "married" and who is it that should be relegated to "something else" You're still not making a whole lot of sense. What are the separate "rules" ?

I assume that you "traditional marriage " is that of opposite sex couples?

And those that are comprised of same sex couple get the "other" form of union? ( gay or not?) Or, are you saying that even same sex "couples" who marry are traditional if they are not gay, while gays are, "gay married" or domestice partners or whatever? It's all as clear as mud!

And my referencing gay marrige "shows clearly why traditional marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships should fall under separate legal standing." How the **** do you conclude that?

I will also assume that in your mind, the need for "separate legal standing " has something to do with conceiving children bas on your earlier comments

You are still bogged down in a mountain of bovine excrement. Marriage is marriage. Period

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay individuals can, often do, have, and likely will continue to be involved in “traditional” marriage. But only those that are “gay” can be a part of “gay” marriage.

PS If two men, or two women are married, is there some sort of test that they can take to determine if they are gay or not, so that we know what to call it and what rules and legal system they fall under?

If you think that I am mcking you, you are right.

 

[HeyNorm]

Ah! A glimmer of substance and honesty! So you want two separate systems of marrige? So who is it that can be "married" and who is it that should be relegated to "something else" You're still not making a whole lot of sense. What are the separate "rules" ?

I assume that you "traditional marriage " is that of opposite sex couples?

And those that are comprised of same sex couple get the "other" form of union? ( gay or not?) Or, are you saying that even same sex "couples" who marry are traditional if they are not gay, while gays are, "gay married" or domestice partners or whatever? It's all as clear as mud!

And my referencing gay marrige "shows clearly why traditional marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships should fall under separate legal standing." How the **** do you conclude that?

I will also assume that in your mind, the need for "separate legal standing " has something to do with conceiving children bas on your earlier comments

You are still bogged down in a mountain of bovine excrement. Marriage is marriage. Period

You, and a very small subset of the total can claim that a Union of opposite sex couple are similarly situated to same sex couples, but as I demonstrated in my initial post, and those since, they are worlds apart.

Only participation of males/females combined, can offspring be created. And without offspring, the species fails to exist.

That’s science and reality.

The difference in vast.