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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your position is not really? Well gee, ok.

No child is less important than any other.

And all children are created from a male/female combine.

Is that supposed to be an answer? You are a sniviling coward and a liar. You took the position that gay marriages should be subject to a "separat legal standing" but thus far have refused to state what that means or what it looks like in reality aside from mentioning domestic partnershps

Now you say that "No child is less important than any other". Thats nice, but my question, which you are side stepping here was:

. What does "marriage" or what ever you want to call it for gay people actually look like and what rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy would not be extended to gay couples AND THEIR CHILDREN?

Domestic parnerships and civil unions never have and never could work the same and serve the same purpose as marriage

You also said that They (gay vs. opposite sex marriages)serve far different purpose. Another stupid assertion that you have been unable to explain beyond you blather about conceiving children

Answer the damned questions and cut the bullshit!

 

[HeyNorm]

Is that supposed to be an answer? You are a sniviling coward and a liar. You took the position that gay marriages should be subject to a "separat legal standing" but thus far have refused to state what that means or what it looks like in reality aside from mentioning domestic partnershps

Now you say that "No child is less important than any other". Thats nice, but my question, which you are side stepping here was:

. What does "marriage" or what ever you want to call it for gay people actually look like and what rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy would not be extended to gay couples AND THEIR CHILDREN?

Domestic parnerships and civil unions never have and never could work the same and serve the same purpose as marriage

You also said that They (gay vs. opposite sex marriages)serve far different purpose. Another stupid assertion that you have been unable to explain beyond you blather about conceiving children

Answer the damned questions and cut the bullshit!

I can’t answer a question related to a law that does not exist. Got it yet.

Two gays can marry, but it is not a requirement to be gay in a same sex marriage. You are the one trying desperately to define two different statutes, which deflect from reality. Which, by the way, two gays could always Marry, the only requirement was that they be of opposite sex. Many had, many have, and many will continue to do so.

Same sex marriage is not at all the same as gay marriage, as anyone of the same sex can marry, regardless of sexuality, under the current standard. Geez!

An interesting side note on the subject though. Almost no one, being afforded the right to Marry another of the same sex actually wanted the right in the first place. I find that incredibly compelling.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I can’t answer a question related to a law that does not exist. Got it yet.

Bullshit cowardly cope out! I did not ask you to comment on a law. I asked you what protections and benefits for gay couples and their children would you be willing to deprive them of if the parents could not be married?
For instance, the federal government does not recognize civil unions for the purpose of Federal benefits. That includes the child tax credit, social security survivor's benefits, inheritance tax exemptions and much, much more.

At the state level, in some states, the non biological parent would not be able to adopt their partners child depriving that child of the security of having two legal parents. On the other have, if married at the time of birth, there is a presumption of parenthood, just like with heterosexual couples

So how much of that would you be ok with in order to avoid having to call it marriage? And I don’t want to hear any bullshit about changing the laws. That is not happening and the laws are fine the way they are. What needs to change is the stupidity and bigotry

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Two gays can marry, but it is not a requirement to be gay in a same sex marriage. You are the one trying desperately to define two different statutes, which deflect from reality. Which, by the way, two gays could always Marry, the only requirement was that they be of opposite sex. Many had, many have, and many will continue to do so.

What the fuck does that mean. I am not the one trying to define anything, I am good with one law for all. You are the one desperately struggling – struggling to justify discrimination. And why? Because most heterosexual couple can have kids one on one?
I have asked you this before and never got an answer: If the ability to have a child one on one is the whole basis of your position on marriage, are you also willing to deprive heterosexual couples who need a third party to conceive - the right of marriage?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Which, by the way, two gays could always Marry, the only requirement was that they be of opposite sex. Many had, many have, and many will continue to do so.

I have heard that stupid shit way too many times before

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

An interesting side note on the subject though. Almost no one, being afforded the right to Marry another of the same sex actually wanted the right in the first place. I find that incredibly compelling.

Another bullshit lie! Millions of gay couples have married!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

n interesting side note on the subject though. Almost no one, being afforded the right to Marry another of the same sex actually wanted the right in the first place. I find that incredibly compelling.

Over one million same-sex couple households in the U.S., according to Census data

More than 1 million American families are same-sex households. Around 710,000 of those are married, with the rest unmarried.

www.azfamily.com

I find that incredibly compelling. What the fuck is wrong with you ? Still waiting to hear what righs and protection you are willing to deprive gay couples and their chidren of for the crime of not being able to conceive children in your preferred and approved way.

 

[HeyNorm]

Another bullshit lie! Millions of gay couples have married!

Where did I say gay couples haven’t married? Oh, no where, another attempt to deflect.

You asked how same sex would be handled differently then traditional.

Ok, first that would be up to the States. Some would likely handle it differently that others.

Recognizing that we have distinctly different groups that are trying to fit into the same statute, one standard makes no sense.

1st, the qualifications should be different depending on the group one associates with.

For opposite sex couples, the qualification for “not too closely related” makes complete sense as our government should never condone incestuous relationships that create defective blood lines.

For same sex homosexuals, it becomes less an issue, but we still wouldn’t want to encourage “grooming”.

But for same sex straights? It makes little sense as these are not sexual relationships to begin with.

Right?

And where did I say gays haven’t taken advantage of this new expansion?

What I clearly stated was, that the vast majority of people, given the right to marry someone of the same sex, don’t see this as anything they wanted to have in the first place.

I don’t know a single straight individual that thinks a right to marry someone of their own sex matters at all to them. You having a tough time with that? Appears so.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Where did I say gay couples haven’t married? Oh, no where, another attempt to deflect.

Give me a fucking break . You are so full of shit! You said that almost none of them wanted to marry. So do you think that all those people who got gay married did not realy want to get married? What the fuck is wrong with you? Just more sick juvenile games!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You asked how same sex would be handled differently then traditional.

Ok, first that would be up to the States. Some would likely handle it differently that others.

Jesus fucking Christ on a Cracker! Many states would limit or outright prohibit gay marriage and you know it. Thank you for admitting that you are willing to allow states to punish gay coupes and their chidren in the ways that I outlines above- for the crime of being gay

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Recognizing that we have distinctly different groups that are trying to fit into the same statute, one standard makes no sense.

1st, the qualifications should be different depending on the group one associates with.

Now what the fuck are you blathering about. We DO NOT have distictly different groups You are a real fucking mess. Read the Obergefell decision!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

For opposite sex couples, the qualification for “not too closely related” makes complete sense as our government should never condone incestuous relationships that create defective blood lines.

For same sex homosexuals, it becomes less an issue, but we still wouldn’t want to encourage “grooming”.

What? " Grooming "? What the fuck are you suggesting now? Are you saying that gay people groom their children? You are becomming more reprehensible and repulsive with each post

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But for same sex straights? It makes little sense as these are not sexual relationships to begin with.

Right?

What??? You are also becomming more bizarre. I am going to stop now . I don't want to exaccerbate your mental illness and be responsable for what you might do

 

[HeyNorm]

Give me a fucking break . You are so full of shit! You said that almost none of them wanted to marry. So do you think that all those people who got gay married did not realy want to get married? What the fuck is wrong with you? Just more sick juvenile games!

No, I said most who became eligible to marry the same sex saw a benefit in gaining such a right. Since the majority of those who became eligible are straight, this should come as no surprise

 

[HeyNorm]

Give me a fucking break . You are so full of shit! You said that almost none of them wanted to marry. So do you think that all those people who got gay married did not realy want to get married? What the fuck is wrong with you? Just more sick juvenile games!

Almost none wanted to marry another of the same sex. Got it, most straights don’t find it a good fit for them.

 

[HeyNorm]

Now what the fuck are you blathering about. We DO NOT have distictly different groups You are a real fucking mess. Read the Obergefell decision!

I have, and Windsor as well. Do you think that only gays were made eligible to marry someone of their own sex?
Not true.

 

[HeyNorm]

What? " Grooming " What the fuck are you suggesting now? Are you saying that gay people groom their children? You are becomming more reprehensible and repulsive with each post

Again, your comprehension is really poor. The state has an interest in limiting how closely related a couple can be. That goes for straight or gay. However, two opposite sex individuals can breed, two same sex might engage in sexual relations. Neither should and discourage same. In either case, grooming of the child is the danger and, with opposite sex couples, the possibility of defective children and bloodlines.

 

[HeyNorm]

Jesus fucking Christ on a Cracker! Many states would limit or outright prohibit gay marriage and you know it. Thank you for admitting that you are willing to allow states to punish gay coupes and their chidren in the ways that I outlines above- for the crime of being gay

Probably, but it should be the States right to do so.

 

[Redfish]

Define flaunting

look it up

 

[Redfish]

The TRUMPCourt has moved past Abortion and is now centering on Religious Liberty.
A liberty to claim religious justification for discrimination

You talk of sincerely held religious belief. Something the TRUMPCourt is unwilling to define. Basically, it means anyone who hates gays.

horseshit. nothing you ever post is even close to true.