Trump: Fine with same-sex marriage

Again Trump can't do anything about this. SC decided it only SC can undo it and by him appointing a conservative justice in the mold of Scalia will overturn it as soon as it gets back to the SC. He's playing it smart which is what he said. He said SC had decided it....and they have.

The decision was made with scalia on the court. He would need to replace scalia and a leftist to have any effect
 
Personally, I've never been for SSM, simply because it's stupidity that leads to decay and distorts the truth. Those for it suggest it's a human rights issue, but you can use the exact arguments to support marriage between consenting relatives, and really, incest has a stronger argument on the condition of opposite sex.

Those for it suggest the arguments against it are religiously based, but the greatest arguments against it are scientifically based, and common sense. Folks distort the purpose of marriage to mean love and commitment. Sure, that sounds great Romeo, and these are components, but you might add reproduction, stability, nation building, economics, and supporting normal behavior to the equation.

At the end of the day, this was not a human rights issue any more than adults marrying children, though incest for certainty. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are distinctly different, and nature dictates the former as non-essential and contrary. The later is essential and consistent with all things existing and survival. No people, men weren't intended to marry, have kids and use the women's bathroom.

That said, I'd have been on-board with a certificate not called marriage, which would bring mostly the same rights as marriage. I know many of you hate that position, but separate things beg separate labels.
 
Last edited:
Again Trump can't do anything about this. SC decided it only SC can undo it and by him appointing a conservative justice in the mold of Scalia will overturn it as soon as it gets back to the SC. He's playing it smart which is what he said. He said SC had decided it....and they have.

The decision was made with scalia on the court. He would need to replace scalia and a leftist to have any effect
Oh I agree and I think that old jewess Ginsburg is out next. Would love to see her and Kennedy gone...he is nothing but a cuck.
 
One has to wonder how if this topic was posted before the election how easily it would've been for Hillary to eek out the win. Yet before the election, both sides neither one, for their own reasons...didn't want to bring that up.. Now it's everywhere. Odd, that.
 
As I've said from DAY ONE, Donald Trump is no conservative so pretending shit like this matters is funny.

STOP illegal immigration
Fix our healthcare system
Create jobs
Kill Muslim extremists

Nothing else matters really
It's just been amazing to watch the GOP base flip from conservatism to populist nationalism so quickly.

Quickly enough to give a reasonable person whiplash.

josh+neck+brace.jpg
 
One has to wonder how if this topic was posted before the election how easily it would've been for Hillary to eek out the win. Yet before the election, both sides neither one, for their own reasons...didn't want to bring that up.. Now it's everywhere. Odd, that.

It wasn't some grand secret that Trump courted gay voters this election season.. Hell, he had Peter Thiel deliver a speech at the RNC and held up a rainbow flag at a rally in Colorado. You keep deluding yourself into believing that gay marriage was a major issue this campaign season, but it really wasn't. Trump's message on jobs and the economy is why he won key swing states in the Rust Belt, not your personally obsession with gay marriage.
 
Quite Frankly, my personal view is you don't have a real dog in this fight, you just know SSM by court fiat pisses off both Religious people, AND strict constructionists, and considering your asshat twat views on both groups of people, your support for SSM by court fiat is just basically your nasty nature on display.

actually, I have very dear friends who are gay and I get sick and tired of religious bigots abusing them.

and, yes, my disdain for religious people is based on shit like this.

because restrictions on marriage vis a vis race was an artificial construct that reared its head from time to time throughout history. Changing thousands of years of precedent, where marriage was usually between one man and one woman (and occasionally one man and multiple women, but this was a fringe view for most societies, or something only the rulers did, such as in China) is something that cannot be left to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers. Going State by State, changing the laws via legislative action, and using the feds ONLY to force States to continue to recognize valid licenses from other States was the constitutional pathway.

Guy, the problem with this philosophy is that through m ost of history, "Marriage' was an exchange of property, not a contract between two people who loved each other. the woman was property, she had little say in the marriage, and could be murdered by her husband for doing something like, sleeping with someone she actually wanted to sleep with.

The race restriction was an artificial construct because after they freed the slaves, they were horrified of the thought of a white woman choosing a black man and his larger dick.

They had no problem, of course, with white men using black women whenever they felt like it.
 
actually, I have very dear friends who are gay and I get sick and tired of religious bigots abusing them.

Quick! Kleenex for Joe, STAT! :itsok: Hey Joe, newsflash: People of one religion can disagree with those of another; particularly when the other is a cult of deviant sex acts. Welcome to America!
 

If you look at Trump's history, he is very liberal socially. But so was Reagan until he realized that he needed the moral majority so he could win the Rust Belt and South.

The upside and downside of Trump is that he doesn't appear to have any deep beliefs. He is emphatically not conservative. He seems most motivated by protecting his image, which is a very human quality. If his path to self-worth involves destroying same-sex marriage, he will do it without blinking. And if he surrounds himself with ALT-right advisors, his will use Federal Power to impose a rightwing agenda in every state.

Here is the good news. The fact that he isn't ideological and doesn't have any core principals, means that he may turn out like Nixon, I'd take Nixon back in a heartbeat. He was lawless but he was also very smart and pragmatic - and he was great for the economy.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top