Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Regina]

No it's not a video link, it's a gif of Laganja dahling



The rest of my post was a general rant for anyone who will read it, make of it what you will. Although I will say Divinity made her views quite clear in her passionate post.

[Longhorn]

Ace. You didn't respond. Are you saying that adults can now legally have sex with children, or that steps are taken in that direction?

How did you link it with same sex marriage? All of the court rulings you gave happened much before the SCOTUS decision

[robvalue]

Hmmm. Any argument of the form, "If we legalise gay marriage then X will happen" kind of doesn't work anymore. Has X happened, as a direct result of gay marriage being legalised? If not, you were wrong before and you're even more wrong now.

It's time for everyone to just get some lovely cock up the arse and be friends.

[Foxaèr]

Yeah, anyone who is against progress tends to always make the illogical argument that X will happen if progress goes in the direction that it should.

The world did not end in the past when other progressive movements surpassed that of the ignorant Christian mindset.

[robvalue]

All I'm hearing now is, "I'm not gay. I'm not gay. I'm against gays. But I'm not one. If I was, why would I be so angry at them? I'm not gay! I don't want a cock up my arse, why does everyone think I do? I'm distancing myself from gays. That means I'm not gay."

People who are comfortable with their sexuality don't generally feel the need to violently protest and get involved with other peoples' personal business which doesn't affect them at all.

"If I don't protest, that makes it look like I'm gay! And I'm not!"

No, protesting actually does make you look gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, that's the whole point. Not protesting just means you aren't a bigot.

[robvalue]

4 of the 9 Chief Justice guys are so far in the closet that I'm surprised we could hear them butchering the constitution from Narnia.

Homosexuals have been a constant threat to our species. It is a miracle that they haven't already wiped us out by having zero kids each, all of which are gay! The time for decisive action is now, just as our population is so bloated that there's barely any room and people are starving to death. The only thing that's been keeping these organised homosexual saboteurs from killing us all is the amount of resources it takes to perform a short ceremony and give them a piece of paper. It is crucial that this time and paper be kept under lock and key, for it will be the beginning of the end. If even one gay couple get married ever, everyone will instantly die from GAY.

PS: I'm not gay. I'm not.

[Ace]

You seem to think that because I agree with one part of the statement, I must agree with the other.  I hold that truth to be self evident -regardless-.  I'm perfectly satisfied with those inalienable rights being endowed by...wait for it......us.  It makes absolutely no difference.  Point of fact....we did the endowing, or else we wouldn't have needed to write that.

Nnnoooo, that is a big false equivalence and one no one should ever be content with that idea. The “little changes” unravels the entire meaning of what was being stated. For some unknown origin the people of today have been holding on to this assumed correct notion that adding, subtracting, or altering some words here or there will have no impact on the meaning of  words, statements, definitions, or ideas.

Because one who may not believe or accept the concept of a divinity it would seem understandable to  just replaced some other being that is real to you. Yet, that assumption is extreme false.

In regards to inalienable rights, us can never bestowed what is inalienable on us, by us, and no one should ever want us to. We, us may place laws, rules, and punishments on ourselves but, in no way can, us bestowed inalienable rights to us. Simply because if it is us that is doing the bestowing of inalienable then the inhabitable is in no way longer inhabitable! Maybe a Human right but not inhabitable.

Remember that what is an inhabitable, (in this case right’s) are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor;  incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred by any man. Men can and do give and take way laws, rights, goods, freedoms, justices, and many other things but what is inhabitable, by definition, no man can . . . .
This is why the drifters of the Independents make the correlation of inalienable rights are endowed or bestowed by something divine.

“Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government.”
― Ezra Taft Benson,

[Ace]

Two gay people cannot have kids.  That's a biological fact. . . . .'m guessing you failed biology.  You see.... a gay couple can't have children.  

Wait a minute I am really confused,  why you guys are giving Divinity kudos or agreement with her statement “that gays cannot have children” when it is a fact that  Anima stated exactly what you stated and argued, which is the exact opposite of Divinity’s statement.

1.  Your bigoted contention that homosexuals may not have children (which they have repeatedly stated in this thread they can).

_____________________________________
11th August 2015, 14:35 robvalue Worte
Did anyone mention gay people can and do have children? Just checking.

(10th August 2015, 17:45) Yeauxleaux Wrote:
"And again we're trying to argue "gay people can't procreate". I can procreate, I just can't do it with a member of the same sex. I want kids of my own? That can be arranged, "

10th August 2015, 18:05  Mr.Wizard
" . . . . two married gay people can procreate, . . ."

11th August 2015, 13:42 Redbeard The Pink
. .  . "many gay people actually do produce their own offspring because orientation, like gender, is a spectrum."
_______________________________________

Bigot state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[Oxford Dictionary]

Or could it be because it is Anima that said it? If so then that is flat out bigoted to Anima.

However, I am sure you will back-pedal or come up with some excuse. Just remember, a display/act of bigotry is exactly what you just did.

[Ace]

Ace. You didn't respond. Are you saying that adults can now legally have sex with children, or that steps are taken in that direction?

How did you link it with same sex marriage? All of the court rulings you gave happened much before the SCOTUS decision

Oh I am sorry, It is easy to miss postings between other posting.

ok, I so do not want to say yes but, legal precedent set.
I am hoping that other cases dealing with the same issue will not use these rulings. However, when one is fighting not to get in trouble one tends to look for any thing to keep them for having to be punished for the trouble.

I want to say that steps are being taken that way, but they are big ones that are already showing their effect. ( I am so not happy with even saying that! I want so say no so bad! But if I am look at this from out side the box. . . . .man . . .yes. . . I have to say yes.)

(I was having such a good morning)

I am well aware of large group of people who are fighting to under Statutory Rape laws, because many are think of something that occurred to the personally or when teens engage sexually with each other. But keep in mind that now the 45 year old teacher can have legal consensual sex with a 12 year old, or a 35 with a 15, and so on.
Also many people do not see that if you do away with statutory law you can now try the teen as an adult.

To consent is to make a verbal agreement, contracts can be made both in written and verbal agreement. Under state law, (were legal contract issue are decided) only an adult can enter into a legal contract. But if the teen can now consent, consent is considered also a verbal agreement thus a contract. If the teen can enter into a contract then legally they are presented as an adult. If an adult now the can be tried as an adult.


(let me send this first to you. I am writing the second part now, but I don't want to keep you waiting more then you have to)
Part I.

[Longhorn]

Ooookaaay. That's some scary shit. Citation please. And please explain how does this tie in with gay marriage?