Transgendered children

[Violet]

Then how is a concern at all?  

The data isn't particularly friendly to polygamy. Lotta really bad examples, including inside the united states (Utah, anyone?).

It's also a property law nightmare waiting to happen. But just because it hasn't worked out so well before and I don't know a way to make the laws work with it without shredding dozens of other laws that currently make marriage work the way it does (which, could be fine).

Would've been nice, but..again, we live in the kind of shithole where other means are, apparently, necessarry...which is probably why those other mans exist in the first place.  You know, it kind of is the supreme courts job to determine whether or not something is unconstitutional..right, it's not as if that was an abrogation of any particular power or authority.....?  Plenty of states -did- do so legislatively, the scotus decision was for the usual suspects.  

To interpret the legislation within the law is the purpose of the lesser courts, to interpret the meaning of legislation as it applies to the constitution is the job of the supreme court, yes. That doesn't mean that the decisions made by the supreme court are not heavily politicized (as they're picked by partisan presidents), it doesn't mean that irreconcilable interpretations of the constitution can't be active at the same time, it doesn't mean that supreme court rulings are not subject to change over time... and most critically, it doesn't mean that the supreme court is always right to *choose* to delegate some of the cases that they do.

It's not like it's a broad decision over an entire subject every time the supreme court rules... it's a single case raise in a single state about (typically) a single law which they then rule on the constitutionality of (in the case of gay marriage they ran into an inconsistency between the first and the 14th amendments for instance). Then lawyers in the various states challenge various laws within their states citing the supreme court's (usually) most recent ruling on that specific case as grounds to see laws that passed state legislatures and governorship overturned on the argued unconstitutional grounds of the law on the books. I'm not arguing with you on anything here, just denoting the way things occur, and that just because the supreme court has decided the constitution should be interpreted in a certain way: doesn't mean they're necessarily in the right to have done so. The supreme court doesn't (and likely shouldnt) have the power to make refined decisions affording allowances that could be settled by the legislative branch (there was a way to gay marriage that didn't force religious establishments to perform them). My opinion is that when they come to a constitutional irreconcilability between two constitutional amendments (legislative origin) : they should not make a decision either way/not take a flawed case.

I'm fairly certain that I could get the people terrified of trump's picks all hot and bothered over the idea that perhaps the president (notably a partisan figure in many cases) should not be the one who picks supreme court justices, and that a nonpartisan supreme court with term limits and a refined scope on specifically constitutional law whether they personally like the decision or not is probably the way to go. That said, I liked Trump's first pick well enough, young, smart, and not unwilling to make a decision that he doesn't particularly like... about perfect for the control seat where things stand. I respect that first pick... but I highly doubt the next 3-4 will be of similar caliber, and it risks throwing the balance of the supreme court entirely into big-government supporting partisan hacks who couldn't care less about the fourth amendment if it bit them in the penis.

-and even if it weren't you'd still get lumped in with those deviant purple haired hookers, and you know this.

Purpose of my hormones and surgeries and whatever is to "infiltrate women's groups", as the first few batches of feminists liked to say. Neither the left nor the right is my friend in my illness... wouldn't make sense for me to reach out to either side: both bad remarkably similar ways (some of which Trump certainly shares, that authoritarianism though).

Sure, and sometimes experience in our environment can lead us to self loathing conclusions.  You spend the past year in the basement of a conservative thinktank or something?

I've spent the last year or so reevaluating my relationship with my progressive friends. Haven't had many, but I found myself at an impasse over responsibility. As such, I've increasingly looked out for conservative opinions and leftist opinion that have reached me whether through news (BBC, CNN, etc) until the bias grew so onesided and the falsehoods so many that I just couldn't handle it anymore.

If you happen to know of any news that *isn't* right wing as fuck or left wing as fuck, I'd much appreciate ya tellin me. As it is, I trust very little news, as whether it's raised by the right or the left: it's always overblown.

You just did..though, not but a few posts back.  I'm glad we're making progress, I guess?  

Well yeah, we're coming to better understand what each other are wanting to say. Narrowing it down, as it were

You sure it isn't something -you've- done or said..like..maybe, anything in these last few posts?

I haven't talked to myself in a long time, so... not sure what you mean by this?

Well, some group has certainly had an effect on you....but I think your attributions have been a bit shaky.

Perhaps they are... but I see plenty of them reaffirming themselves often enough.

---

Fake it till you make it..I think, is what you're trying to say Violet...with regards to hair color choices and sexual orientation.

All this leftists this, lgbt that, conservative uprising, i've been mistreated by friends bullshit is unneccessary.  

You got it, bro

Fake it till ya make it. I like it.

---

You're still not explaining why pink hair = bad, in the slightest, other than you have the opinion that they cannot be successful because of it, which is also unsubstantiated

Bad, if your understanding of bad is that it reduces the chances of a child succeeding in a professional setting. It is an opinion, it matters to me, and it would appear to be shared by many employers in this country (america, not where I am).

Good, if you're intending to see your child succeed in some artistic merit, perhaps. Doesn't pay as well on average though: market's oversaturated.