Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

He's not making a legal decision, here.  He is merely officiating at an administrative action.

This bullshit about how religious shitwits get to say what they will and won't do because of their fucking superstitions has to end.

Do your fucking job or quit.

Be that as it may, the Appeals Court in Kentucky has just told that religious fucktard of a county clerk to start issuing gay marriage licenses.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/court-or...us-ruling/

Court orders defiant Kentucky clerk to issue same-sex marriage licenses in compliance with SCOTUS ruling

The clerks could face jail time if they continue to refuse to issue the licenses after Wednesday’s court ruling.

You know, there would be a certain justice in having these motherfuckers learn about prison sex the hard way!

Hahah yes I just read this. However I am not at all surprised that it is happening

[robvalue]

I think some people have been making the slippery slope argument for so long that they forget homosexuality and paedophilia aren't the same thing.

They think if they say it enough times, it will be true. That's not how debate usually works.

100 pages of this drivel? Argh.

[Anima]

So states geneology.  Well if they had kids using their own genetic material that is.

I'm guessing you failed biology.  You see.... a gay couple can't have children.  And plenty of straight couples have gay children.  So where are these gay children coming from exactly?  Also you're freely admitting that being gay isn't a choice.

I did not fail biology. As evidence by my recognition of:

1. Your bigoted contention that homosexuals may not have children (which they have repeatedly stated in this thread they can). Now if they can and do have children utilizing their own genetic material than it is likely the geneological variation leading to their orientation will be inherited by the next generation, resulting in the manifestation of homosexuality at a greater rate than that of a simple defect. Which is something we should like to avoid as the geneological variation in question is not adaptive.

2. Arguing gay couples do not have gay children, but straight couples do serves now purpose than to illustrate that homosexuality is a genetic defect. In may not be said to be an inherited trait from the heterosexual geneology of the parents thus it must be a genetic mutation/abnormality in the offspring which is not inherited from the sire. The mutation/abnormality is recognized as defective and once again should be avoided or eliminated if possible.

3. I am taking the argument under the idea that homosexual orientation is not a choice. This is not the same as to say the actions to which those so orientated are not a choice. However, I will not admit because one has an orientation or tendency to engage in a particular action that they should or that society should sanction such action. To take such an argument would be to say those born with the disposition to murder, rape, necophilia, pedophilia, kleptomania, and so forth should not only be allowed to engage in such action, but should be granted state sanctions to engage in such actions.

[Divinity]

Two gay people cannot have kids. That's a biological fact.

So now you're comparing two gay people having sex to murder, rape, necrophiliia, pedophilia, and kleptomania? Please tell me how it's as bad as any of those fucking things? Go on. And please do it without citing a book that also has talking animals and without a stupid fucking slippery slope argument, because anything can lead to anything, so we'd have to outlaw fuck near everything.

[Anima]

An advocate of what, equality?  Sort of goes with the territory for me.  We hold these truths to be self evident - recall the line?  You know, they might not see the need to seek protected status.......if they weren't roundly and openly discriminated against, food for thought.  I told you I wan;t actually interested in arguing your "arguments", I'm just looking for the executive summary.  

Gays are different things for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.

Gays are inferior for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.

The state has an interest in discriminating against those different, inferior gays for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.  

I just want to give you as many opportunities as possible to repeat those claims, in as many forms as you can imagine, and I made that clear from the start, did I not?  So it doesn't matter "what is argued", because there's no one on this end to argue against.  Is my summary inaccurate?  Is this not your position?

Ha ha!! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So recognition of the creator also goes with the territory? No. Than may we say the argument all men are created equal is as valid a statement as them being endowed by their creator?

We recognize that all men are not created equally quite readily. Sure they are all born human. Some are born blind, retarded, deaf, mute, deformed, psychopathic, sociopathic, etcetera. To say they are equal to those not born with such conditions is a false equivalency. They are different and must be dealt with differently. To not do so is to harm those in need of aid and to harm society by not prohibiting those in need of restraint.

But it would appear we are in the same boat as your false equivalency does not concern me one iota.

[Anima]

Two gay people cannot have kids.  That's a biological fact.

So now you're comparing two gay people having sex to murder, rape, necrophiliia, pedophilia, and kleptomania?  Please tell me how it's as bad as any of those fucking things?  Go on.  And please do it without citing a book that also has talking animals and without a stupid fucking slippery slope argument, because anything can lead to anything, so we'd have to outlaw fuck near everything.

Really?  You had better let them know that because whenever I said anything long that line I was informed that a gay man and a lesbian woman may conceive of a child or they may utilize IVF.


You really should read this thread as we have present the argument numerous times.  You would also notice we have not utilize the book with talking animals a single time.  As was done before so done again:
1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)
4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

Orientation leads to an action having a particular negative resultant when normalized has a negative universal resultant.  Logically sound and not a slippery slope.  Enjoy.

[Divinity]

That's some stupid fucking logic.

"Durr hurr if people are gay it'll lead to extinction!"

Yeah, cause EVERYBODY IS SUDDENLY GOING TO BECOME GAY IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE! Oh wait, no. That's a fucking stupid suggestion. It has absolutely ZERO logic to it. Besides -- you stated that a gay man and a lesbian woman can have kids. If gay people can have kids that way, it won't lead to extinction, now will it?

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)[...]

"Extinction"?... :

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... 

Oh, how you retards crack me up. Better stick to your book with talking animals, dumb-ass...

[Crossless2.0]

That's some stupid fucking logic.

"Durr hurr if people are gay it'll lead to extinction!"

Yeah, cause EVERYBODY IS SUDDENLY GOING TO BECOME GAY IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE!  Oh wait, no.  That's a fucking stupid suggestion.  It has absolutely ZERO logic to it.  Besides -- you stated that a gay man and a lesbian woman can have kids.  If gay people can have kids that way, it won't lead to extinction, now will it?

It's sort of like what Kant's Categorical Imperative might have been if Kant had been a complete fuckwit.

[Losty]

Two gay people cannot have kids.  That's a biological fact.

So now you're comparing two gay people having sex to murder, rape, necrophiliia, pedophilia, and kleptomania?  Please tell me how it's as bad as any of those fucking things?  Go on.  And please do it without citing a book that also has talking animals and without a stupid fucking slippery slope argument, because anything can lead to anything, so we'd have to outlaw fuck near everything.

Really?  You had better let them know that because whenever I said anything long that line I was informed that a gay man and a lesbian woman may conceive of a child or they may utilize IVF.


You really should read this thread as we have present the argument numerous times.  You would also notice we have not utilize the book with talking animals a single time.  As was done before so done again:
1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)
4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

Orientation leads to an action having a particular negative resultant when normalized has a negative universal resultant.  Logically sound and not a slippery slope.  Enjoy.

By that logic all people should be legally required to have children. If we normalize not having children it will lead to extinction.