U.S. Supreme Court rules same sex marriages legal.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Wasn't directed at you, you are like some child that wondered into the
middle of a movie.

Oh really? You are like a 5th-grader trying to debate grown-up issues that you know very little about.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Oh really? You are like a 5th-grader trying to debate grown-up issues that you know very little about.

I see you like to project also.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by bojulay

If you don't know they are completely political then you really are lost.

Of course they are political, but they don't have to win elections so they don't have to sell themselves more than once. If you don't understand the implications of that, you don't understand much about politics.

[jdkees]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Like any good liberal you totally missed the point of my argument
which had nothing to do with religion. Why does every liberal seem
to try and relate everything to religion if someone disagrees with them??

It was about a group of UN-ELECTED JUDICIARY OFFICIALS wielding
the power they have over the constitution and the laws in this country,
and promoting the idea of a constitution and laws that are subject to the
evolving whims of contemporary political and social mores.

There is little to no accountability under such a system, it is isolationist,
centralizing, and totalitarian.

It is eliminating of the democratic system.

Are you saying that you oppose the US Constitution? You may not be saying the words "I oppose the US Constitution" explicitly, but the nonsense you're spouting basically equates to the same thing: you oppose the government working exactly how it is laid out by Article III. of the the United States Constitution.

Also, I notice how you've completely ignored my challenge to come up with an argument that isn't about laws being based on your religion or "ew gays are icky" reasoning.

You're using a lot of words, many of which I'm not convinced you understand. So instead of continuing to go in circles with you I'm going to ask you a litmus question:

Are you one of those people who though the Jade Helm exercises were a possible invasion of Texas by the US military?

I have a suspicion, but I'm hoping I'm wrong.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by jdkees

I'm going to ask you a litmus question:

Are you one of those people who though the Jade Helm exercises were a possible invasion of Texas by the US military?

LOL. That's a great question for everyone. Raise your hands if you thought the Jade Helm exercises were a possible invasion of Texas by the US military.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by jdkees

Are you saying that you oppose the US Constitution? You may not be saying the words "I oppose the US Constitution" explicitly, but the nonsense you're spouting basically equates to the same thing: you oppose the government working exactly how it is laid out by Article III. of the the United States Constitution.

Also, I notice how you've completely ignored my challenge to come up with an argument that isn't about laws being based on your religion or "ew gays are icky" reasoning.

You're using a lot of words, many of which I'm not convinced you understand. So instead of continuing to go in circles with you I'm going to ask you a litmus question:

Are you one of those people who though the Jade Helm exercises were a possible invasion of Texas by the US military?

I have a suspicion, but I'm hoping I'm wrong.

Your feeble attempt at condescending is amusing.

What I oppose has been clearly stated.

You apparently desire government to be a totalitarian overlord.
You have your wish.

[jdkees]

Why can't you answer a question? You discourse like someone who's been told what to think, making your accusations of totalitarianism ironic.

I literally showed you the exact passage in the Constitution that not only applied to this case but showed a mandate by the framers for the supreme court to arbitrate the conflict. Yet you're still making this fruity "unconstitutional" argument like my direct quote from the Constitution didn't exist.

If you think I'm condescending you, it's because your position is completely untenable. Even your defenses when challenged-- to call people liberals when they point out your lack of sense or fact or any semblance of reality-- are just regurgitation of iconoclastic nonsense you can hear on any number oftalk radio and cable news shows, none of which exist to do anything but sell you outrage at the clouds for daring to exist (because outrage and fear are their business model).

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying. You're lamenting the fact that the Supreme Court just ruled states aren't allowed to choose whether or not they recognize a marriage that happened in a different state. Perhaps you think that all states should have that ability (and you probably think they should all be nohomo as well). You're angrily insisting that this country once operated that way and you're annoyed that I'm not acknowledging it.

Well, you're right in a weird way. The US did indeed once allow each state to manage all sorts of things like that, assuming that the shared sense of self-determination would bring prosperity to the country. The founding document of the government at the time consisted of the Articles of Confederation, and the system was so badly flawed it nearly tore the United States apart before we ever really established ourselves as a nation. The framers of the Constitution, some of whom also wrote parts of the Articles, were determined to avoid another Whiskey Rebellion (relevant event, BTW) if they could manage. Folks like Hamilton and Madison and Jefferson explicitly set out to construct a centralized government that would be representative and foundational to all of its states. There's even these writings called the Federalist Papers that these men had a part in writing, and Madison was one of the key drafters of the Constitution (as were Hamilton and Jefferson).

So again, not really caring what you want to believe in your fantasy land because the historic record on what happened and even why it happened is clear, straight from the mouths (or pens) of some of the key drafters of the Constitution in the first place. You're still laughably wrong because the only precedent you can claim is the failed piece of government that nearly killed this country before it was fifteen years old.

Yeah, I'm being a bit condescending to you. That's because you're being holier than thou about subject matter that you very clearly have no actual knowledge of. You're so stubbornly refusing to apply any critical thinking to the points I made about the decision earlier because the actual legality and the governance issues don't really matter to you, in my estimation. Based on your Herculean avoidance of acknowledging the mounds of evidence to the contrary for all the stuff you keep claiming, it's pretty clear this is about you being outraged that gays are marrying and not some supposed legal or governmental threat. And you can't even properly put that outrage into words so you toss out word salad of catch phrases you got from RushBo or insHannity that manage to make less sense than when those chodes say them. It's kind of hard to take you seriously when the only way you can frame not liking something is to place it in the context and an existential threat to the very core of the nation.

[Grace Preston]

Don't bother. People who throw straw man arguments do so because they don't have a valid, intelligent response.

As to the assertions of this opening the door to marrying animals and children there is something you are overlooking.

Hetero Couple-- two adults, both are able to consent
Homosexual Couple-- two adults, both are able to consent
Human/Animal couple-- the adult can consent, the animal cannot-- hence no "contract of marriage"
Adult/Child Couple-- the adult can consent, the child cannot-- hence no "contract of marriage"

Had the government stayed out of the business of marriage (requiring licensing, etc), then this never would have been an issue. But once the government involves itself in something, then equal protections will eventually apply. Yeah-- they often have to be fought for (interracial marriage, gay marriage) because people still have a habit of trying to legislate with their Bible (in violation of the Constitution).... but ultimately, there really isn't any other way this could have gone. No new law was made, in fact, the decision reaffirmed the right of the clergy to refuse to marry ANY couple for ANY reason. It only affirmed that yes, equal rights protections also include sexual orientation.

[Prolongus]

I've found that if people don't or won't understand something, they tend to be cautious (afraid) of it and cannot or will not accept it under any circumstance...

There were people in my office that this ruling affected them and to see the happiness in their faces when this happened...I couldn't help but think: it's about fucking time.

[Look-at-Stupid]

This hetrosexual atheist just does not give a shit. But, yes, if marriage was privatized, none of this would have been necessary. But I do enjoy seeing you guys argue.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by jdkees

Why can't you answer a question? You discourse like someone who's been told what to think, making your accusations of totalitarianism ironic.

I literally showed you the exact passage in the Constitution that not only applied to this case but showed a mandate by the framers for the supreme court to arbitrate the conflict. Yet you're still making this fruity "unconstitutional" argument like my direct quote from the Constitution didn't exist.

If you think I'm condescending you, it's because your position is completely untenable. Even your defenses when challenged-- to call people liberals when they point out your lack of sense or fact or any semblance of reality-- are just regurgitation of iconoclastic nonsense you can hear on any number oftalk radio and cable news shows, none of which exist to do anything but sell you outrage at the clouds for daring to exist (because outrage and fear are their business model).

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying. You're lamenting the fact that the Supreme Court just ruled states aren't allowed to choose whether or not they recognize a marriage that happened in a different state. Perhaps you think that all states should have that ability (and you probably think they should all be nohomo as well). You're angrily insisting that this country once operated that way and you're annoyed that I'm not acknowledging it.

Well, you're right in a weird way. The US did indeed once allow each state to manage all sorts of things like that, assuming that the shared sense of self-determination would bring prosperity to the country. The founding document of the government at the time consisted of the Articles of Confederation, and the system was so badly flawed it nearly tore the United States apart before we ever really established ourselves as a nation. The framers of the Constitution, some of whom also wrote parts of the Articles, were determined to avoid another Whiskey Rebellion (relevant event, BTW) if they could manage. Folks like Hamilton and Madison and Jefferson explicitly set out to construct a centralized government that would be representative and foundational to all of its states. There's even these writings called the Federalist Papers that these men had a part in writing, and Madison was one of the key drafters of the Constitution (as were Hamilton and Jefferson).

So again, not really caring what you want to believe in your fantasy land because the historic record on what happened and even why it happened is clear, straight from the mouths (or pens) of some of the key drafters of the Constitution in the first place. You're still laughably wrong because the only precedent you can claim is the failed piece of government that nearly killed this country before it was fifteen years old.

Yeah, I'm being a bit condescending to you. That's because you're being holier than thou about subject matter that you very clearly have no actual knowledge of. You're so stubbornly refusing to apply any critical thinking to the points I made about the decision earlier because the actual legality and the governance issues don't really matter to you, in my estimation. Based on your Herculean avoidance of acknowledging the mounds of evidence to the contrary for all the stuff you keep claiming, it's pretty clear this is about you being outraged that gays are marrying and not some supposed legal or governmental threat. And you can't even properly put that outrage into words so you toss out word salad of catch phrases you got from RushBo or insHannity that manage to make less sense than when those chodes say them. It's kind of hard to take you seriously when the only way you can frame not liking something is to place it in the context and an existential threat to the very core of the nation.

Daft still, you are the one that keeps talking about the gays.

What I oppose has been clearly stated several times, a small group of
UN_ELECTED JUDICIARY OFFICIALS that promote the idea of an
"EVOLVING CONSTITUTION" holding the power they do over the
constitution and laws of the land. It eliminates the democratic
process by handing over such power to such an entity.

UN_ELECTED......UN_ELECTED.... .UN_ELECTED......UN_ELECTED

BELIEF IN AN EVOLVING CONSTITUTION.....BELIEF IN AN EVOLVING CONSTITUTION

There should have been reform to the supreme court a long time ago.

You enjoy being a child that needs a controlling overlord??

[jdkees]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Daft still, you are the one that keeps talking about the gays.

What I oppose has been clearly stated several times, a small group of
UN_ELECTED JUDICIARY OFFICIALS that promote the idea of an
"EVOLVING CONSTITUTION" holding the power they do over the
constitution and laws of the land. It eliminates the democratic
process by handing over such power to such an entity.

UN_ELECTED......UN_ELECTED.... .UN_ELECTED......UN_ELECTED

BELIEF IN AN EVOLVING CONSTITUTION.....BELIEF IN AN EVOLVING CONSTITUTION

This is funny, folks. Here bojulay demands a very strict reading of the US Constitution (which I did, actually), implying that the Supreme Court did embody this (which I also pointed out they did). Then he curiously goes back and says:

Originally Posted by bojulay

There should have been reform to the supreme court a long time ago.

So which is it? Are the Supreme Court doing exactly as mandated to them as written from the very beginning per the US Constitution, or are they not? It's funny how when it gets pointed out to you that the Supreme Court is doing everything 100% Constitutionally afforded and expected of them in their role within government, all of the sudden you want government rewritten.

Bet you don't want government rewritten over the recent SCOTUS ruling on energy companies versus the EPA. Bet you don't want government rewritten over Citizens United. Bet you don't want government rewritten over Bush v Gore.

Originally Posted by bojulay

You enjoy being a child that needs a controlling overlord??

And yet you're the one here parrotting the words of worthless blowhards from tv and radio. You're the one who can't answer a simple challenge and can only come back with more unearned self-righteous (and empty) mixed up talking points. You're the one who has yet to produce a point that hasn't been hashed and rehashed and handed to you on an angry (and shallow) little platter in the form of radio and cable news rants.

Might want to get that plank out of your eye first, buddy.

[Dilbertgolf]

This is like the proverbial, "Bringing a knife to a gunfight." Only it's more like "bringing a twig."

[Guest092216]

What if homosexuality is just nature's way of passive population control?

Discuss...

[Fawlty]

Originally Posted by thathottnurse

What if homosexuality is just nature's way of passive population control?

Discuss...

Or God's active way.