SCOTUS: Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

[InsideThePark]

Stop changing everything liberals, just stop it.

[Angelsjunky]

You are patently stupid if you think fundamentalist Christians are stupid in general.  I know hundreds personally that are smarter and more reasonable than you.

 

mtangelsfan, you are so butthurt towards me that you can't help but skew what I said and insult me in the process. I was replying to Tank's accusation that I can't resist taking shots at Christians, so I said only stupid (fundamentalist) Christians like Bryan Fischer. I didn't say that I think fundamentalist Christians are stupid in general - nor did I say that I don't think that they are. I was referring to the particularly nasty type like Bryan Fischer, at least based upon his ridiculous remark about 6/26 being the moral 9/11. That is stupid, don't you think?

 

Anyhow, given that you're hyper defensive about Christianity, I'm curious in what part of your religion is it OK to insult me?

 

so why not post what he said instead of lumping all Christians together? let's look at that specifically instead of saying disparaging things about all people of faith.

 

I didn't lump all Christians together or disparage all people of faith (and, btw, not all "people of faith" are Christian). I suppose you could say that I lumped all "fundamentalist" Christians together, but not all Christians are fundamentalist - thus my mention of Christians that I know who would be appalled by Fischer's stupidity and bigotry.

[halobob]

SCOTUS upholds Obamacare subsidies 2 pages, SCOTUS makes marriage legal for all people, 8 pages...hilarious. 

[juansavage1]

Marriage as an institution has been around since before the Egyptians built the pyramids. There is also historical evidence of gay marriage back then. Marriage doesn't necessarily have to be a religious thing since two atheists could wish to marry. My definition of marriage is two consenting adults coming together and telling their friends, family, the world they are bound together for the foreseeable future.

You'd restrict it to 2 adults. How did you come by that definition? 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Juan Savage

[juansavage1]

The SCOTUS doesn't make laws, they simply review them. Our system isn't perfect, but it's good to have a group of people that are experts on the Constitution (and don't have to worry about re-election) make sure legislators (who aren't necessarily experts on the Constitution, but do care about re-election) don't get out of hand.

That would be nice. What if they're just ideological robots and don't care about the constitution?

Edited June 27, 2015 by Juan Savage

[juansavage1]

mtangelsfan, you are so butthurt towards me that you can't help but skew what I said and insult me in the process. I was replying to Tank's accusation that I can't resist taking shots at Christians, so I said only stupid (fundamentalist) Christians like Bryan Fischer. I didn't say that I think fundamentalist Christians are stupid in general - nor did I say that I don't think that they are. I was referring to the particularly nasty type like Bryan Fischer, at least based upon his ridiculous remark about 6/26 being the moral 9/11. That is stupid, don't you think?

 

Anyhow, given that you're hyper defensive about Christianity, I'm curious in what part of your religion is it OK to insult me?

 

 

I didn't lump all Christians together or disparage all people of faith (and, btw, not all "people of faith" are Christian). I suppose you could say that I lumped all "fundamentalist" Christians together, but not all Christians are fundamentalist - thus my mention of Christians that I know who would be appalled by Fischer's stupidity and bigotry.

The metaphor works if he means it's like a wake up call from an enemy (ideological). There was a wake up call in 1973 that's resulted in many more deaths than 9/11. 

 

Liberals compare not letting a man marry his boyfriend to Jim Crow all the time. I think that's much more stupid. 

[juansavage1]

As pointed out, judges don't make laws. States, for the most part, do govern themselves. The court is there for checks and and balances because sometimes the majority isn't always right. So yeah, I've never questioned the worthiness of having the supreme court.

Judges just said that all states can't consider sex in marriage laws. They found that in a mid 19th century law written to prohibit discrimination against slaves. I'd say that qualifies as making something up. 

[Adam]

I don't think Juan is really a Mexican.

Juana bet?

[juansavage1]

Are you seriously questioning the merits of the supreme court?

The modern supreme court is good if you agree with the judges. But, if a Republican wins next time and all the lefties on the court die in a car crash and they new judges find a right for children to have a mother and a father, you might reconsider. 

[juansavage1]

Juana bet?

Cuban. My wife's Mexican. When we married, nature took it's course and we had children. Let's see you and your husband do that. 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Adam]

Orale. I like vag homes

[Stradling]

I don't think Juan is real.

Fixed

[tdawg87]

The libs are going to be having at it for a while.

[Rico]

You'd restrict it to 2 adults. How did you come by that definition? 

I haven't seen a convincing argument for more than 2.  If you would like to argue in defense of polygamy then go ahead and make your case.  Change my mind.

[Lhalo]

Don't sell yourself short. You're a tremendous homo

 

Adam was on a roll today. Well done sir.

[juansavage1]

I haven't seen a convincing argument for more than 2. If you would like to argue in defense of polygamy then go ahead and make your case. Change my mind.

Have you only loved to be person in your life? Why should the government make you choose somebody over somebody else? Why limit love? What if you were born bisexual? How does somebody marrying two people affect your marriage? Wouldn't children get more care?

Reconsidered?

No?

OK what if like every Hollywood star said it was cool and they made a bunch of TV shows?

[Rico]

Well there have already been a bunch of tv shows.  

 

My problem with polygamy is it always feels these women (sometimes girls) are being coerced into these marriages.  It is never two men wanting to marry one woman is it?  If it is coerced then it is not consenting is it.  You still haven't changed my mind.

[juansavage1]

But if you outlaw it,then you're taking away their consent. Right to privacy is part of the Constitution.

[Rico]

But if you outlaw it,then you're taking away their consent. 

What?  I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

[Stradling]

I like how vladdy comes in and makes it seem like marriage is some new thing that our government just came up with. Oh and vladdy I'm sure you know this, but if you don't need or want a marriage certificate then you can live with as many partners as you'd like. Now if you want to ask why there are tax breaks for married couples, well I don't have an answer for that.

[juansavage1]

What? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Consent means that you agree to something. You're taking away their right to agree to something. you're doing this for whatever reason- bigotry, probably. Are you OK with somebody marrying an animal if the animal doesn't object? Doesn't affect anybody. You can't deny that people love their animals.

But,the main point is that you're OK with some restriction because their love isn't important enough. Thanks for your answer.

[juansavage1]

There are tax breaks because the government wants to encourage a certain relationship,like it wants to encourage home ownership. But,this just discriminates against single people,doesn't it? What business is it of ours how people want to live their life?

I like how vladdy comes in and makes it seem like marriage is some new thing that our government just came up with. Oh and vladdy I'm sure you know this, but if you don't need or want a marriage certificate then you can live with as many partners as you'd like. Now if you want to ask why there are tax breaks for married couples, well I don't have an answer for that.

[sneaky_flute]

Are you seriously contending the nine members of the Supreme Court should make law that affects 300,000,000+? Why even pass laws...why not just let judges make all of the important decisions? And for that matter, why have juries?

Serious question: where would you draw the line as to what judges, rather than legislators, should decide?

The Constitution was devised to prevent tyranny of the majority. The Supreme Court is there to enforce those measures. These issues should never be put to a referendum. 

[Rico]

Consent means that you agree to something. You're taking away their right to agree to something. you're doing this for whatever reason- bigotry, probably. Are you OK with somebody marrying an animal if the animal doesn't object? Doesn't affect anybody. You can't deny that people love their animals.

But,the main point is that you're OK with some restriction because their love isn't important enough. Thanks for your answer.

An animal can't consent.  

[juansavage1]

An animal can't consent.

Primates have rudimentary language. We can have animal experts determine whether an animal protests the marriage. I don't think we'll have animals regretting their decision or feeling taken advantage of or forced, which is what consent is designed to prevent.

Without a purpose, consent is superfluous.

I think the 14th amendment prohibits discrimination against people born with animal attraction. Besides,what are you afraid of? Evil animal lovers taking your kids?

But, haters gonna hate and they'll always invent a reason.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Juan Savage