SCOTUS protects marriage equality

Yakuda said:
See this is the the kind of first level of thinking that makes you leftists so stupid. I wouldn't necessarily be ok with it but it's the las dumbass. How I feel about it is fucking irrelevant. The law never prevented a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex and it didn't allow straight people to marry someone of the same sex. It didn't favor one group over another. Now you you can either counter that argument for you can't. And tell me about love is nonsensical since love is a requirement for marriage gay or straight.
Click to expand...
One more time, tardboy.

1 U.S. Code § 7 - Marriage

“(a)For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.”

Can you find a literate 10 year old to read that to you?
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, it is.

Some of that comes along with marriage, but that's not what marriage foundationally is. Under this description of marriage, ANYTHING could be a marriage, thus NOTHING is really a marriage.

Merriam-Webster is wrong.
Click to expand...
Your understanding of marriage foundation is merely religious belief, without any foundation in law.
 
AProudLefty said:
Yes you did.
Click to expand...
Stop lying.
AProudLefty said:
Marriage is not about reproduction.
Click to expand...
Now you added in a word and thought that I wouldn't notice. STOP BEING DISHONEST.

I never said that marriage is reproduction.
AProudLefty said:
Yep.
Click to expand...
No, you don't.
AProudLefty said:
In principle barren couples cannot marry according to you.
Click to expand...
Incorrect (because you don't know what "in principle" means). The term "in principle" is used to indicate that although something is possible in theory, it may not happen in actuality.

Within a marriage, procreation is always possible in theory although it may not happen in actuality.

Within a civil union, procreation is always IMPOSSIBLE in theory (as well as actuality).
 
gfm7175 said:
Who decides what anything is?

When it comes to logic, marriage (a union between a man and a woman) and civil union (a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman) are NOT identical to each other and NEVER will be. One major difference is that marriage can be fruitful (it is possible, in principle, to procreate) while civil union can never be fruitful (it is impossible, in principle, to procreate).

Civil union is based upon men having sex with men (and women having sex with women), which is an abomination unto God. It deviates away from God's design for sex/procreation.

Civil union is nothing more than an unfruitful imitation of marriage. Ultimately, it only leads to harm and emptiness, not benefit and joy.

Matthew 7:13-14 (EHV): “Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter through it. How narrow is the gate, and how difficult is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
Click to expand...
Same sex marriage under law is supreme to a religious marriage of man and woman without law.
 
AProudLefty said:
No. You have no logic, only your made up definition that no one accepts.

Ability to reproduce is not a requirement in marriage.
Click to expand...
The 'in principle' possibility of procreation IS a requirement in marriage, though. That's a major point that differentiates a marriage from a civil union.
 
Yakuda said:
See this is the the kind of first level of thinking that makes you leftists so stupid. I wouldn't necessarily be ok with it but it's the las dumbass. How I feel about it is fucking irrelevant. The law never prevented a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex and it didn't allow straight people to marry someone of the same sex. It didn't favor one group over another. Now you you can either counter that argument for you can't. And tell me about love is nonsensical since love is a requirement for marriage gay or straight.
Click to expand...

The law does allow same sex marriage, but, and you can do nothing but whine about it.
 
ZenMode said:
They were denied marriage if they didn't marry someone that the God of Abraham agreed with.
Click to expand...
No they were denied because they wanted to marry someones of the same gender just like straight people who wanted to marry someone of the same gender.
 
Yakuda said:
No they were denied because they wanted to marry someones of the same gender just like straight people who wanted to marry someone of the same gender.
Click to expand...
Right. There's nothing inherently wrong with entering into a legal agreement, which is all marriage is, with a person of the same sex. The only issue is that the God of Abraham doesn't agree with it and those who worship the God of Abraham were the ones who almost entirely created our laws, specifically marriage laws.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
And this is why you are so stupid because you make stupid arguments.

The law never prevented people from marrying someone of their own race but it did prevent marrying outside your race in many states. According to your logic that would mean such a law is just fine and should still be allowed.

The Constitution is the supreme law and overrules all other laws which is why Loving is just as relevant is Obergefell. Both rulings use equal protection as the basis of their ruling.
Click to expand...
And the supreme Court once said slavery was okie dokie.

The argument of race works against you. Blacks weren't given special consideration they still couldnt marry someone of the same gender. They were decided because of skin color. A gay person could have always married anyone of the opposite sex. Blacks couldn't. Dumbass
 
ZenMode said:
Right. There's nothing inherently wrong with entering into a legal agreement, which is all marriage is, with a person of the same sex. The only issue is that the God of Abraham doesn't agree with it and those who worship the God of Abraham were the ones who almost entirely created our laws, specifically marriage laws.
Click to expand...
Then call it a legal agreement. Or a civil union or two chickens fucking I don't care but two people of the same sex isnt a marriage like a bicycle is a motorcycle
 
gfm7175 said:
I don't care what another poster may or may not have said (I don't trust you to express his post accurately since you can't even express any of MY posts accurately).

Stop assigning bogus positions to me.
Click to expand...
I always reflect your posts honestly. I wish you would do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top