SCOTUS protects marriage equality

ZenMode said:
Thousands of years ago when people buried the deceased under houses for good luck, couldn't explain where the magical fireball in the sky went at night, etc.

Yah, we shouldn't definitely stick with their opinion!
Click to expand...
Not an opinion, Void. Go learn English. Making up fiction won't help you.
 
ZenMode said:
Of course it's an opinion. We could decide that marriage can be between a goat and a donkey if we wanted to because there is no objective definition of marriage.
Click to expand...
Do you think deciding a chicken is a goat actually makes the chicken a goat? You guys pay no attention to definitions but now a marriage can be between a goat and a donkey. This is nothing but word play. The supposed point of all this buffoonery was gays wanted the privileges of marriage that normal people get but if that were actually true you wouldn't give a fuck what it's called but that's not the case.

This is like the man woman bullshit. You claim secondary sexual characteristics don't determine gender but you lop of body parts to look like the gender you claim to be that is supposedly not determined by secondary sexual characteristics. It's illogical bullshit just like this marriage thing and you can't figure out why people think you're fucked up.
 
Yakuda said:
Do you think deciding a chicken is a goat actually makes the chicken a goat?
Click to expand...
No. That was an exaggeration to make a point that there is no objective definition of marriage. We aren't obligated to use a definition from a thousand years ago any more than we are obligated to use the medical procedures from 1000 years ago.
Yakuda said:
You guys pay no attention to definitions but now a marriage can be between a goat and a donkey.
Click to expand...
No. Animals can't enter into legal contracts.
Yakuda said:
This is nothing but word play.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Yakuda said:
The supposed point of all this buffoonery was gays wanted the privileges of marriage that normal people get but if that were actually true you wouldn't give a fuck what it's called but that's not the case.
Click to expand...
Yes, the want equal protection as the Constitution requires. The government can't discriminate.
 
ZenMode said:
No. That was an exaggeration to make a point that there is no objective definition of marriage. We aren't obligated to use a definition from a thousand years ago any more than we are obligated to use the medical procedures from 1000 years ago.

No. Animals can't enter into legal contracts.

Correct.

Yes, the want equal protection as the Constitution requires. The government can't discriminate.
Click to expand...
The last line is what fucks up your whole fevered dream. Gays were never prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex and straight people could never marry someone of the same sex. The law applied to everyone regardless of your proclivities

Btw I like how you claim there's no objective definition of marriage but feel very comfortable saying someone couldnt marry their goat. I'd point out the idiocy of your comment but why?
 
Yakuda said:
The last line is what fucks up your whole fevered dream. Gays were never prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex and straight people could never marry someone of the same sex. The law applied to everyone regardless of your proclivities
Click to expand...
Person A doesn't marry Person B simply because they have different genitals. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Yakuda said:
Why is the most irrelevant question in the entire fucking discussion. And "love" is equally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It's very relevant because you're saying that there's nothing preventing a gay man from marrying a woman. Why would a gay man marry a woman?

That would be as irrational as you marrying a man.

Should the government be able to outlaw two men entering into a mortgage together? Entering into a business agreement together?
 
ZenMode said:
Person A doesn't marry Person B simply because they have different genitals. :rolleyes:

Should the government be able to outlaw two men entering into a mortgage together? Entering into a business agreement together?
Click to expand...
To the last part you added: No because mortgage and business aren't marriage. The govt does decide some people can't enter in a mortgage or a business agreement and as long as they apply it to everyone there is no discrimination. One man one woman was applied to everyone until you people whined. And sadly too many people give in to whiners.
 
ZenMode said:
It's very relevant because you're saying that there's nothing preventing a gay man from marrying a woman. Why would a gay man marry a woman?

That would be as irrational as you marrying a man.

Should the government be able to outlaw two men entering into a mortgage together? Entering into a business agreement together?
Click to expand...
I don't give a shit. Its not about why it's about applying the law to everyone.

Only if you want to make "love" part of the equation. Love is not required by the govt for a marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top