SCOTUS protects marriage equality

gfm7175 said:
@Jake Starkey has been reduced to obsessing over religion.
@AProudLefty has been reduced to obsessing over The Bible.
@WinterBorn has been reduced to obsessing over various procreation-related circumstances (and now laughter).

None of them wish to focus on the etymology of the word 'marriage'.
None of them wish to focus on the fact that the man/woman union is the only union that can procreate.
Click to expand...
The etymology of a word does not matter, and is not locked in stone as a society evolves.

Words are made up to begin with and given whatever meaning someone wants to assign them, and by the same method words evolve and change. It is how language works.

Procreation has not been key to marriage anywhere in the world for ages. For instance do you think if a man and woman marry and it discovered soon after one of them is cannot have children, do you think gov't should dissolve their marriage and let the fertile one know they can remarry someone else if they want, while telling the infertile one they can never marry again?

What about if that couple, upon learning one was not fertile was in the process of adopting children?
 
gfm7175 said:
@Jake Starkey has been reduced to obsessing over religion.
@AProudLefty has been reduced to obsessing over The Bible.
@WinterBorn has been reduced to obsessing over various procreation-related circumstances (and now laughter).

None of them wish to focus on the etymology of the word 'marriage'.
None of them wish to focus on the fact that the man/woman union is the only union that can procreate.
Click to expand...

The etymology of the word 'marriage' is unimportant except to you.

SCOTUS has decided not to examine the argument.
 
IBDaMann said:
You routinely lie in this way. You are the deaf boy who cried "Wolf!" ... and couldn't hear himself.

f3963705b1378835086dfa239a04eb87.jpg
Click to expand...
gfm7175 said:
This is one of the funnier ones that you've come up with over the years, and they're ALL really funny.
Click to expand...
^^^
Sock puppet masturbation. Does anyone disagree that Sybil is mentally ill? Probably schizophrenic?

gfm7175 said:
Stop him, Deaf-Boy, He's getting away!
Click to expand...
Into the Night said:
He's mocking you, Deaf Boy.
Click to expand...
IBDaMann said:
The silliness champ once again shows why he's the reigning, defending, undisputed deaf-boy silly-man of JPP fame.
Click to expand...
 
Here's what I find interesting: practically every day God sends you can scan throw postings on X or Instagram to catch reports of some Maga/Alt-Right/Christo-Fascist politico or pundit or "influencer" or religious figure getting nailed by local and federal cops for trafficking kiddie porn or actually being a pedo or sexually assaulting a minor.

And yet dullards like the author of this thread hyperventilate at the mere thought that somewhere in America a gay couple is getting "married" (whether by the state or by a religious place of worship).

And the same folk worry about women getting an abortion for any reason to the point of creating a Stasi like atmosphere to prohibit such.

Kind of let's you know where their mindset is at. :|
 
QP! said:
The etymology of a word does not matter,
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Ignoring it is to ignore English.
QP! said:
and is not locked in stone as a society evolves.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. Only a man and a woman can procreate.
QP! said:
Words are made up to begin with and given whatever meaning someone wants to assign them, and by the same method words evolve and change. It is how language works.
Click to expand...
Nope. You are just desperately trying to ignore English.
QP! said:
Procreation has not been key to marriage anywhere in the world for ages.
Click to expand...
Yes it has.
QP! said:
For instance do you think if a man and woman marry and it discovered soon after one of them is cannot have children, do you think gov't should dissolve their marriage and let the fertile one know they can remarry someone else if they want, while telling the infertile one they can never marry again?
Click to expand...
Try English. It works better. Illiteracy: Use of triple verb.
QP! said:
What about if that couple, upon learning one was not fertile was in the process of adopting children?
Click to expand...
A man and a women is still the best environment for raising children...even adopted children.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's what I find interesting: practically every day God sends you can scan throw postings on X or Instagram to catch reports of some Maga/Alt-Right/Christo-Fascist politico or pundit or "influencer" or religious figure getting nailed by local and federal cops for trafficking kiddie porn or actually being a pedo or sexually assaulting a minor.

And yet dullards like the author of this thread hyperventilate at the mere thought that somewhere in America a gay couple is getting "married" (whether by the state or by a religious place of worship).

And the same folk worry about women getting an abortion for any reason to the point of creating a Stasi like atmosphere to prohibit such.

Kind of let's you know where their mindset is at. :|
Click to expand...
Try English. It works better.

It is not possible to marry an emotion. An emotion is not a couple.
Why do you condone murder?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's what I find interesting: practically every day God sends you can scan throw postings on X or Instagram to catch reports of some Maga/Alt-Right/Christo-Fascist politico or pundit or "influencer" or religious figure getting nailed by local and federal cops for trafficking kiddie porn or actually being a pedo or sexually assaulting a minor.

And yet dullards like the author of this thread hyperventilate at the mere thought that somewhere in America a gay couple is getting "married" (whether by the state or by a religious place of worship).

And the same folk worry about women getting an abortion for any reason to the point of creating a Stasi like atmosphere to prohibit such.

Kind of let's you know where their mindset is at. :|
Click to expand...
More grammatically challenged brainless lie filled word salad. Posting while drunk or stoned no doubt. :palm:
 
Nordberg said:
There are people who are attracted to the other sex. Why should we punish them for acting as God made them? Their lives are difficult enough without us imposing our views on them.
Click to expand...
It's a 14th Amendment issue. There are special privileges and benefits, over a thousand IIRC, that are given to married couples. By recognizing only male-female couples, our government is in violation of the 14th Amendment...as SCOTUS agreed.

Our nation should not be subject to a Christian form of Sharia law. We have a Constitution and that should be the only consideration.

Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Plaintiffs challenged the laws as violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The district courts ruled in their favor. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed. The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. The Court noted other changes in the institution of marriage: the decline of arranged marriages, invalidation of bans on interracial marriage and use of contraception, and abandonment of the law of coverture. The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. Marriage is a centerpiece of social order and fundamental under the Constitution; it draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. The marriage laws at issue harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples; burden the liberty of same-sex couples; and abridge central precepts of equality. There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are central to their lives and faiths.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's what I find interesting: practically every day God sends you can scan throw postings on X or Instagram to catch reports of some Maga/Alt-Right/Christo-Fascist politico or pundit or "influencer" or religious figure getting nailed by local and federal cops for trafficking kiddie porn or actually being a pedo or sexually assaulting a minor.

And yet dullards like the author of this thread hyperventilate at the mere thought that somewhere in America a gay couple is getting "married" (whether by the state or by a religious place of worship).

And the same folk worry about women getting an abortion for any reason to the point of creating a Stasi like atmosphere to prohibit such.

Kind of let's you know where their mindset is at. :|
Click to expand...

The term "Christo-fascist" is a very apt one.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It's a 14th Amendment issue. There are special privileges and benefits, over a thousand IIRC, that are given to married couples. By recognizing only male-female couples, our government is in violation of the 14th Amendment...as SCOTUS agreed.

Our nation should not be subject to a Christian form of Sharia law. We have a Constitution and that should be the only consideration.
Click to expand...

One will not read a dumber more ignorant post today. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top