SCOTUS protects marriage equality

AProudLefty said:
Are you playing dumb? Of course they werent prevented. In fact its what they wanted.
See conversion therapy.

Gay people were prevented from marrying each other.
Click to expand...
Right because marriage is between a man and a woman. Straight people weren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex just like gays. And gays could marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people. BTW the govt decides all the time what people legally can and can't do. Examples who can vote, who can drink who can drive.
 
Yakuda said:
You're the by product of a failed leftist run education system of your mother dropped you too many times in your head. I see why she might have don't it though.
Click to expand...
^Coming into the home stretch, leading by length for the Stupidest Motherfucker on the Forum.
 
Yakuda said:
Right because marriage is between a man and a woman. Straight people weren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex just like gays. And gays could marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people. BTW the govt decides all the time what people legally can and can't do. Examples who can vote, who can drink who can drive.
Click to expand...
Except that isn't what is being talked about.

It is given that gay men can marry women.
 
gfm7175 said:
Lie.

Not a marriage.

Irrelevant.

If the LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ movement was about "tax breaks", then the LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ crowd would currently be satisfied.
The LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ crowd is NOT currently satisfied.
Therefore, the LGBTQLMNOPALPHEBETSOUP+ movement was NOT about "tax breaks".
Click to expand...
That one is a USDA prime idiot.
 
AProudLefty said:
Except that isn't what is being talked about.

It is given that gay men can marry women.
Click to expand...
But it's all that matters as far as the application of the law goes. Straight people had no advantage over gays and could not marry someone of the same sex just like gays. Its not about what you want it's about applying the law equally
 
gfm7175 said:
What, in the present-day, can a so-called "straight person" do that a so-called "homosexual person" cannot do? IOW, where is this "inequality" that you speak of?

See above.

Presentism.

That, to me, sounds pretty beneficial to society.

What "hatred of gays"? Yours?
You treat them as disposable political pawns; I treat them as fellow humans.

That's not a marriage. Call it whatever else you wish, just not a marriage.

I've already listed a few of the things that have changed because of the LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ movement. One thing is that women are "taking a beating", sometimes quite literally.

Well, let's take a little gander into the "Christian way" vs the "Worldly way" and let's see which way is more-so beneficial for society (and which way is more-so destructive for society).

CHRISTIAN WAY:
  • Marriage between one man and one woman.
    • Procreation is possible (always in theory, usually in actuality).
    • Children can be breast-fed by their mother.
    • Children grow up in an environment that has both a male and a female "role model" to look up to.
    • There is NO confusion as to what male vs female is (and their separate roles) because children have both a mommy AND a daddy in the household.
    • The father provides "physical play" and "discipline" for the child, while the mother provides "nurturing" and "bonding" for the child.
WORLDLY WAY:
  • Civil Union between two adults of the same gender.
    • Procreation is always impossible (in both theory and actuality).
    • There are no children. Any adopted "child" cannot likewise be breast-fed by his mother.
    • There are no children. Any adopted "child" lacks either a male or a female "role model" to look up to.
    • There are no children. Any adopted "child" will be confused as to what male vs female is (and their separate roles) because he now has "two mommies" or "two daddies" in the household.
    • There are no children. Any adopted "child" lacks either "physical play"/"discipline" or "nurturing"/"bonding" due to the lack of one gender of parent in the household.
Granted, this is only a very small start, but it seems to me like the Christian way is already generally beneficial rather than generally destructive.
Click to expand...
"What, in the present-day, can a so-called "straight person" do that a so-called "homosexual person" cannot do? IOW, where is this "inequality" that you speak of?"

Ok..you are clearly unwilling or unable to have an intelligent conversation about same-sex marriage and prefer to play dumb.

Let me know if that changes.
 
Yakuda said:
But it's all that matters as far as the application of the law goes. Straight people had no advantage over gays and could not marry someone of the same sex just like gays. Its not about what you want it's about applying the law equally
Click to expand...
Advantage? What are you talking about?
 
gfm7175 said:
I'm sick of your games and irrelevancies.

What, specifically, can a so-called "straight person" do in the present-day that a so-called "homosexual person" cannot do in the present-day? Where, specifically, is the "unequal treatment"?
Click to expand...
See previous response.
 
Yakuda said:
LMFAO it's not about what they choose to be or not choose to be the law was applied the same to everybody. With slavery it wasnt applied the same way to everybody as blacks were refused freedom and equality because of their skin color. Not gay person was refused marriage because they were gay.

It's amazing that this has to be explained to you.
Click to expand...
Why would a gay male want to marry a woman?
 
AProudLefty said:
So you have no idea?
Click to expand...
I sure do but since I've already written what I meant and you didnt understand that, and since I can only communicate with you by writing, I'm not convinced youd understand it any better the second time I write it than you did the first time I wrote it.
 
ZenMode said:
Why would a gay male want to marry a woman?
Click to expand...
I've answered this already. I don't know and I don't care and it's not relevant to the application of the law. Want has nothing to do with the law. Please don't ask again. It's a waste of time. Would a gay man be allowed to marry a woman even if he announced he was gay?
 
Yakuda said:
Your previous response didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...
Nope, it didn't. It was a response that focuses on the most relevant aspect of what is a bad argument. If you tell a black slave that there is freedom for blacks in the US, but that slave can't be free, what good is it?

What good is it for a gay person to be able to marry someone of the opposite sex when we both know that they don't want, and aren't attracted to, the opposite sex? That isn't freedom and equality, so maybe stop with the gfm-type of word games.
 
Yakuda said:
I've answered this already. I don't know and I don't care and it's not relevant to the application of the law. Want has nothing to do with the law. Please don't ask again. It's a waste of time. Would a gay man be allowed to marry a woman even if he announced he was gay?
Click to expand...
It's a waste of time because you don't want to acknowledge how dumb it is to say gays can get married, but only to someone they don't even want to marry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top