SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[IBDaMann]

Right, so telling a gay person that equality is available to them,

I see that the difference between the past and the present isn't the only fundamental concept you don't grasp. You apparently never learned the difference between "singular" and "plural." It's now a little easier to see why all of your posts are incoherent, and why you avoid attempting to answer any questions.

as long as they be something they aren't

If this is your premise, we're already done.

You are willing to deny equality

I will impose equality and deny supremacy, yes.

... based on the opinions of iron age men

Nope. I haven't listened to a single opinion from any iron-age man.

Their "strong rationale" behind marriage was related to social and economic security and ensuring an heir for family property and money.

Apparently we need to reeducate you on the difference between the past and the present. You apparently aren't grasping the idea that modern day Christians are not Iron Age men. How can we properly bring you up to speed on why the English language has tenses?

The hatred of gays

Support this. It is dismissed until you do.

is separate and based on what they believed was the opinion of the Sky Wizard.

Past tense ? ... about modern day Christians?

Same-sex marriage has been in existence for a decade

Hasn't "same sex marriage" been in and out of existence?

and do you know what has changed for society? Absolutely nothing.

... because it keeps popping back out of existence.

I mean literally not a fucking thing.

No pun intended.

... the claim by evangelicals that it was going to ruin society was all a lie

I have to call booooooolsch't on that one. The LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ movement has definitely ruined society in their attempt to force their ZANY demands for supremacy on the country and deny true equality for people simply trying to raise families. Your assertion is dismissed.

Separate but equal isn't equality....

Correction: Supremacy isn't equality .... something we have to keep learning, over and over and over.

 

[IBDaMann]

Troll.

Aaaahh, you're back to sputtering random words again, I see.

No you have not, troll.

No one ever accused you of being able to grasp what you are told.

Lincoln was a racist.

Which Lincoln? The one who issued the Emancipation Proclamation?

 

[IBDaMann]

gfm7175 singled out blacks by skin color and slavery. Why?

Perhpas he felt like it. Here, I'll do it, just because. I'll single out "blacks" by both skin color and slavery. Quote me.

"Blacks", statistically speaking, have a darker skin color, and were regarded as slaves in certain parts of the Americas throughout the 1700s.

Bring it on.

 

[ZenMode]

I see that the difference between the past and the present isn't the only fundamental concept you don't grasp. You apparently never learned the difference between "singular" and "plural." It's now a little easier to see why all of your posts are incoherent, and why you avoid attempting to answer any questions.


If this is your premise, we're already done.


I will impose equality and deny supremacy, yes.


Nope. I haven't listened to a single opinion from any iron-age man.


Apparently we need to reeducate you on the difference between the past and the present. You apparently aren't grasping the idea that modern day Christians are not Iron Age men. How can we properly bring you up to speed on why the English language has tenses?


Support this. It is dismissed until you do.


Past tense ? ... about modern day Christians?


Hasn't "same sex marriage" been in and out of existence?


... because it keeps popping back out of existence.


No pun intended.


I have to call booooooolsch't on that one. The LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ movement has definitely ruined society in their attempt to force their ZANY demands for supremacy on the country and deny true equality for people simply trying to raise families. Your assertion is dismissed.


Correction: Supremacy isn't equality .... something we have to keep learning, over and over and over.

Sorry, too much playing dumb to justify a response.

 

[gfm7175]

What makes it different? @gfm7175 says that the ability to reproduce is what makes the difference. I soundly destroyed his argument.

 

[IBDaMann]

Had you lived in the past, you'd argue that the Blacks wanted supremacy over others.

I have lived in the past. All of my life, in fact, has been in the past. Why do leftists not understand tense?

Deflection, troll.

Babbling, idiot.

Sorry troll, but yes.

Sorry moron, it has never been explained, and you could have explained it in half the time it took you to gibber out the non-post that you made.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sorry, too much playing dumb to justify a response.

So, no matter how much I dumb it down for the moron who reads your posts for you, he still can't help you? You need to find another post-reader.

 

[IBDaMann]

There is no destruction.

There is much destruction.

SSM has no impact on society, troll.

... because it doesn't exist, moron.

Who said it's unacceptable, troll?

Is the term "civil union" perfectly acceptable, moron?

 

[gfm7175]

-- Any man can marry any woman.
-- Any woman can marry any man.
-- Any man can [join together with] any man.
-- Any woman can [join together with] any woman.

Yes, thanks for confirming that you are trying to portray inequality as equality.

FYI, there's no requirement of procreation for marriage. If I'm wrong, find me a single law that says it.

Union between a man and a woman
Procreation IS possible (always in theory, almost always in actuality)

Union between a man and a man
Procreation IS NOT possible (whether in theory or actuality)

Union between a woman and a woman
Procreation IS NOT possible (whether in theory or actuality)


Now, sing it with me ZenMode... "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong"

It doesn't make any sense at all to use the exact same word to describe all three items when one item is NOT the same as the other two items are.

 

[ZenMode]

If @Yakuda , @gfm7175 and @IBDaMann defined religious freedom & inequality in the United States:

(In a country that is majority Christian) "You can choose to be Christian or not be Christian. That is equality because you have the same rights as all of the Christians, which is to say you can either be Christian or not be Christian."

- okay, but I don't want to be Christian I want to be Buddhist.

"Like we said, you have the same rights under the law as everyone else in the country."

 

[ZenMode]

Union between a man and a woman
Procreation IS possible (always in theory, almost always in actuality)

Union between a man and a man
Procreation IS NOT possible (whether in theory or actuality)

Union between a woman and a woman
Procreation IS NOT possible (whether in theory or actuality)


Now, sing it with me ZenMode... "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong"

It doesn't make any sense at all to use the exact same word to describe all three items when one item is NOT the same as the other two items are.

As I already said, thanks for confirming that what you are claiming is equality is not equality and, again, find me a single marriage law that says procreation is a requirement to get married.

I'll be waiting... A very long time.

 

[ZenMode]

So, no matter how much I dumb it down for the moron who reads your posts for you, he still can't help you? You need to find another post-reader.

You are the master of dumbing it down, I just don't speak dumb. Sorry.

 

[IBDaMann]

Separate but equal isn't equality.... something we learned 50 years ago.

By the way, nobody who bitches and gripes and snivels about having his civil union called a civil union instead of being called "marriage" has explained why the term "civil union" is somehow unacceptable.

I am forced to acknowledge that the LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ movement actually agree with Christians but aren't allowed to say so.

 

[IBDaMann]

As I already said, thanks for confirming that what you are claiming is equality is not equality

As I already said, thanks for confirming that you can't point to any inequality other than "men are not women" which is the same inequality with which everyone in every society have had to live at all times.

find me a single marriage law that says procreation is a requirement to get married.

Great pivot, and it had better be because that is all you know how to do. gfm7175 never made any mention of any requirement in any law; he simply expressed requirements for a label in a given taxonomy.

The ball is in your court to show a single union between two men or between two women in which procreation is possible, as gfm7175 stated. If not, their civil union does not merit the term "marriage".

I'll be waiting... A very long time.

Hold your breath as well.

 

[IBDaMann]

(In a country that is majority Christian) "You can choose to be Christian or not be Christian. That is equality because you have the same rights as all of the Christians, which is to say you can either be Christian or not be Christian."

- okay, but I don't want to be Christian I want to be Buddhist.

"Like we said, you have the same rights under the law as everyone else in the country."

Fortunately, readers on JPP understand that your posts rarely have a point.

If one chooses to be a Buddhist, for example, one does not merit the label "Christian."

 

[ZenMode]

By the way, nobody who bitches and gripes and snivels about having his civil union called a civil union instead of being called "marriage" has explained why the term "civil union" is somehow unacceptable.

Allow me to "dumb" it down for you...

(At the end of slavery):

US: "America will recognize all freed slaves as citizens; as one of us!"

Freed Slaves: "Yay! We are Americans"!

US: "You are CITIZENS!"

Slaves: "We are Americans! We are citizens!!"

US: "Weeeeeeell....we are going to call you Americinis...but it just like being an American!"

Slaves: "Well, if it's just like be an American, why aren't we called Americans?"

 

[Jake Starkey]

My goodness. Ok for the millionth time want is not relevant to the application of the law. The govt doesn't give a shit if you want to marry the person you're marrying. All the govt says is what constitutes a marriage. Want doesn't figure into the equation or the application of the law. I will ask again

Is a straight person allowed to marry someone they don't want to marry? Does the law prevent that?

I can answer that. It does not matter.

 

[Yakuda]

As I said, you aren't talking about law. You're talk about how you believe things should be, which is to say that marriage is reserved for straight people and you hide behind a nonsensical argument of "Well, gay people have equality because they can marry "someone" as long as that someone fits into the definition of marriage as defined by the Christian sky wizard."

In other words, you can't marry who you want to marry, you can marry who we say you can marry.

You're getting angry friend. The law is the only thing that matters. You're refusal to answer my question is disappointing.

Its not about who you can marry it's about what is a marriage.

 

[Yakuda]

If @Yakuda , @gfm7175 and @IBDaMann defined religious freedom & inequality in the United States:

(In a country that is majority Christian) "You can choose to be Christian or not be Christian. That is equality because you have the same rights as all of the Christians, which is to say you can either be Christian or not be Christian."

- okay, but I don't want to be Christian I want to be Buddhist.

"Like we said, you have the same rights under the law as everyone else in the country."

Ok you're off the topic now. It's a simple matter that the law didn't prevent gays from marrying because they were gay. No one could marry someone if the same sex. Want was never a factor in the application of the law.

 

[Into the Night]

Right, freedom was available to blacks in the US,

It certainly was.

so why didn't the enslaved blacks just decide to be free?

Apparently you aren't familiar with slavery.

I mean, if a gay man can decide to marry a woman, which would give him equality, why couldn't blacks just decide to exercise their equality and be free?

Non-sequitur fallacy.