Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

Marriage is NOT a Right

-
Marriage is not a right. It is not covered under the US Constitution and that means SCOTUS overstepped their bounds. What SCOTUS did was open up marriage to polygamy, same family (brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, etc) and even adult and child marriages because the reasoning of the majority allows for such. There will come a day when someone argues for different species marriages.

And the sad part is we have gay people proudly ranting that they did this to destroy the institution of marriage.


48 Comments:

  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    LOL you tragic bigot.

    It has happened, live with it. And stop using "faggot" you mental midget.

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL you ignorant fool and useless tool. Yes, it is tragic that it happened and thanks to the ruling polygamy, same family (brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, etc) and even adult and child marriages will all be OK. Then comes different species marriages. Only bigots would disallow such marriages to occur, right?

    As for "faggot", if it fits we must use it. And we use it when it fits. Not all gay people are faggots and not all faggots are gay. Grow up and deal with it.

     
  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Why did we bypass democratic process? Why there weren't any referendums? Why few unelected bureaucrats make decision for the whole nation? Who are the totalitarian oppressive pigs supporting this sad charade of democracy?

     
  • At 7:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "As for "faggot", if it fits we must use it" - Childish gibberish from a old donut shoveller.

     
  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, Richie, your childish gibberish is duly noted.

     
  • At 8:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Eugen- They overstepped and will be challenged.

     
  • At 1:29 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    On what legal basis would you deny same-sex couples the right to marry?

    Would that legal basis mean that gay people have less freedom than heterosexuals?

    On what legal basis would you decide that some adult US citizens have less freedom than others?

     
  • At 1:31 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Eugen,

    It's called the US constitution. If you don't like it you can always a) move to another country or b) work within the system to change it.

    The US doesn't have referendums does it? And the court decided this was a case of interpreting existing laws and rulings.

     
  • At 3:44 AM, Blogger Eugen said…

    I hope so Joe, this disaster reminds me of how "democracy" worked in communism!

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad is an ignorant twit as there isn't anything in the US Constitution about marriage.

    There isn't any legal basis for same-sex marriages.

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Eugen, It is already being challenged so it is just a matter of time.

     
  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Jerad is an ignorant twit as there isn't anything in the US Constitution about marriage.

    I didn't say there was. Eugen seemed confused about the way such decisions are made. The process is dictated, at its base, by the United States Constitution, the amendments and case law.

    There isn't any legal basis for same-sex marriages.

    My question was: on what legal basis would you deny same-sex couples the freedom to get married? You didn't answer my question.

    How would you justify giving gay-couples less freedoms than straight-couples?

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How would you justify giving gay-couples less freedoms than straight-couples?

    What does freedom have to do with marriage?

    My question was: on what legal basis would you deny same-sex couples the freedom to get married?

    On what legal basis do you allow for same-sex marriage?

    As for Eugen, the confusion is all yours for the reasons already stated.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now t5hat same-sex marriage is OK on what legal basis do we deny polygamy? On what legal basis do we deny brothers and sisters to be married? What about father- daughter, mother-son, adult- child?

     
  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    What does freedom have to do with marriage?

    You don't believe in 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'? As stated in the Declaration of Independence?

    On what legal basis do you allow for same-sex marriage?

    You answer my question first. But clearly the Supreme Court has already come to a decision on allowing it. Perhaps you should read their decision.

    As for Eugen, the confusion is all yours for the reasons already stated.

    He asked why wasn't there a referendum. Those don't even exist in the US.

    Now t5hat same-sex marriage is OK on what legal basis do we deny polygamy? On what legal basis do we deny brothers and sisters to be married? What about father- daughter, mother-son, adult- child?

    Read the Supreme Court ruling and see what the have decided is allowed instead of assuming there's some liberal conspiracy.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't believe in 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'? As stated in the Declaration of Independence?

    That has nothing to do with marriage. Driving is a privilege, Jerad. And people can argue they cannot be happy without a driver's license.

    But clearly the Supreme Court has already come to a decision on allowing it.

    You are fucking dull. They overstepped their authority, dumbass.

    Read the Supreme Court ruling and see what the have decided is allowed instead of assuming there's some liberal conspiracy.

    The ruling allows for all forms of marriage you ignorant ass. That is the whole point.

    It's as if you are absolutely unable to think.

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    That has nothing to do with marriage. Driving is a privilege, Jerad. And people can argue they cannot be happy without a driver's license.

    Gay people can argue that they can't be happy without being legally married. So, on what basis would you deny them the freedom to marry as you have?

    You are fucking dull. They overstepped their authority, dumbass.

    I rather suspect that what they did say was that states do not have the right to deny them the freedom to marry. Which would not be overstepping their authority.

    The ruling allows for all forms of marriage you ignorant ass. That is the whole point.

    I'll read it later but that sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

     
  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Jerrad

    to some freedom means they can do anything they want. To responsible people freedom means to act within reason and be guided by common sense.

    There was a referendum in California re. homosexual marriage but homosexuals lost. Their activist realized it won't be easy to push this nonsense on the nation except by undemocratic trick.

     
  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    This is a fairly good summary of the same-sex marriage case brought to the US Supreme Court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

    "in which the Court held that the recognition and provision of same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution"

    And from the majority decision:

    "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

    So again, I ask, by what legal basis would you choose to deny same-sex couples the right/freedom to marry? You seem incapable of answering that question. Or you've got some agenda . . . you don't have an agenda do you? You can say on what legal basis same-sex marriage should be denied. . . can't you?

     
  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, You are obviously an imbecile. No one is saying they have to live in loneliness. No one is saying that same-sex couples cannot achieve something greater than the individuals. No one needs marriage to get that. And the 14th amendment does NOT grant them the right to marriage. Marriage is not and never has been a civil right. That is why there will be challenges.

    Also if the majority is right then what I said in the OP is true, moron.

     
  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Amendment XIV

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    Nothing about marriage.

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Jerad, You are obviously an imbecile. No one is saying they have to live in loneliness. No one is saying that same-sex couples cannot achieve something greater than the individuals. No one needs marriage to get that. And the 14th amendment does NOT grant them the right to marriage. Marriage is not and never has been a civil right. That is why there will be challenges.

    But what legal basis can you deny them the freedom/right to marry? You keep refusing to address that. Please address that issue. Why can't they get married?

    Also if the majority is right then what I said in the OP is true, moron.

    Again, by what legal basis do you deny gay couples the right/freedom/privilege to be married? To use the term married?

    Please answer that question.


    Amendment XIV

    Nothing about marriage.


    So, again, by what legal basis would you deny gay couples the right/freedom/privilege to marry?

    You don't like it for some reason. But can you find a reason to prohibit ti? So far you can't. In fact, the 14th Amendment, which you quoted, seems to say that gay people should have the same privileges as straight people.

    So, how do you justify denying gay couples the freedom to marry? Answer the question.

     
  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Statistics from Census 2010 shows that 0.5% of US households are homosexual. Jerrad you and your whining activists sure demand lots attention for such insignificant group.

     
  • At 6:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But what legal basis can you deny them the freedom/right to marry?

    Such a thing did not exist until Friday. Marriage was first and foremost about family- as in parents and children. The only reason the government gives some tax breaks to married people is children.

    Same-sex relationships are a ZERO fitness relationship and go against natural selection.

    So, how do you justify denying gay couples the freedom to marry?

    There isn't any such thing as "freedom to marry", dumbass.

    But now how do we justify denying all perversions to marry? The gay people have even said that they are doing this to destroy the institution of marriage. Why do you faggots ignore that?

     
  • At 9:51 PM, Blogger Acartia Tonsa said…

    Hi Joe. If you really want to prove your point, just present all of the horrible things that have happened in the ten years since Canada legalized SSM.

    I can wait.

    I am still waiting.

     
  • At 10:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah cuz Canada is a fair representation of the USA. But anyway respond to what I said, not what you think I am saying. Tell me where I am wrong.

     
  • At 10:57 PM, Blogger Acartia Tonsa said…

    "Tell me where I am wrong."

    Your question leaves too many possibilities. Far too manny to address in a blog with only gigabytes of memory available. But let's start with this:

    " What SCOTUS did was open up marriage to polygamy, same family (brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, etc) and even adult and child marriages because the reasoning of the majority allows for such. There will come a day when someone argues for different species marriages."

    That is where Canada comes in to play. Contrary to many Americans, there is a world outside of the US. Canada legalized SSM over ten years ago, in spite of the exact same nonsense that you spewed above being warned by our evangelical nutjobs and homophobes. How many of them have come true? Zero. How many have even been raised? Zero.

    Get your head out of other people's bedrooms and worry about your own marriage. Or are you still living in your mother's bedroom?

     
  • At 12:52 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Statistics from Census 2010 shows that 0.5% of US households are homosexual. Jerrad you and your whining activists sure demand lots attention for such insignificant group.

    So, just because there's few of them we don't have to give them the same freedoms as everyone else?

    Such a thing did not exist until Friday. Marriage was first and foremost about family- as in parents and children. The only reason the government gives some tax breaks to married people is children.

    It existed in other countries and some states.

    Same-sex relationships are a ZERO fitness relationship and go against natural selection.

    So, you don't have any legal basis for denying them the freedom to marry.

    There isn't any such thing as "freedom to marry", dumbass.

    Well, what do you call it then? Privilege? Right? Whatever you call it you still can't tell me a legal basis for denying it to gay couples.

    But now how do we justify denying all perversions to marry? The gay people have even said that they are doing this to destroy the institution of marriage. Why do you faggots ignore that?

    So, you can't tell me a legal basis for denying gay couples the right/freedom/privilege to marry. And you're a paranoid bigot who thinks people will be marrying their pets and their sisters soon. You're just a big scared bag of hate aren't you?

    AGAIN by what legal basis can you deny gay couples the right/privilege/freedom to marry? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

     
  • At 3:09 AM, Blogger Eugen said…

    Arcatia

    What wonderful things happened in Canada since homosexual marriage was legalized? Why you crying activists don't tell public the dismal homosexual statistics?

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Acartia is obviously an imbecile. There isn't anything that prevents what I said, dipshit. All of those marriages are now all fair game, dumbass.

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It existed in other countries and some states.

    No, dumbass. There has never been any such thing as "freedom/ right to marry".

    AGAIN by what legal basis can you deny gay couples the right/privilege/freedom to marry?

    There isn't any such thing you ignorant dickhead. Before Friday there wasn't any legal basis for them to marry.

    And you're a paranoid bigot who thinks people will be marrying their pets and their sisters soon.

    You are an ignorant little faggot, Jerad. It isn't paranoia. It is a REALITY that now those types of marriages are OK in the USA.

    And it still stands that the gay people said they were doing this to destroy the institution of marriage.

    Marriage was first and foremost about family- as in parents and children. The only reason the government gives some tax breaks to married people is children.

    When same-sex couples can have children without going outside of their marriage then they can get married. Otherwise there isn't any sense to get married.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A man in Montana has applied for a marriage license for a second wife. It has begun.

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    AGAIN by what legal basis can you deny gay couples the right/privilege/freedom to marry?

    There isn't any such thing you ignorant dickhead. Before Friday there wasn't any legal basis for them to marry.

    And you can't find a legal reason why they shouldn't be able to do so can you? All you can say is: they weren't allowed to before. That's all you got.

    Aside from your own bigotry what legal reason should gay people be banned from marrying? Come on, try and answer the question.

    You are an ignorant little faggot, Jerad. It isn't paranoia. It is a REALITY that now those types of marriages are OK in the USA.

    Uh huh. How are pets going to sign the marriage license? There still are marriage licenses. And blood tests.

    And another thing . . . if some weirdo and his sister wants to marry (people have been marrying their cousins for centuries) then what do you care? How is it going to hurt you or affect you in any way? You think it's wrong but would it affect you? No.

    And it still stands that the gay people said they were doing this to destroy the institution of marriage.

    But that's NOT what the Supreme Court ruling says. There are heterosexual married couples who wife-swap, go to orgies, have affairs (sometimes homosexual affairs). Are they upholding the sanctity of marriage?

    Marriage was first and foremost about family- as in parents and children. The only reason the government gives some tax breaks to married people is children.

    Why not extend those tax breaks to same sex couples? Because of something written down in some old book?

    When same-sex couples can have children without going outside of their marriage then they can get married. Otherwise there isn't any sense to get married.

    So, adoption doesn't count then? There are lots of heterosexual couples who would disagree with you about that.

    What about heterosexual couples who can't have children? Should they not be allowed to marry either?

    What about heterosexual couples who choose not tho have children? Not a real marriage?

    Are you saying that someday, when the science has progressed to the point where they can mix the couple's DNA together to form a embryo THEN you'll agree with same sex marriage?

    A man in Montana has applied for a marriage license for a second wife. It has begun.

    Better go out and tell all the Mormons off then. Was the Montana license granted?

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How are pets going to sign the marriage license?

    So illiterate people cannot get married?

    And another thing . . . if some weirdo and his sister wants to marry (people have been marrying their cousins for centuries) then what do you care?

    You are a bigot- why are they weirdos. Jerad?

    But that's NOT what the Supreme Court ruling says

    It is what the gays say, asshole. They have an agenda to destroy the institution of marriage and ignorant dicks like you are allowing them to do it.

    Better go out and tell all the Mormons off then

    You are ignorant. Polygamy was OK for centuries amongst Catholics. It was arbitrarily banned.

    Was the Montana license granted?

    If it isn't then a lawsuit will follow. And the lawsuit will have the SCOTUS behind it.

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And you can't find a legal reason why they shouldn't be able to do so can you?

    And we can't find a legal reason why they should be able to do so. The 14th amendment doesn't help...

     
  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    So illiterate people cannot get married?

    They make a mark and/or have someone sign for them.

    And another thing . . . if some weirdo and his sister wants to marry (people have been marrying their cousins for centuries) then what do you care?

    You are a bigot- why are they weirdos. Jerad?

    Just a personal opinion, the idea of living with, let alone marrying my sister, gives me the willies. But I can't actually think of a legal reason to prevent it. There are very good biological reasons to avoid that but the Egyptian pharaohs used to marry their siblings.

    It is what the gays say, asshole. They have an agenda to destroy the institution of marriage and ignorant dicks like you are allowing them to do it.

    The law is dictated by the court NOT by the gay lobby. Stop being paranoid.

    You are ignorant. Polygamy was OK for centuries amongst Catholics. It was arbitrarily banned.

    So, why do you have a problem with it now? What was the legal basis for banning it?

    If it isn't then a lawsuit will follow. And the lawsuit will have the SCOTUS behind it.

    Wait and see. You're paranoid.

    And we can't find a legal reason why they should be able to do so. The 14th amendment doesn't help...

    If it hurts no one then . . . does it hurt you that gay couples can get married? Has it been show to be detrimental?

    What in the US constitution can you cite which leads you to say that same-sex marriages should be prohibited?

    You continually can't come up with a legal reason why there shouldn't be same-sex marriage. And you can't really come up with a good non-legal reason either. You just don't like it. Which is not a good enough reason to prohibit other people from having some of the same legal rights (beyond getting married) as you do being in a heterosexual marriage.

    I'm not gay, not even close. The idea of being with another man makes my skin crawl. But it doesn't hurt me or my marriage or my family or my job or my rights to allow same-sex couples to marry. Who cares? Why do you care so much? What bothers you about it?

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger Eugen said…

    It's impossible to talk logic and reason with atheists. It's hard to beat your argument: I want it therefore I have to get it. If I don't get what I want you're biggot.
    It's time to have fun.

    Arcatia and jerrad

    how would you feel we marry two of you to two pigs. On wait, incestuous marriages are not allowed yet.

     
  • At 5:07 PM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Let's just make sure we're clear here .. . .

    Joe thinks allowing same-sex marriage is wrong but he cannot give a legal reason why that should be the case except that it wasn't allowed previously.

    He seems to think that allowing same sex marriage will lead to all kinds of other couplings which he finds appalling.

    He is convinced that there is a move to 'destroy' marriage . . . whatever that means.

    He completely ignores evidence from other countries which have embraced same-sex marriage with little or no ill effect. Except maybe in church attendance.

    The question which Joe has not and probably cannot answer is: by what legal basis would you prohibit same-sex couples from marrying? Answering this he avoids like the plague. The answer is: there is NO legal justification for prohibiting same-sex couples the right to marry. Except for prejudice and bigoted laws against sodomy and homosexuality.

    I grew up in the 60s when many people in the US considered multi-racial couplings bad and wrong. It wasn't until the 70s that women were 'allowed' to participate in marathon races. I've experienced prejudice and abuse and bigotry my whole life. I know it when I see it.

    Joe is a bigot and a dick. He's got nothing to back up his stance except prejudice and (guessing here) an old book. He ducks, he dodges, he fails to answer questions, he abuses any and all who disagree with him. He thinks that what other consenting adults want to do is hurtful to him in some way he cannot address. When he's losing he starts swearing and calling names.

    Look at the behaviour. Joe is an abusive bully. I've seen his ilk before.

     
  • At 8:17 PM, Blogger bpragmatic said…

    "You don't believe in 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'? As stated in the Declaration of Independence?"

    Of course we all do. But most of us believe there are certain "constraints" involved. Trying to imagine what the original authors of the phrase had in mind, to me, does not approach the topic as to whether marriage for same sex individuals should be mandated by the federal government.

    As Joe and Eugen are pointing out, where should any line be drawn at this point? An more importantly, Why?

     
  • At 11:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe thinks allowing same-sex marriage is wrong but he cannot give a legal reason why that should be the case except that it wasn't allowed previously.

    There isn't any reason for it, dickface. It is unnecessary.

    He is convinced that there is a move to 'destroy' marriage . . . whatever that means.

    Double-dumbass- the gay people have said they want to destroy the institution of marriage. They announced it.

    He completely ignores evidence from other countries which have embraced same-sex marriage with little or no ill effect.

    Imbecile. The law now allows for all types of marriages. That is a fact and that is all I am saying.

    The answer is: there is NO legal justification for prohibiting same-sex couples the right to marry.

    There is no legal justification for allowing same-sex couples to marry. And if one allows same-sex marriages then by the same reasoning all marriages are OK.

    I am not saying that there cannot ever be any same-sex relationships. Couples do NOT need marriage to feel better about their relationship. They do not need marriage to have their relationship be a greater thing than either individual.

    What I am saying is once you allow same-sex marriage then you don't have any justification for disallowing all others.

    Jerad, the impish faggot, is too fucking retarded to grasp that.

     
  • At 2:46 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    how would you feel we marry two of you to two pigs. On wait, incestuous marriages are not allowed yet.

    No one is forcing anyone to marry someone or something.

    Of course we all do. But most of us believe there are certain "constraints" involved. Trying to imagine what the original authors of the phrase had in mind, to me, does not approach the topic as to whether marriage for same sex individuals should be mandated by the federal government.

    As Joe and Eugen are pointing out, where should any line be drawn at this point? An more importantly, Why?


    Why deny same-sex couples the ability to marry? On what legal grounds? Why should it not be allowed if it hurts no one? Not mandated, allowed.

    There isn't any reason for it, dickface. It is unnecessary.

    More abuse. Typical. Gay-couples want the ability to marry, the Supreme Court agreed they should have that ability. On what legal grounds would you deny them the ability?

    Double-dumbass- the gay people have said they want to destroy the institution of marriage. They announced it.

    Good thing there is a constitution and system by which laws are introduced and interpreted according to existing laws and case law and NOT some special interest group. What does 'destroy the institution of marriage' even mean? It's just rhetoric.

    Imbecile. The law now allows for all types of marriages. That is a fact and that is all I am saying.

    The court said it's unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry. How does that open the door to inter-species marriages? Where in the decision is that door opened?

    There is no legal justification for allowing same-sex couples to marry. And if one allows same-sex marriages then by the same reasoning all marriages are OK.

    No, it does not follow that all marriage are okay. Except in the minds of people who don't think gays and lesbians are equal human beings.

    Again, on what legal basis would you deny same-sex couples the ability to marry. You haven't come up with a legal basis.

    I am not saying that there cannot ever be any same-sex relationships. Couples do NOT need marriage to feel better about their relationship. They do not need marriage to have their relationship be a greater thing than either individual.

    They want to have the same thing you do: a legally binding, recognised marriage. On what legal basis would you deny them the ability to marry?

    What if we just take marriage away, for everyone. Make all couples even. No one can get married. You'd be outraged. Yet you want to deny some couples the ability to be married. And you haven't got a legal basis for doing so.

    What I am saying is once you allow same-sex marriage then you don't have any justification for disallowing all others.

    What BS. Where in the decision does it say that anything goes? Do you really think that homosexuals are like animals, that letting them marry is like letting people marry animals? Homosexuals are human beings that you want to deny some of the same things you have. That's why you're prejudiced and a bigot.

    Jerad, the impish faggot, is too fucking retarded to grasp that.

    You're an abusive bully who STILL HASN'T COME UP WITH A LEGAL BASIS FOR DENYING SAME-SEX COUPLES THE ABILITY TO MARRY. Have you? You're just fear mongering because you think homosexuality is some kind of perversion that needs to be controlled or stamped out. That's why you call people you disagree with 'faggots' isn't it? To make them seem somehow less than you, stupider and un-human.

    God help your daughter if she decides she's a lesbian.

     
  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What I am saying is once you allow same-sex marriage then you don't have any justification for disallowing all others.

    That BS.

    OK, asshole- what is the legal justification for not allowing those other marriages.

    No, it does not follow that all marriage are okay.

    Yes, it does. You are just an ignorant ass.

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    OK, asshole- what is the legal justification for not allowing those other marriages.

    I don't think there is a legal justification for not-allowing same-sex marriage between consenting adult human beings. There are good biological reasons for limiting sibling marriages but I don't have a moral or legal problem. I could care less if people want to practice polygany or polyandry. Why you think people will start being allowed to many animals is just paranoid raving. Animals can't give consent.

    No, it does not follow that all marriage are okay.

    Yes, it does. You are just an ignorant ass.

    Only among prejudice people like you who already think of homosexuals as being somehow lesser beings whose civil rights you can limit and restrict. What part of the Supreme Court decision even comes close to allowing people to marry animals? Can you point to a particular statement? I doubt it.

    And again: on what legal basis do you deny same-sex couples the ability to marry? Clearly you can not answer that question since you continue to fear-monger about some paranoid slippery-slope argument.

    If you think the US is going down the moral toilet then why don't you just move to some country which sticks to it's moral high ground. Like Saudi Arabia. You seem so concerned about what other consenting adults get up to I'm sure you'd fit right into the Saudi society. You could be one of their morality police.

     
  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK, asshole- what is the legal justification for not allowing those other marriages.

    There are good biological reasons for limiting sibling marriages but I don't have a moral or legal problem. I could care less if people want to practice polygany or polyandry. Why you think people will start being allowed to many animals is just paranoid raving. Animals can't give consent.

    Sure they can.

    Only among prejudice people like you who already think of homosexuals as being somehow lesser beings whose civil rights you can limit and restrict.

    Marriage is not a civil right, moron.

    What part of the Supreme Court decision even comes close to allowing people to marry animals?

    What part denies it?

    And again: on what legal basis do you deny same-sex couples the ability to marry?

    There isn't any need for marriage. Marriage does not magically give couples more pleasure. Marriage doesn't magically make the couple a better couple.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Husband and wife. Not husband and husband. Not wife and wife.

    On what legal basis do we prevent different species marriages?

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Jerad said…

    Why you think people will start being allowed to many animals is just paranoid raving. Animals can't give consent.

    Sure they can.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Just wait 'til I tell my friends you said that. hahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahah

    Marriage is not a civil right, moron.

    AND you cannot find a legal reason to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry. Can you?

    What part denies it?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

    Just like my son when he was three years old. 'Well, you didn't say I couldn't do . . .' something stupid. What a doofus.

    There isn't any need for marriage. Marriage does not magically give couples more pleasure. Marriage doesn't magically make the couple a better couple.

    Great, we'll just take it away from all couples then. Done, sorted, we're all equal before the law.

    AND you still cannot give a legal basis for denying same-sex couples the ability to marry. Can you?

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Husband and wife. Not husband and husband. Not wife and wife.

    'Cause it says so in the Bible? The Supreme Court interpreted the US Constitution and case law to say that you cannot restrict the definition that way. Unless you're a homophobic bigot.

    On what legal basis do we prevent different species marriages?

    Animals cannot give legal consent. You are such a doofus. You cannot answer my question and you keep repeating the same dumb BS as if ti will start to mean something someday.

    You and your buddies have no legal standing to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry. You have no evidence that allowing same-sex marriage will destabilise society or bring about moral decay. So you fear monger and make up shit you can't defend. And people all over the world are thinking . . . what jack-asses. They deny evolution, the deny climate change, they'd deny same-sex couples some of the same civil rights as other couples. You are like the worst advertisement for Christianity.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just wait 'til I tell my friends you said that

    Are your friends as ignorant as you are?

    AND you cannot find a legal reason to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry. Can you?

    I can't find any legal reason to allow it. Also getting something shoved up your ass is unnatural.

    Just like my son when he was three years old.

    Yes, you are just like a 3 year old.

    Great, we'll just take it away from all couples then.

    Good luck with that.

    Cause it says so in the Bible?

    Marriage was that way before the Bible, dumbass.

    Animals cannot give legal consent.

    Prove it.

    They deny evolution, the deny climate change, they'd deny same-sex couples some of the same civil rights as other couples.

    Who denies evolution? Who denies climate change? And marriage is not a civil right you ignorant dick.

    You are like the worst advertisement for Christianity.

    I am not a christian, dumbass.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Same-sex/ zero-fitness marriages are unnatural and even go against natural selection.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home