5-4 decision, the Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Mustang Man

trans-species/beastiality.

I was not aware there was a moral issue with this?

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Time to move on and push for the legalization of polygamy.
Wonder how liberals will like that idea...

Liberals will endorse anything that has the potential to garner a vote Bacha bazi, Polygamy, Incest, Animal Love....it is all on the table.

Originally Posted by Mustang Man

The scary thing is that in an interview I just saw with a LGBT fellow, he mentioned something along the lines of, "This historic decision moves our community a step forward but there is still work to be done." First thing I thought of was, what the hell else needs to be done??? The supreme court just circumvented the 10th amendment for you all.

You can now marry anywhere & be out loud proud of being gay and sue anyone of who disagrees with you.

Anyone now wanna take bets on what the next "progressive" movement to get shoved down our throats will be?

My moneys probably on either pedophilia or trans-species/beastiality.

''


Mustang Man their are many who put their money where you do..

http://www.narth.org/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/co...ze-pedophilia/

and a previous discussion here:

http://professionalsoldiers.com/foru...t=trojan+couch


I recall an older thread that was immediately after the 2008 election where members put in the Obama forecasts.....it would be interesting to see how the forecasts panned out

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Liberals will endorse anything that has the potential to garner a vote Bacha bazi, Polygamy, Incest, Animal Love....it is all on the table.

And so is Stem Cells and Same Sex Reproduction.....

http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/st...roduction.html

Wanna take bet's what social groups are pushing the research?

[RomanCandle]

People thought the Communist invasion would happen by means of a Red Dawn type scenario under the shadow of a mushroom cloud. Instead it happened in the fertile minds of university students during the Cold War. All the shots fired in anger were just a side show to the real war that was silently being won.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

And so is Stem Cells and Same Sex Reproduction.....

http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/st...roduction.html

Wanna take bet's what social groups are pushing the research?

Caitlin Jenner should have the right to impregnate itself, carry a child for 9 month, give birth and breast feed.

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by JSMosby

Hold on a second.....I just heard that we no longer burn witches at the stake. WTF is happening to this country???

New directive just came down ... Ya gotta weigh 'em first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I think all peoples, lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-questioning, have the right to marry, so long as it is two consenting adults.

Why only two? Why not three or four? Should a mother and her son be allowed to marry as long as they are both adults?

Considering your argument, and if you are intellectually honest, your answer should be yes.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Sir, see my above post (#72). Regarding a mother and son, I do not see that as a problem as it isn't affecting anyone else. That leads into a discussion however about the health of the child or children if any are produced, as there is a higher chance of deformities with incest. However, the thing is that, there are lots of people in ordinary marriages who also have predispositions to diseases and problems who procreate, so should they then not be allowed to marry either? For example, if a man and a woman both come from families with a history of heart disease, or two albinos, etc...

Initially something like incest marriage may sound crazy, but I could only see that happening if say the two people never grew up together or say the child had been given away to adoption, then met the parent later, and thus it was, from a mental standpoint, a normal relationship, except that biologically, the people are siblings, cousins, or parent-child.

You don't think parents having sex with their children is a problem and doesn't effect anyone outside the relationship.....You are a mixed up puppy.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Turkey sees things differently, I guess the euphoria celebrated in the U.S. isn't going over so well in other countries.

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Istanbul police break up gay pride parade

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...rade/29425631/

Water cannons and rainbow flags. These colors do run!

[Mills]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Sir, see my above post (#72). Regarding a mother and son, I do not see that as a problem as it isn't affecting anyone else. That leads into a discussion however about the health of the child or children if any are produced, as there is a higher chance of deformities with incest. However, the thing is that, there are lots of people in ordinary marriages who also have predispositions to diseases and problems who procreate, so should they then not be allowed to marry either? For example, if a man and a woman both come from families with a history of heart disease, or two albinos, etc...

Initially something like incest marriage may sound crazy, but I could only see that happening if say the two people never grew up together or say the child had been given away to adoption, then met the parent later, and thus it was, from a mental standpoint, a normal relationship, except that biologically, the people are siblings, cousins, or parent-child.

When the gene pool is diluted and people are born with club feet and other deformities, it DOES have an impact on society.

Especially since the majority of healthy Americans are the ones who foot the bill for the subsidies that allow SCOTUScare.

There is also a moral boundary that needs to be enforced. One could argue that all beings on earth commit incest and and homosexual acts, however there are no beings on the face of this earth that have the mental capacity of humans. The heightened capacity for critical thinking and a moral compass separates us from the animals and savages who purely act on instinct.

Essentially, the fortitude to avoid the trap of "if it feels good, do it".

[Joker]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Sir, see my above post (#72). Regarding a mother and son, I do not see that as a problem as it isn't affecting anyone else. That leads into a discussion however about the health of the child or children if any are produced, as there is a higher chance of deformities with incest. However, the thing is that, there are lots of people in ordinary marriages who also have predispositions to diseases and problems who procreate, so should they then not be allowed to marry either? For example, if a man and a woman both come from families with a history of heart disease, or two albinos, etc...

Initially something like incest marriage may sound crazy, but I could only see that happening if say the two people never grew up together or say the child had been given away to adoption, then met the parent later, and thus it was, from a mental standpoint, a normal relationship, except that biologically, the people are siblings, cousins, or parent-child.

From your post on this thread it leads me to believe that you are possibly a member of nambla and are really one messed up person.

[lindy]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I don't think it's about that at all. Whether the Constitution actually protects a right to same sex marriage or not is a more academic argument. The reason those against it are upset is because they are against the practice period. Also, how does the decision contravene democracy? Democracy is irrelevant regarding individual rights. I also do not see how it goes against the 10th Amendment.

Academic argument? Isn't that what the Court is for?

I urge you to read the majority and dissenting opinions. When a chosen (not elected by the People) group of 5 dictate to the people, that is not democracy. The Court defined marriage without citing any legal precedence: it simply made it up out of thin air. Where was the judicial REVIEW? This, in my opinion, is a good summation.

The right to dignity clause is not in the Constitution, yet Justice Kennedy believes Americans have that right and exclusively focused on this right throughout his opinion.

Since we now all have the right to dignity, that right is infringed when I get robbed or assaulted in front of my family therefore, I should be able to bear arms in all 50 states in order to preserve my dignity.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

How does it effect others outside the relationship?

Wouldn't it be great if all Mom's and Dad's could bed their children....we could even have parties were we can swap our kids.....and you could then poke your neighbor daughter without fear of repercussion.

Sounds like a good plain

It will effect every generation of their spawn that continue the practice of family f@%king family, and would surely spread outside the immediate family to other families as their spawn left their fold....and before too long everyone is swapping fluids with everyone.

[Roguish Lawyer]

https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBCA0007

Another shameless plug. Two days before the June 30 FEC report comes out -- every dollar helps. Thanks for those of who who have contributed so far!

[craigepo]

The opinion is a relatively quick 103 page read (relatively quick because there are a lot of skippable footnote and appendices). I would encourage everybody to read the opinion, not just to get the gist of the opinion, but more importantly to understand how the justices reached their conclusions.

Having read thousands of cases, I must say I have never read a majority opinion with such a lack of legal authority. Kennedy mentions the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, but never illustrates how those clauses apply.

Thomas' dissent gives a very interesting lesson on what the word "liberty" really means (in short, in the Constitutional context it's defined as a freedom from government intervention). He then contrasts that with this case, wherein the petitioners were actually requesting an "entitlement", or a benefit that flows from the government (a recognition from the state governments that their marriages granted them rights such as inheritance, tax breaks, etc.).

All in all, a worthwhile read, no matter what you think of the outcome.


https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2...VJtly1sNbU4&e=