Kagan's Hearing: “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”

clearly against gay marriage.

 

Once again you are missing the point. The court didn't define gay marriage because there is no such thing. What it did Lawrence was clearly define that homosexual acts are no different than any other acts and people have the right to engage in those if they so choose. So since there is no difference between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts from a legal perspective there is no way to use such an act to discriminate in the case of marriage. Marriage is right. Homosexual activity, if you so choose, is a right. Put the two together and you have the right for homosexuals to marry.

 

I cannot believe that judges were not aware that heterosexual act is fundamentally different from homosexual.

 

Which is of course in no way relevant.

 

Perversion is entirely subjective. Heterosexuals can be quite "perverted".

 

Well, there is that one GLARING difference everyone likes to pretend they cannot see.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

The Supreme Court saw it in the past

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
and
"It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society... And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

 

Nope

obergfell

 

What they said is it doesn't matter, legally they are same and people have the right to choose who and how they have sex without interference from the government and that from a legal perspective it the same thing as heterosexual sex.

You seem incapable of getting off this homosexual sex kick?

 

Perversion is a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perversion

Orthodoxy (from Greek ὀρθός, orthos ("right", "true", "straight") and δόξα, doxa ("opinion" or "belief", related to dokein, "to think"),[1]) is adherence to accepted norms, more specifically to creeds, especially in religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy

Normal is also used to describe individual behaviour that conforms to the most common behaviour in society (known as conformity).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_(behavior)

Nah, its a peversion.

 

Perversion is entirely subjective.

 

Marriage isnt required for sex. There is no interference.

 

Ye Olde procreation canard.

This has already been thoroughly debunked numerous times. In several court rulings the court ruled that people have the right to engage in homosexual sex without interference from the government and that sex is legally the exact same as heterosexual sex.

Also parental law is separate from marriage law.

In addition to all of that if you attach precreation to the right of marriage then you can pass laws to ensure all couples are able to procreate before they get married and you would be able to legally bar anyone who cannot have children from marriage, heterosexual or not. You would be going down the old Eugenics pathway.

It is not that no one has considered the procreation aspect it just has been exposed as completely irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

You are missing the point. If the courts state as they have, that there is no legal difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex you then cannot use homosexual sex as a compelling state interest in applying discrimination to marriage.

 

This is the only one that quotes Jesus directly, and it's the only one I'll address specifically. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" was part of the civil law, but presumably many had taken it as a justification for bloodlust, veiled or otherwise. He never said such retribution was wrong ipso facto, any more than He said the adulterous woman ought not be stoned.

As for the rest, the law can be likened to a bandaid, which is perfectly good while the wound is healing, but eventually gets thrown away.

 

I posted what Websters dictionary printed in 1928...back when this nation still understood the power and the reason in the word.

- - - Updated - - -

Right back to natural law : This time take the ten minutes and listen


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdHV_cT-C00

 

Civil unions provide that same, but the gay activists have proven their goal is not the rights, their goal is to destroy rivals (those that will not agree with them and are accused as haters because they will not agree)...such as the church.

Gender discrimination is based upon gender, such as if it was said that women or men cannot do something. This is not a gender issue, especially considering that gender confusion is part of the activist's agenda as well. This is a sexual preference issue...a perversion issue.


What hypocrisy, you stated :

That is exactly what this court decision you support does, no matter how you deny it, or how often.

 

What complete claptrap. The goal is, and always has been, equal protection of the laws for all citizens. But if you mean those who enjoy civil rights being opposed to those who would deprive them of those rights, then you're correct. Bigotry is a sin, and we should hate the sin.

 

Separate is not equal.

There goal is not to destroy anything. That is nonsense. Churches are not required to perform same-sex weddings. No one is forcing them to perform those weddings. If you have business with a business license granted by the state then you are required to comply with public accommodation laws. If you register as a non-profit religious institution you are free to discriminate as you see fit.

They don't want anything other than what everyone else has. What gives you the right to force your opinions onto other people?

 

No that is exactly what you are trying to do. You believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. You would have the definition forced on everyone in this country. It doesn't work like that. You do not get to define marriage for me or for anyone else. If you want to believe that you are welcome to that belief. You can join groups with like-minded people and form non-profit organisations, religious or otherwise that comprise people of like mind. You cannot force that definition on the rest of us. It is not the supporters of same-sex marriage that want their opinion forced on others. They just want what everyone else has. You on the the other hand would force your opinion onto them.

 

There's no such thing as natural law.

 

If you connect enough dots...you can include Pedophilia and beastiality as well. Why not, you all ready connected dots to get here. Is it the ich factor? The activist's all ready have proven they don't care about children as they say they do...

We have two separate laws to prove it.

In California young girls have lost their expectation of privacy in locker rooms and bathrooms to support this agenda.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/us/california-transgender-school-law/index.html

In Oregon we have the state deciding that a 15 yr old can obtain a sex change operation (while in the height of their hormonal changes) without parental consent.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/364...ampaign=afternoon-newsletter&utm_medium=owned

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is going to get way weirder and way more strange as time passes and libs come up with even more bizarre ideas.

- - - Updated - - -

If you connect enough dots...you can include Pedophilia and beastiality as well. Why not, you all ready connected dots to get here. Is it the ich factor? The activist's all ready have proven they don't care about children as they say they do...

We have two separate laws to prove it.

In California young girls have lost their expectation of privacy in locker rooms and bathrooms to support this agenda.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/us/california-transgender-school-law/index.html

In Oregon we have the state deciding that a 15 yr old can obtain a sex change operation (while in the height of their hormonal changes) without parental consent.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/364...ampaign=afternoon-newsletter&utm_medium=owned

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is going to get way weirder and way more strange as time passes and libs come up with even more bizarre ideas.

- - - Updated - - -

Not anymore...just like there is no more reason and no more common sense...at least for many anyway.

 

Ah yes, the good ole days when racism and discrimination was the norm. Bring em back, huh.
Well words are words and definitions change with time as humans progress to a more symbiotic species.

 

It wasn't ever forced, it was just logically understood by reasonable people thinking reasonably. .

 

So...by your logic...(I love these insights so many are so willing to provide into the warped liberal mind). Progress is moral decay.

By your warped logic, basing new perverted acts and supporting them, is okay because of perverted, wrong headed acts in the past?

 

More ridiculousness...

Children cannot consent legally...pedophilia debunked.
Animals cannot consent legally...beastiality debunked.

You posts are like a nonsequitur identification handbook.

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: The majority of people believe this way so we are really not forcing anyone except those weirdos.

Luckily the Constitution was written in part to prevent that sort of thing.

 

There is now more reason and more common sense today. Less perverted opinions being forced on society.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it was. Being left out is forcing someone to not participate.
Now reason has trumped perverted opinions.