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

Lol, please feel free to post a lie I've posted and prove its a lie. I expect an apology after you fail to do so.

Non sequitur.

Such as?

Are in no way relevant to the topic same sex marriage.

they are not relevant to same sex marriage. So your use of them as an argument is a non sequitur.

- - - Updated - - -

This is incoherent.

 

I cannot control how you choose to interpret my words... I have been discussing rulings by the SCOTUS and new laws in two states that put others at risk and are part of this gay, lesbian, trans perversion issue.

I hate that our highest court did not interpret the Constitution, but rather they used it as a connect the dot game to support a pre conceived notion, this seriously weakens our nation.

 

The reaction of not being concerned for young girls in locker rooms and restrooms by those on your side of this argument...defending the perverts over protecting children proves that you sell yourselves as the kind and caring soft hearted nurturers defending people is clearly just sales and gimmickry.

Your response that this is a non sequitur cements it...dismissal is just a typical leftist response when exposed.

I love that you try to say this has nothing to do with the topic...yet gay rights and gay, lesbian, trans is the topic and it is because of the activist's that these laws were written. More dismissal...just cementing my point again.

I have proven it is completely relevant.

You liars post questions asking "how does this affect you" and when I show exactly how this does affect the populace you play dismissal games. Or just resort to the "let's deny three times and it all will disappear" routine.

 

perversion is subjective. The courts applied the 14th amendment to same sex marriage bans and the bans failed. Little girls are irrelevant to same sex marriage and this thread m

 

Uh, nothing was lost. nothing. All that happened is the gender restriction was removed from marriage, as it was precluded by the 14th amendment.

 

Were you trying to avoid me finding out you were responding to me?

Young girls are not relevant to same sex marriage or this thread. I've indulged it enough and will report you for thread derailment if you mention it again.

I am the third person to explain why it's a non sequitur.

The topic of this thread is justice kagan answering a question, and in a broader context same sex marriage. Nothing else.

Nope. You've been show by it's not.

I'll ask one last time to show a lie I've posted or retract the claim. If you make the accusation again without providing your evidence I posted a lie you will be reported.

 

I quoted the ruling dude. Review the posts. It is not my opinion it legal FACT.

 

Dude, businesses have not had the right to refuse service to anyone since 1964. Public Accommodation was part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was passed by Congress, signed into law by the President and adjudicated by the courts. It is legally binding law and it was not "passed by just 5 individuals." That is factually wrong. It is you who wants to change the facts.

You keep coming up with this little girls canard. I think you may be a bit obsessed with this.

Please explain to me how allowing people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria to be able to act as the gender they believe themselves to be endangering little girls? More importantly how to do you logically make the connection between that issue and same-sex marriage?

 

You have. This is the 1st answer you've given me after you claimed only sex in hetero marriage is blessed by God. So I asked many times, if all sex in hetero marriage is blessed by God. Now we know there is stuff married heteros can do that is the same as the rest of the world, sex, not blessed by God.

Now, what limitiations to sex is there for it not to be blessed by God
Do any chirstian heteros partake in that sex. If so, they are no different that gays or non married etc.
Have you ever done and sex not blessed by God? You can't or you'd be coming off as hypocritical.

Can you list those perverted acts. And where it calls them perverted in the bible.

 

New laws. Again you cite new laws and never give what the new laws are. I am not misinterpreting anything, you are blatantly being misleading and continue to do so.
That is such an immoral and perverse way of getting a point across.

You hate the SC didn't interpret it wrong and rule to your liking. Letting you publicly go on hating and discriminating.
This seriously strengthens our nation, when we become more tolerant and let ALL people be EQUAL in the chase for LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.
You hate that ALL people are being treated more equally. It blows my mind at how some can be so bigoted.

 

Of course if you apply perverted logic, you can challenge anything, e.g. 2+2=4 if government lawyers said so.

 

In your quote Justice Kennedy said that homosexual sex is not a marriage, please look at the FACT more carefully.
It is exactly why that ruling was correct, because it separated homosexual sex from marriage.

 

Sex is seperate from marriage. You can have sex without getting married. You can get married and never have sex. Sex is not a requirement of marriage

 

Then what is a purpose of marriage? If is not a sex it is not a procreation, then what is it?
Just list of benefits.
If it is a list of benefits why they are not distributed equally?

 

Probably no two couples get married for exactly the same reason. I suspect that for most people, the benefits are more psychological than otherwise.

 

That is exactly where the problem is. SCOTUS has made a decision based on emotions and personal beliefs. It is far worse then any dictatorship.

 

You lied. You got caught. Man up, coward.

- - - Updated - - -

YOu mean, by guaranteeing everyone equal rights as the constitution requires? Yeah, give me the dictatorship of personal liberty over the "freedom" of imposed bigotry any day.

 

I know you excel at to pulling phrases out of context, that is how homosexual sex suddenly become synonym of marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

perversion has been noted.

 

I didn't think you could admit it and man up, and you proved me right. Do you ever tire of being demonstrably dead wrong?

 

Creating a legal kinship where none existed prior.

It is a contract.

They are distributed equally. Everyone who is married, whether opposite sex or same sex, is IDENTICALLY married and get the IDENTICAL benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it made the only constitutional decision they were permitted to, using the constitution as a legal basis.

 

To some, something gained in a real world, is something lost in one's mind. For they have lost the right to discriminate.

 

Why do you think marriage is solely for the purpose of sex? Where is this derived from? My guess is some religion, but no one can truly think marriage is for the sole purpose of sex.

- - - Updated - - -

Now the word everyone is perverted to you?

 

You might say that a bigot is someone who fears that somone, somewhere, is enjoying the same rights he enjoys.

 

It is irrelevant as an argument against same sex marriage because procreation does not necessary for marriage. But people who are married and having sex who CAN procreate usually end up doing so. So. there is a legit reason for prohibiting incest.

 

I love how liberals feel free to jump back and forth over the fence...no comment too low, no comment too hypocritical and on and on and on.

This site and the libs that post here help cement my position and I am grateful to you all for your candor.