You still don't get it....The Hershey highway cannot produce offspring....no matter how you poke it...Marriage is a union between a man and a woman not transvestites etc...Sodomy is detrimental to the world we live in..
Don't lie! You addressed nothing. You did not even attempt to refute the points that I made. You cannot refute the points that I made. I am not going to bicker with you. I am not going to get into a pissing match with you. I am just going to keep going back to those questions and points until you are shamed in at least attempting to address them. All that you have done thus far is to copy and past the same canned one or two line auto responses that you have been using for years. It would appear that your brain has ceased to function: Here they are again all in one place for your convenience :
Not from the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges - not even in the dissents. If you think otherwise, then quote me page number from the ruling - shouldn't be that hard to do.
It's not. Not in the Supreme Court ruling, and not in the sixth circuit ruling, either. Again, cite me page number for this exact quote that you claim appeared in "Obergefell". ETA: Also not in Obergefell v. Kasich.
Ive already provided the link. And again https://cases.justia.com/federal/di...e/1:2013cv00501/164617/65/0.pdf?ts=1387840357 Pg 3. The court decision left standing by the Supreme court when they overtuned the 6th circuit ruling. the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot – i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no, as follows.3
Hilarious - you had to go all the way back to Obergefell v. Wymyslo to dig up this quote. But what exactly is your point? You would apparently like to claim that it's constitutional to limit marriage to one man/one woman, so long as doing so isn't based in an animus toward same-sex couples. Explain to us how you think that's ever going to happen, post-Obergefell. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you're making a ridiculous argument just to get attention.
Im not claiming anything is going to happen. Just pointing to the reasoning of the courts. Usually, once such legal fictions are created, they never go away. AND the effect of the supreme court decision, "The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed" is to reinstate the very decision I quoted from. Just as it will probably only be a matter of time that segregated bathrooms will be ruled to be nothing but a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" transgenders.
"legal fiction" is nothing more than a rhetorical device. Legal fact is that same-sex couples now enjoy legal recognition of their marriages - whether you like it or not. But you originally quoted it because you were trying to draw some ridiculous distinction between it being constitutional to limit marriage to one man/one woman based on procreation, versus it being unconstitutional to do so if the basis is a dislike of homosexuals. Which is a silly point to make, unless you think it's possible that the limitation of marriage to man/woman stands some chance of being reinstated. The title of the thread is "Gay Rights????". Transgender people aren't necessarily gay, despite some people's desire to confuse the two.
A fact no one is disputing. But of course, that's why you want to go there as the mighty slayer of strawmen It was a demonstration of that distinction. Nope, just demonstrating the mental gymnastics required for the court to get to the decision they wanted. Yeah, if they can change their gender, their homosexual attractions become heterosexual attractions in their mind.
More important than rejecting bigotry? You can't consider that there is freedom when all it means is that one group gets to be the KKK and the other group gets to suck it up. To be meaningful, freedom has to have some sort of "for all" attached to it. And, that has to be more meaningful than simply being an excuse for bigotry on the basis of there also being MORE bigotry in some reverse direction. Another way of putting it is that there is no "separate but equal". Separate is always unequal. It's always an expression of marginalization, not freedom.
Very much so. Especially when it is you identifying what is bigotry. They can join Black Lives Matter or the Black Panthers if they like. Tell the KKK to (*)(*)(*)(*) off, as opposed to just sucking it up. How is the KKK restricting anyones freedom? Some kind of freedom from being offended or something you would prefer? What is separate here?
No, bigotry has a definition that stands on its own - as does discrimination. You are calling for segregation. And, separation is a root requirement for that. Those in favor agree. The part they would like to ignore is that separation is NEVER equal.
...there is no such thing as bigotry...males or males and females or females....its the natural order of the planet we live on...when a black dog bites a white dog ,is that bigotry? When a male dog corn holes a white dog is that the natural order?.....the Natural order "Trumps" the order of man (The Constitution)which is only cognizant of the US.....Muslims don't condone homosexuality , neither does any follower of Christianity.....The Natural order does not condone homosexuality or mixing of the races of humans or animals.... if it did, we wouldn't have different species...
I see your answer of "no", and have no idea which of the three questions I asked, you are responding to. Care to be specific? No, I am not calling for segregation.
And? My wife of 24 years and I couldn't have children. Shall I tell her some bigoted dude on the internet said we can't be married. Shall I forward her one-fingered salute?
You asserted that the Court's finding was a "legal fiction", did you not? I simply pointed out that those marriages are a legal fact, regardless of your employment of that rhetorical device. More like a demonstration of your useless, pointless opinion. More like demonstrating your own mental gymnastics in rejecting the Court's reasoning. A statement that contains the false implication that a transgender person's attractions are necessarily homosexual before they transition, which isn't the case. A person's sexual orientation is separate from their gender identity.
A fact no one is disputing. But of course, that's why you want to go there as the mighty slayer of strawmen
You said: I said: That should be fairly clear. And, then you defended the KKK while NOW claiming you're not calling for segregation! Sorry, you're just not finding a defense for your position. When America says "freedom" we don't really mean the "freedom" to deny people freedom. And, we extend that to employment, public accommodation (like, you can walk into any business and be served), real estate, etc.
