The Stormy Storm

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
awpitt said:
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

But, ONLY couples. States still have the right to determine age restrictions, closeness of blood relative restrictions, number people involved, etc.

This is where Ken's argument comes in that it was not constitutional, I think. For one, the constitution does not grant the right to establish marriage rules. But, if the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses say they do, then EVERY restriction on ANY relationship that seeks governmental registration as a named "marriage" would ALSO be considered.

As in, why not three? Why not five? Why not adult, consenting brother and sister? Why were these things left off?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
You mean the people too racist to accept a black president?

But believe a white one is beyond reproach despite tons of evidence?.
Click to expand...

Evidence? Evidence of WHAT, exactly? That he might cheat on his spouse? That he might have paid an actress who has sex on film and stage to have sex? That he might have paid someone via a completely legal process to not talk about it?

What is the evidence you are talking about?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Sapidus said:
Federal funding doesn’t pay for abortions.
Click to expand...

No one dies? There's no living entity with separate, individual, unique human DNA that dies? Funding is not the key question, legality is.

Does that make it clear?

No one is asking you to be gay , have an abortion or be trans.

You just have to let those people have the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

Were we out killing gay people? No, that would be majority-Muslim countries. Were we out killing people having abortions? No, the people having the abortions were killing people. Were we killing people who can't look down and figure out what sex they are? No, again, that would be majority-Muslim countries, not ours.

So, they have life.

Did people have the liberty to be gay, to be unsure what sex they are, or to kill babies? No, all those things are legal, so they have liberty. No one was calling for anything except killing people to be illegal.

How about pursuit of happiness? See, again, none of these things were illegal - to love someone of the same sex (if they know their sex), or to not know your sex, or to kill babies for convenience. So, seems without gay "marriage" or using the wrong-sex bathroom, everyone had the right to pursue happiness.

Seems as though the only issue we have separate is abortion. You are a science denier, most of us are not.

It’s really not that difficult and it’s exactly what your sky god and jebus would want
Click to expand...

Vrai is an atheist, so I'll field this one - are you suggesting we should establish laws based upon what God or Jesus would want?
Click to expand...

Sap, I missed your responses to these questions, too.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
awpitt said:
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

That is the BS that the activist members of the Roberts court opined, now show where in the Constitution that judicial opinions are the law of the land? The fact that Kentucky's law on same-sex marriage was flawed (due to not recognizing marriages sanctioned by other states) does not grant them authority to do anything other than strike it down.

I get that you aren't big on State rights and prefer a strong central government, but that isn't what the Constitution intended for our government to be. And it certainly wasn't intended for the judiciary to also be the legislature. In this instance the court once again exceeded its authority and violated the separation of powers.
 
S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
PsyOps said:
I'm not surprised this is your interpretation of what I posted.
Click to expand...


This is what you said

“ I work with people every day that do all sorts of things that go against my beliefs. I don't quit because I have to work them; but holding your standards to singular issues (moral-based) isn't really all that smart, in my opinion.“


How is that not the same thing to you?
 
S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Sap, I missed your responses to these questions, too.
Click to expand...

My response was logic and reason don’t work when you are dealing with someone who believes in following the Bible but only the convenient parts. Not the ones that are too onerous or cause themselves inconvenience.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
Sapidus said:
This is what you said

“ I work with people every day that do all sorts of things that go against my beliefs. I don't quit because I have to work them; but holding your standards to singular issues (moral-based) isn't really all that smart, in my opinion.“


How is that not the same thing to you?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how me making my own choices translates into being forced to baking a cake. The bakery owner was being forced to, at some level, participate in a gay wedding. They chose to go out of business instead.

Freedom doesn't just mean we are free to exercise our rights, it also means we are free not to. If I choose to not vote for Trump because his moral senses offend my religious tendencies, I won't vote for him. Or, I can choose to not let that bother me and vote for him. If I choose not to bake a cake for a gay couple, that is my choice. Just the same, if I choose to overlook that level of participation in a gay wedding, that is also my choice.

This is about all of us being able to exercise (or not) our rights without the government dictating otherwise. It also means those that don't hold my values don't intimidate me into submitting to their thinking on those matters. Certainly you are free to call me anything you want, or try to intimidate me because I don't fit your definition of how a Christian should react to these things; but it only shows you have a limited understanding of what it means to freely exercise one's religion (or any other right).
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
So you mean th NDA is fake? The lawyer gave her $130K for fun?

What is wrong with you that you can’t even admit the obvious
Click to expand...

You stated unequivocally that Trump slept with this woman, and when he did so. We do not know this. You can assume it, you can infer it, but you do not know this.

You said Trump didn't sign the NDA. This has been reported, so we can reasonably assume it is true.

You said Trump's lawyer paid the NDA money to the actress, and Trump's lawyer confirmed it, so we can assume that is true.

You said that Trump's lawyer paid the money from his own funds, and expected no reimbursement. Trump's lawyer confirmed this, so we can assume it is true.

But, again, you stated unequivocally that Trump slept with this woman, and when he did so. We do not know this. You can assume it, you can infer it, but you do not know this.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sapidus said:
My response was logic and reason don’t work when you are dealing with someone who believes in following the Bible but only the convenient parts. Not the ones that are too onerous or cause themselves inconvenience.
Click to expand...

But I wasn't the one talking about following the Bible. YOU said that Vrai should accept things the government does because "It’s really not that difficult and it’s exactly what your sky god and jebus would want". So, my question to you is whether you are really advocating that we make laws based on "what jebus would want." I mean, you were telling an avowed atheist (Vrai) what her sky god would want, so the only reasonable inference from that is that you believe we should write laws based on God's wishes. Is that what you were saying?
 
S

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
You stated unequivocally that Trump slept with this woman, and when he did so. We do not know this. You can assume it, you can infer it, but you do not know this.

You said Trump didn't sign the NDA. This has been reported, so we can reasonably assume it is true.

You said Trump's lawyer paid the NDA money to the actress, and Trump's lawyer confirmed it, so we can assume that is true.

You said that Trump's lawyer paid the money from his own funds, and expected no reimbursement. Trump's lawyer confirmed this, so we can assume it is true.

But, again, you stated unequivocally that Trump slept with this woman, and when he did so. We do not know this. You can assume it, you can infer it, but you do not know this.
Click to expand...

You really are not bright
 
littlelady

littlelady

God bless the USA
Sapidus said:
You really are not bright
Click to expand...

If you think T_p is not bright, then your light burned out a long time ago. One if by land, and two if by sea...and all that. Catch my drift. Probably not. But there is, always, hope.
 
Last edited:
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
SamSpade said:
Color us all surprised when your only response is an insult - because you've got nothing.
But feel free to continue to insult.
Click to expand...


Since when have insults been a rarity around here. I see it happen all the time. I've often been the target of it coming from the extreme right wingers just for expressing an opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top