Judicial Activism Loves The Gays

[LnGrrrR]

CC makes perfect logic.

I'll break it down for you :

Your steak or hamburger. Did you give the animal a choice before they snapped it's neck, chopped it up, and served it for you?

So why the should there be a "animal needs to give consent" to get married with it?

The way I look at it, a dog getting ed in the ass but living a good life with all the food she wants is a lot better than being chopped up and served.

If that's his argument, then I fail to see how it applies to the "gay marriage" argument.

Comparing killing animals for eating vs having sex with them is one thing; comparing having sex with same sex vs having sex with animals is different. In fact, it pretty much throws the "bestiality" argument under the bus; there's obviously different rules for animals than there are people. For instance, you can't eat people.

That's a whole "justification of eating living animals" argument, which is distinct and separate.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know reading is hard for you, but did I say every contract was a marriage?

You're really, really, really bad at this.

Just to refresh your memory, here is Manny's definition of marriage...

A contract between 2 people with different ramifications in various states.

I can clearly see that YOU couldn't pass an LSAT. And yes, my son is an attorney, and yes, we have many free wheeling discussions on politics, the law, and current events and have since he was very young.

[LnGrrrR]

Using the 14th amendment would only work if blacks were deprived of being able to marry, at all.

Not the case. They can enter into a marriage with another black person if they choose to.

fify

[Parker2112]

Just to refresh your memory, here is Manny's definition of marriage...




I can clearly see that YOU couldn't pass an LSAT. And yes, my son is an attorney, and yes, we have many free wheeling discussions on politics, the law, and current events and have since he was very young.

what's wrong with this definition?

[CosmicCowboy]

If that's his argument, then I fail to see how it applies to the "gay marriage" argument.

Comparing killing animals for eating vs having sex with them is one thing; comparing having sex with same sex vs having sex with animals is different. In fact, it pretty much throws the "bestiality" argument under the bus; there's obviously different rules for animals than there are people. For instance, you can't eat people.

That's a whole "justification of eating living animals" argument, which is distinct and separate.

But TLong loves his sheep. What you just proved is that EVERYONE has their own boundaries on what a marriage is and isn't. In TLongs eyes you are clearly a bigot and his rights are clearly being violated.

[MannyIsGod]

MH brings new insight to this issue that hasn't been seen before. You know, interracial marriage shouldn't be legal because people aren't really being denied anything under the Equal Protection clause if they can still marry within their race.

[Parker2112]

what's wrong with this "marriage is a contract" definition?

[LnGrrrR]

It makes the assumption that sexuals are different from other citizens.

They are different. They like the same sex.

In 2010, there is no conclusive evidence that sexuals are any different from anyone else. Sexual preference is not enough to classify a people as "different" and therefore, requiring rights to afford their difference.

I'd think the 9th Amendment would allow states the right to determine what marriage is, personally.

Otherwise, ANYONE with a "different preference" could claim the same exact argument, and demand the fed gov't to recognize each and every one.

Sure, they could. That's why we have courts. Of course, consent is usually considered as a given for marriage. Some time in the future, the public opinion might change on that issue. For now, it doesn't.

It's a stretch and misinterpretation of the amendment.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anything different from a judge.

What about the other judges that have upheld it? I guess you just know more about judicial proceeding and law than various court judges.

[MannyIsGod]

Just to refresh your memory, here is Manny's definition of marriage...




I can clearly see that YOU couldn't pass an LSAT. And yes, my son is an attorney, and yes, we have many free wheeling discussions on politics, the law, and current events and have since he was very young.

K CC. You win. Bravo. Let me know when they overturn the ruling.

[MannyIsGod]

But TLong loves his sheep. What you just proved is that EVERYONE has their own boundaries on what a marriage is and isn't. In TLongs eyes you are clearly a bigot and his rights are clearly being violated.

Can sheep enter into contracts?

[LnGrrrR]

But TLong loves his sheep. What you just proved is that EVERYONE has their own boundaries on what a marriage is and isn't. In TLongs eyes you are clearly a bigot and his rights are clearly being violated.

Sheep can't give consent though, of course. If marriage is a contract (and it is, because the government's involved), then surely all people present must be willing.

[Parker2112]

K CC. You win. Bravo. Let me know when they overturn the ruling.

Hes FOS MIG.

[LnGrrrR]

Show me where the cons ution guarantees the right to marry

The enumeration in the Cons ution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sheep can't give consent though, of course. If marriage is a contract (and it is, because the government's involved), then surely all people present must be willing.

Bingo

You get it.

All people present are willing.

TLong has power of attorney for the sheep.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure you can. The concept of "marriage" is fluid and can be whatever you want to define it as. We've just proven that.

The concept of marriage is fluid... relatively speaking. A very slow-moving and viscous fluid though.

I mean, look at the consent argument. A few hundred years ago, people would have thought you were daft if you wanted to argue that a woman should have any say in who she marries. But that's relatively important nowadays, so I've heard.

[LnGrrrR]

Bingo

You get it.

All people present are willing.

TLong has power of attorney for the sheep.

Personally, I don't care if Tlong has power of attorney over his sheep and wants to have sex with it. (Although legally speaking, I don't think a person can have power of attorney for sexual acts. )

[jack sommerset]

People go into prison straight and some come out gay and keep being gay. They are not born gay. They learned to be gay. Just saying.

[Stringer_Bell]

People go into prison straight and some come out gay and keep being gay. They are not born gay. They learned to be gay. Just saying.

Some dude's go into prison straight, put their s in other dude's booty holes, then come out straight cuz it's just to get by while in prison. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I get your point. But it goes both ways.

[CuckingFunt]

I can't believe some of the dumb I'm reading in this thread.

[Stringer_Bell]

I can't believe some of the dumb I'm reading in this thread.

And what exactly do women know about politics? HMMMMMM?

[jack sommerset]

And what exactly do women know about politics? HMMMMMM?

She hates men but wants to be one, she's a . That doesn't count in her head as being a woman.

[MiamiHeat]

fify

Allowing a white man or a black man to marry a white woman or black woman does not change the definition of marriage.

It's still man-woman.

Thanks for playing.

[CuckingFunt]

She hates men but wants to be one, she's a . That doesn't count in her head as being a woman.

I can't remember the last time I saw so few words contain such a high amount of wrong.

[Spurminator]

Sure you can. The concept of "marriage" is fluid and can be whatever you want to define it as. We've just proven that.

The concept of a contract hasn't changed.

[MiamiHeat]

The concept of a contract hasn't changed.

But Marriage can be changed.

So it doesn't need YOUR kind of contract. It will require a new kind of contract.

The definition of marriage is fluid and can mean whatever we want it to, apparently.

Thanks for playing.