SCOTUS protects marriage equality

ZenMode said:
it's to make the point that there is nothing preventing states from allowing gay marriage. We aren't obligated to abide by a definition of marriage from thousands of years ago and the people who are fighting gay marriage today are almost entirely the religious right, because they want to force their religious definition of marriage on us.
Click to expand...

lol now that some stupid spin right there, lol.
 
https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc2431a8f-5c26-4218-a443-d97465d54631_720x499.jpeg


American FAggot Rights Hoax founder Harry Hay, Communist Party member. lol
 
Jake Starkey said:

Evidence from Ancient Rome​

  • Imperial Examples: Roman sources describe emperors like Nero and Elagabalus engaging in same-sex marriage ceremonies. Nero is said to have married a freedman named Pythagoras, with Nero taking the role of the bride, while Elagabalus reportedly married male partners in public ceremonies.
  • Literary References: Satirists such as Juvenal and poets like Martial mention same-sex weddings, often mocking them, which shows that the concept was familiar enough to be satirized.
  • Terminology: The Latin phrase nubit amicus (“a friend marries”) appears in sources describing these unions, suggesting that Romans understood and sometimes practiced ceremonial same-sex marriages.

⚖️ Legal and Social Context​

  • Not Legally Binding: Roman law defined marriage (conubium) as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Same-sex unions did not have legal standing, inheritance rights, or recognition in official registers.
  • Social Perception: While same-sex relationships were common and accepted in certain forms (especially between men of different social statuses), marriage was tied to family lineage and property. Thus, same-sex marriages were seen as scandalous or symbolic rather than legitimate.
  • Christian Influence: By the late Empire, as Christianity gained influence, same-sex unions were increasingly condemned, and any tolerance for ceremonial marriages disappeared.

📚 Comparison with Modern Marriage​

  • Ancient Rome: Same-sex marriages were more about personal expression, ritual, or imperial spectacle than legal partnership.
  • Modern Times: Today, same-sex marriage is legally recognized in many countries, granting rights and protections that Roman same-sex unions never had.

✅ In summary: Same-sex marriage ceremonies did occur in the Roman world, especially among emperors and in satirical literature, but they were not legally recognized and often viewed as scandalous or symbolic rather than legitimate unions.
Click to expand...

Evidence of Jake Starkey Lacking Critical Thinking Skills​

  • Concrete Example: Jake Starkey, without utilizing any critical thinking of his own, immediately copy/pasted the "AI Overview" result that popped up at the top of his screen after conducting a web browser search and immediately treated every word that he copy/pasted as "gospel truth".
  • Literary Reference: Satirists such as @IBDaMann regularly mention and create memes about the complete lack of any critical thinking by leftists such as Jake Starkey, often mocking them, which shows that the concept is familiar enough to be satirized.
  • Terminology: The Latin word credulus (“trusting”) appears in sources describing these leftists, suggesting that Romans understood and sometimes ridiculed the leftists of their time for their inability to think critically.

📚 Comparison with Utilizing Critical Thinking​

  • Logic: The union between a man and a woman differs from a union between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) because the aforementioned union actually CAN, in principle, produce fruit via procreation.
  • Modern Times: Today, the aforementioned logic remains the same. The union between a man and a woman is "special" compared to any other union because it is THAT union, and ONLY that union, which can produce fruit via procreation.

✅ In summary: Jake Starkey is a leftist moron who is completely incapable of any critical thought, so he immediately opens up a web browser, types in the result that he desires to see, and "AI Overview" gladly spits it out for him in outline form. He immediately gobbles it up as "gospel truth" and expects everyone else to likewise "gobble up the horseshit" as "gospel truth".
 
Yakuda said:
It would only be discrimination if straight were allowed to marry someone of the same sex but vays weren't. Then you could whine about discrimination
Click to expand...
I asked you this before but you didn't respond.

A marriage is just a legal agreement between two people, that is recognized by the state. It's no different than a mortgage or business license, building permit, etc. Would you be ok with the government saying only a man and woman can buy a house together or open a business together? If the government can dictate the sex of one type of contract they offer, surely they could apply similar logic to all contracts, right?
 
gfm7175 said:
In summary: Jake Starkey is a leftist moron who is completely incapable of any critical thought, so he immediately opens up a web browser, types in the result that he desires to see, and "AI Overview" gladly spits it out for him in outline form. He immediately gobbles it up as "gospel truth" and expects everyone else to likewise "gobble up the horseshit" as "gospel truth".
Click to expand...

I'm still laughing at the gimps who think AI can't be manipulated to produce PC rubbish.
 
ZenMode said:
Mortgage and business agreements are nothing but a legally binding contract, like marriage.

Like you said, love isn't a requirement from the government's point of view. From the government's POV, a marriage is just another legal contract.

Right, but you'd be ok with the government saying only a man and woman can buy a house together, right? If the government can dictate the sex of one type of contract they offer, surely they could apply similar logic to all contracts, right?

Voting was only offered to white men until those damn women and blacks started whining!
Click to expand...
The govt determines who can do.all kinds of things which I have listed in previous posts. If the law is applied to all people it's not discriminatory. In your example of buying a house if only a man and a woman can buy a house, you may not like it but if they refuse a black man and a black woman from buying a house that's discriminatory
 
ZenMode said:
I asked you this before but you didn't respond.

A marriage is just a legal agreement between two people, that is recognized by the state. It's no different than a mortgage or business license, building permit, etc. Would you be ok with the government saying only a man and woman can buy a house together or open a business together? If the government can dictate the sex of one type of contract they offer, surely they could apply similar logic to all contracts, right?
Click to expand...
I just answered this in your previous post. I actually don't live on here.
 
Yakuda said:
The govt determines who can do.all kinds of things which I have listed in previous posts. If the law is applied to all people it's not discriminatory. In your example of buying a house if only a man and a woman can buy a house, you may not like it but if they refuse a black man and a black woman from buying a house that's discriminatory
Click to expand...
The government isn't allowed to discriminate so, again, would you be ok with the government saying that only a male and female can buy a house together or enter into a business agreement together? That is what some government would like to do with marriage. They're saying that it has to be a male and female having their relationship legally recognized.
 
ZenMode said:
The government isn't allowed to discriminate so, again, would you be ok with the government saying that only a male and female can buy a house together or enter into a business agreement together? That is what some government would like to do with marriage. They're saying that it has to be a male and female.
Click to expand...
Again the govt decides all kinds of things. What I'm ok with is irrelevant I only care about the law being applied evenly. To say a black man and a black woman can't buy a house violates what the government allows therefore the reason to refuse them would only be for discriminatory reasons.

None of this though solves your problem that gay people were never refused marriage because they were gay.
 
Maze said:
Wait @EdwinA are you one of those self hating homos that watches trans porn and cheats on his wife with rent a boys on the weekend? Is that why you are so angry?
Click to expand...
A very high percentage of homophobes are on the down low. While some Christians are strict about gays and abortion, JPP MAGAts are not Christians. They are all mammon-worshiping White Nationalists who only wear a Christian mask at best.

a99ny7.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top