SCOTUS protects marriage equality

AProudLefty said:
You lie about me.
Click to expand...

Cite?

AProudLefty said:
You're responsible for Trump and the MAGA Party.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "MAGA Party."

AProudLefty said:
Panic? That's ironic.
Click to expand...

You must win the house in order to continue you coup against free and fair elections. Impeach Trump, maybe for farting this time. It doesn't matter, you're just trying to oust him because you refuse to accept the results of elections.

But even with the chicanery in California and the actions of insurrectionist judges in Texas, you are highly unlikely to gain the house in the midterms, and there is zero chance you'll take the Senate. There is an 80-90% chance all three branches of government will remain in the hands of the Americans until at least 2028.

In a single year, Trump has secured the border - shutting down human trafficking and narcotic importation. This is a major blow to democrats and the Mexican cartels. Trump has dismantled much of the deep state apparatus that served the party, regardless of who was elected.

So yes, you and your party are in desperate panic over what will happen over the next three years. As that panic has deepened, you've become ever more shrill and jettisoned any semblance of reason.


Sad
 
gfm7175 said:
No.
Rather, a couple must simply possess the 'in principle' ability to procreate.

^^^ aka, if there is some sort of CIRCUMSTANCE present that is barring a couple from having children who could otherwise, 'in principle', have children.

Yes.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Cite?
Click to expand...
Your posts.
Uncensored2008 said:
There is no such thing as a "MAGA Party."
Click to expand...
On January 1, 2012, a group of Trump supporters filed paperwork with the Texas secretary of state's office to create the "Make America Great Again Party", which would have allowed Trump to be that party's nominee if he had decided to become a third-party candidate in the presidential election
Uncensored2008 said:
You must win the house in order to continue you coup against free and fair elections. Impeach Trump, maybe for farting this time. It doesn't matter, you're just trying to oust him because you refuse to accept the results of elections.

But even with the chicanery in California and the actions of insurrectionist judges in Texas, you are highly unlikely to gain the house in the midterms, and there is zero chance you'll take the Senate. There is an 80-90% chance all three branches of government will remain in the hands of the Americans until at least 2028.

In a single year, Trump has secured the border - shutting down human trafficking and narcotic importation. This is a major blow to democrats and the Mexican cartels. Trump has dismantled much of the deep state apparatus that served the party, regardless of who was elected.

So yes, you and your party are in desperate panic over what will happen over the next three years. As that panic has deepened, you've become ever more shrill and jettisoned any semblance of reason.


Sad
Click to expand...
We didn't storm the Capitol to overturn the result.
 
So poorly argued by the below. As a matter of fact, ability to adopt is "in principle" of having children.

gfm7175 said:
No.
Rather, a couple must simply possess the 'in principle' ability to procreate.

^^^ aka, if there is some sort of CIRCUMSTANCE present that is barring a couple from having children who could otherwise, 'in principle', have children.

Yes.
Click to expand...

Uncensored2008: Well said!
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Well said!
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty basic stuff.

Notice how the vast majority of the counterarguments are always some form of "but what about the elderly, the infertile, etc etc"?

They always purposely divert away from discussing the words 'in principle' and instead try to force discussion about various circumstances that affect 'actuality'. That is their failed attempt to pretend that man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman are all the same thing.

But even in actuality, MOST man/woman couples CAN procreate for a sizeable portion of their lives while absolutely ZERO man/man or woman/woman couples can procreate during ANY portion of their lives.
 
Jake Starkey said:
So poorly argued by the below. As a matter of fact, ability to adopt is "in principle" of having children.
Click to expand...
1) Try typing in English next time.
2) The child who is being adopted cannot exist in the first place without one man and one woman (the child's father and mother). ...... which brings us back to the necessity for one MAN and one WOMAN.
 
AProudLefty said:
Your posts.
Click to expand...

So, you agree that you were lying.

AProudLefty said:
On January 1, 2012, a group of Trump supporters filed paperwork with the Texas secretary of state's office to create the "Make America Great Again Party", which would have allowed Trump to be that party's nominee if he had decided to become a third-party candidate in the presidential election
Click to expand...

So there is no "MAGA party," then?

AProudLefty said:
We didn't storm the Capitol to overturn the result.
Click to expand...

No one did.

You did storm the white house to try and kill the president, though.

And you did incite mutiny in our armed forces - an act of sedition bordering on outright treason.
 
gfm7175 said:
It's the 'in principle' capability (aka the 'theoretical possibility') to have children that is the foundational purpose of marriage. One man and one woman are required for procreation. Ergo, marriage is the holy union between one man and one woman.

Any other gender combination (e.g. man/man, woman/woman) cannot EVER in ANY way result in procreation, so it can only IMITATE marriage... it cannot BE marriage. Feel free to call it a 'civil union' (or some other term that suits your fancy).

In principle? -- a man and a woman CAN procreate.
In actuality? -- [insert some sort of circumstance here] can hinder (or even render impossible) the aforementioned ability of a man and a woman to procreate.

This is the core distinction at hand, and the 'in principle' ability of a man and a woman to procreate is what makes a marriage a marriage, as opposed to any other type of union in which procreation is impossible even in principle.
Click to expand...

And couples with one partner who cannot procreate? Can they marry?
 
gfm7175 said:
No.
Rather, a couple must simply possess the 'in principle' ability to procreate.

^^^ aka, if there is some sort of CIRCUMSTANCE present that is barring a couple from having children who could otherwise, 'in principle', have children.

Yes.
Click to expand...

So if they LOOK like they could bear children, they are ok?

Either it is about children or its not. If someone is incapable of having children, they should not be allowed to marry. Otherwise, it isn't really about having children at all.
 
gfm7175 said:
I want all unions between a man and a woman to be called 'marriages' and all unions between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be called 'civil unions'.

I want the aforementioned because the 'in principle' ability of procreation clearly differentiates the union between a man and a woman from the union between a man and a man or the union between a woman and a woman. The other two unions could both be called 'civil union' for all I care because there's nothing that differentiates them from each other (outside of man/man vs woman/woman).

man/woman = joined by marriage
man/man = joined by civil union
woman/woman = joined by civil union
Click to expand...

And the same-sex couples who have been married by the state?
 
WinterBorn said:
And couples [consisting of one man and one woman] with one partner who cannot procreate [due to some circumstance]? Can they marry?
Click to expand...
FTFY.
Answer: Yes. Repetitive question already answered (RQAA). Any additional questions about circumstances (instead of 'in principle') will be responded to with nothing more than 'RQAA'.
 
WinterBorn said:
So if they LOOK like they could bear children [consist of one man and one woman], they are ok?
Click to expand...
FTFY.
Yes.
WinterBorn said:
Either it is about children [the in-principle ability to procreate] or its not.
Click to expand...
FTFY.
This is what I've been saying (and what you've been purposely diverting away from) this whole time.
WinterBorn said:
If someone [a couple] is [in-principle] incapable of having children [procreating], they should not be allowed to [cannot, by definition] marry.
Click to expand...
FTFY.
Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top