SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[Into the Night]

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?

You can't blame Democrat sexual perversion problems on anybody else, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Good we agree. So, if all relationships are recognized, legally, as marriage, then there's no supremacy.

Nope. Equal treatment would mean everyone is able to have the relationship they WANT to have recognized by the state

If same-sex and opposite sex couples are all equally recognized as marriage, where is the supremacy?

Equality can't be supremacy.

Nope. You've claimed supremacy exists. It clearly makes no more sense than women asking to be able to vote being labeled as supremacy.

Redefinition fallacies. Buzzword fallacies.

It is not possible to have a marriage between two of the same gender.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't deny that the government decides all kinds of things.

I'm asking if you'd be ok with the government saying that ONLY a male and female can buy a house together or enter into a business agreement together. So, it would be illegal for two women to start a business. Does that makes sense to you?

Non-sequitur fallacies.
Pivot fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

FTFY.

You can't fix stupid, gfm. I thought you already knew that!

 

[ZenMode]

Redefinition fallacies. Buzzword fallacies.

It is not possible to have a marriage between two of the same gender.

Yet it's happening every day.

 

[Into the Night]

Most certainly the religious right. Goes back to the Leviticus bullshit. Then, you have all this Yakuda-like mental gymnastics to try to defend it.

So making up words and redefining words is your way of chanting scripture from the Church of No God? Weird.

 

[Into the Night]

They were refused marriage because the state said that only a male and female can enter into a legal agreement that is recognized by the state.

So?

So, again, does that make sense and would it make sense to apply that to other state legal agreements?

Irrelevant.

 

[Into the Night]

Gay marriage is already allowed regardless. Nothing is stopping a man and a woman from getting happily married and remaining happy about it.

Marriage remains marriage; the "marriage formula" hasn't changed one bit.

Sure, you can try to imitate marriage all you want via tweaking the "award-winning-formula", but Clancy's chips will NEVER quite taste the same as Doritos chips. Only ONE specific formula is the "award-winning-formula"... the fruitful formula that allows for procreation.

I have no problem with gay marriage. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend it. Marriage works MUCH better when the husband and the wife are mutually happy about their marriage.

That it does! There is no greater accomplishment in life than simply raising a happy family!

 

[ZenMode]

Non-sequitur fallacies.
Pivot fallacies.

"I can't muster an actual response, so I'll throw out some dumb fallacies" fallacy.

 

[AProudLefty]

@gfm7175, @IBDaMann and @Into the Night all playing with each other.

 

[Into the Night]

Again you keep harping on what makes sense. See this why useful conversations cannot be had here. I've answered this at least twice now.

Yes the state said only a man and a woman can get married and says NOTHING about them having to be straight.

...but it's highly recommended. Such perversions are not conducive to a happy marriage.

 

[Into the Night]

The girls will be believed, whereas Trumppedo will not.

And marriage is between two individuals regardless of the sex of each.

Redefinition fallacy. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. There is no other definition.

 

[Into the Night]

Magats are BIg mad today.

I agree. Democrats always are.

 

[Yakuda]

...but it's highly recommended. Such perversions are not conducive to a happy marriage.

As I look at it I think I mistyped but there it it

 

[Into the Night]

How do you know this? Were you alive back in the day? Do you know what an omniscience fallacy is?

Rather irrelevant. Marriage between two of the same gender is not possible. You can call it a 'civil union', you can call it 'shacking up', you can call it homosexual behavior, but it is not marriage.

 

[Into the Night]

Apparently, the topic has triggered you. That's too bad.

Buzzword fallacy.

 

[AProudLefty]

At least @Into the Night isn't flooding JPP.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL Enjoy gay marriage!

I agree. A happy marriage means happy children.

 

[Into the Night]

Unhinged by telling you to enjoy gay marriage? LOL

Yes. You are unhinged. You are locked in a paradox, and you are still trying to argue both conflicting arguments. It's irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

Still mocking them.

Do better.

Plurality used for singular.