SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[gfm7175]

Right, freedom was available to blacks in the US,

It WAS.

so why didn't the enslaved blacks just decide to be free?

Some did.

I mean, if a gay man can decide to marry a woman,

He can.

which would give him equality,

He already has equality.

why couldn't blacks just decide to exercise their equality and be free?

Some did.

Eventually, the Republican Party was formed and they fought against slavery to the point that they were able to legally abolish it.

If you're happy that slavery was legally abolished, then thank a Republican for it.

 

[AProudLefty]

It WAS.

Some did.

He can.

He already has equality.

Some did.

Eventually, the Republican Party was formed and they fought against slavery to the point that they were able to legally abolish it.

If you're happy that slavery was legally abolished, then thank a Republican for it.

He thinks a Republican today is responsible for it!

 

[gfm7175]

Am I aware that the past is not the present?

Apparently not.

Tell me again what the basis is for your definition of marriage being only a man and woman?

1) It's not my definition; I didn't come up with it.
2) There are multiple bases for that definition.
3) You probably won't like one of them, so I won't bother with that one.
4) The etymology of the word 'marriage', which has already been provided earlier in this thread.

 

[ZenMode]

It WAS.

Some did.

He can.

He already has equality.

Some did.

Eventually, the Republican Party was formed and they fought against slavery to the point that they were able to legally abolish it.

If you're happy that slavery was legally abolished, then thank a Republican for it.

I have to assume you're playing dumb... as usual.

Telling a gay person they have equality because they "can" marry someone of the opposite sex is as dumb as telling a black slave they have equality because freedom and equality exist in the US.

 

[Yakuda]

I have to assume you're playing dumb... as usual.

Telling a gay person they have equality because they "can" marry someone of the opposite sex is as dumb as telling a black slave they have equality because freedom and equality exist in the US.

No it's not the same at all. First there is the painful reality for you that no gay person was ever prevented from marrying someone of opposite sex because they were gay. Second blacks were prevented from enjoying freedom and equality because of their skin color. Not the same in the least.

 

[ZenMode]

No it's not the same at all. First there is the painful reality for you that no gay person was ever prevented from marrying someone of opposite sex because they were gay. Second blacks were prevented from enjoying freedom and equality because of their skin color. Not the same in the least.

Gays don't pick their sexual preference any more than blacks pick their skin color and it's idiotic to claim a gay person has equality because they can marry someone they don't want to marry and aren't attracted to.

It's amazing that this has to be explained.

 

[domer76]

No it's not the same at all. First there is the painful reality for you that no gay person was ever prevented from marrying someone of opposite sex because they were gay. Second blacks were prevented from enjoying freedom and equality because of their skin color. Not the same in the least.

^And edging into first place for Stupidest Motherfucker on the Forum.

Coming into the home stretch!

 

[AProudLefty]

No it's not the same at all. First there is the painful reality for you that no gay person was ever prevented from marrying someone of opposite sex because they were gay?

Are you playing dumb? Of course they werent prevented. In fact its what they wanted.
See conversion therapy.

Second blacks were prevented from enjoying freedom and equality because of their skin color. Not the same in the least.

Gay people were prevented from marrying each other.

 

[gfm7175]

Right, so telling a gay person that equality is available to them, as long as they be something they aren't, is like telling a black slave that freedom is available to them, as long as they be something they aren't: white and not a slave.

What, in the present-day, can a so-called "straight person" do that a so-called "homosexual person" cannot do? IOW, where is this "inequality" that you speak of?

And therein lies the problem. You are willing to deny equality

See above.

based on the opinions of iron age men who sacrificed animals to change the weather and couldn't explain where the sun went at night.

Presentism.

Their "strong rationale" behind marriage was related to social and economic security and ensuring an heir for family property and money.

That, to me, sounds pretty beneficial to society.

The hatred of gays is separate and based on what they believed was the opinion of the Sky Wizard.

What "hatred of gays"? Yours?
You treat them as disposable political pawns; I treat them as fellow humans.

Same-sex marriage has been in existence for a decade

That's not a marriage. Call it whatever else you wish, just not a marriage.

and do you know what has changed for society? Absolutely nothing. I mean literally not a fucking thing.

I've already listed a few of the things that have changed because of the LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ movement. One thing is that women are "taking a beating", sometimes quite literally.

Same-sex marriage has changed nothing and the claim by evangelicals that it was going to ruin society was all a lie in an attempt to force their beliefs on the country and deny true equality for consenting adults.

Well, let's take a little gander into the "Christian way" vs the "Worldly way" and let's see which way is more-so beneficial for society (and which way is more-so destructive for society).

CHRISTIAN WAY:

• Marriage between one man and one woman.
  
  • Procreation is possible (always in theory, usually in actuality).
  • Children can be breast-fed by their mother.
  • Children grow up in an environment that has both a male and a female "role model" to look up to.
  • There is NO confusion as to what male vs female is (and their separate roles) because children have both a mommy AND a daddy in the household.
  • The father provides "physical play" and "discipline" for the child, while the mother provides "nurturing" and "bonding" for the child.

WORLDLY WAY:

• Civil Union between two adults of the same gender.
  
  • Procreation is always impossible (in both theory and actuality).
  • There are no children. Any adopted "child" cannot likewise be breast-fed by his mother.
  • There are no children. Any adopted "child" lacks either a male or a female "role model" to look up to.
  • There are no children. Any adopted "child" will be confused as to what male vs female is (and their separate roles) because he now has "two mommies" or "two daddies" in the household.
  • There are no children. Any adopted "child" lacks either "physical play"/"discipline" or "nurturing"/"bonding" due to the lack of one gender of parent in the household.

Granted, this is only a very small start, but it seems to me like the Christian way is already generally beneficial rather than generally destructive.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm an ordained minister

Lie.

and just married my dog and cat.

Not a marriage.

No worries, one is male and the other is female.

Irrelevant.

The problem is that the feds don't recognize the marriage so I can't get a tax break for them. Same for gay people if the Feds didn't recognize gay marriage.

If the LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ movement was about "tax breaks", then the LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ crowd would currently be satisfied.
The LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ crowd is NOT currently satisfied.
Therefore, the LGBTQLMNOPALPHEBETSOUP+ movement was NOT about "tax breaks".

 

[gfm7175]

He thinks a Republican today is responsible for it!

Deaf Boy hasn't learned how to read

 

[AProudLefty]

What, in the present-day, can a so-called "straight person" do that a so-called "homosexual person" cannot do? IOW, where is this "inequality" that you speak of?

See above.

Presentism.

That, to me, sounds pretty beneficial to society.

What "hatred of gays"? Yours?
You treat them as disposable political pawns; I treat them as fellow humans.

That's not a marriage. Call it whatever else you wish, just not a marriage.

I've already listed a few of the things that have changed because of the LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ movement. One thing is that women are "taking a beating", sometimes quite literally.

Well, let's take a little gander into the "Christian way" vs the "Worldly way" and let's see which way is more-so beneficial for society (and which way is more-so destructive for society).

CHRISTIAN WAY:

• Marriage between one man and one woman.
  
  • Procreation is possible (always in theory, usually in actuality).
  • Children can be breast-fed by their mother.
  • Children grow up in an environment that has both a male and a female "role model" to look up to.
  • There is NO confusion as to what male vs female is (and their separate roles) because children have both a mommy AND a daddy in the household.
  • The father provides "physical play" and "discipline" for the child, while the mother provides "nurturing" and "bonding" for the child.

WORLDLY WAY:

• Civil Union between two adults of the same gender.
  
  • Procreation is always impossible (in both theory and actuality).
  • There are no children. Any adopted "child" cannot likewise be breast-fed by his mother.
  • There are no children. Any adopted "child" lacks either a male or a female "role model" to look up to.
  • There IS confusion as to what male vs female is (and their separate roles) because any adopted "child" now has "two mommies" or "two daddies" in the household.
  • There are no children. Any adopted "child" lacks either "physical play"/"discipline" or "nurturing"/"bonding" due to the lack of one gender of parent in the household.

Granted, this is only a very small start, but it seems to me like the Christian way is already generally beneficial rather than generally destructive.

Religion is not a valid argument.

 

[AProudLefty]

Deaf Boy hasn't learned how to read

This "If you're happy that slavery was legally abolished, then thank a Republican for it" goes in your award thread.

 

[gfm7175]

I have to assume you're playing dumb... as usual.

Telling a gay person they have equality because they "can" marry someone of the opposite sex is as dumb as telling a black slave they have equality because freedom and equality exist in the US.

I'm sick of your games and irrelevancies.

What, specifically, can a so-called "straight person" do in the present-day that a so-called "homosexual person" cannot do in the present-day? Where, specifically, is the "unequal treatment"?

 

[AProudLefty]

I'm sick of your games and irrelevancies.

What, specifically, can a so-called "straight person" do in the present-day that a so-called "homosexual person" cannot do in the present-day? Where, specifically, is the "unequal treatment"?

They can marry.

 

[gfm7175]

This "If you're happy that slavery was legally abolished, then thank a Republican for it" goes in your award thread.

It doesn't qualify for an award, since it WAS the Republican Party who legally abolished slavery.

 

[Yakuda]

Gays don't pick their sexual preference any more than blacks pick their skin color and it's idiotic to claim a gay person has equality because they can marry someone they don't want to marry and aren't attracted to.

It's amazing that this has to be explained.

LMFAO it's not about what they choose to be or not choose to be the law was applied the same to everybody. With slavery it wasnt applied the same way to everybody as blacks were refused freedom and equality because of their skin color. Not gay person was refused marriage because they were gay.

It's amazing that this has to be explained to you.

 

[Yakuda]

^And edging into first place for Stupidest Motherfucker on the Forum.

Coming into the home stretch!

You're the by product of a failed leftist run education system of your mother dropped you too many times in your head. I see why she might have don't it though.

 

[AProudLefty]

It doesn't qualify for an award, since it WAS the Republican Party who legally abolished slavery.

"If you're happy that slavery was legally abolished, then thank a Republican for it."



Which Republican should I thank for it? A time traveling Republican?

 

[gfm7175]

They can marry.

Nothing (besides the personal choice of the "homosexual person") is barring the "homosexual person" from marriage.