SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[Yakuda]

Nope it hasn't.

No one makes you reply

 

[Truth Detector]

What post #?

We have a supreme court justice who can't tell us what a woman is because shes not a fucking biologist and you're flapping your gums about a definition of marriage? LMFAO

Nailed it. Isn't it delightfully ironic that a woman Scotus who claims she can't define a woman believes she should define marriage.

 

[Truth Detector]

Answer my question. Gay marriage is not going to destroy families.

By basically making marriage a meaningless enterprise that only means two people in love, it most certainly will. But alas, you lack the intelligence or acumen to comprehend the obvious.

 

[Truth Detector]

What have you lost?

The correct question is what have WE all lost? But, explaining it will not help you because there appears to be a vast empty space between your ears incapable of learning or comprehending.

 

[Truth Detector]

No makes you reply

It's very hard to argue with an idiot who lacks any grey matter between their ears.

 

[AProudLefty]

By basically making marriage a meaningless enterprise that only means two people in love, it most certainly will. But alas, you lack the intelligence or acumen to comprehend the obvious.

You are free to believe what marriage means. You have lost nothing. Families are intact.

 

[ZenMode]

So there's no problem then?

playing dumb

Who, specifically, can't get married to whoever he or she wants to? Just one specific example would suffice.

Thanks to SCOTUS, anyone can marry whoever they want. That's secondary to the discussion which is that you can't explain why a separate name is necessary.

There are different types of legal unions but they are all recognized "in the same manner", which is to say they are recognized EQUALLY as legal unions.

If they're equal, then there's no need for a separate designation. I've shown this with multiple comparisons, including your attempted comparison with fruit which failed miserably.

IOW, it seems that you are finally agreeing with me?

Nope.

 

[AProudLefty]

The correct question is what have WE all lost? But, explaining it will not help you because there appears to be a vast empty space between your ears incapable of learning or comprehending.

So you have lost nothing.

 

[ZenMode]

@IBDaMann I don't think I've ever seen ZenMode flail THIS much before... it's quite remarkable to behold.

If by fail you mean I'm not accepting your explanation, which isn't an explanation at all and, in fact, your own comparison with apples and oranges actually proves my point that two designations aren't necessary.

 

[Yakuda]

You are free to believe what marriage means. You have lost nothing. Families are intact.

And scotus could say pigs are now chickens. That's don't make em chickens.

 

[AProudLefty]

And scotus could say pigs are now chickens. That's don't make em chickens.

Gay people won. Deal with it.

 

[Yakuda]

It's very hard to argue with an idiot who lacks any grey matter between their ears.

They might have grey matter between their ears it's just not connected to anything.

 

[Into the Night]

Irrelevant. One of their arguments was straight people got benefits from marriage that they didn't.

Having children and a family is a benefit of marriage. Homosexual behavior is incapable of either.

 

[Into the Night]

Your personal opinion is irrelevant because you only have one option under the law.

The law is not involved here, Void.

 

[AProudLefty]

Having children and a family is a benefit of marriage. Homosexual behavior is incapable of either.

Marriage is not a requirement to having families.

 

[ZenMode]

The law is not involved here, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

Who, by default, have the ability to marry the person they want to.

No one said any differently. Vacuous fallacy.

Unfortunately it is and states were forced by the Supreme Court to do the right thing which is to allow a person to marry whoever they want, regardless of genitals.

Marriage is between a man and woman. There is no other definition.

Just more word games.

Inversion fallacy.

Despite your insistence on playing dumb, we both know that straight people don't want to marry someone of the same sex. In other words, straight people get to marry who THEY want while homosexuals don't.

They certainly can.

Again, you already know this, but choose to play dumb like @gfm7175 , @IBDaMann , etc

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Marriage is not a requirement to having families.

Yes it is, LeftNut.

 

[Into the Night]

Now you're giving a legal recognition an "identity"?

The law is not involved here.

Mary a person they WANT to marry.

They can.

The right to equal recognition under the law.

There is.

Separate but equal isn't equality.

Buzzphrase ignored.

Did you never take an American History class?

Pivot ignored.

 

[AProudLefty]

Yes it is, LeftNut.

So there is no such thing as being born out of wedlock?