Marriage Now Fabulous, SCOTUS Rules for Same Sex Marriage

[The Huskar Social Union]

Sin as the core generality is a fundamental part. Not the specifics; they are a derivative.

Is this gibberish supposed to defeat my point?

Yep, now bow before the Altar of our one true god Arthur Riley and repent.

[Cannot think of a name]

"I don't hate you, I just hate who you are. It's totally different somehow."

Wrong.
"I don't hate you, I just hate who you are what you do."

...because of who you are. Full circle.




C'mon, man. Just own your bullshit.

[Liriena]

So, it appears my old nemesis Huckabee has a statement:

"The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity. Under our constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will save the white flag and accept it without realizing they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses of the court. If adopted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a seriously blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the first amendment. "

Next step: levitating the Supreme Court, gentlemen. We have scientists and engineers - we can make this happen.

You know, this may be because he's essentially a fringe candidate now, but I find Huckabee's nonsense adorable, rather than outrageous.

[Mavorpen]

Is this gibberish supposed to defeat my point?

If you cannot decode a simple phrase, I'm sorry.

If I need to "decode" your statement, it's probably gibberish.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Relevant to the people who think gay marriage supporters also support bestiality and pedophilia.

[Ayzifa]

Terrible news, I nearly cried when I heard that they legalized it. God has abandoned us!

Good, then we never needed him!

AW YEAH IT'S LEGAL!!!!!

[Val Halla]

I don't know what China will do.

A couple of years back a source from the Chinese government argued that China was not ready for same-sex marriage, and cited the fact that many Western nations still hadn't recognised marriage equality as an excuse.

That was before the United States, Mexico, the United Kingdom, France, Ireland and others threw their lot in with marriage equality.

So, maybe they will. Hopefully~

[Geanna]

There needs to be an onamonapia for an exasperated exhale.

Not a single one of you has done anything to rebuke or challenge my opinion.

Do you support marriage "equality" or not? If you do, then you support all consensual "unions" between adults over the age of eighteen. If you do not, then you are a hypocrite.

Challenge your opinion? What bloody opinion? This isn't your opinion on the matter - we're not all soft in the head. Here, let me tally up there - and rightfully kick you off that soap-box.

Firstly - Slipper slope fallacies are moronic arguments, that are utterly rubbish, pointless, and a poor half-pint excuse of "I don't have an argument"

Secondly, attempting to play Devil's Advocate really only works when you're actually objective, level-headed, and not radical about anything. You are none of those things, that can only be perfectly done with someone who is typically more logical, and doesn't let their heart nor passions overrun their head. Again - you are none. It is also only useful if people don't already know about you - and you're too vocal to be taken seriously most of the time, harsh? Yes - but that's not on our fault here.

Same-Sex Marriage does not equate to Bestiality, or any other rubbish you can concoct to try and make yourself justified, but that'll only be a self-fulfilment for yourself, because no-one here is buying it. We've made that abundantly clear - you even attempted to flank me, for pointing out that bolding and making text large would be obnoxious; by quoting someone apparently ''on my side" - which I quickly struck down with the same impunity and all it came to show was that you were quite literally, beating around the bush.

If you really think you have something relevant, not fallacious and actually a worthy argument - by all means, please converse with us. If you don't however - there's really no point of you being engaged with from this point on, broken record arguments do not make good arguments, and beating a dead horse into fine dust should be constituted as a crime of animal cruelty at this point.

We get it

You think that for the most part, we're probably all swine for supporting SSM, and that the World is coming to an end. We get it - we really don't care - when me and my girlfriend go up to get married, I'll have a loving girlfriend, who has and always will love me as much as any man could theoretically can. We'll get to enjoy our life together, and grow old together, through better or worse, and in the end - my life will have been fulfilled because of her.

If that honestly upsets you, fine - I forgive you for feeling that way.

[Des-Bal]

I'm saying that they probably looked at the Constitution and were of the opinion that it does actually say shit, as you put it and unlike what you believe yourself.

The people who wrote the Constitution, of course, were from a far different time. But the prevailing interpretation of their work today is that they believed in establishing a independent state dedicated to liberty and freedom for all inhabitants past, present and future, and so that's what they went with, most likely, when formulating their decision on gay marriage.

So you're saying "I know they probably wouldn't have wanted this but this is totally what they meant"?

[Ganos Lao]

Sodomy is not "who someone is" any more than having sex with a woman is "who I am". You are elevating a sexual act to the innermost being of a person, and if all you see in a person is sex, you're far more gone than I am.

Ohhh, you're one of those people who thinks everyone is bisexual? Where we can, at will, chose our sexual orientation? That makes sense now.

My man, it's all about that pimped out Christian dualism. Jesus makes you love boobs. Satan makes you love showtunes.

You never "choose" anything. It's all about God and Satan battling for you. We're all Job.

That's why it doesn't make sense to you. You don't subscribe to that particular doctrine.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Terrible news, I nearly cried when I heard that they legalized it. God has abandoned us!

God doesn't exist.

[Napkiraly]

It's almost as if...that doesn't give them a pass. I really hope you apply this cultural relativism towards:
The Inquisition in all of its manifestations
Crusades and other religious wars
Imperialism
The Bible as a complete entity
The people who created the Jim Crow Laws
Trail of Tears
The Taliban rule in Afghanistan
Slavery throughout history
Serfdom
And so on down the list of shit things that have existed at some point or another.

"Give them a pass"? More like "They can't be blamed for having certain social views that had been near-universally accepted for centuries" and "despite this set forth a rule of law which was egalitarian in nature and flexible enough to accommodate social progress". What fucking assholes. Right up there with the Catholic monarchs who sanctioned the Spanish Inquisition.

Naming the Founding Fathers racist is about as useful and poignant as calling out Muhammad for being a pedophile.

And here is the impasse. I think cultural relativism is a crock of shite, you don't.

I'll continue to think that the Founding Fathers had shit views that made them not so great paragons of virtue while still doing good things.
You'll continue to think that it doesn't matter since it was the norm in their time.

C'est la vie.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There needs to be an onamonapia for an exasperated exhale.

Not a single one of you has done anything to rebuke or challenge my opinion.

Do you support marriage "equality" or not? If you do, then you support all consensual "unions" between adults over the age of eighteen. If you do not, then you are a hypocrite.

Yeah I've got no problems with that.

[Ganos Lao]

I'm saying that they probably looked at the Constitution and were of the opinion that it does actually say shit, as you put it and unlike what you believe yourself.

The people who wrote the Constitution, of course, were from a far different time. But the prevailing interpretation of their work today is that they believed in establishing a independent state dedicated to liberty and freedom for all inhabitants past, present and future, and so that's what they went with, most likely, when formulating their decision on gay marriage.

So you're saying "I know they probably wouldn't have wanted this but this is totally what they meant"?

In earlier pages, one poster put up the words of Scalia, which basically said that the Founding Fathers laid out the model for the country to follow, and that thus gay marriage was perfectly legit.

What I'm saying is exactly that. People interpreted the Constitution one day to justify their stance and ultimate decision.

[Liriena]

Terrible news, I nearly cried when I heard that they legalized it. God has abandoned us!

God doesn't exist.

Actually, he does... and he loves LGBT folks.

[Xanama]

Terrible news, I nearly cried when I heard that they legalized it. God has abandoned us!

God doesn't exist.

*nods*

God doesn't exist.

Actually, he does... and he loves LGBT folks.

XD amazing

[Vitaphone Racing]

God doesn't exist.

Actually, he does... and he loves LGBT folks.

You can believe whatever you want, but I can't lie to myself.

[Eastern Equestria]

"Give them a pass"? More like "They can't be blamed for having certain social views that had been near-universally accepted for centuries" and "despite this set forth a rule of law which was egalitarian in nature and flexible enough to accommodate social progress". What fucking assholes. Right up there with the Catholic monarchs who sanctioned the Spanish Inquisition.

Naming the Founding Fathers racist is about as useful and poignant as calling out Muhammad for being a pedophile.

And here is the impasse. I think cultural relativism is a crock of shite, you don't.

I'll continue to think that the Founding Fathers had shit views that made them not so great paragons of virtue while still doing good things.
You'll continue to think that it doesn't matter since it was the norm in their time.

C'est la vie.

Fine then. We'll agree to disagree rather than carry on this 'jack.

[Des-Bal]

In earlier pages, one poster put up the words of Scalia, which basically said that the Founding Fathers laid out the model for the country to follow, and that thus gay marriage was perfectly legit.

What I'm saying is exactly that. People interpreted the Constitution one day to justify their stance and ultimate decision.

And what I'm saying is that reinterpreting the constitution as it pleases us is not great. I'm saying that when the constitution goes against what we want we should either take the loss or change the constitution.

[Crezilivion]

It looks like it's time for new judges.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It looks like it's time for new judges.

They're not THAT old.

[Marylandonia]

It's not a fallacy. You call gay "marriage" by the term "marriage quality", but incestors and polygamists cannot marry "who they love". That, by the arguments used to push SSM, is hate and bigotry.

If SSM is legal and holy, then any union between consenting adults over the age of eighteen is also legal and holy. You can't have SSM and let the incestors have their "fundamental right to marry" be oppressed.

I still don't see what's wrong with 2 consenting people over the age of 18 marrying...

Theme song for an incestor marriage should be "No Children" by the Mountain Goats. The children problem is specifically what is wrong because of the DNA problems that can be inflicted upon innocent offspring, so that is out of the question. Polygamy is only a violation of the vows of marriage itself. But lets not get carried away here. SSM makes sense, these other things really don't.

[Liriena]

It looks like it's time for new judges.

Also known as the "taking the ball and going home" tactic. Very mature.

[Neutraligon]

It looks like it's time for new judges.

Also known as the "taking and ball and going home" tactic. Very mature.

Also won't work unless one of the judges retires or dies.

[Lordareon]

So... how long before the Conservatives start planning secession again?

we already are!