Songbird Supreme
Member
YAAAAS!!!!! YAAASSSS *******!!!!!! <3<3<3<3:hooray::hooray::hooray:
:yayy::yayy::yayy:
:yayy::yayy::yayy:
Last edited by a moderator:
Same *** Marriage Is a Right
- Thread starter King Kendrick
- Start date
This is how Liberals are.
When they meet with a double-standard, the paradox is resolved through an assertion that one idea or the other has more virtue than the other.
For example - freedom of expression is a die-hard liberal idea when people are making 'art' involving crucifixes in jars of urine or making 'art' of a nude virgin Mary including animal dung. However, try drawing Muhammad, and all of a sudden that's some kind of bigoted action.
Or display the Southern Cross flag pattern.
When the idea of free speech encounters a conflict with or threat to another liberal idea - then one idea must be seen as more virtuous than the other.
From the legal standpoint, this means the Constitution no longer governs the laws and courts of our land.
We are in a Banana Republic where the laws get made up as we go along and the crimes and punishments are handed out based upon the decree of an oligarchy.
Which is why myself and others will be declaring ourselves independent from the union within the foreseeable future. There's still some planning to be done - but we've had enough of this nonsense and are going to cut ourselves out of this country's system, hopefully, before it collapses into giant flaming wreck.
If not - we'll be on our way to founding a new nation from the ashes of this one.
Either way - America is gone. She's dead.
What you need to watch out for is the coming internment camps. It will not be long before those start springing up. I wouldn't be surprised if they start cropping up by the end of the year - though I am somewhat more optimistic by expecting it to be about three years before we start seeing the first internment camps.
It's simply a matter of time. We've seen these same patterns play out throughout history time and time again, nation after nation, population after population, genocide after genocide. Yet no one ever seems to realize what's on the horizon until the gas chamber door shuts behind them.
The craziest thing about it is that most of the people around you will be cheering for those internment camps and gas chambers. The same ones comparing the confederate flag to the swastika will dance with joy and piss themselves in orgasmic bliss over the removal of undesirable citizens.
You have to remember. They have the more virtuous idea.
ComplexCity
Banned
Don't say that, you are being illogical. Homosexuality causes no harm and they've been oppressed for wanting to love *sarcasm
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Saying we should just stop all forms of taboo from being taboo because we stopped considering homosexuality taboo is like saying we should excuse all forms of murder because murder in self-defense can be excused. Just because the viewpoint on one thing in the category is changed or should be changed doesn't mean EVERYTHING in the category is as well.
So what you're saying is that it is bigoted to dislike the idea of a man being married to a man...
But it's not bigoted to dislike the idea of one man marrying four women? Some of us are that good that women would be willing to share. Everyone gets what they want out of the relationship.
And, hey - you should see the way my cat waits for me in the window and bounds over to the door to greet me when I get home. She even calls me to bed because she likes to snuggle up on my shoulder. Pretty bigoted of you to suggest that there's no love there, wouldn't you think?
And, hey - that little grade school girl I help tutor has made comments about wanting to marry me when she grows up... why wait? Love is love, right? Pretty bigoted of you to stand there in your 'hetero-normal-cisgenderness' and judge everyone who finds love elsewhere.
While we're at it - I'm going to become a trans-cat. Because that's how I identify - and I want my drivers' license to state that I am a feline and for the health care system of this nation to pay for my right to be modified to suit my identity.
ComplexCity
Banned
I think they simply ruled it as protected by the constitution, meaning states cannot independently disallow the practice. Normally this kind of thing is linked to a court case, so maybe a gay couple sueing a state made its way to the Supreme Court? Idk because I wasn't following the whole event. Either way, the Supreme Court didn't legalize it, only prevented it from being disallowed in the future.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
It's spot on. You're saying because one form of something was recently approved, we have to logically approve all forms of that thing. In this case, the thing is taboo and the form is homosexuality. By your logic, because one of form of murder(one form of taboo) was approved, all forms of murder must logically be approved of as well(all forms of taboo). Am I wrong? Does the logic not connect? The reason you're "loling" is because the logic is ridiculous. And it's your logic being used.
How presumptuous of you. I never said I disprove of polygamy. In fact I think if those involved all agree and feel like they're built for that life, they should be able to marry whoever they want. Ever heard of swingers?
I do consider it bigotry not to support homosexuals because there's really no good reason to.
Agreed, cuz as we all know, all forms of love="I will **** and marry you."
*points to your earlier post about why pedophilia is bad*
You'll look stupid as shit, but go ahead.
Last edited:
ComplexCity
Banned
You already know my view on the matter, I won't spend 5 pages to see your hypocrisy. People are not bigoted for not supporting gay marriage. It's called America buddy
Sennin of Logic
Active member
Way to go on misrepresenting my post so you could make it sound like a slippery slope fallacy. This is what I said.
I didn't say all taboos without exception. I categorized any sexual taboo that doesn't do any actual harm without consent. In other words, if it isn't something that forcibly harms individuals, and the only real reason to not support it is because people have a distaste for it or could have side effects, then it should be allowed. Can you actually make an argument that incest marriage and polygamy should not be allowed without sounding like anti-gay heterosexuals?
Last edited:
RavingNeko
Member
I've never understood why people can't just accept that choosing who you want to spend the rest of your life with (if marriage even lasts that long these days) is something that everyone should be able to do. It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is. If there is love and mutual consent, who is anyone to say they shouldn't marry?
I'm simply stating my opinion. Please don't hate.
I'm simply stating my opinion. Please don't hate.
The problem is one of law and who has the authority to make it.
The law, as it is currently written, says that the Federal Government has absolutely no jurisdiction over marriage. The Supreme Court has as much authority to review this case as a French court does.
The law states that it is up to the States to determine who and or what is entitled to marriage. To alter this would require an amendment to the Constitution granting the federal government jurisdiction over the concept of marriage and it would have to be passed via the due process as outlined within the Constitution.
That is why this ruling is not just unconstitutional, it is also an expression of lawlessness by the court.
If the Constitution upon which our government operates can be cast aside for 'what feels good' - then so can any law on the books.
The net effect of this ruling is that this nation is no longer bound by law. The officials that have been appointed or elected to government have any and all authority they seek at any given time for any reason they deem worthy.
I, and millions of others like me, swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. The Supreme Court is now a domestic threat to the Constitution, as is the current White House Administration, and the entire left media establishment.
There is a reason, back in 2010, the federal government wrote into its guidelines the stipulation that all military veterans are to be considered potential terrorists. They knew this conflict was coming, as did we.
The question is just how many of us still hold on to the delusion that America can be saved - or, rather, that America is still alive in a manner that implies it can be saved.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Why do people keep assuming I'm against polygamy?
As for incest marriage, the chance of defective offspring. But, if you can get around that, who am I to stop you.
I am soooo confused to be quite honest lol. We have people talking about identifying as felines and all this jazz. The problem is people use all of these big words and "Complex" Thinking processes to talk about something soooo simple. Marriage is Marriage regardless of who you are attracted to. And Gender Identity a very complex thing for certain people to deal with so to even bring up such a example is very insulting and highly uncalled for to be quite honest. LGBT people work long hours much like straight people do and pay towards taxes just like anyone else so why exactly arent they supposed to be allowed the same liberties of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the next person? On the constitutional issue, The constitution was created in 1787... the term of "freedom" was completely different from the freedom that is present now thanks to us learning from mistakes and evolving as a people. At one point that "freedom" was for older white men with land.... which what we see now as completely unfair and to be quite honest not exactly smart. So im not really even sure what the huge issue is to be quite honest besides it makes certain people feel uncomfortable and thus shouldn't be legal... Welp I am sorry that you feel that way I really am but if LGBT people can pay for and defend the country they live in then by all means make it a white wedding!
Whenever the slippery slope fallacy turns up in a debate, it usually means that one side doesn't really have an argument.
And it appears on NB every time this topic does.
It's a shame that so many people totally unaffected by this court ruling are getting so riled up about it.
And it appears on NB every time this topic does.
It's a shame that so many people totally unaffected by this court ruling are getting so riled up about it.
you know what's most weird about this?the homosexual people themselves who want to marry,like why do you want to marry each other?
they have always been doing what they want,from having *** to adopting children.
why do they need to (marry)?
you know why,because they think if their marriage is legalized society and world will accept them,while this will never happen because it's abnormal.
abnormal will always be abnormal and never will be accepted..
they have always been doing what they want,from having *** to adopting children.
why do they need to (marry)?
you know why,because they think if their marriage is legalized society and world will accept them,while this will never happen because it's abnormal.
abnormal will always be abnormal and never will be accepted..
You want simple?
Law is Law.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tell me.
Where in the Constitution is marriage a specified power of the Federal Government?
When you can cite where in the Constitution the power of marriage is given to the federal government, we'll talk.
If you read my posts, then you also read my opinion on how we should handle the issue of marriage equality.
If you have the time to type up the same opinion everyone else has, then you have the time to do some research on how law in this country is supposed to work. There is a due process. If you violate that due process then the law means nothing.
If the law means nothing then we live in a lawless society. If we live in a lawless society then it is simply an environment where might makes right.
How strong are you, kiddo?
There are two reasons.
First - it's because progressives always need to choose some taboo or another to shove up everyone else's ass (quite literally). They are always finding something considered socially objectionable and insist that virtue resides in 'accepting' and 'understanding' it.
Second - it does have some grounding in the way the U.S. tax system works.
Back in 1914, the progressives had the wonderful idea to implement an income based tax system that gave the federal government the authority to directly tax citizens based upon their income. As time went on, various interest groups and political arguments led to people believing they could incentivize marriage and child development by giving tax breaks for individuals who were filing as married. This was especially the case as more women began to go to work and this led to more dual income families where both parties would be taxed equally.
Thus - the exemptions for marriage were made.
This opened up a can of worms, though. The federal government relies upon the state's authority to determine marital status. The Tenth Amendment states that any power not expressly given to the federal government is reserved to the states. Since the institution of marriage appears nowhere in the Constitution - it is a power reserved to the States (and therefor denied to the federal government).
This means that some states can permit things like homosexual marriage while other states can not permit homosexual marriage. It also means that some states could theoretically not have any marriage at all (though all states do).
This means that it is impossible for the individual income tax code to be applied equally to all citizens it is intended to apply. Or - at least - not with equal outcomes, at least. Homosexual couples in a state that allows marriage between them would be able to benefit from the tax breaks granted to married families while those in states that did not would not be able to benefit from such things.
Thus - we end up with a conflict at the federal level regarding the equality of tax statuses that uses a federal tax as a grounds to support the violation of the Tenth Amendment that is intended to preserve the Separation of Powers between nation and state.
The only ruling the court could have made that is consistent with the Constitution is to dismiss the case, as the Supreme Court does not have the proper jurisdiction.
Technically - no state is actually compelled to obey this SCOTUS ruling, and should continue exactly as it was, prior. The Supreme Court doesn't have legal jurisdiction per the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land.
If the federal government wants to have the power to make laws regarding marriage - they must put forth and pass an amendment that grants them such authority.
Otherwise - the issue of what to do about marriage rests within the States and the States alone. The Federal Government can't touch it.
Which is why individual income taxes are a hideous idea and why they had to create an amendment to justify creating the federal income tax (because it was not constitutional within our original framework).
Sennin of Logic
Active member
I think this is what's going on as well. Even if the benefits of marriage were removed, they'd push for it. Hopefully, they won't try taking the next step further, which is trying to force people like pastors to marry gay people under the guess "they're discriminating."