Page 42 of 112 FirstFirst ... 3240414243445292 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #411
    Antichrist
    zgoldsmith23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    11-06-17 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Either one would be my prerogative and none of your business to challenge. Actually, I didn't see your post, if you really must know. You haven't impressed me to the point that you are on my "required reading list". So let's see what you've got here:

    Since homosexuality prevents the natural bearing of offspring by any organism afflicted with such a condition, if it was genetic, it would be a defect and any widespread propagation of it would result in potential extinction for a species.

    Of course, this is all just academic because the dirty little secret is that homosexuality is not a genetic defect. It's simply a sexually deviant behavior.
    It does not prevent the natural bearing of offspring by any organism. Homosexual men have just as viable sperm as you or I (assuming you're a man) and, in the same way, homosexual women have just as viable eggs as other women. And, no, homosexuality would not result in the extinction of a population. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as you'd have more men available to protect and raise children.

    Surely you have evidence that homosexuality "is simply a sexually deviant behavior?"
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I've never denied my own hackish tendencies
    Quote Originally Posted by Pin dÁr View Post
    scientific by itself isn't enough of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by blaxshep View Post
    Not all Nazis were bad people

  2. #412
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Polygamy was never widespread.
    It was and is in the Islamic world, it is in Africa. It was widespread in the Mormon communities in the 1800's Utah territory.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  3. #413
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    It was and is in the Islamic world, it is in Africa. It was widespread in the Mormon communities in the 1800's Utah territory.
    That's still not "widespread". It has been an exception to the rule, although it has been much, MUCH more common than the virtually nonexistent "homosexual marriage" model we're being sold today.

  4. #414
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,175

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So, endgame...Who here thinks that when all the court cases are finally resolved, it will work something like this: states can marry who they want, and not marry who they want. However, they cannot fail to recognize marriages performed in any state. That should manage to piss off pretty much every one, but does seem most likely entirely constitutional.
    As I asked someone previously who made a similar point - If the court ruled that the federal government could not nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage, why would you assume that it would sanction one state nullifying or abrogating another state's definition of marriage? What you are suggesting is that California, as an example, can force recognition of their definition of marriage upon the state of Alaska, but the federal government can't. How does that make sense?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  5. #415
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Obamacare, blanket amnesty for illegals, same sex marriage and the financial implications, reduction of the military, tax hikes, IRS intimidation, NSA and privacy, JoP investigation of media.......

    America is dead. Democrats have won. Troubling times lie ahead.
    Conservative America with its irrational biases and lack of progress is dead. Thank God, now we can join the modern world.

  6. #416
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    It does not prevent the natural bearing of offspring by any organism. Homosexual men have just as viable sperm as you or I (assuming you're a man) and, in the same way, homosexual women have just as viable eggs as other women.
    If that is true, then homosexuality is a choice; a behavior rather than an immutable characteristic.

  7. #417
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    That's still not "widespread". It has been an exception to the rule, although it has been much, MUCH more common than the virtually nonexistent "homosexual marriage" model we're being sold today.
    Since polygamy causes social disruptions that have nothing to do with gay marriage, this line of argument is invalid.

  8. #418
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    As I asked someone previously who made a similar point - If the court ruled that the federal government could not nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage, why would you assume that it would sanction one state nullifying or abrogating another state's definition of marriage? What you are suggesting is that California, as an example, can force recognition of their definition of marriage upon the state of Alaska, but the federal government can't. How does that make sense?
    It doesn't and that's why the full faith and credit clause is almost a sure failure as a constitutional back-door to forcing same-sex marriage nationally.

  9. #419
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    If that is true, then homosexuality is a choice; a behavior rather than an immutable characteristic.
    The desire to have children is separate from sexual orientation. Historical studies show gay men have always had children, just at a lower rate then heterosexual men. How does this promote your "argument"?

  10. #420
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Since polygamy causes social disruptions that have nothing to do with gay marriage, this line of argument is invalid.
    If three people love each other, how does it negatively impact you if they are allowed to marry? And before you go with the stupid argument that it means fewer females to go around, we can't assume that it's one man and two women. It could be three men, three women, two women and one man.... gender is irrelevant per the homosexual precursor argument.

Page 42 of 112 FirstFirst ... 3240414243445292 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •