Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

uh, constitutional law. The issue of same sex marriage bans is settled law. The only way to reverse this is by passing a constitutional amendment.

 

When someone asks you which questions you want them to answer and your respond with “Your refusal to respond” screams your argument has no foundational bases in reality (or integrity for that matter)

Same sex marriage is law and Biden will seek to amplify protects for LGBT Americans against individuals like yourself.

Take care

 

Don't be absurd. Courts could easily reverse earlier judgments on the matter. They have that right.

 

I do so when they will not carry on a two way conversation which you will not.

 

I simply asked which questions because I didn’t see any in your previous post that I replied to.

If you believe a “two way conversation” is refusing to respond when someone asks you what question you are referring to then maybe we have a different definition of “conversation”.

You posts in 1993, 1989, and 1986 contain no questions.

In post 1983 you asked another poster “Do you understand the difference between prevent and not encourage?” to which I responded “Why should we be “encouraging” elderly and infertile heterosexuals to marry then?” as I thought your question was rhetorical and not posed to me.

So again, if you are capable, post your question you are so dying to ask. While you are at it respond to the half dozen questions I have asked regarding paternity or quality of childcare.

 

You specifically pointed out the difference between prevention and not encouraging. If you exclude any grouping of people in the legal definition of marriage then you are preventing. You claim that you only want to "not encourage", as opposed to actively discourage or prevent. Thus, by definition of those actions, you have to support SSM being a legal thing.

What is vital and necessary to our species that requires we encourage and support and legally sanction heterosexuality? Procreation will occur even if we don't do those things. Therefore any support or sanctioning is not about procreation. Especially in a country that is supposed to be about freedom. If there is to be a legal marriage institution, then all must be allowed to partake of it with whomever they want (again under assumption of ability to make informed decision) regardless of sex, gender, age, race, religion, etc.

You keep trying to push the point of survival of species, but legal marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. Yes, offspring are taken into account IF they occur in a marriage, but since they are not required, legal marriage is NOT about procreation. There is no basis by which to DENY same sex couples access to a legal institution that opposite sex couples can access.

 

Homosexual couples can form nuclear families as sterile or elderly couples can. Many already do. I gave the definition of a nuclear family earlier in the thread, You have yet to present anything that counters it.

 

It is a problem with both sides of any argument. Personally, I have called out bias sources that agree with my position, simply because they were bias. I am more likely to call out as bias a source from an LBGT group on something, than an actual study, even if they say the same thing.

 

The banning of interracial marriage and same sex marriage were once "settled law". There really is no such thing.

 

While there are many examples of where SCOTUS has ruled something to be constitutional, and then later ruled it unconstitutional, can you cite any case where SCOTUS previously ruled something to be unconstitutional only to later rule it constitutional? Granted there is a first time for anything, and by technicality, SCOTUS can indeed do this. I am asking for precedence.

 

I'm not. I'm pointing constitutional law

no, they can't. A supreme court ruling is binding precedent for every single court in the US. No case can ever again make it to SCOTUS on the same grounds. An amendment is required.

 

yes there is. Once something is ruled on by the SCOTUS, every single lower court is bound by the precedent. No case on the same legal question can make it to the supreme court. It takes an amendment to overturn.

 

Prove it.

 

If that were the case (no puns intended), then when SCOTUS earlier ruled that banning abortion was constitutional, then no other case should have been allowed to come before the court seeking to make abortion bans unconstitutional.

 

ok. every case that has been ruled on by scotus has never had the same legal question come back to it.

 

which specific case are you referring to?

 

Prove it.

 

I just did. Every case that has gone before SCOTUS and not a single case with the same question of law coming back. As no lower court can rule in conflict with scotus precedent. This is basic constitutional law.

 

I wasn't thinking of any specific case per se, but here is an example. Keep in mind here I am talking as a generality of what SCOTUS decides and not specific abortion cases.

You said:

If that were true, then the ruling in Plessy v Ferguson should have been binding and Brown v Board of Education should never have made it to SCOTUS.

That being said, there is a case that might be going up to SCOTUS that has the possibility (not necessarily probability) for overturning RvW.

 

This standard holds for you too.

I asked:

Yet you conveniently avoided answering to support your own contention. Keep in mind that I am asking about the past, and not the possible future case I cited.

 

So... Maq still can't get the topic narrowly enough defined to get the answer Maq wants?
SSM is just another step in the communist destruction of the traditional family, the goal being, to replace God and family with the State.

 

So exactly how does a demand to prove what can and cannot come up before SCOTUS have to do with your response? Are you even following the conversation?

 

You silly self centered Americans. What your supreme Court says about anything is completely irrelevant to the thread topic.

 

did you miss this part? SSM is just another step in the communist destruction of the traditional family, the goal being, to replace God and family with the State.

 

Same Sex Marriage is outlawed in all Communist states right now, so legalizing SSM was a move AWAY from
the communists. You are making a silly argument.