The Political Thread

[Swamps]

You would let me off with a warning

Yeah I would, lol. If I still worked the road. I sit in an office in Atlanta now, until I have to go investigate a serious wreck.

 

[Swamps]

Also, I've said it once and I'll say it again, no damn government should tell anyone (of legal age) who they can and can't arrange. Hell, if folks want multiple spouses, let them have at it.

 

[CakeWalker]

At this point, I think his crush from school or work - ended up being a lesbian. And he has been titled ever since.

 

[Smart Marx]

Also, I've said it once and I'll say it again, no damn government should tell anyone (of legal age) who they can and can't arrange. Hell, if folks want multiple spouses, let them have at it.

 

[CakeWalker]

Does Dak thinking being gay is a choice? Someone should ask him that, without quoting me.

 

[Smart Marx]

Does Dak thinking being gay is a choice? Someone should ask him that, without quoting me.

If he’s heavily religious that’s probably a 7030 that he believes being gay is a choice and if he’s part of the 30% doesn’t think the thoughts are a choice they still think the acting on it is a choice.

 

[Dakstang]

There is no interruption to equal. You either mean equal or you don’t.

I had no idea what part of the 14th Amendment you were even trying to interpret to justify it because people are trying their best to twist it to justify what they want it to mean. I never claimed to be a legal or constitutional scholar but many people who are disagree with you. I think your interpretation that 'equal protection of the law' justifies legalizing gay marriage is a stretch at best. That can be bent and skewed many different ways to mean many different things. I think equality is that everyone has a right to marriage. Which everyone had before this ruling. The Constitution does not define marriage. It is too vague to justify it. Since it does not define it, that is left up to the States to do....as the Constitution says. That is why we need a Constitutional Amendment or a Federal Law to codify it. Just like abortion. I just wish people didn't try to bend and shape the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean. The same people who does this will argue that the 2nd Amendment (Which is MUCH more clear than this argument) doesn't count. You cannot have it both ways. If it isn't specifically laid out in the Constitution, it is the Legislative Branch's responsibility if they want to change something. Stop trying to take short cuts. Stop trying to bend the Constitution into a pretzel until it somehow justifies what you want it to mean. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Dakstang]

"God doesn't hate Gay People, but a very specific passage of the bible makes it seem God will punish gay people, so I should hate them regardless!"

I don't hate them. Never said I did. I don't want to open that whole can of worms but you know the real argument here and I am not going to get into it.

 

[CakeWalker]

So he doesn't hate gay people, but he doesn't want to open up the can of worms that comes with saying that.

Imagine if someone said. "I don't hate black people - but I don't want to open that can of worms."

smh

this guy is a fuckhead and needs a compass

 

[Swamps]

At this point, I think his crush from school or work - ended up being a lesbian. And he has been titled ever since.

My high school girlfriend ended up being a lesbian years after we broke up. Our first three sum together was years after we split with my other ex.

 

[Smart Marx]

I had no idea what part of the 14th Amendment you were even trying to interpret to justify it because people are trying their best to twist it to justify what they want it to mean. I never claimed to be a legal or constitutional scholar but many people who are disagree with you. I think your interpretation that 'equal protection of the law' justifies legalizing gay marriage is a stretch at best. That can be bent and skewed many different ways to mean many different things. I think equality is that everyone has a right to marriage. Which everyone had before this ruling. The Constitution does not define marriage. It is too vague to justify it. Since it does not define it, that is left up to the States to do....as the Constitution says. That is why we need a Constitutional Amendment or a Federal Law to codify it. Just like abortion. I just wish people didn't try to bend and shape the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean. The same people who does this will argue that the 2nd Amendment (Which is MUCH more clear than this argument) doesn't count. You cannot have it both ways. If it isn't specifically laid out in the Constitution, it is the Legislative Branch's responsibility if they want to change something. Stop trying to take short cuts. Stop trying to bend the Constitution into a pretzel until it somehow justifies what you want it to mean. It doesn't work that way.

It’s honestly pretty simple. Let’s break it down.

Equal protections mean you can’t create a law that can only apply to certain groups of people. Certain groups of people include sexual orientation sex race national ethnicity etc. what’s a law well those are those little pesky things that can determine what you can and can’t do, but never who. What’s a law currently on the books that can be applicable to the situation well the civil rights act which also declared you can’t discriminate people based on their sexual orientation their sex or their race when it came to Federal programs benefits and employment. What about this particular situation would be applicable to that well marriage which is a federal and state recognized institution that grants people benefits. Now what groups of people are being unfairly targeted by your interpretation of this law well gay people. Are you trying to deny that gay people exist? Because if they exist you can’t say that they can’t get married while straight people can get married because that would be a violation of both the civil rights act and the 14th amendment.

 

[Grimoire Lenin]

Dak's also a hypocrite for using his faith as a defense for hating on and continually advocating for people to lose their rights.

The same rights mind you, that are supported by the 14th Amendment of the United States, an article in the US Constitution that Dak seems to love so much. Despite that same document advocating completely for a separation of church doctrine from government polity.

Shocking, not really.

 

[CakeWalker]

My high school girlfriend ended up being a lesbian years after we broke up. Our first three sum together was years after we split with my other ex.

You don't hate the gay world though and also have got laid.

 

[Alexa]

My high school girlfriend ended up being a lesbian years after we broke up. Our first three sum together was years after we split with my other ex.

She didn't appreciate your skelator memes

 

[Dakstang]

Are you trying to deny that gay people exist? Because if they exist you can’t say that they can’t get married while straight people can get married because that would be a violation of both the civil rights act and the 14th amendment.

I didn't want to get into this but, fuck it.

Do they exist? Yes. Are they born that way? No. Is it a choice? No. I think it is similar to how someone is attracted to certain things. Some people are attracted to blondes. Some to brunettes. Some people are attracted to very obese people. Some people are attracted to really old people. Hell, some people are even attracted to inanimate objects like cars, pillows, balloons, etc.... Now what causes that? Are they born that way? Is that hard wired into their DNA that they are going to want to fuck cars? Of course it isn't. Something happened at some point in their formative years to make them go that route. Did they make the choice? No. But it happened. Should we allow people to marry cars because that is their sexual preference? Makes as much sense to me. That is why your interpretation is too broad and it is left up to the Legislative Branch to codify.

/inb4 "But science has proven it blah blah blah"