Conservapedia #homophobia #crackpot #wingnut #fundie

Conservapedia #homophobia #crackpot #wingnut #fundie conservapedia.com

Same-sex "marriage" (also called sodomite "marriage", homosexual "marriage" or "gay marriage") is a liberal attempt to advance the homosexual agenda and force the public to pay benefits for relationships that are not procreative and typically are not even monogamous. This is not only contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the Bible and most other religious teachings, but also antisocietal as can be shown by scientific device of thought experiment used for investigation of nature of things.

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, illegally claimed that same-sex "marriage" was "legal" in all 50 states, despite not having the power or authority to make such a ruling.

6 comments

“Same-sex "marriage" (also called sodomite "marriage", homosexual "marriage" or "gay marriage") is a liberal attempt to advance the homosexual agenda”
Really? Are you required to be gay to engage in a same-sex marriage? Lord knows no one was required to be hetero to engage in ‘marriage-marriage.’
But I’m pretty sure two straights could marry in a Chuck and Larry situation.

“and force the public to pay benefits for relationships that are not procreative”
You already do, numbnuts. One of my coworkers was born infertile and his marriage does get the tax breaks you’re so upset over.
I also have three transgendered coworkers that I know of, same thing.
AND i knew two sailors who could reproduce, but due to their genetics they dared not. One adopted one just spent all his disposable income on his wife.

“and typically are not even monogamous.”
Town i grew up in, every couple my parents considered friends, at least one of them had cheated or was cheating. This is not unique to gay couples.

“This is not only contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system”
It’s not contrary. Straights do everything you accuse the gays of including anal sex.

“and in direct violation of the Bible”
So are pearl necklaces and mixed-fabric shirts.

“ and most other religious teachings, but also antisocietal as can be shown by scientific device of thought experiment used for investigation of nature of things.”
Thought experiments are just sermons that are dressed up like factual investigations.

“On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, illegally claimed that same-sex "marriage" was "legal" in all 50 states, despite not having the power or authority to make such a ruling.”
Wrong again. The decision was that laws against gay marriage were not constitutional. They discriminate against our citizens for no secular reason that stands up to scrutiny.

“force the public to pay benefits for relationships that are not procreative and typically are not even monogamous”

The first is assuming it’s the governments job to police this function, which it is absolutely not(also barren couples, dickhead). The second is irrelevant even if it was somehow true if all of the partners are happily consenting, polycules exist and you can’t erase this fact.

“as can be shown by scientific device of thought experiment used for investigation of nature of things.”

Bitch, you wouldn’t know a scientific device if it walked up to you and kicked you in the bollocks.

“contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system”

AHAHAHAHA no. Just no.

antisocietal as can be shown by scientific device of thought experiment used for investigation of nature of things

Thought experiments are a philosophical device. Sometimes science uses it, but real-world experiments are the prime scientific schtick.

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, illegally claimed that same-sex "marriage" was "legal" in all 50 states, despite not having the power or authority to make such a ruling.

The power of courts to de facto legislate like this comes from the laws on the book contradicting each other or just being vague.

In this case, the ruling comes from some very simple logic:

- The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment does not allow discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and a few other protected characteristics. If you’re not convinced that this is true, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 spells it out.

- Barring two people from marrying, purely on the basis of their race, is discrimination. In particular, a law that imposes “equal burden” (allowing whites to only marry other whites and blacks to only marry other blacks) is still discrimination.

- So, it stands to reason, barring two people from marrying, purely on the basis of their sex, is also discrimination. In particular, a law that imposes “equal burden” (allowing men to only marry women and women to only marry men) is still discrimination.

From a purely procedural standpoint, ignoring arguments about “intent” and “tradition”, it’s pretty obvious that if the second bullet point is true then so is the third. And that’s what you want, right? A court that interprets the law, as written, without concerning itself with anything else.

So nary a week after a certain ruling by the SCOTUS, why hasn’t Don Old Fart just invaded that place just as he essentially instigated one of a building not a million miles away from that one in early 2021, Conservapoodia?!

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, illegally claimed that same-sex "marriage" was "legal" in all 50 states, despite not having the power or authority to make such a ruling.

Uh…how in the hell does the Supreme Court not have the power and authority to rule that laws are unconstitutional? That’s one of their reasons for existing. In the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, from Marbury v Madison, 1803, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.” AKA judicial review. Now, you can certainly disagree with their decisions all you want, I don’t think they got them right every time myself, but I won’t dispute that those decisions were law. (until they got ruled to be otherwise)

Conservapedia #homophobia #crackpot #wingnut #fundie conservapedia.com

6 comments

Confused?