So LGBT is a personal life style choice — so what?

Raising a child by the natural mother and father however is

 

Not according to SCOTUS no matter how many times you say it.

 

In reply to the thread to say "I was born that way" is as logical as "I was born to speak English". Actually for me in my early life I spoke Italian but I forgot most of it now.

 

Well the court said it was because "the voters don't like homosexuals", when in fact the voters were merely recognizing that only women give birth and only men are held responsible for them doing so. The limitation to men and women preceded the invention of homosexuality. Just as the limitation to one spouse preceded the invention of Mormonism. Would be absurd to claim this limitation was intended to "disparage and injure" Mormons, just as it is absurd to claim the limitation to men and women was intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.

What you STILL don't understand, I am not disputing their application of the law. I AM DISPUTING THEIR FACTS.

 

Not according to 5 out of nine justices and they are wrong a majority of 1 deciding what right for an entire nation. This needs to end, no more 5 to four decisions, it should take a real majority if they are going to decide such things. This is the main reason to oppose Hillary and the one that will cost her the most votes. Much as many conservatives hate Trump she scares them to death

 

What you don't understand is you are getting it wrong on the facts. What was compelling interest at one time can be determined not to be compelling interest today. In fact this is the basis of every civil rights decision ever made. So saying "it was always done this way" is the worst possible argument

- - - Updated - - -

You do know that 5 to 4 is a majority....don't you? LOL

 

So your going to go along simply to get along. Weak! American people need to sweep the entire white house clean. At the very least, call out what is going on.

 

The concern was never procreation. States didn't make it a crime for a man and woman to engage in sex outside of marriage because they wanted them to procreate. They will procreate just fine, with or without marriage. The only concern was men and women procreating outside of marriage. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult.

 

Having a majority of one decide what right or wrong for an entire nation is simply wrong

 

Nothing in this decision either promotes or discourages heterosexuals from getting married.

 

You don't even understand what it is I am arguing. Marriage limited to men and women because only they procreate doesn't require a compelling interest. It is marriage limited to men and women to "disparage and injure" homosexuals that requires a compelling interest.

 

Where are you even getting this term. I do not even see it in the dissents of Obergefell. It is such a minor point it has almost no bearing on the decision.

- - - Updated - - -

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right

 

I never claimed it did.

 

But the law does . They offer benefits to those who marry.

 

Yes and they should give those same benefits to homosexuals many of whom have families with children

 

Do they need government sanction for this to happen ?

 

Of course not. Neither do straight people. But if they are giving it to straight people they have to give it to gays too.

 

From the lower court that decided the case “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure . . . .” Quoting Kennedy from the Windsor V case

 

Such a minor line....it has little bearing on the case as a whole and it not even mentioned in the dissents of the Obergefell case

 

Why should married people have more rights than single people ?

 

I have no idea. I believe single people should present their case before the court and be heard. I think they have a case.

 

Well we finally agree on something

 

Does anybody else realize that the arguments against same sex marriage are pretty much the exact same arguments that people used against interracial marriage back when that was an issue?
'It's a choice!'
'Beastality and pedophilia will be next!'
'Stop forcing yourself on my religious beliefs!'
'It'll dissolve the sanctity of marriage!'
'Our children will be gay/mixed race next!'

 

And at the time it was, until the constitution was amended.

- - - Updated - - -

No such thing as natural rights. Only constitutional rights.

 

Its mind blowing that you've been called on this lie at least 50 times but still trot it out. No court ruled any such thing. Please stop lying.