Republicans target same sex marriage

[Notch7]

me too, but the trolls gotta troll.

you seemed to have conveniently forgotten that the discussion got side tracked because you introduced a trolling strawman in post #3


trolls gotta troll:

Do same sex couples need contraception? I had assumed not

 

[pete01]

me too, but the trolls gotta troll.

And dont they just

 

[motorbiking]

you seemed to have conveniently forgotten that the discussion got side tracked because you introduced a trolling strawman in post #3


trolls gotta troll:

So post No2, was just your attempt at humour? The OP posted about Marriage rights for same sex couples in the US and your reply was

banning contraception will be soon
Then we will see stopping women from getting educated
Then we will see women forced to wear the Hijab

Taliban Trump is in town

which was beyond nonsense.

 

[noseall]

its good that we can draw a line under your incorrect statement. i.e. when you said.

You meant apart from between 1996 and 2013.

Nonsense. This still stands....

"...It didn't need to, as it was never deemed illegal in the eyes of the law (US Constitution), in the first place..."

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[pete01]

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense. This still stands....

"...It didn't need to, as it was never deemed illegal in the eyes of the law (US Constitution), in the first place..."

Glad we cleared that up.

It's still Nonsense - correct. The US Supreme Court do not own a Time Machine. Not to mention for a large chunk of history in the US, Gay sexual acts were illegal.

​

 

[noseall]

It's still Nonsense - correct. The US Supreme Court do not own a Time Machine. Not to mention for a large chunk of history in the US, Gay sexual acts were illegal.

​

How many married same sex couples were prosecuted during the DOMA years?

 

[noseall]

"...It didn't need to, as it was never deemed illegal in the eyes of the law (US Constitution), in the first place..."

Correct. It was never illegal.

 

[motorbiking]

How many married same sex couples were prosecuted during the DOMA years?

prosecuted ? What are you on about.

 

[MNW67]

prosecuted ? What are you on about.

I think it might just be a confusion about the use of the word illegal. It's a bit imprecise. It can mean either not allowed or criminal. I actually can see this going on for 100 pages

 

[noseall]

prosecuted ? What are you on about.

It's a simple question.

This however is still true....

"...It didn't need to, as it was never deemed illegal in the eyes of the law (US Constitution), in the first place..."

 

[noseall]

I think it might just be a confusion about the use of the word illegal

No confusion here. Poor old MBK on the other hand....

 

[motorbiking]

I think it might just be a confusion about the use of the word illegal. It's a bit imprecise. It can mean either not allowed or criminal. I actually can see this going on for 100 pages

which is why I didn't use it.

I'll let you educate Noseall about Lawrence vs Texas 2003.

 

[motorbiking]

No confusion here. Poor old MBK on the other hand....

The opposite of legalise is not for something to be illegal. Dummy.

 

[MNW67]

No confusion here. Poor old MBK on the other hand....

I think it would be helpful, then, to define what you mean by "illegal" in this context. This is a very complex area and the terminology needs to be precise.