First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Stu Pedaso

Canton, OH

#1 Dec 11, 2012
The douchebag treats homosexuality and murder as behavior that can be voted or legislated away.

Both, unfortunately, are as natural to the human condition as breathing, or, as well, pontificating out of a SCOTUS A-Hole, and not subject to the moral objections of the rest of us.
pee wees wee wee

Erie, PA

#2 Dec 11, 2012
Stu Pedaso wrote:
The douchebag treats homosexuality and murder as behavior that can be voted or legislated away.
Both, unfortunately, are as natural to the human condition as breathing, or, as well, pontificating out of a SCOTUS A-Hole, and not subject to the moral objections of the rest of us.
Masturbating like homosexuality is also wrong from a Bible perspective but why don't we disallow anyone to marry who masturbates? Because Christians have popular and less popular sins though they're equal. That's justice to them and others must suffer for the less popular ones.
pee wees wee wee

Erie, PA

#3 Dec 11, 2012
Lol. Just got that Scalia is talking about "feelings". What a joke.

There is blatant objective harm in murder. Not so with homoism. Someone should get a 3 year old to point that reasoning out to Scalia.
Joe America Number 2

Cleveland, OH

#4 Dec 11, 2012
pee wees wee wee wrote:
Lol. Just got that Scalia is talking about "feelings". What a joke.
There is blatant objective harm in murder. Not so with homoism. Someone should get a 3 year old to point that reasoning out to Scalia.
Are you a Sopper?
Observer1

Erie, PA

#5 Dec 11, 2012
As usual, liberals are too dense and emotion-driven to understand what is being said by intelligent conservative thinkers, and resort to their standard screeching, profane reactions when someone states a position they don't like. Scalia is merely stating that the Constitution does not automatically sprout new "rights" just because something has become more popular. He is saying that same-sex marriage must be made legal by legislation in each state which wants to change the law of marriage to include same-gender couples. Turning every social trend into a "constitutional right" undermines the very concept of having a constitution. It can be amended, or laws can be enacted to deal with things the Constitution neither requires nor prohibits.
pee wees wee wee

Erie, PA

#6 Dec 11, 2012
Observer1 wrote:
As usual, liberals are too dense and emotion-driven to understand what is being said by intelligent conservative thinkers, and resort to their standard screeching, profane reactions when someone states a position they don't like. Scalia is merely stating that the Constitution does not automatically sprout new "rights" just because something has become more popular. He is saying that same-sex marriage must be made legal by legislation in each state which wants to change the law of marriage to include same-gender couples. Turning every social trend into a "constitutional right" undermines the very concept of having a constitution. It can be amended, or laws can be enacted to deal with things the Constitution neither requires nor prohibits.
Right. Marriage may be more popular or not so who cares? Gays should be allowed to marry if they want to since marriage carries across state lines already. Glad you agree that Scalia doesn't know what he's talking about.
pee wees wee wee

Erie, PA

#7 Dec 11, 2012
Joe America Number 2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a Sopper?
The free online dictionary says a sopper is someone who sops. Glad they cleared that up ;)
tru dat

Erie, PA

#8 Dec 11, 2012
Stu Pedaso wrote:
The douchebag treats homosexuality and murder as behavior that can be voted or legislated away.

Both, unfortunately, are as natural to the human condition as breathing, or, as well, pontificating out of a SCOTUS A-Hole, and not subject to the moral objections of the rest of us.
You think murder should be legal?
Me too:)
Observer1

Erie, PA

#9 Dec 11, 2012
pee wees wee wee wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Marriage may be more popular or not so who cares? Gays should be allowed to marry if they want to since marriage carries across state lines already. Glad you agree that Scalia doesn't know what he's talking about.
Do you read with your eyes closed? How else could you respond with such nonsense? Gay marriage has become more acceptable to society in a lot of states, but it is not a fundamental right in the Constitution. It requires a change in the law of each state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, and if a state chooses not to do so, gay couples can't get married there. Whether the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional in allowing states which don't have gay marriage to refuse recognition of gays married in other states is a question to be decided by the Supreme Court. Screaming and stomping your feet won't decide this question.
pee wees wee wee

Erie, PA

#10 Dec 11, 2012
Observer1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you read with your eyes closed? How else could you respond with such nonsense? Gay marriage has become more acceptable to society in a lot of states, but it is not a fundamental right in the Constitution. It requires a change in the law of each state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, and if a state chooses not to do so, gay couples can't get married there. Whether the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional in allowing states which don't have gay marriage to refuse recognition of gays married in other states is a question to be decided by the Supreme Court. Screaming and stomping your feet won't decide this question.
But wouldn't you argue that marriage is a fundamental right under the constitution in that it's traditionally a religious rite for some? You're one that believes religionists should be allowed to do anything they want if it's an expression of religion, don't you?

I'm sure we could find God believing gays that profess beliefs that God is found in expressions of love and marriage, gay or not, black or white, and their marriage is the fulfillment of God's expression of love. Or is it just YOUR God beliefs that deserve protection?
Stu Pedaso

Canton, OH

#11 Dec 11, 2012
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase is meant to exemplify the "unalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and for the protection of which they institute governments.[1]
pee wees wee wee

Erie, PA

#12 Dec 11, 2012
Stu Pedaso wrote:
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase is meant to exemplify the "unalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and for the protection of which they institute governments.[1]
Your Topix post is found nowhere in the Constitution so it's not strict constructionist on it's face. Therefore it can't be considered in this discussion.
Observer1

Erie, PA

#13 Dec 11, 2012
pee wees wee wee wrote:
<quoted text>
But wouldn't you argue that marriage is a fundamental right under the constitution in that it's traditionally a religious rite for some? You're one that believes religionists should be allowed to do anything they want if it's an expression of religion, don't you?
I'm sure we could find God believing gays that profess beliefs that God is found in expressions of love and marriage, gay or not, black or white, and their marriage is the fulfillment of God's expression of love. Or is it just YOUR God beliefs that deserve protection?
So if some people define their "religious expression" as providing alcohol to, marrying or just having sex with teenagers, are laws prohibiting such conduct unconstitutional? Where do we get the right to draw an arbitrary age distinction for consenting adulthood? The answer is that the fundamental rights implicit in the constitution are drawn from the long-held traditional concepts, such as the distinction between children and adult rights which, in terms of age threshold, are subject to legislative judgments which can be changed as the people of any state or the nation determine. Same with the specific requirements of marriage, not defined in the Constitution, but relegated to the states to determine the age, gender, number of persons or other requirements to be married under the law. Individuals cannot redefine marital requirements on their own by appealing to their own beliefs as a constitutional right any more than they can set aside the age of majority because they want to do something which the state has rationally defined as prohibited. Constitutional principles have some flexibility of interpretation, but they are not just chalk on a blackboard. Laws can be enacted, changed or repealed, or the Constitution amended if enough of a majority agrees, but if you can declare new constitutional rights any time you want them, then what is to prevent a court from deleting other rights to satisfy a majority of society at any particular time?
Stu Pedaso

Canton, OH

#14 Dec 12, 2012
The Constitution itself was born of the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. The most fundamental human expression of those rights is Love. And Love mothered the Constitution and it mothered the Declaration Of Independence.

No one, no court, has a right to interfere in something so fundamental to our lives and liberty.
pee wees wee wee wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Topix post is found nowhere in the Constitution so it's not strict constructionist on it's face. Therefore it can't be considered in this discussion.
pee wees wee wee

Waterford, PA

#16 Dec 12, 2012
Blunt Truth wrote:
<quoted text> Please cite your source that murder is natural to the human condition. You're full of B.S.
Uh. They occur. Next question.
pee wees wee wee

Waterford, PA

#17 Dec 12, 2012
Stu Pedaso wrote:
The Constitution itself was born of the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. The most fundamental human expression of those rights is Love. And Love mothered the Constitution and it mothered the Declaration Of Independence.
No one, no court, has a right to interfere in something so fundamental to our lives and liberty.
<quoted text>
I don't know exactly what the put down beyond gay is called but you're there buddy.
Come on ThunderChild

Columbiana, OH

#18 Dec 12, 2012
Fat Tony who would replace the US Constitution with the one from Uganda.
Observer1

Pittsburgh, PA

#19 Dec 12, 2012
Stu Pedaso wrote:
The Constitution itself was born of the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. The most fundamental human expression of those rights is Love. And Love mothered the Constitution and it mothered the Declaration Of Independence.
No one, no court, has a right to interfere in something so fundamental to our lives and liberty.
<quoted text>
So anything you can wrap in the banner of "love" cannot be prohibited or legislated? That must make the NAMBLA guys happy. And nobody is stopping same-sex "love" between consenting adults. Providing them a marriage license is a state-by-state decision, which increasingly is being approved. No need to distort the Constitution to pretend it is an existing right.
pee wees wee wee

Waterford, PA

#20 Dec 12, 2012
Observer1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Individuals cannot redefine marital requirements on their own by appealing to their own beliefs as a constitutional right any more than they can set aside the age of majority because they want to do something which the state has rationally defined as prohibited.
2)Constitutional principles have some flexibility of interpretation, but they are not just chalk on a blackboard. Laws can be enacted, changed or repealed, or the Constitution amended if enough of a majority agrees, but if you can declare new constitutional rights any time you want them, then what is to prevent a court from deleting other rights to satisfy a majority of society at any particular time?
1)Marital "requirements" would by necessity be couched in terms of "must" wouldn't they? As you're a strict constructionist, point to the documented "must" requirements regarding marriage, not just in the constitution but in legal decisions after if you can.

Also prohibition is not something necessarily "rationally defined". Reason is not finite and finding exceptions to the rule through reason shows the initial reason was not the whole of what was being reasoned, just a part. And prohibition in one or another way is a reflection of power.

2)There is NOTHING to prevent a court (the SCOTUS) from reaching any conclusion based on any bias they want. And as how Scalia is on record saying that Christianity should be given a dominant religious view in this country, it's little wonder his little Catholic ass would say what he does.

One question. Since puritans were fleeing the Catholic run state, how did a wormy Catholic like Scalia justify taking the bench as the culture of the day was decidedly anti-Catholic? Sounds to me like he did one of those "make up any justified religious thing you want" sort of deals.
pee wees wee wee

Waterford, PA

#21 Dec 12, 2012
Observer1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So anything you can wrap in the banner of "love" cannot be prohibited or legislated? That must make the NAMBLA guys happy. And nobody is stopping same-sex "love" between consenting adults. Providing them a marriage license is a state-by-state I Constitution to pretend it is an existing right.
Yes or no has it been common practice...tradition or common law you might say...for one state to recognize marriages from another state?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mohrsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Clinton gains 22,000 votes on Trump in Pennsylv... 22 min Reality 9
good lawyer 1 hr Perry Mason 2
Erie National news headline's for all the wrong... 1 hr ha ha hillary ha ha 17
GE makes my rectal spasms 1 hr Union Member 1
making Erie safer for everyone 1 hr Unified Erie 1
Steroids are drugs too... (May '15) 2 hr Just saying 4
Trump to preside over the richest Cabinet in U.... 2 hr fat buster 25

Mohrsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Mohrsville Mortgages