What logical reasons are there for opposing same sex marriage

So you clerked for him or just shook his hand and have been in love ever since?

Scalia belongs on Fox and Friends. On the Supreme Court, not so much.

You seriously think Roberts is a texualist?

Randy Oldman wrote:

rojo wrote:

But they already selectively pick adn choose what they enforce. For example, a baker in Colorado didn't get in trouble after refusing to bake an antigay cake:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/04/colorado-bakery-that-refused-to-bake-anti-gay-cakes-did-not-discriminate-state-agency-says/

Baking an anti-gay cake is no different to baking an anti-black cake or an anti-Jew cake.

Or anti-beastuality cake.

You slobbed Posners knob wrote:

So you clerked for him or just shook his hand and have been in love ever since?

Neither. I was a fellow of law and economics at Harvard, and became pretty familiar with a number of scholars in that field. Posner was, of course, the best-known and most influential of the bunch. He's continued to write a lot of interesting books, articles, and appellate opinions over the years, and his more recent hobby of verbal mudslinging with Scalia is good fun for the spectators.

Another thing... wrote:

You seriously think Roberts is a texualist?

I never called Roberts a textualist. In any event, after Roberts's Obamacare opinion on Thursday (holding that a "State" can mean the Federal Government, not just a State), Scalia probably won't allow him to play in the textualist clubhouse anymore.

You said "J.ROBERTS, J SCALIA demonstrate their strict textualism."

Second of all, I think you are full of bs.

Hate, Fear, Stupidity. All three can usually be summed up as "religious beliefs".

DidntReadTheResponses wrote:

Hate, Fear, Stupidity. All three can usually be summed up as "religious beliefs".

Very true my good man.

I fully support liberals fornicating with donkeys and other livestock as long as they privately keep & house these animals. Liberals, you are free to continue your lifestyle choice but please stop trespassing and performing sex acts with animals that do not belong to you.

First of all wrote:

You said "J.ROBERTS, J SCALIA demonstrate their strict textualism."

Second of all, I think you are full of bs.

You're confused (or worse). Someone named "Anon" said that.

Correct. And I'm gonna stick by that comment and also add both CJ Roberts and J Scalia should've considered making concessions in their opinions, it is what is. Oh and to the poster who added, "why the interest in the oral arguments"? For critical thinking.

Apologies

Anon. wrote:

Correct. And I'm gonna stick by that comment and also add both CJ Roberts and J Scalia should've considered making concessions in their opinions, it is what is. Oh and to the poster who added, "why the interest in the oral arguments"? For critical thinking.

Roberts said Healthcare was sufficient to be a tax... Nowhere near textual. He is surprisingly moderate so far. Still one of the best writers IMO.

Scalia never makes concessions... Why would he consider doing that?

Also, oral arguments are great for predicting what direction the justices are thinking, which invariably comes out in the opinion. I don't recall there being any fireworks in this case, but I could be wrong.

haha. M too.

I believe the lets run team owes the Oregon project an apology.

exthrower wrote:

''A man screwing another in the butt is sick, immoral, perverted....If you don't believe in God, then i guess it doesn't matter.

If you believe in a god who concerns himself with whether or not a man is having sex with another man then nothing at all should ever matter. Talk about a trivial god (and therefore universe...) !

Oh, and if you yourself concern yourself with the sexual behavior of other consenting adults that makes you a pervert.

exthrower wrote:

Curious Cat wrote:

Title says it all. I am having a hard time understanding the opposition amid all the religious drivel. It appears as if the right side just wants to pick and choose what government controls. Rather than stand against big government controlling their lives, they would like to be the ones telling others what to do, such as who they can marry or if they can have an abortion.

Someone please explain.

''A man screwing another in the butt is sick, immoral, perverted....If you don't believe in God, then i guess it doesn't matter.

If God is black you are SCREWED

For a forum that rips apart millennials for being entitled, or considering themselves as such, it blows my mind that no one on here understands the difference between a right and privilege. A right is given without regard but there exists an obligation by others to provide the right. A privilege is earned and worked for by the individual based on the actions of the individual. A real Justice system would allow more actions to be privileges and not rights.

Yeah but still wrote:

Statss whizz wrote:

No. You don't need to be 6'5"+ to be a basketball star either. But it sure as sheit helps!

I'm sure it does. But the government or NBA does not say you can't play basketball unless you are 6'5" or more does it? I still have a right to play.

Plus you could say that allowing gay couples to get married gives their children a better chance of having a good childhood using this logic.