Can't tell if you're pro or anti MMR vaccine mandate now
Does not have a right to use somebody else's body without permission. I don't care if they're -3 months old, 2 years old, or a 35 year old computer programmer named Daryl.
Lotta people have a problem with prison labor, actually. For a wide variety of reasons
Because hospitals typically have a "No visitors besides family" policy and if they don't recognize your marriage, you aren't family. And if you think I'm making shit up, dying gay men during the aids crisis usually only got visitors when lesbian women pretended to be their wives. Insurance policies typically pay out to next of kin, and you aren't kin if they don't recognize your marriage. Social Security benefits and the government work the same way, with the same pitfalls.
Damn, doesn't sound like it was set up to be equal then
So if I find one argument using the 9th amendment, you'll stop defending prison slavery?
No they fucking didn't. How are you that delusional?
The Supreme Court explicitly said that Abortion wasn't a right under the constitution, nullifying the 9th amendment argument. You're just wrong.
************, stop. My argument it that a whole other person doesn't get to use your fucking body. If that means they die than oh fucking well, they get to the afterlife or oblivion with everybody who died on dialysis waiting for a kidney. This isn't that fucking complex and the fact that you're throwing a bitchfit over vaccines but accept this tripe is hilarious.
And considering you claim not to be anti abortion, what's your justification in allowing somebody to, in your own words "end someone else's life", even if just *some* of the time. What's your fucking criteria? Set it in stone, take a stand for once.
I'm fine with schools mandating MMR, it has community benefit unlike the covid vaccine.
Again, I thought we'd move past this very surface level argument and you can understand where the other side is at least coming from but you just don't seem to at all. We're just going around in circles.
A lot of people probably have a problem with prison labor due to it being exploited and targeting specific groups through stuff like sentencing differences but the basic concept of it, not so much.
If marriage wasn't officially recognized as anything, then it wouldn't be an issue. The hospital a nurse friend used to work at, the policy there was there was a family password and anyone that knew the password had full visitation privileges. Anyway, you just listed reasons why the current way marriage is recognized makes it unfair and unequal.
If it's found to be unequal lawfully, then how wasn't it setup to be equal?
Why would that change my opinion on prison slavery? If you found that slavery was challenged via the 9th amendment at some point, I'd probably change my opinion on the 9th amendment somewhat.
The inequality was the 4th and last argument of the plaintiffs instead of the 1st argument. I don't understand how that's not like the 1st argument and probably really only argument because that's all you need.
They said Roe's arguments were wrong and very weak, not that abortion itself was unconstitutional but the way it was argued was.
Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."
I fucking understand your argument, you don't seem to understand the other side's argument. Both sides are morally right. You gotta extend your argument way fucking more and explain via like a philosophical/moral proof why yours is morally better than theirs. You continue to not do that and just parrot your stance over and over again and guess what? The other side can just comeback with their basic stance over and over again (killing babies) and then neither of you are actually having a discussion but just going in a never-ending circle just getting angrier at each other. I've never really said which is the morally better stance because I honestly don't really care that much to think about it much (and do the proof required) because that would be missing the forest for the trees. You give both sides a piece of the "win" and both are content enough, there is mutual respect, and whatever the next issue is where there is a rift in morality, you have fostered a better environment to work that out because polarization is bad and causes more harm in the long run than if either side wins abortion. It's the tagline from Alien vs Predator, Whoever Wins...We Lose.
I said Capitalism isn't Left, and Capitalism is in large part responsible for systemic racism. Do I want Socialism? Who knows. But I know Capitalism is sure fucking things up for the vast majority of this planet's inhabitants.
Oh, I'll admit there's another body in there; the body of an embryo. An embryo that's inside the uterus of the one carrying it; the one and only who gets to decide whether to put their body through the severe physical and possibly life threatening strain of carrying it to term. The life altering (and threatening) decision the GOP took away from half of all Americans, of which we've already seen the nightmarish ramifications.
So would socialism. Humans will exploit anything and you have to build in the proper safeguards to prevent exploitation. It's not too dissimilar from designing a balanced game, it's just a lot more complex and more "political" to actually get the proper safeguards in place.
Basically what I said just above this at the end. The GOP didn't take anything away, the SC said abortion is a state's right vs federal right based on how poor the Roe argument was. Also, the DNC didn't codify Roe when they knew Roe was a shit argument.
This is a counterargument how?
Most of what argument? Obergefell? Can you quote me what the hell you're talking about from the actual filing, because right now it seems like you're just talking out of your ass again.
Probably because it's not relevant to the question. This is complete whataboutism. We're not just engaged in a "which side's worse" race here. We're talking about the question of discrimination against LGBT consumers-- and one side (the Republicans) tries consistently to allow it, and the other doesn't.
Correct! Glad you're starting to realise!
Because something I say I will do vs something I say I could possibly do are 2 very different things.
Mysterious linked the case with all the relevant info. Inequality was used as the 4th and final argument vs the main argument when the inquality argument is all you need really and should be the main legal argument because it's not a moral court but a legal court. In the end, that should be more than enough to uphold gay marriage whereas Roe had nothing in there that was strong and it was something pretty easy to overturn.
How is the GOP doing the more obvious evil stuff make them worse than the DNC doing the less obvious stuff that makes LGBT less well off?
And when will ya'll equally start blasting the DNC for all the shit they do? You guys want all this equality but don't actually practice it, like 99.9% of political discussion is just complaining about GOP when it's at worst like 60/40 for who's actually better/worse.
Of course they didn't say it wasn't protected by the Constitution--- the filing wasn't about that. They couldn't rule on it in that filing. But they did say the same reasoning would apply.
