It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Cruz's Reaction to Friday's SCOTUS Decisions

page: 16
40
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   
There certainly WERE darker days than this. Calling giving gays equal rights, "the darkest 24 hours in American history" is probably the most unpatriotic thing I've ever heard.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Ted Cruz has officially declared himself "un-electable."



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Ted Cruz has officially declared himself "un-electable."

That is a reason to celebrate, IMO.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

OKAY ONE FINAL TIME and I will write slowly so you can keep up..............

The SCOTUS ruling said that it would be unconstitutional to deny someone the same rights you have, may it be man & woman, man & man or woman & woman (of all colors, body types etc etc) makes no difference. AND TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO YOU - I happen to agree with SCOTUS on this.

Marrying your sibling/father/mother was illegal for all US citizens before this ruling and will remain so.........

and.........

meh, can't be bothered....................... bye

edit on 722015 by BobbyRock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

A liberal who won't take responsibility for his/her words and won't fight for what he/she thinks is right...then is surprised by critical reaction.

Textbook example.
edit on 2-7-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: BobbyRock



Marrying you sibling/father/mother was illegal for all US citizens before this ruling and will remain so.........

It was illegal for LGBT to marry before the ruling in what, 37 states? So, you think it should still be illegal for gay marriage in those states?
One last time, meh.




meh, can't be bothered....................... bye

Can't be bothered?
More like the question is too hard to answer without being hypocritical.


edit on b000000312015-07-02T07:37:26-05:0007America/ChicagoThu, 02 Jul 2015 07:37:26 -0500700000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: BobbyRock



Marrying you sibling/father/mother was illegal for all US citizens before this ruling and will remain so.........

It was illegal for LGBT to marry before the ruling in what, 37 states? So, you think it should still be illegal for gay marriage in those states?
One last time, meh.




meh, can't be bothered....................... bye

Can't be bothered?
More like the question is too hard to answer without being hypocritical.



What is the point when you think it's funny being an asshole and twist every word I say?

The SCOTUS said that it was unconstitunional for a state to deny people equal rights, that meaning a state couldn't just allow straight people (of all colors, body types etc etc) to, for example, get married and deny LGBTQ people (of all colors, body types etc etc) the same rights. And again, just in case you missed it the other times. I agree with the ruling that LGBTQ persons shall have the same right to get married as straight people.

Marrying sibling/father/mother was illegal for all US citizens before this ruling and thus no-one is being denied equal rights.

Thank you..... please don't bother me again..............


edit on 722015 by BobbyRock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: BobbyRock



Thank you..... please don't bother me again..............

It is you that allows yourself to be bothered, it isn't like I am ringing your phone in the middle of the night.

Zoophilia is allowed by 7 states because they have no law against it.
Wikipedia: Zoophilia

edit on b000000312015-07-02T09:21:38-05:0009America/ChicagoThu, 02 Jul 2015 09:21:38 -0500900000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist


A liberal who won't take responsibility for his/her words and won't fight for what he/she thinks is right...then is surprised by critical reaction.

Textbook example.

Indeed. A textbook example of how when you can't think of anything to say, you begin refusing to address the point being made and instead looking at the OTHER statement and begin make ad hom attacks.

I made it clear what I wanted to talk about. You all made it clear that YOU REFUSE.
Textbook example of ignorance and belligerence. Well done. You've all proven my point beautifully.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


The priority/level of concern towards racism, however, is considerably lower. In other words, they might think being racist is bad, and slavery is bad, but not nearly as evil and wicked as being gay, communist, or a feminist. It's their priorities that are just completely different. And screwed up. Racism is a problem that has always sat on the backburner as far as the current incarnation of the right wing was concerned.


EXACTLY.

Thank you Skadi, for articulating what I've been trying to point out in between being shouted down. Good grief.
It really isn't that difficult of a concept, I can only believe that they are deliberately being obtuse (those who simply won't address it). What a joke.

THANK YOU.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Great! You're for equality!

I PERSONALLY have no limitations on any two (or more) competent adults being married.

There are viable health concerns for the progeny of near relatives, but it's not like that's not already happening, out of wedlock, to a certain degree.

Comparing this with marriage equality though ... laws were on the books limiting the marriage as based on a person's sex.

Those laws were struck down by Obergefell as unconstitutional under the 14th, as had been obvious to most of us for a long time.

Society at large has decided that homosexuality poses no danger to public health per se. Therefore, there were no compelling reasons to justify a) laws against homosexual acts between adults b)homosexuals serving in the armed forces and finally c) anyone being denied the legal contract of marriage based on their sex.

The mating of close relatives does pose a known and "clear and present danger" to public health. Also, in some cases, there might be a question of undue coercion on the part of a loved family member.

I guess we'll see how that goes in the courts!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




The mating of close relatives does pose a known and "clear and present danger" to public health.

No more so than 40 year old women having children with Down's Syndrome.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66




The mating of close relatives does pose a known and "clear and present danger" to public health.

No more so than 40 year old women having children with Down's Syndrome.


Do you have data from valid scientific studies on that assertion? I'll be glad to look at it; I am just going on my current knowledge of such issues.

So, are you advocating for 40 year olds to be made ineligible for ... marriage? procreation? etc?

What's your assertion here?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
I am getting ready to take my kids fishing right now.
I will link you to some info later, but my research into the subject showed a rate of one DS birth in 1250 in women at age 25, one in 100 at age 40.
How about cystic fibrosis? Should carriers of the gene be allowed to marry? Most CF patients families get tested to see if they are carriers. If the parents carry the gene, there is a 25% chance of having a child with CF.
Of course I am not advocating sterilization of women over 40.... I am pointing out that your reason to ban incest is invalid..... unless of course you think we should sterilize women over 40!



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66
I am getting ready to take my kids fishing right now.
I will link you to some info later, but my research into the subject showed a rate of one DS birth in 1250 in women at age 25, one in 100 at age 40.
How about cystic fibrosis? Should carriers of the gene be allowed to marry? Most CF patients families get tested to see if they are carriers. If the parents carry the gene, there is a 25% chance of having a child with CF.
Of course I am not advocating sterilization of women over 40.... I am pointing out that your reason to ban incest is invalid..... unless of course you think we should sterilize women over 40!


My reason to ban incest? I didn't design nor do I support, per se, the laws regarding incestuous marriages, I merely reported the common "reason."

I personally see no reason to "ban" incestuous marriages, if both parties are competent adults.

I do not think that government should be dictating what two adults can do with their private lives as long as no one is harmed.

Enjoy the lake/creek!



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Ok. I understand your position now.

Enjoy the lake/creek!

Thank you!
No fish yet, but it is a nice day out here!



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

What is the rate of birth defects for incest? Looks like it is about 50%. That's a lot higher than the rate of other birth defects you mention, isn't it?


A group of genetic counselors reviewed the research on the biological consequences of sex between relatives (consanguineous relationships) (here (link is external)). They found a surprisingly small increase (about 4 percent) in birth defects among the children of married cousins. Incest between first degree relatives, however, was a different story. The researchers examined four studies (including the Czech research) on the effects of first degree incest on the health of the offspring. Forty percent of the children were born with either autosomal recessive disorders, congenital physical malformations, or severe intellectual deficits. And another 14 percent of them had mild mental disabilities. In short, the odds that a newborn child who is the product of brother-sister or father-daughter incest will suffer an early death, a severe birth defect or some mental deficiently approaches 50 percent.


www.psychologytoday.com...

So it looks like first cousins only have a small increase in birth defects, but parent/child or two sibling have the much higher rate. Based on that, I wouldn't have a problem with first cousins getting married and having children. I wouldn't have a problem with parent/child or two siblings getting married, but I would have a problem with them having children, as the rate of birth defects is much too high.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
So we draw the line at 50%.
Simple.
Personally, I would actually prefer even third cousins not marry, but I am old fashioned.
If you look it up, there are websites that promote cousins marrying.
I really don't care so much about any of it, I wanted to see where people stand on the issues and we got some discussion out of it.





posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

quite sure cruz, like all of them on stage, are clowns…

I am not sure what that says about you given that you think some are not clowns. name one.


meanwhile, they use minarets like cruz to cause us all to tacitly agree to certain spiritual laws and consequences, imo, such as the one that says that the truth must always be put out there in some form, even if just a straw man, so that we have all knowingly agreed to what follows.

this is an awesome free will creation that requires consequences as part of its function…

Cruz is saying what is already quite obvious: we as a nation are cursing ourselves for condoning behavior that is self-destructive and against the natural laws. You can see this trend most in how people talk to and relate to each other and by the increasing perversity and crudeness of tv, music and other media… Up next: legalizing all other forms of sexual deviancy, which inevitably, leads to decline…

consider both feminism and homosexuality being promoted to the point that women wear t-shirts bragging about having abortions. something tells me this is not the first time this has happened. actually it is predicted in the bible.

"~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax”, to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread."
www.abovetopsecret.com...


there are consequences. Cruz is just the controlled puppet that is telling you.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Verum1quaere


I am not sure what that says about you given that you think some are not clowns. name one.


I think Bernie Sanders is not a clown.
Everyone else...yeah - pretty much.

You can think whatever you want about what it 'says' about me.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join