Where in the constitution "prohibits" gay marriage is answered by reading that in the constitution it acknowledges that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's an acknowledgement of natural law itself that marriage is best served between one man and one woman.

Constitutional interpretation is a mess...

Are you an originalist or a loose constructionist?

Originalist gang.

To interpret any document, especially ancient, as faithful as possible, the originalist outlook is the most parsimonious and respects rules of proper hermeneutics.

And if Constitution interpretation is such a mess, you would need to extend this "mess" to how we even interpret the 1st and second amendment and I take it that's not a route you are willing to consider, so I advice to be consistent and stick to the originalist approach.

How can one be textual about natural law?

Natural law is the simply the law-like nature of biological organisms of how their bodily functions have an appropriate teleology of what constitutes proper fit and function. This is less a matter of grammar and more a matter of astute observation. The founding fathers penned this fact of life in matters of marriage and other roles regarding social cohesion in the Constitution.

I'd say the "unchanging moral principles" definition is more applicable.

It also applies to the bodily design of proper functions.

There's a moral principle implied in the complementary design of the human body that is best to be respected so that a community of said organisms flourish.

Here is an example of natural law applied in matters of sexuality.

So what part does government or individual intervention have to play in preventing perverted actions?

Well if you watched John Doyle's videos you would know about that.

We should criminalize degeneracy for instance.

Be incarcerated for promoting it in public eye.

If children were involved, extended incarceration should be employed.

Ban Gay Pride parades as they are literally a recipe of public degeneracy and have even made a bad reputation to gays who don't even like those parades.

As for individual; stop indulging in these degeneracies. Stop consuming porn and work on your self-confidence. Work on building a family or a self-sufficient life.

Get a job and exercise.

Go to Church or attend a community of charity.

https://twitter.com/russiancosmist/status/1329195649322020867?s=20

Bwahahahahahahahahah
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/biden-sanders-warren-student-debt-climate-b1729934.html

What I say about gay marriage is that they should be allowed to have a “civil marriage” but the state cannot force anyone like a priest to marry them in church or a caterer cater their reception

I have a Kindle book by James Patrick Holding that talked about that solution to the problem; however even he recognizes that it is still a problem, and for two main reasons: one, it doesn't solve the philosophical issue that is at stake on the definition of marriage. It merely pushes the problem to the "civil" sphere, moreover it gives "Caesar" the say on what can be "marriage" without a religious context, which marriage has always been about. That's the point; marriage is primarily a familial union ritual that always had a religious context to it, whether Christian or from the Greco-Roman polytheistic culture. Marriage as a ritual was never devoid of a religious context. To have the State secularize it is itself a problem, especially for a union that is not even legitimate, since marriage has always been understood and defined between a man and a woman.
The other problem is that even some radical LGBT people recognize the inherent inequality between the State "sanctioning" a civil union that the Church is free to delegitimize in its own circles and rhetoric, that's why some gays are so up front in pressuring Churches to recognize gay marriage as marriage itself. Even so, civil union, as philosophically fallacious as I see it, is the best we got to circumvent the problem the SCOTUS introduced at 2015.

Marriage is a civil contract, nothing more, as such the federal government is prohibited any interference in marriage per the Tenth Amendment. It is a state issue over which the federal supreme court has no authority. ANY ruling by the SCOTUS on marriage is unconstitutional.

Um, not to bother anyone here, but I'm just wondering if it's true in context, some lefty sent me this asking what I should think on this before blocking me, so what do you think about this?

He literally said they were horrible....lol I don't see how that's proof.....not only that, but what in the US has seen the proportions and horror of the Tiananmen Square Massacre?

Also, 31 years ago Trump was not the same Trump he is today, (because people change a little bit in the time span of 3 decades...) so maybe he did praise them back then...? But the way he said it, he was saying it in an honest way and way that said what they did was horrible.....It's just another one of those things where Trump says something in a weird way and people take it out of context. That two, I'd have to listen or read the whole interview.

Exact what I was thinking...30 years change a lot if things and you don't expect a businessman to have an in-depth understanding on Chinese political structure. But hmm Trump did have a something for an iron fist leadership ngl

Nothing is ever going to change for the better until people stop taking these news outlets seriously https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--zpIYNH6sk

Yoooo, WDYM team gang.

🤦‍♀️ anti Christian people trying to defend Harry Styles by using Jesus as an example

<:Idiots:720119404020367390>

I guess Scotsman wore skirts then.

I'm pretty sure calling kilts skirts is a huge insult

🤦‍♀️ I hope these Americans never meet a Scotsman

What was wrong with the dress i thought it looked pretty good?

There were these crazy inventions called robes in the time of Jesus. Problematic, I know.