Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

Dixie said:
This isn't about a "right to sexuality." It's about defining marriage on the basis of sexuality, rather than the traditional definition of a man and woman. I haven't argued that homosexuals don't have a right to be homosexual, just that they do not have a right to adopt 'marriage' to define their unions.
Click to expand...

It's not about what you said it was about before, but what you say it is about now. Uh-huh.

You have argued throughout this thread and others that homosexual marriage will lend 14th amendment protections to sexuality and "sexual deviance" and lead to protection for other "sexual deviants." It already has 14th amendment protection and it has not lead to the things you claim it must.

Your just an idiot that does not understand the reasoning behind the extension or why it has not and will not lead to protection of sexual predation. You don't understand the basis of our constitution, indivdiual rights or our system of government. It's not Christianity or religion.

A ruling allowing ANYTHING to be redefined to accommodate Group A, can not be denied or abridged for Group B. It violates the 14th to do so. Therefore, once you condone 'marriage' by the legal state definition on the basis of sexual behavior, this becomes the criteria in which ALL marriages can be defined from here on out. It is the consequence of this, which will open the door to examination of other 'arrangements' that we may not be so comfortable with as a society. I don't like being a hypocrite, so I don't want to allow Gay Marriage, then have to disallow something more perverted down the road. In the words of Barney Fife... Nip it in the bud!
Click to expand...

Therefore, once the state condones homosexual sex it must condone any sex? Nope.

Further, your nip it in the bud is, probably, too late. The courts have traditionally held that out of wedlock sex is more prohibitable than marriage itself. Even if you think that should no longer be the case there is no reason to treat homosexual marriage any differently than homoseuxal sex.

No you didn't want people to be free to make their own choices, you said it was "mob rule" and claimed we weren't capable of using democracy to settle this issue. I actually have a pretty open mind about a solution, but so far, no one seems to be interested except Damo.
Click to expand...

I haven't said "mob rule" recently, but that is not free choice, dumbfuck. To use an old joke... two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner does not express the free choice of the lamb.

I'll even give you a multiple choice, any of the three, I will be satisfied with...

1. Comprehensive Civil Unions, as I have outlined before, where the 'government' gets out of the 'marriage license' biz, and starts using a civil unions contract between any two legal age adults, regardless and irrespective of their relationship.

2. Let the people of each state vote up or down and decide at the ballot box, Gay Marriage or Keep Traditional Marriage.

3. If you aren't interested in #1 or #2, then the alternative will have to be this one... The Nuclear Option... We'll pass a Constitutional amendment respecting marriage as being between one man and one woman, and it will become a part of the Constitution permanently.
Click to expand...

The amendment has been tried and failed. It is not gaining steam and is only becoming less likely. You don't have anything to offer. Your idiot views will go down with miscegenation, Jim Crow and the rest, as just a dark memory.

Are we all going to publish our own independent law books? Seems to me things are going to get a bit confusing if we don't establish some boundaries. I think we kinda have to settle on one specific view on most things, and I think people with morality deserve the right to express their viewpoint in establishing the laws, just as you have that right.
Click to expand...

You argue for allowing the state's to decide to what the 14th amendment should apply (that would make it completely irrelevant) out of one side of your mouth then ask for one universal law out of the other. When it comes to due process there should be only one position (not 300 million... not 50) and it has been set in the 14th.

Wow! Talk about talking yourself in a circle! Where does government get this "general morality" and who determines that? What are the parameters and guidelines for it, I haven't seen those? Why do you suppose I don't have naked people swinging in the trees outside my house right now? Do ya think it might have something to do with mankind developing morals, and deciding it best to make people wear their clothes? The Bible speaks of this, in the story of Adam and Eve, they used to walk around naked in Eden, until Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit, and then they had to cover themselves from then on.... so since this is a Biblical principle, taken right out of Genesis, we shouldn't force this principle on others... we should all run naked!
Click to expand...

You have already been given the source and parameters, the DofI. If you are looking for more, then I would suggest you do some reading on the thinkers that were influential to our founders, in this case Locke. Now since you have no morality or integrity you will focus on the fact that Locke believed in a supernatural power and ignore his principles (just as you do with Washington), which are not dependent on a supernatural power, but nature itself. Those ideas were refined by men like Madison, Jefferson and Mason. They have been further refined to extend to blacks, women and other minorities. They will, again, be extended to homosexuals. But they cannot be extended to someone that initiates force against another or acts in a way harmful to another without their consent, because they would then end in self-contradiction, which you seem to have no problem with so long as it does not effect you.

Again, you are not a moral person and reject all moral principles for the moral relativism of might makes right. Even if tempered through democracy, that is your position which makes you anti-American, an enemy of our Constitution and our laws. You are just too stupid to be aware of it, and so you parade as if you are some patriot, when clearly you are not.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Not hairsplitting at all. That's why you can't refute my point.
Click to expand...

I did refute your point. The conditions for marriage are not the definition of marraige. Legally, marriage is defined by the rights and obligations of marriage, not by those who may enter into it. Both have changed, can change and, undoubtedly, will change.
 
RStringfield said:
I did refute your point. The conditions for marriage are not the definition of marraige. Legally, marriage is defined by the rights and obligations of marriage, not by those who may enter into it. Both have changed, can change and, undoubtedly, will change.
Click to expand...
Again, the definition has always included on man and one woman and has never included two queers. The definition has been refined, not "changed". Stop hair splitting.
 
RStringfield said:
I did refute your point. The conditions for marriage are not the definition of marraige. Legally, marriage is defined by the rights and obligations of marriage, not by those who may enter into it. Both have changed, can change and, undoubtedly, will change.
Click to expand...

Because legalists think they have the power to define words doesn't mean they really do.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Because legalists think they have the power to define words doesn't mean they really do.
Click to expand...

Legalists, is that just another one of your words for Jews?

The laws are defined by the laws, of course. Marriage law is defined by the legal rights and obligations under the law, not by who may enter into it. If it is defined by who may enter into it, then the overturning of miscegenation laws redefined marriage as did changes in age of marriage laws. But that is not really true and most opponents of gay marriage (probably not you... since you are openly racist) try to avoid making that argument, though it is clearly implied in their claims concerning gay marriage.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, the definition has always included on man and one woman and has never included two queers. The definition has been refined, not "changed". Stop hair splitting.
Click to expand...

Then we'll just "refine" it again.

Refined not changed, and I am hair splitting? Your argument is a pathetic joke.
 
Southern Man said:
You don't "refine" something by adding stuff to it that's never been there Dick. Your argument is a pathetic joke.
Click to expand...

Like black-white marriage, age requirements or limits against the number of parties to a marriage. Your argument contradicts itself and you are clearly splitting hairs, where I have a laid out a coherent definition of marriage that does not argue that marriage is redefined by extending or limiting the right to marry. If you want to argue that it must be defined that way then you can not avoid the fact that it has been redefined previously with your stupid semantic game that it was only refined. That will not work as a legal precedent. Either the state has a right to discriminate based on race/gender or it does not.

I just can't wait to see what sort of mental contortions Scalia is going to wrap himself into, trying to figure out a way to permit it.
 
RStringfield said:
Like black-white marriage, age requirements or limits against the number of parties to a marriage. Your argument contradicts itself and you are clearly splitting hairs, where I have a laid out a coherent definition of marriage that does not argue that marriage is redefined by extending or limiting the right to marry. If you want to argue that it must be defined that way then you can not avoid the fact that it has been redefined previously with your stupid semantic game that it was only refined. That will not work as a legal precedent. Either the state has a right to discriminate based on race/gender or it does not.

I just can't wait to see what sort of mental contortions Scalia is going to wrap himself into, trying to figure out a way to permit it.
Click to expand...

Refinement is still the wrong word, dick. He got you there.
 
Southern Man said:
Not an ad-hom, just a question. Why would it be bad if you are gay?
Click to expand...

I did not say it was bad. I said it was an ad hom. You are clearly implying that my position is self serving and based on my sexuality, therefore invalid.

I have already explained to you that being "bad" or insulting has nothing to do with ad hom.
 
RStringfield said:
Like black-white marriage, age requirements or limits against the number of parties to a marriage. Your argument contradicts itself and you are clearly splitting hairs, where I have a laid out a coherent definition of marriage that does not argue that marriage is redefined by extending or limiting the right to marry. If you want to argue that it must be defined that way then you can not avoid the fact that it has been redefined previously with your stupid semantic game that it was only refined. That will not work as a legal precedent. Either the state has a right to discriminate based on race/gender or it does not.

I just can't wait to see what sort of mental contortions Scalia is going to wrap himself into, trying to figure out a way to permit it.
Click to expand...

Blacks and whites were allowed to marry historically until the Democrat Party came along. Your argument fails. Dick.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Refinement is still the wrong word, dick. He got you there.
Click to expand...

He's got nothing. It's his word. He wants to apply it in some case, to changes in conditions for marriage, and not in others. He cannot explain how they are different. It's just a weasel word and hair splitting.
 
RStringfield said:
I did not say it was bad. I said it was an ad hom. You are clearly implying that my position is self serving and based on my sexuality, therefore invalid.

I have already explained to you that being "bad" or insulting has nothing to do with ad hom.
Click to expand...

Its not invalid because you're gay. And since you think gay is normal moral natural and healthy its not an ad-hom, but a compliment.
 
RStringfield said:
He's got nothing. It's his word. He wants to apply it in some case, to changes in conditions for marriage, and not in others. He cannot explain how they are different. It's just a weasel word and hair splitting.
Click to expand...

Refinement is purifying something that was there, dick. You;re talking about change.
 
Southern Man said:
Blacks and whites were allowed to marry historically until the Democrat Party came along. Your argument fails. Dick.
Click to expand...

They were not. You are misinformed, as usual. The first miscegenation laws appeared before this nation was even founded and continued up until Loving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top