Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

Damocles said:
What I argue for relies on not letting government define it at all, for the positive or negative. There would be no "change" to the "definition" of marriage by government because it wouldn't be allowed to define "marriage" at all. I've lobbied for this solution for the decade we've known each other. You simply read into what I say what you want to argue.

Basically you argue against the very solution you say you prefer. As I said, I suspect (and believe) you do that because you actually wouldn't find it acceptable for religions to define marriage as they wanted.

I wonder if Dixie thought King Solomon wasn't married with his hundreds of wives...
Click to expand...

Marriage is already defined, idiot! In fact, there are very few UNDEFINED things made into fucking LAWS, you incompetent boob! It's kind of a prerequisite that we DEFINE things before we make a law! Gay Marriage advocates seek to REDEFINE (change the definition) of traditional marriage! I am opposed to that, I don't favor it!

How the fuck is THAT an argument against my solution????

Here is YOUR idiocy.... We should all step back and allow the complete REDEFINING of Marriage to allow 'Gay Marriage' to become the Constitutionally protected law of the land! THEN, we can consider some kind of CU thingy, if we want to. That's you're fucked up stupidity here!
 
Dixie said:
Marriage is already defined, idiot! In fact, there are very few UNDEFINED things made into fucking LAWS, you incompetent boob! It's kind of a prerequisite that we DEFINE things before we make a law! Gay Marriage advocates seek to REDEFINE (change the definition) of traditional marriage! I am opposed to that, I don't favor it!

How the fuck is THAT an argument against my solution????

Here is YOUR idiocy.... We should all step back and allow the complete REDEFINING of Marriage to allow 'Gay Marriage' to become the Constitutionally protected law of the land! THEN, we can consider some kind of CU thingy, if we want to. That's you're fucked up stupidity here!
Click to expand...
Do you support all government licenses to be for "Civil Unions" or not? If, as you have said before, this is your "solution" then we supposedly agree.

I, however, think you are lying because you have spent the past month "arguing" against that very position from me.

I have never argued to change the law to allow ANY marriage at all. I say we should change the law to remove government control over a religious institution.
 
RStringfield said:
There you go, trying to pick the gravel out of your teeth and pretend you did not fall.

Dogs are not referred to as flocks due to arbitrary usage and our many color words. It does not change the definition of flock to assign it to a group of dogs, any more than the meaning is changed by assigning to a group of birds, people or sheep. It still means group. Just as marriage still means the same thing whether we apply it to an interracial, intraracial, homosexual or heterosexual couple.

Again, thank you for proving my point.



You are not. I undesrtand connotation, color words and the importance of context just fine.
Click to expand...

Maybe asshat can explain why people refer to sheep as being in a flock or a herd; but only use herd for cattle, seeing as how he's become the language expert.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Maybe asshat can explain why people refer to sheep as being in a flock or a herd; but only use herd for cattle, seeing as how he's become the language expert.
Click to expand...

its arbitrary. Arbitrary, yet specific. this is how words are.

Do you understand "suck a fat cock"?
 
Damocles said:
Talk to Dixie, he says he wants the same thing. Civil unions would be fine, if all of the licenses were for unions, including heterosexual unions... The government does not need to define and support any specific religion's definition of "marriage". Even AssHat's.
Click to expand...

No, Dixie doesn't want to redefine marriage. That is what Stringy wants, and what you are supporting with your moronic idiocy and doublespeak. You're trying to TWIST what I have stated, so that you can make me look bad, a tactic I would expect from other pinheads here, not you. I think you've hung around these asswipes so long, you've become one of them, and that's unfortunate. You were once a well-respected debater of the issues, who would never stoop to such cowardice in making your points.
 
Damocles said:
Do you support all government licenses to be for "Civil Unions" or not? If, as you have said before, this is your "solution" then we supposedly agree.

I, however, think you are lying because you have spent the past month "arguing" against that very position from me.

I have never argued to change the law to allow ANY marriage at all. I say we should change the law to remove government control over a religious institution.
Click to expand...

Why don't you wake the fuck up and understand, the DEBATE going on here for the past month, is about allowing Gay Marriage! It's not about whether we should get government out of the marriage business, it's not about allowing CU's for all... it's about CHANGING the definition of marriage to include homosexual same-sex unions! That would be a direct contradiction to the solution you and I have supported.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Maybe asshat can explain why people refer to sheep as being in a flock or a herd; but only use herd for cattle, seeing as how he's become the language expert.
Click to expand...

AssHatZombie said:
its arbitrary. Arbitrary, yet specific. this is how words are.

Do you understand "suck a fat cock"?
Click to expand...

You do realize, that you just further convinced everyone that you are the idiot that most thought you were.

As to your last question, if means something you do on a Friday or Saturday night.
This does raise the question though, of where do you find those fat roosters you suck??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You do realize, that you just further convinced everyone that you are the idiot that most thought you were.

As to your last question, if means something you do on a Friday or Saturday night.
This does raise the question though, of where do you find those fat roosters you suck??
Click to expand...

I think i still hold my position as most dominant genius board badass.

Do you say "gaggle of dogs"?
 
Dixie said:
Why don't you wake the fuck up and understand, the DEBATE going on here for the past month, is about allowing Gay Marriage! It's not about whether we should get government out of the marriage business, it's not about allowing CU's for all... it's about CHANGING the definition of marriage to include homosexual same-sex unions! That would be a direct contradiction to the solution you and I have supported.
Click to expand...

Just because gay marriages are going to become legal, does not mean that you'll have to marry your boyfriend.
You will have to stop using the excuse that it's not legal; but maybe you can grow a spine and just tell him NO!!

But then, in Dixie speak, that could mean you're agreeing to get married.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I think i still hold my position as most dominant genius board badass.

Do you say "gaggle of dogs"?
Click to expand...

At least you made yourself a legend, in your own mind; but unfortunetly the rest of us, except for Dixie and you, live in a normal world.

Do you say; "Please rub lotion on my asshole first"?
 
Dixie said:
Why don't you wake the fuck up and understand, the DEBATE going on here for the past month, is about allowing Gay Marriage! It's not about whether we should get government out of the marriage business, it's not about allowing CU's for all... it's about CHANGING the definition of marriage to include homosexual same-sex unions! That would be a direct contradiction to the solution you and I have supported.
Click to expand...
When people argue about this, I come in and give my position because I believe it is the only permanent solution, and the only one that fits within the proscribed powers of the government. I will continue to do it regardless of whether you think it means that I think we should allow government to define the shape of your head as round or not....

That you argue against it so consistently tells me that you are against it regardless of how many times you say you are "for" it.
 
Listen usfreedom, we're sad too that Stringfield your gay hero went down in flames, but you don't have to be a dick about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top