Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why can't we have both civil unions and marriages. You still won't answer this, you pseudointellectual hack.


permanent solution? Like a final solution? Are you a nazi?
 
Threedee said:
I know people. Gays would consider it discriminatory, and numerous other Americans would consider government recognition of gay civil unions to be immoral. It would be much easier to abolish civil marriage and enact universal civil unions.
Click to expand...

You have no concept of people or their thoughts.
 
AssHatZombie said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I know you had your dreams hung on Dixie's dick; but that fell, at the same time he got spanked.

Maybe you can fluff him back into action. :good4u:
 
Threedee said:
So, explain to us all how a majority of Americans are going to accept civil marriage alongside civil unions, and gays still can't get married.
Click to expand...

Well. Marriage won't be redefined, and gays can still get all the legal rights they want. it's a win win.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Why can't we have both civil unions and marriages. You still won't answer this, you pseudointellectual hack.


permanent solution? Like a final solution? Are you a nazi?
Click to expand...
We can, we just won't have government "marriages"... There would never be another lawsuit about "separate but equal", the government would never agree to "change the definition", etc.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Well. Marriage won't be redefined, and gays can still get all the legal rights they want. it's a win win.
Click to expand...

They still won't be happy, because they will say they are being granted a second-class status. That's the point. You can't enact two separate domestic contracts into law and please anyone.
 
Damocles said:
We can, we just won't have government "marriages"... There would never be another lawsuit about "separate but equal", the government would never agree to "change the definition", etc.
Click to expand...

as usual, we know what would satisfy Damo.....unfortunately, that didn't satisfy the folks filing lawsuits to have gay marriage put in place, so its a rather moot point.....
 
Threedee said:
They still won't be happy, because they will say they are being granted a second-class status. That's the point. You can't enact two separate domestic contracts into law and please anyone.
Click to expand...

It's not second class though. So they can just be informed of that.
 
Damocles said:
We can, we just won't have government "marriages"... There would never be another lawsuit about "separate but equal", the government would never agree to "change the definition", etc.
Click to expand...

The separate but equal is a bullshit argument though. There's no actual separate physical facilities, that were at issue in the actual case. That argument would be summarily dismissed for being so moronic.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
as usual, we know what would satisfy Damo.....unfortunately, that didn't satisfy the folks filing lawsuits to have gay marriage put in place, so its a rather moot point.....
Click to expand...
It's never been implemented anywhere, it's silly to say this about it. Implement it, there would be no "separate but equal" lawsuit like the one you were talking about here.
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...

But I have not argued against Civil Unions. Others have, I think SM is against the idea... I've been the one to post profound and historic threads on the idea which resolves ALL sides of the issue, and even meaningless message board polls! Nothing I have said in this debate AGAINST Gay Marriage, has been contradictory of my proposed solution. What you don't seem to comprehend is, until EVERYONE stops arguing FOR a redefinition of marriage, it is pointless to think our solution can be realized. I mean, we're sitting here with the answer to the problem, and the two opposing sides are still fighting... The Church People vs. The Gay Marriage People... You can't bring yourself to support the Church People, and you are inclined to defend the arguments of the Gay Marriage people, but you somehow think that will bring about this solution we've agreed on. The Solution will never be realized until the argument and push FOR Gay Marriage is diffused and rejected. Until we come to the understanding there are two sides to this issue, and both arguments have legitimate points and flaws, and can be respected as such, and there doesn't have to be a 'winner' or 'loser', because we have a solution... the arguments will continue, and the solution will not be realized.

So what it all comes down to is, you want to continue the argument and push for gay marriage, against what you perceive as 'religious dogma' being forced upon you... and solving the problem is of secondary importance to that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top