Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

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!
No, what it comes down to is, you argue against the idea while minutes later saying you are "for" it.
 
No, what it comes down to is, you argue against the idea while minutes later saying you are "for" it.

Where have I ever argued AGAINST Civil Unions? I have consistently said I am for this idea, I have no problems with government getting out of the 'marriage' business, and replacing any benefit/license with CU contracts between any two consenting adults, without regard for the sexuality or religious purposes involved.

That is NOT what is being argued here! If you believe that IS what is being argued here, you are probably at least mildly retarded, maybe profoundly retarded. Stringy is not making an argument for CU's, he is making an argument FOR Gay Marriage, and I am rejecting his argument. You are arguing against my points that reject his argument, and telling me that I don't support our solution! ...Our solution has NOTHING in common with Stringy's idea! He wants to REDEFINE marriage, not implement CU's!

How 'bout pulling your head out of your ass and say something intelligent, so I know the Old Damo is still around, huh?
 
Where have I ever argued AGAINST Civil Unions? I have consistently said I am for this idea, I have no problems with government getting out of the 'marriage' business, and replacing any benefit/license with CU contracts between any two consenting adults, without regard for the sexuality or religious purposes involved.

That is NOT what is being argued here! If you believe that IS what is being argued here, you are probably at least mildly retarded, maybe profoundly retarded. Stringy is not making an argument for CU's, he is making an argument FOR Gay Marriage, and I am rejecting his argument. You are arguing against my points that reject his argument, and telling me that I don't support our solution! ...Our solution has NOTHING in common with Stringy's idea! He wants to REDEFINE marriage, not implement CU's!

How 'bout pulling your head out of your ass and say something intelligent, so I know the Old Damo is still around, huh?
Yet when I promote it you argue against it. Because, IMO, you aren't really for it. You say it means I argue "for" gay marriage, blah, blah... but it doesn't. My position has never changed, this is the one position on which you supposedly have changed, yet you still get all angry and hurty inside when people point out you keep arguing with the very people who think the idea is good.

No matter how often you get all angry and say I think government should define marriage at all, you are wrong every time.
 
Yet when I promote it you argue against it. Because, IMO, you aren't really for it. You say it means I argue "for" gay marriage, blah, blah... but it doesn't. My position has never changed, this is the one position on which you supposedly have changed, yet you still get all angry and hurty inside when people point out you keep arguing with the very people who think the idea is good.

No matter how often you get all angry and say I think government should define marriage at all, you are wrong every time.

I don't see you promoting the solution when you continue your assault on religious viewpoints, or join the pro-gay-marriage crowd in their attacks on tradition. I see you being an "advocate" for what they are arguing, to redefine marriage and codify same-sex marriage into law. You claim that isn't what you're for, but you continue to support the arguments for it. How can that be?

This is a TWO-sided issue, Damo... there are TWO viewpoints in play here! If you continue to argue in favor of one over the other, there is no way to settle the issue with the solution you agree on. To reach a resolution, there has to be enough of us to say... ya know what? both sides have legitimate points, and both sides have flaws... let's stop arguing about this and work together to solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction! I've not seen you post that, Damo... I see you continuing to lob grenades and shit bombs at "religious dogma" and social conservatives who have the right to believe as they do.
 
I don't see you promoting the solution when you continue your assault on religious viewpoints, or join the pro-gay-marriage crowd in their attacks on tradition. I see you being an "advocate" for what they are arguing, to redefine marriage and codify same-sex marriage into law. You claim that isn't what you're for, but you continue to support the arguments for it. How can that be?

This is a TWO-sided issue, Damo... there are TWO viewpoints in play here! If you continue to argue in favor of one over the other, there is no way to settle the issue with the solution you agree on. To reach a resolution, there has to be enough of us to say... ya know what? both sides have legitimate points, and both sides have flaws... let's stop arguing about this and work together to solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction! I've not seen you post that, Damo... I see you continuing to lob grenades and shit bombs at "religious dogma" and social conservatives who have the right to believe as they do.

Translation:
There are two sides to this issue; but since I'm dismissing the other sides information, I want everyone to do what I want. :palm:
 
But I don't think this is what the States' Righters had in mind:




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804632.html

I don't agree with the decision. The states have a right to set their definition of marriage, and the federal government has a right to set its definition.

However, I also believe that the 14th amendment should require every state to either abolish civil marriage or offer same-sex civil marriages under equal protection.
 
I don't agree with the decision. The states have a right to set their definition of marriage, and the federal government has a right to set its definition.

However, I also believe that the 14th amendment should require every state to either abolish civil marriage or offer same-sex civil marriages under equal protection.
Reaquainting yourself with the eloquence of debate in preparation for the cup are you? I look forward to our duel in the finals.
 
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?

While I think that the law construct currently designated as "marriage" should be abolished, I think it's a tragedy that the issue has to come up now just because some people are going psycho about teh gays. Gay marriage should come before the abolition of civil marriage.
 
Back
Top