USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I think a "flock of cows" sounds amusing.
Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
I think a "flock of cows" sounds amusing.
Nope. You asked in #369, I answered in #441. It the same question as "flock of dogs" which you asked and I answered repeatedly.
Sure. I did not say otherwise. Flock is not such a word. It is COMMONLY applied to birds, sheep and/or people. That's not specific. It could be applied to any other group, as all it means is "group."
Marriage is not defined by who you apply it to either. Marriage is defined by the commitment and the contract between the participants. It says nothing about the characteristics of the participants, no matter how much you try to ingrain cultural biases into it.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
All of your answers are moronic.
It is.
But not dogs. it has limits.
wrong. It does not apply to all animals. Flock of dogs is moronic. just as is gaggle of dogs.
it is.
that is merely the extent to which the government has decided to embrace the institution that existed before this government did. marriage has a meaning. you can't rewrite it. Just like you can't make gaggle apply to dogs. It does NOT mean just "a group". It's more specific.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It means the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.... no matter how much you try to ingrain cultural biases into it!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's what marriage means everywhere. Perhaps some dictator in a black robe 'proclaimed' something against the will of the people, and you cheered them on... but it didn't change the definition of the word.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Dixie, why are you back to that damed awful flag?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Because he's angry and upset.
He wants to feel better, so he is trying to share his anger and hopefully by doing so, he'll be able to sleep at night.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I wish I could say it was just to piss you off, but it's actually in honor of my SoC erecting a new 20-foot Confederate flag over the Confederate Battleground Memorial up the road from me.
....And what more fitting place for the flag to be displayed, than a thread entitled: Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment?
I think you should find a flock of lawyers and sue.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
There is no need to litigate over mere stupidity. he's not really caused any material damages. He has enough problems. He does look moronic however.
Gaggle of dogs = moronic.
By all the crying it seems like you are hurt, maybe its just butt-hurt.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Gaggle of dogs = moronic.
I'm smiling about it. it's funny the stupid shit he will say to justify his word abuse.
Uh huh, I have not read the whole post yet, but I am sure you will again repeat it.
And THE "definition" of marriage once excluded interracial couples, because some retards believe that God had ordained it as such.
So, now THE "definition" is dependent on time and place. Quick, try to deny you ever used the word "presently" or try to twist it to mean something else so that you can pretend THE "definition" is written in stone and may not be changed, without bringing a plague upon us.
And again, you return to pretending all the criteria for participants (which does not define marriage) is equivalent. It is not. Most of the other criteria relate to a valid state interest. We've already been over this, but you will just pretend that was never really your argument and go back to some other invalid point.
Yep, there it is. lol... You open by denying this is your argument and close with a repetition of it. So...
Your argument has been that overturning prohibitions on gay marriage, under the 14th, must lead to overturning prohibition on underage, incest or marriages to mailboxes and animals. But it will not for the same reasons you acknowledged Lawrence has not led to overturning laws prohibiting related sex acts.
At least you have FINALLY acknowledged the difference, but I am sure you will back off of it later.
I am not redefining anything, because who is allowed to marry does not define marriage.
As for polygamy, I have answered. I can see no valid state interest in prohibiting it, so long as all consent, which would include all of the existing marriage partners.
Tell us how that would change THE definition of marriage when it was seemingly permissible or at the very least tolerated in many biblical stories and in many cultures?
But challenges to polygamy laws could come with or without a ruling in favor of gay marriage. I am not sure the precedents relate all that well. The 14th amendment applies to gay marriage, because the prohibitions discriminate based on gender in the same way as miscegenation laws discriminated on race. Polygamy has nothing to do with either race or gender, but just the numbers.
If I were arguing in favor of it, I guess I would tie it into the first amendment and religious freedom. The fact, is that it is a different case and would be a different movement. Certainly, a precedent on the issue at hand could affect it, but it is not certain and not necessary to bring a challenge to those laws.
I, honestly, have not considered it much because it is not relevant right now. If a case were brought today, I am sure the court would either find some way to deny protection (not saying I would support whatever reasoning they may use) or they would simply refuse to hear it, because a ruling in favor of polygamy would almost certainly upset an overwhelming majority. Or at least, I think it would. But that is hard to gauge when no one is really pressing for it.
Our system does not allow the courts to do much in the face of an overwhelming majority. The courts could not have thrown out anti-miscegenation laws in 1880, even if they had wanted to and believed the logic against the laws was unassailable. They had to wait until they were safe from reversal by amendment or they would have just setback progress and miscegenation laws might still exist.
In my younger years I was even more idealistic and may have said to hell with them, but I have come to appreciate the wisdom of this. It's quite possible we could have avoided the Civil War and may have accelerated the civil rights struggle that followed if the abolitionists had been a little more patient. But, that's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking.
My change on that has come from more reflection on one of my favorite Jefferson quotes.
"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Clay, 1790.
The question is moronic. You have yet to identify error in the answer.
It does not. You could say flock of dogs. It's unusual but not inaccurate. Almost all of the different words that mean group are commonly applied to people.
The criteria for marriage has changed, numerous times, in the history of this nation.
No, gaggle just means group.
http://riviera-dogs.blogspot.com/2008/04/monaco-dog-show-gaggle-of-dogs.html
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Right, but the LAW says we can't discriminate on the basis of race and we must apply the 14th to all races equally. Therefore, not allowing 'interracial marriage' was unconstitutional. Whenever you get an Act passed that protects sexual deviants from discrimination, come talk to me! As of now, there is no such provision in our Constitution, and hopefully, there never will be.
The present definition has been the same for 5,000 years.
And it's also a valid state interest that marriage is between a man and woman, and not some other arrangement based on what kind of sexual relations they have. That is what the people and the state established as "marriage" and it can't just be "redefined" because you want it to include something it was never intended to include.
Not my argument, sorry! We can repeat the same nonsense a million more times, and this will still not be my argument, Stringy... What is the point of this exercise?
There is NO PROHIBITION!! Perhaps that is why you are so fucked in the head about this? You must believe we live in a society where Homosexuals were once allowed to marry and everyone was happy, until the Religious Zealots came along and "PROHIBITED" that from happening! That is not the world we live in Stringy, it's your IMAGINARY world, where you are living a FANTASY! Marriage has always been defined in this society, as a union of a man and woman, nothing else. It's not that "gays" are prohibited from marrying... show me one instance where a state has denied a gay person the right to obtain a license to MARRY! They can't marry someone of the same sex, because that doesn't meet the criteria of what marriage is! Just like marrying a mailbox, doesn't meet the criteria of what marriage is!
Again, in your imaginary fantasy land, that might be true... But in the real world, where the rest of us live, that is not the case. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, always has been.
There'ya go! And 40~50 years down the road, when immoral heathens have eroded our laws on 'consent' and sexual deviance, you will undoubtedly be one of those sitting here posting on how adult males should have the right to marry their young boy lovers! You have no morals, you don't give a fuck about the institution of marriage, or family, or anything else this society might restrict your perversions with. The problem is, Stringy is just Stringy... not KING Stringy... We don't have to live by your standards or morals, and we don't have to govern our society to suit your whims. SORRRYYYY!
No one is pressing for it now, because the definition of marriage is based on one man, one woman, and not sexuality or religious practices, or whatever polygamists claim their deviant behavior is. Once you've changed the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals, polygamists will be next... In fact, the leaders of their advocacy group has already said the legal case was in the works, just as soon as marriage is recognized as an institution which can be based on sexuality or personal lifestyle choice.
And what the fuck do you mean "it would cause an uproar" ...I didn't think this was about what the "majority" wanted? You are aware that about 3/4 of the country is opposed to homosexual marriage, right? Why do you think you can't get a Gay Marriage ballot initiative passed in the most liberal areas of the country? People overwhelmingly DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE! Try to get that through your brick-like skull!
...And stop fucking quoting the Founding Fathers... you sound like a RETARD!
Several uses of "flock of dogs."
http://www.google.com/webhp?rls=ig#...CsQPXx_ilBw&start=10&sa=N&fp=7152b24738d8285d
Some are from translated sites where the nuance and connotations of our color words are lost in translation. But there are several that are not...
http://www.salon.com/print.html?URL=/mwt/feature/2009/06/29/goat_song
any people would be surprised to learn goats are affectionate and attaching.
Having goats is like having a flock of dogs. They each have their individual personality. We walk our goats up in the woods just about every day and they follow, they come, they know their names when they want to. If they're in a good mood or you've done something to ingratiate yourself with them they'll lick you on the cheek. If they're mad at you they'll just ignore you. They're very companionable. If you look at the history of goat-keeping, there's all these photos of women in Europe along the roadside with a goat on a leash, then there are some rather lascivious sculptures from Pompeii of people having sex with a goat. So humans and goats have had this thing going on for a long time.
http://www.google.com/webhp?rls=ig#...CsQPXx_ilBw&start=10&sa=N&fp=7152b24738d8285d
Some are from translated sites where the nuance and connotations of our color words are lost in translation. But there are several that are not...
http://www.salon.com/print.html?URL=/mwt/feature/2009/06/29/goat_song
any people would be surprised to learn goats are affectionate and attaching.
Having goats is like having a flock of dogs. They each have their individual personality. We walk our goats up in the woods just about every day and they follow, they come, they know their names when they want to. If they're in a good mood or you've done something to ingratiate yourself with them they'll lick you on the cheek. If they're mad at you they'll just ignore you. They're very companionable. If you look at the history of goat-keeping, there's all these photos of women in Europe along the roadside with a goat on a leash, then there are some rather lascivious sculptures from Pompeii of people having sex with a goat. So humans and goats have had this thing going on for a long time.
Again, the Loving ruling was based on the 14th. It referenced no law that listed race specifically. The ruling was based on the 14th's guarantee of due process and equal protection for all, not just blacks.
Not according to you, who claims that any change in who is allowed to marry changes the definition.
What's the state interest? You don't understand the process. You have to explain what the legitimate state interest is or else it could set much more dangerous precedents. Majority will is not a legitimate answer, as that is assumed in any law.
I don't know. You are the one that keeps stating your argument then claiming it's not your argument, then repeating the same argument.
Again, equal application of the law was rejected as protecting state laws from the reach of the 14th in Loving.
You just claimed THE "definition" has been the same for 5000 years, then claim that a change in who may marry under the law is a change in THE "definition." Who we allow to marry has changed considerably, as has the number allowed to participate to the marriage.
All those biblical figures were heathens? Okay, that's a new one.
FUCK YOU, RETARD! You are the only one challenging the concept of consent. You are also the one that claims morality is determined by the majority and that you would prefer men, except society tells you it is wrong. You are the weirdo that apparently wants to marry young boys.
So? They can try. They can try now. Like I said, the precedent could help there case, but it is quite different. It is more different than interracial marriages are from gay marriage. Polygamy has nothing to do with race or gender, just numbers. What in the 14th says anything about that? As I said, they would have to tie in the first, which I think is doable since your Bible offers plenty of support for it.
Make an argument against polygamy. Like I said, I have not considered it much.
There is not enough opposition to pass an amendment. It's been tried (though you lie and claim otherwise) several times and failed. The chances are not getting any better.
In 1968, the Gallup Poll Organization asked the public how it felt about interracial intermarriage. At that time, 72% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriages.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1266313.html#footref7
Opposition to same sex marriage is nowhere near 75%, much less do that many support an amendment. Just another one of your made up pieces of bullshit.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23295
The numbers on your side grow smaller by the day.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4972643-503544.html
I did not say that an overwhelming majority makes a law morally right. But, unlike you, I live in the real world. You cannot do it in the face an overwhelming majority, because it will just be reversed. The majority has power (politically and through violent force), but that does not make it right, it just makes it might. I knew you would fuck that up and you will probably still fail to understand it.
Suck a dick. It's okay, no one will judge you. It's safe to come on out of the closet. But don't touch any young boys, weirdo.
Your just pissed you can't twist their clear language to mean something it does not. You've tried, though.
Last edited: