But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

Southern Man said:
:lol:

The Southern Man is a "bigot" for opposing queer marriage but Libbie needs to increase the depth of his understanding.
Click to expand...

Libbie needs to increase his understanding because he is simply objecting to the inclusion of the civil rights fight of the blacks in this conversation.

You are a proven bigot for reasons I have stated numerous times.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
except there haven't been.....if there had, someone would have sued by now and won.....
Click to expand...

Quit chasing your tail. A century passed before someone brought a case against the interracial marriage barriers being in conflict with the 14th. The courts did not take your ignorant approach.
 
RStringfield said:
Quit chasing your tail. A century passed before someone brought a case against the interracial marriage barriers being in conflict with the 14th. The courts did not take your ignorant approach.
Click to expand...

yeah right.....lord knows nobody on the left would start a law suit in this day and age....
 
RStringfield said:
Quit chasing your tail. A century passed before someone brought a case against the interracial marriage barriers being in conflict with the 14th. The courts did not take your ignorant approach.
Click to expand...

Now you went and ruined it; because I wanted him to educate himself and this way, maybe he would learn something.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have never argued that all change will cause harm.......I said forcing change upon a society that does not accept it causes harm........
Click to expand...

If society is steadfastly against such change, yes. But, the courts can and have pushed the envelope. That is their function. If a majority supports a change there is no need to involve the courts. You just pass it through the legislature.

As I said, it is true it is a bad idea to force change on a society that is strongly opposed to it. The beauty of our system is there is enough pressure on the courts from the majority to stop it from passing laws rejected by a large majority. A super majority can nullify a court ruling with an amendment.

It is no longer the case that a large majority are strongly opposed to gay marriage. It becomes less true everyday.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once more for the mentally challenged:

A black man who is gay and a Catholic is driving an expensive car through a predominantly white neighborhood while casually dressed. A cop pulls him over and asks him for ID, drivers license, etc. His reason: black people who are not dressed nicely but drive an expensive car through a neighborhood that is non-black probably has criminal intent or have priors (drugs, theft, gangs). The cop only finds out about the man's sexual preference and religious beliefs after he questions him.

Last time I checked, there hasn't been cases of "catholic profiling" or "gay profiling", but RACIAL profiling as I've described above has been documented numerous times.

THAT is the major difference between discrimination of gays in general and a RACE of people specifically. THAT is why I've pointed out the flaw in gay advocates continually making a general comparison that is NOT accurate on many levels.

The FACTS are irrefutable...but folk like String seem to think that pointing out such a flaw is a homophobic attack. So String embarked on a trail of convoluted logic to either misrepresent what I wrote or disprove my point.

He's failed on both accounts.

As the posts shows, String just keeps regurgitating his moot points, distortions of what I wrote, and false accusations he has yet to prove.

All the objective reader has to do is just READ these post to see how dishonest and insipidly stubborn String is being here: Posts #331, 332, 333

And that is that. String will just repeat himself ad nauseum...but the chronology of the posts will always be his undoing. His beliefs just don't trump FACTS and the logic derived from them....but faith is a proven deterrent to logic. I leave him to his folly.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn said:
Please give it up. There has been discrimination that has many things in common with the discrimination suffered by blacks.

Is it exactly the same? Of course not.

But that continued ranting about how gays are not discriminated against like the blacks were is ridiculous. The examples you provided were specifically tailored to prove your point, but it only works if you ignore the large number of they have in common.
Click to expand...

And all you have to do is disprove my examples above...then you may have a case.

But you and I know that you can't....so you'll just parrot the failed and flawed "logic" that String did.

See Winter, it's YOU and folk like you who "rant" the nano-second anyone lodges ANY criticism about the gay rights agenda. The sheer idiocy regarding your level of denial of simple matters of fact and history is amazing...but not unexpected. Carry on.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once more for the mentally challenged:

A black man who is gay and a Catholic is driving an expensive car through a predominantly white neighborhood while casually dressed. A cop pulls him over and asks him for ID, drivers license, etc. His reason: black people who are not dressed nicely but drive an expensive car through a neighborhood that is non-black probably has criminal intent or have priors (drugs, theft, gangs). The cop only finds out about the man's sexual preference and religious beliefs after he questions him.

Last time I checked, there hasn't been cases of "catholic profiling" or "gay profiling", but RACIAL profiling as I've described above has been documented numerous times.

THAT is the major difference between discrimination of gays in general and a RACE of people specifically. THAT is why I've pointed out the flaw in gay advocates continually making a general comparison that is NOT accurate on many levels.

The FACTS are irrefutable...but folk like String seem to think that pointing out such a flaw is a homophobic attack. So String embarked on a trail of convoluted logic to either misrepresent what I wrote or disprove my point.

He's failed on both accounts.

As the posts shows, String just keeps regurgitating his moot points, distortions of what I wrote, and false accusations he has yet to prove.

All the objective reader has to do is just READ these post to see how dishonest and insipidly stubborn String is being here: Posts #331, 332, 333

And that is that. String will just repeat himself ad nauseum...but the chronology of the posts will always be his undoing. His beliefs just don't trump FACTS and the logic derived from them....but faith is a proven deterrent to logic. I leave him to his folly.
Click to expand...

RStringfield said:
So it would be okay to not allow Catholics to marry or to marry outside of their faith? No comparison can be made between racial and religious discrimination? I bet the Jews would disagree as would Muslim's in post 9/11 America. So would the writers of the 14th who explicitly mention creed. How could the 14th possibly cover both of these incomparable forms of discrimination?

There have been many cases of religious profiling.

Again, no one is saying they are identical in all ways. They are not. They are similar enough that they may both be accurately labeled discrimination. On those similarities they WILL be compared by the courts.

Identical cases become settled matters by precedent. This case is not identical and therefore not settled. But common law and precedent are set, extended, refined and even limited through similar cases. That's what's gonna happen here.

You can shout and scream all you like that they are not the same thing. Since we all know that, nobody is going to fucking care. The courts would laugh at your idiotic arguments and dismiss them without as much care as I have shown in attempting to understand. I am going to do the same thing now.

Since you continually fail to tell us why this difference justifies discrimination, your point is moot.

Racial discrimination is different from discrimination against gays, religious groups, gender, etc..

:gives:
Click to expand...

:palm: All you've done is just repeat yourself...but you've FAILED to disprove just ONE item I've previously mentioned.

Bottom line: YOU HAVE TO TELL SOMEONE YOU'RE A CATHOLIC, YOU FUCKING MORON! YOU SURE AS HELL DON'T HAVE TO TELL SOMEONE YOU'RE BLACK 99 44/100% OF THE TIME, DO YOU?

That difference is no small matter...as history will tell you. You can regurgitate your stubborn moot point until doomsday, but you can't logically or factually disprove what I stated. TFB for the gay advocate that can't blather a false talking point free of challenge....life will go on, and the gay rights movement will survive.

You're done, bunky. You may have the last predictable word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top