Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yeah, I'm gonna take a number and get in line behind you. Taichineocon is full of surprises!
But same sex marriage would destroy the institution
- Thread starter Socrtease
- Start date
Yeah, I'm gonna take a number and get in line behind you. Taichineocon is full of surprises!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Never assume, Damo. We may agree to some degree on an issue, and then again may not. Then again, are agreements may come from totally different venues. Like I've said, I'm a registered INDEPENDENT....literally.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
And a neocon, lets not forget...
And lets not pretend my political consistencies have made me a friend of the partisans around here, either.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
It does not disprove anything. It is not necessary that bigots practicing discrimination be able to visually identify their victims. Your point is irrelevant and stupid.
Evasive. I am.
Nope. I have given you examples of discrimination where the difference can't be easily seen. All you did was evade.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
For those of you interested in how things actually transpired:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=640718&postcount=180
Now, let's deal with following:
It does not disprove anything. It is not necessary that bigots practicing discrimination be able to visually identify their victims. Your point is irrelevant and stupid.
The only thing that is "stupid" here is your insipid stubborness to protect a popular talking point of the gay rights movement that is illogical. Anyone can think bad thoughts, ENFORCING THEM against someone requires a person to be able to PHYSICALLY IDENTIFY THE OBJECT OF THEIR PREJUDICE TO ACTIVELY DISCRIMINATE. Unless of course, you know of people perpetuating the Vulcan mind meld. Your repeating your illogical stance is irrelevent.
Evasive. I am.
Yes, you were being evasive....you try to create a dodge that just doesn't stand up under logical examination.
Nope. I have given you examples of discrimination where the difference can't be easily seen. All you did was evade.
Your "examples" essentially avoid the matter of biological fact that one has to SEE whom they are enforcing their discriminatory acts against. I can be black and not gay...you have to ASK if I'm gay or see me act/dress/talk a certain way. Essentially, you've adopted an insipidly stubborn and irrational stance to protect a talking point by gay rights advocates.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=640718&postcount=180
Now, let's deal with following:
It does not disprove anything. It is not necessary that bigots practicing discrimination be able to visually identify their victims. Your point is irrelevant and stupid.
The only thing that is "stupid" here is your insipid stubborness to protect a popular talking point of the gay rights movement that is illogical. Anyone can think bad thoughts, ENFORCING THEM against someone requires a person to be able to PHYSICALLY IDENTIFY THE OBJECT OF THEIR PREJUDICE TO ACTIVELY DISCRIMINATE. Unless of course, you know of people perpetuating the Vulcan mind meld. Your repeating your illogical stance is irrelevent.
Evasive. I am.
Yes, you were being evasive....you try to create a dodge that just doesn't stand up under logical examination.
Nope. I have given you examples of discrimination where the difference can't be easily seen. All you did was evade.
Your "examples" essentially avoid the matter of biological fact that one has to SEE whom they are enforcing their discriminatory acts against. I can be black and not gay...you have to ASK if I'm gay or see me act/dress/talk a certain way. Essentially, you've adopted an insipidly stubborn and irrational stance to protect a talking point by gay rights advocates.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So you truly are just as ass!!
And it took TIME for him to think this up and type folks.USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
YEP
An entire .0000001 of a second.
OK, that wasn't exactly truthful.
All of us allready were aware that you're an ass and this was just a confirmation of fact.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
YEP
An entire .0000001 of a second.
OK, that wasn't exactly truthful.
All of us allready were aware that you're an ass and this was just a confirmation of fact.
A. You can't count
B. You have nothing of intellectual worth to add to the discussion at hand
C. You just follow me around throwing rocks like a petulant child because you lose debates to me
D. Claiming that you do this for "amusement" demonstrates what a an empty and pathetic life you have.
D. This response just points out what an idiot you are to think that it can be contrived as some sort of "win" for you.
E. You will continue in the same, pitiful way.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Your opinions may someday be proven to have a smidgen of truth to them; but you're still an ass.
If you knew how to use quotes anyone that cared to could easily follow the thread back. There is no need to repeat everything that has been said in each and every post.
A bigot needs to know the person is a member of the group he/she wishes to persecute in order to persecute them in a discriminatory way, yes. They don't need to be able to identify them through visual information alone. Your point that being black is usually obvious through sight alone does not mean that discrimination based on things that might not be obvious visually is somehow not discrimination or less discriminatory.
Cute and obviously another evasion.
What logical examination? You have not offered any. All you do is pretend that the examples are somehow off the table because you are too chickenshit to address them. People have been discriminated against based on many things that are not obvious through sight alone.
Don't be such a chickenshit. Answer the questions.
Are you arguing that discrimination based on religion or caste is not discrimination? What about discrimination against ethnic groups where membership in the targeted group is not obvious?
It is ignorant to claim that discrimination must be based on information gained through sight alone. You are apparently confusing racism and discrimination as being the same thing.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
sorry, but the true latecomer to marriage custom is the federal government.......
Not at all relevant to the point.
Dixie implies that the word marriage is a legal trademark of religion. What religion, he never really says, because he is a "spiritualist." The custom predates any recorded history and existed in nearly every culture, apparently independent of each other. It is not the monolithic institution he pretends that it is.
Further, it is social conservatives that have advocated a federal takeover of marriage.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
of course it's relevant.....your post implied that the federal government has a greater say in marriage than religion.....obviously, it's claim is inferior......and it's hardly true that it's conservatives advocating a federal takeover.....it's the left that have employed the federal courts....the only step taken by the right is to seek a change in the requirement that states give full faith and credit to the laws of other states with respect to marriage rights.....that is a federal requirement which the right wishes eliminated, not imposed......
government at any level did not engage in the regulation of marriage until Napoleon imposed restrictions on marriage records in the early 1800s......
Not really. But the religious have no more of a say in marriage laws than anyone else. We are not a theocracy. The church has no check on our government. The Feds do have the power to check states when hey violate the rights of citizens with regards to marriage, see Loving v. Virginia.
The states are not empowered to violate the fundamental rights of citizens. See 14th amendment.
The Repubs have attempted to pass amendments barring the states from allowing same sex marriage. Dixie advocates this.
Further, the full faith and credit clause is an important and useful part of our union. Without it, the states are under no obligation to respect the legal judgments of another state. For instance, one could be ordered to pay child support in Florida and escape that judgment by moving to a state that would not enforce such judgments. Criminals could prey on the citizens of neighboring states without fear of their courts.
Wrong again by an extremely wide margin. Go back, at least, 3500 years. The earliest known laws on marriage come from Hammurabi's Code.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Well how about that?
People stopped with the condescending put downs and the name calling long enough to let you voice your opinion, and now suddenly they seem shocked that you have one, and a nuanced opinion at that.
Maybe if some of those on here so very quick with their standard retort "can you really be that stupid" or the snarky "WOW...just wow", will realize that if they'd just shut up for a few minutes they might get something besides the same standard reply.,
I think you are wrong. I think the government has no business in marriage because we all have the freedom (right) to marry whom we choose, that any restriction on those rights (other than ones to ensure no victim is created i.e. underage marriage and hidden marriages) is a violation of civil rights.
IMHO, This is exactly equal to laws that said interracial marriages were illegal. Even if African-Americans don't like associating sexuality with race, it is still a civil right being violated.