- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Since that is what you're doing, sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the truth you can't handle about the likely scenarios that will occur if SS activists continue to push their marriage-hijacking agenda on 92% of the population, you should understand then that that likely reality simply won't go away because you have your fingers in your ears.
All can change quickly in a short-time power-play.
As usual, when you lose the debate on relevant facts, you resort to erroneous ad hominems.man, you can pout like no one else...
Here you employ the debate tactic of obfuscation via subterfuge,.
Another meaningless erroneous ad hominem sans topically relevant debate content. :roll:Congrats you just identified your entire MO!
As usual, when you lose the debate on relevant facts, you resort to erroneous ad hominems.
Nevertheless, this appears to be your method of capitulation.
Good enough.
Another meaningless erroneous ad hominem sans topically relevant debate content. :roll:
And this fact has nothing to do with marriage. If you disagree, show any legal precedent that requires someone to procreate in order to marry. If you cannot... and we know you cannot, your position is refuted. Which it is.
And everything you wrote shows why it is unconstitutional. Based on the full faith and credit clause, it is not the Federal government's place to dictate to the states how they can license something like this. DOMA violated this and was appropriately deemed unconstitutional. As usual, and as was shown in today's ruling, you are wrong.
If you knew anything at all, you wouldn't be making such asinine claims and would know thatMarriage isn't defined by law, but only recognized by law. The court decision recognizes this fact but only when convenient, somehow imagining that recreation of marriage is a "state power" when States have no original jurisdiction over marriage, any more than the federal government does itself. It is a social structure, and neither the federal government, nor the states, are provided the authority to exercise social engineering to redesign it by their tyrannous dictate.
Tyranny? LMAO Tyrants are known for restricting freedoms and rights. What freedom and or right of yours has been restricted?
How much time have you got?
I can go forwards from the Civil War, or backwards from the current time period.
How about we just look at something like ObamaCare in which the federal government has taken over de facto ownership of each individual citizens body without any authority, abrogated a full 80% of those 'unalienable' Bill of Rights, and fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government by inappropriate means, not that even an amendment might even fundamentally change that relationship, since the Bill of Rights are not grants by the Constitution, but only a listing of particulars.
Did you not recognize any of this on your own? If you're not regarding the constitution, which your posts continually show, then its hypocritical to be asking about freedoms or rights, when your evident ideological focus will ensure subjugation.
Tyranny? LMAO Tyrants are known for restricting freedoms and rights. What freedom and or right of yours has been restricted?
The thread is about gay marriage not healthcare.
Then specify your questions, and pay attention to the thread.
I just had a big long post about government violating its authority, and acting in by indiscriminate and conflicted rationales so as to dictate a determined agenda - that's tyranny, and that's in no way legitimate government in this Republic under the Constitution.
But evidently all that went over your head, or you'd not have asked the question to begin with.
Pay attention to the thread? I'm not the one ranting about healthcare in a gay marriage thread!
Now then pay attention. In the context of the thread, gay marriage, what freedom and or right of yours has been restricted?
Read your question. Read my answer. Your question only questioned the existence of tyranny. My answer was entirely within the constraints of your question. What you challenged was the existence of any tyranny, and I answered that question.
If you want a specific answer next time, then try actually asking the question you expect an answer to - it works better that way. In the meantime, you might go re-read my previous "big, long post" since you apparently didn't get even the overall significance of it. Next time, i'll just ignore your question because responding to you is evidently nothing but a waste of time.
You were expecting something logical?
Uh, that "opposite sex booty call" is still heterosexual reproduction, and the term "relationship" does not necessitate nor imply any sort of ongoing relationship between people, but references the ongoing and immutable relation of the sperm and ovum necessary for reproduction, to those two heterosexual sexes.
Likewise, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization also rely on that same heterosexual reproduction process, and rape as well.
Again, and quite obviously, the reference to "relationship" does not refer to any ongoing relationship between partners, much less a stable one, but the relationship of the reproduction process to that heterosexuality... and it really is an inane claim that it might be.
Since that is what you're doing, sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the truth you can't handle about the likely scenarios that will occur if SS activists continue to push their marriage-hijacking agenda on 92% of the population, you should understand then that that likely reality simply won't go away because you have your fingers in your ears.
All can change quickly in a short-time power-play.
So IOW in the context of the thread you have not lost any freedoms and or rights. Thanks for undermining your own hyperbolic rhetoric.
If you knew anything at all, you wouldn't be making such asinine claims and would know thatMarriage isn't defined by law, but only recognized by law.
The court decision recognizes this fact but only when convenient, somehow imagining that recreation of marriage is a "state power" when States have no original jurisdiction over marriage, any more than the federal government does itself. It is a social structure, and neither the federal government, nor the states, are provided the authority to exercise social engineering to redesign it by their tyrannous dictate.
This is precisely the sort of tyrannous government the founders sought to prohibit, and instituted into the Constitution.
This is the second time I've had to correct you on what's actually in the court decision you're pontificating about. That decision was nether hinging on state's rights, which no were nowhere denied, nor on the full faith and credit clause, which I've already indicated the court entirely ignored the impact of, so that it could condemn Congress' legitimate authority in writing DOMA!
Yes, it is IN FACT the federal government's place to legislate and dictate "things like this", as this 'thing" is exclusively related to Federal ISSUES and FEDERAL LAW, and it is extremely asinine to assert otherwise.... but don't worry, you're actually surpassed by a corrupt and hypocritical Court, as I've already pointed out, but you are apparently incapable of addressing directly.
Before you continue to expose your ignorance on this decision, why don't you actually go and read it, instead just pulling what you imagine might be in that decision, out of ...well, thin air.
False, obviously.As usual, there is nothing based on reality here.
False again.The majority of the population supports SSM and it's growing.
Now you're bashing a strawman and simply for the purpose of rabble-rousing.The nice thing is, just like CT said, when people like you make really dumb and statements that are based on some extreme ideology,
But .. not the way you think. :shock:most people see it for what it is;
That's precisely the description of your post here. :lol:nothing of consequence, just some ideologue screaming nonsense.
When casual readers pass this way, and they see all you're doing is denying the specific details of reality, and rabble-rousing ..You are doing my side a great service... as usual.
False, obviously.
]False again.
The majority of American citizens supports recognition of SS couples' committed monagamous romantic relationship civil union domestic partnerships by both government and private enterprise.
However, this majority is not a large one.
And, only a small minority supports oxymoronically calling these civil union domestic partnerships "marriages".
Of those who support SS couples' civil union domestic partnerships, a significant marjority of them prefer that a different name be used.
And the minority that opposes SS couples' civil uion domestic partnerships by any name are adamantly opposed.
That's reality.
Now you're bashing a strawman and simply for the purpose of rabble-rousing.
Meaningless .. and a failed debate tactic.
But .. not the way you think. :shock:
That's precisely the description of your post here. :lol:
When casual readers pass this way, and they see all you're doing is denying the specific details of reality, and rabble-rousing ..
.. And they see the thought and consideration and intelligence reflected in the details of my topically relevant posts, who do you think they're going to align with if they're on the fence?
Uh huh .. that's right ...
The only one doing his "side" a disservice here .. is you ..
.. Obviously.
And it is not considered a "healthy relationship".
And reproduction does not happen in even the majority of cases of heterosexual copulation. In fact, in many cases, heterosexuals go out of their way to prevent procreation.
Marriage is not about procreation and procreation does not require marriage. Heck, now procreation doesn't even require sex.
Overall though you are still wrong. There are still people who exist without any heterosexual relationship. A sperm and egg being joined is in no way a heterosexual relationship.
You probably missed my repeated references to reproduction not being mandatory, nor even having to be capable, but rather only possible for that sort of union. Psst! that reproduction is not happening for gay couples, not even for a scant minority of cases, nor is it actually ever possible.
No, I'm not wrong, and your unfathomable ignorance and disregard, for quite literally every society throughout mankind's history, really indicates that the problem is your own ignorance. Which is heightened by the enormous irony of you being undeniably the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship.
And, you hit the nail on the head, which is extremely amusing, in stating that procreation does not require marriage, and does not even require sex, which .......... again.......... is the whole reason why committed heterosexual unions - i.e. marriage, are valued by society, recognized and rewarded... and not gay unions.
It boggles the mind that people can actually leave American schools and be so entirely clueless about fact, common sense, and even the most simple social history, such as WHY marriage is recognized.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?