- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
So did you read the post I quoted and responded to or are you just in knee-jerk response mode no matter how foolish your replies are?
I know, you've told us that numerous times Navy. Just a search of the archieves for Polls, Bush, and Iraq shows us that.
As we can see Navy, when Bush was in office you were a huge advocate for ignoring polls and "the will of the people". Indeed, when a person wouldn't take action based on polls you stated things like this.
Saying how much you like it that people don't govern based on polls. And yet, it seems now that you're advocating polls DO matter and that a judge should judge based on polls.
That reminds me of something else you had said.
Just flip the liberal thing.
What I'm getting at Navy is simply appealing to polls is hollow. Its doubly hollow when its done by someone who previously continually discounted polls. Can polls be useful tools? Yep, they could back in 2005 with Iraq and they can today as well, you know, like the one some time ago that you discounted where people felt DADT should end. But polls in and of themselves should never be the only, or even primary, justification for something done by a government official because public opinion is continually swaying and at times simply unconstitutional or wrong.
You just don't want to be reasonable about it because you don't want gay people marrying for whatever reason.
Just pointing out marriage may not make gays happy.They keep talking about what they gain and avoid looking at what they lose
what's lindsay lohan thinking right now?
LOL!
You really know how to twist what people say
If it is so bad, then why get in their way?
If the fedgov does not recognize gay marriage, what does the state who calls it such matter?
Polygamy is a practice, not an orientation.
Thanks..... I really didn't know. You know me, I don't care if someone wants to "marry a goat", it's none of my business.... Personally I think the government should be out of the marriage business.
Because marriage is not about the state saying you can marry it is about a covenant with God. You can say it can be done without a religious ceremony but then why not just live together.
Nope, you just don't provide anything worth while to "address" cause you're not making an argument, you're making an ignorant statment.
Yes, and Redress and others are also giving REASONS why it should be thrown out. Unlike you who....
Just make statements that assert what people must do without giving any reasons, any argument, whatsoever. For your above statement to be true you must actually take Redresses stated reasonings and show why they apply to children. You can not, which is why you don't, you just throw this **** out there and then bitch when its disregarded like the baseless trash it is.
its the idiocy of those pushing this counter that are using a fallacy
Again for the thousand time, Blacks are a race of people....They can't change that.........Gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference..............They can and have done that..........
9th amendment.
Just like there were laws against black people marrying white people. Just like there were Jim Crow laws. This process has been repeated numerous times in American history, this is just the next time another minority group gets a right that has been denied them because they were different.
I am talking about the polls here in DP...The count can bew jury rigged......
No... I never claimed that "number of partners" should be included in the "sexual orientation" construct.Nothing about the number of partners. Sexual orienation is about the gender one is attracted to. You are wrong on this.
Because marriage is not about the state saying you can marry it is about a covenant with God. You can say it can be done without a religious ceremony but then why not just live together.
You were the one who brought up immoral behaviors and normal. No twisting, it is normal for humans to have a sex drive, and it is normal for them to fulfill this drive with a partner that is attractive to them
<shrug>
Did you really just Godwin this thread?
It does not say marriage
The judge who rules in the DOMA case from Mass claimed over 1000 references in federal law to privileges under marriage.
You have evidence its always 1%? Because I know that isn't true.
Marriage is a contract connected to hundreds of privileges between the two who forge said contract. Your god has nothing to do with it, nor can it be invoked in proper, legal discussion. Gods have no place in the laws of man.
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?