davidtaylorjr
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,775
- Reaction score
- 1,123
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That is such a cop out answer.
In oriental cultures,what you just did is refered to as "saving face".
It is an aspect of vanity.
Please provide evidence that there will in fact be a "Judgement Day".
In oriental
I believe that God created the Universe, man sinned, man is in need of a Savior, God sent Christ, his son, to earth to die for our sin if we accept Him.
I don't care about "oriental"
Nor do I care what your Bible has to say.
In my opinion you still (and still committing),the sin of vanity.
Not a sin, but whatever.
It is a symbol of what Christ did for us. A reminder of the ultimate passover.
No, I can't make them. However, if they are wrong, they have grave consequences, if I am wrong, then I look like a fool. However, I'm not wrong.
Christianity has never been proven wrong, other religions have.
Christianity has never been proven wrong, other religions have.
How's the ideological discussion between gay marriage advocates and strict interpretators of the Bible turning out?
You do realize, depending on your ideology, you're crushing your foe. And facts really don't play a role in the debate.
No DOMA means that the federal government will recognize marriages of same sex couples in those 12 states that have legalized it already and it means that there is another way to contest state laws, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the 14th.
If facts don't play a role in the debate, you're doing it wrong.
I'll clarify my point. Lately, since it's one ideologue shouting at another ideologue, facts aren't successful in proving or disproving a point between the combatants. It's ideology, for crying out loud. Minds have already been made up and won't be unmade.
Anyone who's been around any debate forum long enough has become fully aware that changing another person's mind is so unlikely as it should not be considered the primary goal. Rather, it should be to test the strength of your arguments.
And what, your arguments are that some, IMO, ideological judges decided gays being prevented from using the word marriage in their 'union' was unconstitutional?
Why are you arguing about states that already have gay marriage? I'm assming the 'Jster' was implying federal gay marriage.
How is the 14th amendment being broken? It's that word - marriage - again, isn't it.
Let me bring this analogy out of the mothballs - wait, let me use another analogy - let's demand that everyone, men and women, use the ladies public restroom. The ladies public restroom is (so I've been told) so much cleaner. Men must demand equal protection under the law for clean public restrooms.
If I've offended anyone with this analogy, I could come up with at least a dozen different short 'parables' to illustrate my point.
Why are you arguing about states that already have gay marriage? I'm assming the 'Jster' was implying federal gay marriage.
How is the 14th amendment being broken? It's that word - marriage - again, isn't it.
Let me bring this analogy out of the mothballs - wait, let me use another analogy - let's demand that everyone, men and women, use the ladies public restroom. The ladies public restroom is (so I've been told) so much cleaner. Men must demand equal protection under the law for clean public restrooms.
If I've offended anyone with this analogy, I could come up with at least a dozen different short 'parables' to illustrate my point.
all your anologies fail :shrug: everyone you bring up is a non parallel and gets destroyed.
As far as DOMA is concerned, the federal gov't recognizes gay marriage in those states that recognize gay marriage and doesn't recognize gay marriage in those states that don't reconize gay marriage. So, you see, the state is the driver for gay marriage rights not the gov't.First of all, you brought up DOMA, saying something about without it, there would be no "federal right" to same sex marriage. This is wrong. Without DOMA, the federal government would have to recognize all legal marriages from any state, as they currently do, including same sex marriages. But along with this, it would open up the case that the Full Faith and Credit Clause must apply to same sex marriages even in states that do not allow same sex marriage, because marriage is a contract and the states would have to show why there is a legitimate state interest being served in not allowing/recognizing same sex couples in a marriage/their marriage contracts, when they recognize other marriage contracts from out of state...
1.)IMO, my analogies show similar 'systems of inexactness' like gay marriage - of failures to adhere to the 14th amendment.
2.) Why is gay marriage special when compared to these other inexact institutions I used in analogies?
3.)Why do my analogies fail?
4.)I could use roguenuke's logic and place a lock on the marriage door and refuse marriage to everyone civilly.
5.) I could point out, as I've done many times on this thread, that gays get all the rights and responsibiltites of marriage with unions.
6.)That only leaves us with the philosophy of ideological judges who think marriage should be a right for all.
7.)Do any of you gay marriage advocates know why the first judge made that decree and set the precedent?
As far as DOMA is concerned, the federal gov't recognizes gay marriage in those states that recognize gay marriage and doesn't recognize gay marriage in those states that don't reconize gay marriage. So, you see, the state is the driver for gay marriage rights not the gov't.
If Alaska gives a stipend to every member of its state from gas profits, why shouldn't every citizen of every state expect a stipend from their respective states? Roguenuke?
Actually it would be whatever the charge was when he was arrested. Somehow I just can't picture this scene happening: "Sir, you are under arrest for homophobia."
No.
Being fired for inappropriate behavior on the job is not the same as being arrested.
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?