- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Messages
- 16,516
- Reaction score
- 8,230
- Location
- Montreal, QC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Great. Then get the laws changed without breaking them first. Sometimes I get the feeling that Democrats esteem themselves above everyone, and everything, else.
You look like someone who has to be told at least twice:1.) translation you have ZERO proof to back up your strawman and its a failed argument.
You look like someone who has to be told at least twice:
Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:
First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:
You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.
Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.
My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.
Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.
Don't mention it. Problem is, it looks like you might need to be told a third time. Would you like to answer the questions, or shall I repost again?thanks for repeating youself
It really depends. If the Supreme Court kicked it down the road, it could be a while. If they threw out the existing bans and protected SSM with strict scrutiny, then it's already over. But if they didn't, then there's no controlling precedent and we'll still be doing it one state at a time. Some of the more backwards states could take a while. The most persuasive precedent would be the ruling on Prop 8 from the California Supreme Court, but when was the last time an Alabama judge cited a California case?
It's probably going to have to end up being decided by the Supreme Court eventually. I hope they didn't rule narrowly on the present case and dealt with the problem, rather than just setting the stage for addressing it later. So I think it will either be now, or in another 10 or 20 years. If there's no ruling now, then most of the non-Confederate states will shift within the next decade, but it will come back to the courts either way.
Don't mention it. Problem is, it looks like you might need to be told a third time. Would you like to answer the questions, or shall I repost again?
If the USSC kicks it down the road then the conservative states will keep gay marriage illegal for the next few generations. I've heard of states like Vermont and California referred to as "refugee" states, which should tell you something about who's left in the bible belt fighting for gay rights.
As someone else on this forum has already noted, "state rights" has, sadly, devolved into code for "the right to discriminate against its citizens without Federal meddling."
You mean "Please repost your original statement, as I am having trouble internalizing its proper meaning".please repost your failed strawman
It won't last generations. It will last another decade or two at most. Public opinion is WAY turning and there will continue to be suits and cases in states that ban SSM until it gets back up to the supreme court. Either it will be decided by the court now, states will just give in soon, or it will be decided by the court in a little while. It's a contentious constitutional issue that has the interest of the whole nation. It's not going to sit for generations without a national resolution.
You mean "Please repost your original statement, as I am having trouble internalizing its proper meaning".
Sure thing, Agent J. I'll be more than happy to:
Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:
First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:
You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.
Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.
My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.
Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.
Happy to do so. I'm always willing to point out your incoherencies. You seem to enjoy it.AWESOME, thanks for making us laugh again.
Happy to do so. I'm always willing to point out your incoherencies. You seem to enjoy it.
Sure I have. I've done so multiple times. Here, let's try again. Perhaps this time you'll get it:yet you havent one time
Sure I have. I've done so multiple times. Here, let's try again. Perhaps this time you'll get it:
Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:
First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:
You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.
Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.
My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.
Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.
First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun.
What's weird, is your inability to follow directions. I've already explained the disconnect, AGENT J, but you don't seem to be getting the nuances. I can't force you to get over yourself, so where does that leave us? I'll tell you where it leaves us. Right back where we started:weird still no FACTUAL and LOGICAL support,
What's weird, is your inability to follow directions. I've already explained the disconnect, AGENT J, but you don't seem to be getting the nuances. I can't force you to get over yourself, so where does that leave us? I'll tell you where it leaves us. Right back where we started:
Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:
First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:
You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.
Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.
My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.
Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.
And what goes on between homosexuals is none of marriage's business. It's a two way street.What goes on between consenting adults is really none of our business.
You mean AGENT J's disconnect #10. Get your facts straight, please.dodge number 10:
You mean AGENT J's disconnect #10. Get your facts straight, please.
Disconnect #14,553. And something tells me that it goes way beyond your DP Post count, too.dodge number 11
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?