Page 87 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3777858687888997137 ... LastLast
Results 861 to 870 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #861
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    What's quite obvious is that your ideology is preventing you from debating what I am saying. I understand that it is far easier to debate what you want me to have said, but that's just a logical fallacy. I have never mentioned the word "redefine", nor is that what I am arguing. Now, I know that it is far easier to run from my actual position, but would you like to give it a try, or would you prefer to allow your bias to cause you to take the safe route, and just straw man?
    Now you try to deny that you previously clearly stated that the word "marriage" was redefined some time ago and that today's SCOTUS rulings substantiated those redefinitions.

    Unless, of course, I missed your other possible cryptic assumption that the word "marriage" has always meant more than "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which is even more errouneous then the former error, if it's possible for one of two errors to be "more erroneous" than the other.

    Regardless, your hair-splitting diversion is simply that, an attempt to run from the fact that you are in error either way.

    Reality remains that today's SCOTUS rulings were simply nothing but state's rights decisions, each one 5-4, and one along ideological lines.

    There is no comment there one way or the other on the definition of "marriage".

    "Marriage" remains what it has been for 12,000 years through the present, unchangable by nature: "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  2. #862
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    "Marriage" remains what it has been for 12,000 years through the present, unchangable by nature: "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
    Except in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and most likely California where same sex marriage will now be recognized by the federal government and respective state governments. So...seems pretty "changed" to me. Which I believe is good, because tradition does not equate to inherently superior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  3. #863
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,724

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Now you try to deny that you previously clearly stated that the word "marriage" was redefined some time ago and that today's SCOTUS rulings substantiated those redefinitions.

    Unless, of course, I missed your other possible cryptic assumption that the word "marriage" has always meant more than "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which is even more errouneous then the former error, if it's possible for one of two errors to be "more erroneous" than the other.

    Regardless, your hair-splitting diversion is simply that, an attempt to run from the fact that you are in error either way.

    Reality remains that today's SCOTUS rulings were simply nothing but state's rights decisions, each one 5-4, and one along ideological lines.

    There is no comment there one way or the other on the definition of "marriage".

    "Marriage" remains what it has been for 12,000 years through the present, unchangable by nature: "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
    In other words, you'd rather run away from my actual position then debate it. This is pretty obvious since I have never used the term "redefine" never suggested that there was a redefinition, nor have I said anything other than this being a state's rights decision. If you think I have done any of these things, please quote me. If not you have a choice: either debate what I actually am arguing or continue to take the easy way out and debate what you want me to have said, which will make anything you say irrelevant. Your choice.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #864
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Except in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and most likely California where same sex marriage will now be recognized by the federal government and respective state governments. So...seems pretty "changed" to me. Which I believe is good, because tradition does not equate to inherently superior.
    No, these are simply isolated pocketed violations of definitive propriety, ideologically compelled, and do not at all reflect any "redefinition", as violations have no power to "redefine", obviously.

    When ideological power swings to the opposite side in these states, these laws will get reversed, so there's nothing of earth-shattering occurrence here.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  5. #865
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Ideologues on the left will likely miss this very important fact, only to then experience shock and dismay when future decisions in the matter don't go their way.

    This is all about the states and their rights over the federal government, nothing more.
    I don't really see any point in pursuing any future decisions. This was the perfect one. Same sex marriage will not become the next Roe. v Wade. This will be debated on the state level and state by state same sex marriage will be adopted. A few holdout states may face a ruling by SCOTUS but by then it will be a Loving v. Virginia type of ruling where most of the states already recognize it and the few remaining states struggle to justify their position. Many of the current justices will likely be long retired or dead by that point. This was the ruling most gay activists were seeking at this point in time; not a ruling for same sex marriage as a Constitutional right but a ruling that will allow same sex marriage advocates to gradually win the hearts and minds of the country.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  6. #866
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    In other words, you'd rather run away from my actual position then debate it. This is pretty obvious since I have never used the term "redefine" never suggested that there was a redefinition, nor have I said anything other than this being a state's rights decision. If you think I have done any of these things, please quote me. If not you have a choice: either debate what I actually am arguing or continue to take the easy way out and debate what you want me to have said, which will make anything you say irrelevant. Your choice.
    Here you employ the debate tactic of obfuscation via subterfuge, in which you purport to have stated something different than you actually did and implore me to debate that different thing .. which you never stated .. and, of course, you don't bother to restate what you never said .. but simply chastise me for not staying on your point .. that was never even made.



    If such obfuscation via subterfuge is all you have, then there simply is no debating with you, obviously.

    If you can do better, if you can actually clearly state a point rather than allude to something you never stated, then there's potential for debate.

    Until then, consider your point lost, understandably.

    What's important with respect to the much more important topical relevance, today's SCOTUS decisions did not at all speak to either the validity or invalidity of the oxymoronic SSM, but simply reiterated states' rights, nothing more.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  7. #867
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, these are simply isolated pocketed violations of definitive propriety, ideologically compelled, and do not at all reflect any "redefinition", as violations have no power to "redefine", obviously.

    When ideological power swings to the opposite side in these states, these laws will get reversed, so there's nothing of earth-shattering occurrence here.
    If that makes you feel better about it then good for you but the truth remains I can go marry a same sex partner in those states and it will be recognized by the federal government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  8. #868
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,724

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Here you employ the debate tactic of obfuscation via subterfuge, in which you purport to have stated something different than you actually did and implore me to debate that different thing .. which you never stated .. and, of course, you don't bother to restate what you never said .. but simply chastise me for not staying on your point .. that was never even made.



    If such obfuscation via subterfuge is all you have, then there simply is no debating with you, obviously.

    If you can do better, if you can actually clearly state a point rather than allude to something you never stated, then there's potential for debate.

    Until then, consider your point lost, understandably.

    What's important with respect to the much more important topical relevance, today's SCOTUS decisions did not at all speak to either the validity or invalidity of the oxymoronic SSM, but simply reiterated states' rights, nothing more.
    I gave you a chance to quote where I used the word "redefine" or where I said that the ruling was anything other than a states rights issue. This should be EASY if I actually did this. Why have you chosen to run from this challenge? Perhaps because I've called you on your strawmanning and instead of taking responsibility for it, you have chosen to dodge the fact that that's what you did?

    Tell me when you are ready to actually debate what I said.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #869
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I don't really see any point in pursuing any future decisions. This was the perfect one. Same sex marriage will not become the next Roe. v Wade. This will be debated on the state level and state by state same sex marriage will be adopted. A few holdout states may face a ruling by SCOTUS but by then it will be a Loving v. Virginia type of ruling where most of the states already recognize it and the few remaining states struggle to justify their position. Many of the current justices will likely be long retired or dead by that point. This was the ruling most gay activists were seeking at this point in time; not a ruling for same sex marriage as a Constitutional right but a ruling that will allow same sex marriage advocates to gradually win the hearts and minds of the country.
    With respect to "gradually winning the hearts and minds of the country", that's not likely to happen, as all that's been done in effect is to increase animosity of those 92% of the population that are pissed that their 12,000 year-old institution is being brazenly hijacked by 2% of the population. That won't "win" anything .. but adversity.

    What is now likely to happen, however, is that states who think there is some nebulous "handwriting on the wall" will rush to create homarriage domestic partner civil unions.

    This will allow SS couples to get homarried, and have equal protection in their committed monogamous romantic relationships regarding their relationship's dealings with government and private enterprise while at the same time respecting definitive propriety and the institution of marriage that belongs to 92% of the population as a class.

    Once that begins to happen, once that becomes the norm, then your "Loving v. Virginia" will occur in reverse of what you imagine, likely compelling the comparative handful of states that have ludicrously sanctioned the oxymoronic SSM to invalidate those relationships .. or convert them to homarriages.



    You would do well to rethink your "likely outcome" scenarios in light of the most probable outcomes.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  10. #870
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I gave you a chance to quote where I used the word "redefine" or where I said that the ruling was anything other than a states rights issue. This should be EASY if I actually did this. Why have you chosen to run from this challenge? Perhaps because I've called you on your strawmanning and instead of taking responsibility for it, you have chosen to dodge the fact that that's what you did? Tell me when you are ready to actually debate what I said.


    Continuing your debate tactic of obfuscation via subterfuge is only a signal of capitulation.

    I'll take the "hint" that you're done.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •