• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

notquiteright said:
as an ammo burner yes, so it was you and Kerry, key-rect? I never weighed what I burned up, how do you even do that? I was a ma deuce gunner on a 113 when I first got to Germany, we never weighed our ammo.

Now to address your rather snarky mayhem response... you agree there is rampart mayhem in revolution/war?

The missing science facts-
That were exists a fossil record, dna research, earth strata that are scientific facts supporting a theory, just like gravity?

Now how about the odds of many crossing over to support whoever you think would actually conduct a revolution?

You seem to throw a lot of vague out there, then walk away.
Click to expand...

Theories can not be proven, only disproven sometimes. Scientific facts and artifacts do exist. sometimes these "facts" also get disproven. scientists are people. People make mistakes.

How many would cross over? I have a list of names here somewhere.... :)

I counted my ammo boxes, later converted to rough tons, easier to remember as I've forgotten how many boxes. That was 35 years ago.
450 somethin, 460...forget
I chose NOT to count bodies.
never met Kerry

I'm a patriot.
I don't want to see bloody civil war in this country. Ever.
A political revolution restoring traditional constitutional ideals? YES!
Is there a danger the middle class will riot?
Of course.
Is it VERY likely eminent?
I hope not.

Mayhem is a crime, meaning unlawful.
Murder and mayhem do not occur in war.
the killing and maiming is lawfully done.
Not crimes.
Would rebels be guilty of mayhem?
The singular only justification for revolution has ALWAYS been; success.
Other wise, failed revolutionaries are criminals and traitors.

Am I deliberately vague?

Yes.
I'm not fomenting a rebellion.

Am I frothing at the mouth?

Depends on the head on the mug. :)
 
Last edited:
Why the hell is the civil war being discussed? You want to secede/defect over this, go right ahead. Only, don't ever mistake the fact that you will be remembered as villains either way, or that what you're espousing is anything less than complete hatred.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not ware of anyone who married for the benefits provided by government, as they tend to work both ways. The usual reasons are moral ones...
Click to expand...

I'm sure there plenty of heterosexual people who marry for moral reasons. And plenty who love each and decide to marry for the benefits. Or did as I and marry simply because they love each other and want to spend their lives together.

Same with homosexual couples.
 
disneydude said:
Navy Pride woke up to the nightmare that he should have expected for a long time. Yesterday was a bad day to be a bigot in America.
Click to expand...

Bigots like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and more that half the voters in California and many other states? Especially Obama, who decided he would "evolve" when the time was politically right for him. People are bigots that believe marriage is between a man and a woman, only? Or is that just if they are republican. Are they bigots too if they believe the SCOTUS has made an error? You really must have a broad definition of "bigot".
 
Anthony60 said:
Bigots like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and more that half the voters in California and many other states? Especially Obama, who decided he would "evolve" when the time was politically right for him. People are bigots that believe marriage is between a man and a woman, only? Or is that just if they are republican. Are they bigots too if they believe the SCOTUS has made an error? You really must have a broad definition of "bigot".
Click to expand...

Someone who is against the civil rights of LGBT people, are certainly bigots.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Abortion is a different issue that is often not affected by aging, but affected by procreating or the desire to procreate. False equivalency.
Click to expand...

It's a civil rights issue. At least that's the way it's marketed.
 
"Entire Military Comes Out Of Closet, Confirms They Are All Gay



WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a shocking turn of events in light of the Supreme Court striking down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, the entire United States military has confirmed they are all gay.

“I can’t tell you what an unbelievable day this is,” said Specialist Jim Ruckers. “Even with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed, I wasn’t comfortable telling anyone. But after today, I came out, got a boyfriend two hours later and now we’re getting married!”

Entire Military Comes Out Of Closet, Confirms They Are All Gay
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
"Entire Military Comes Out Of Closet, Confirms They Are All Gay



WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a shocking turn of events in light of the Supreme Court striking down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, the entire United States military has confirmed they are all gay.

“I can’t tell you what an unbelievable day this is,” said Specialist Jim Ruckers. “Even with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed, I wasn’t comfortable telling anyone. But after today, I came out, got a boyfriend two hours later and now we’re getting married!”

Entire Military Comes Out Of Closet, Confirms They Are All Gay
Click to expand...

Here I thought only the navy was all gay.
 
yobarnacle said:
Theories can not be proven, only disproven sometimes. Scientific facts and artifacts do exist. sometimes these "facts" also get disproven. scientists are people. People make mistakes.

How many would cross over? I have a list of names here somewhere.... :) I counted my ammo boxes, later converted to rough tons, easier to remember as I've forgotten how many boxes. That was 35 years ago. 450 somethin, 460...forget I chose NOT to count bodies. never met Kerry I'm a patriot. I don't want to see bloody civil war in this country. Ever. A political revolution restoring traditional constitutional ideals? YES! Is there a danger the middle class will riot? Of course. Is it VERY likely eminent? I hope not.

Mayhem is a crime, meaning unlawful. Murder and mayhem do not occur in war. the killing and maiming is lawfully done. Not crimes. Would rebels be guilty of mayhem? The singular only justification for revolution has ALWAYS been; success Other wise, failed revolutionaries are criminals and traitors. Am I deliberately vague? Yes. I'm not fomenting a rebellion. Am I frothing at the mouth? Depends on the head on the mug. :)
Click to expand...

Can you disprove gravity? When scientists use theory the concept is past prove/disprove and now awaiting that magic part that convinces even the worst skeptic it is valid. The Theory of Relativity is one of the newer ones and is still on occasion wobbling on the knife edge- Evolution and Gravity are not. They can make mistakes but not to the point of invalidation. There certainly is no credible rival to evolution.

I'm sure you have a list of names... :roll: Howsomeever the list that wouldn't is beyond your ability to list.

It just made me wonder about you to say 8 tons, not around 8 tons or a bit more/less of 8 tons but just flat out 8 tons. You have the distinction of being the first gunner I know to have kept track of the number of boxes he fired and then converted them to weight. (most are too busy to keep track, many don't use boxes but bandoleers)

Odd you would claim to only want peaceful political revolution when you posted several rather strident rants about the middle class rising up in revolution and another poster is safe in Europe... a peaceful political revolution... what is the fear??? You seem to be back tracking now, and that is just as well/fairly typical.

Mayhem has three definitions I see. That you only see the first is telling. Be it riots in the street as you referred to as being mild compared to what the middle class revolution will be seems to indicate mayhem... but you now dance away from that...again just as well.

Now you claim to not be fomenting, yet you 'see' a time where the middle class will rise up in revolution making past riots look tame... :confused:

I'd agree with you on one thing, it does seem to involve a frothy mug.... :2wave:
 
Your Star said:
Someone who is against the civil rights of LGBT people, are certainly bigots.
Click to expand...

big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Origin:
1665–75; bigot + -ry, formation parallel to French bigoterie

Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

This applies to the advocates of homosexual marriage, too, that have proven themselves to be shrill, hateful, narrow-minded, biased and utterly intolerant of beliefs different from their own.
 
Papa bull said:
big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Origin:
1665–75; bigot + -ry, formation parallel to French bigoterie

Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

This applies to the advocates of homosexual marriage, too, that have proven themselves to be shrill, hateful, narrow-minded, biased and utterly intolerant of beliefs different from their own.
Click to expand...

Wait... so if someone is completely intolerant of someone who is against civil rights towards blacks or Jews, that person TOO is a bigot?
 
Anthony60 said:
Bigots like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and more that half the voters in California and many other states? Especially Obama, who decided he would "evolve" when the time was politically right for him. People are bigots that believe marriage is between a man and a woman, only? Or is that just if they are republican. Are they bigots too if they believe the SCOTUS has made an error? You really must have a broad definition of "bigot".
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes that somehow THEY are entitled to special rights and support denying them to others are bigots. Its not difficult. Just pick up a dictionary.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Wait... so if someone is completely intolerant of someone who is against civil rights towards blacks or Jews, that person TOO is a bigot?
Click to expand...

Bias, narrow-minded, utter intolerance to other viewpoints... Yeah, people who hate blacks or Jews could qualify just as much as people who hate those against gay marriage would qualify.
 
disneydude said:
Anyone who believes that somehow THEY are entitled to special rights and support denying them to others are bigots. Its not difficult. Just pick up a dictionary.
Click to expand...

I see you don't approve of affirmative action, either. I think the Supreme Court will be ruling on that soon, too.
 
Papa bull said:
Bias, narrow-minded, utter intolerance to other viewpoints... Yeah, people who hate blacks or Jews could qualify just as much as people who hate those against gay marriage would qualify.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. What about those who are intolerant of those AGAINST giving civil rights towards blacks and Jews? By your definition, folks like that would also be bigots... just like those who hate those FOR SSM.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's not what I said. What about those who are intolerant of those AGAINST giving civil rights towards blacks and Jews? By your definition, folks like that would also be bigots... just like those who hate those FOR SSM.
Click to expand...

If you can't tolerate any view on something but your own, you are a bigot by definition. Being for or against isn't the criteria. Being utterly intolerant of any opposing views is.
 
Papa bull said:
If you can't tolerate any view on something but your own, you are a bigot by definition. Being for or against isn't the criteria. Being utterly intolerant of any opposing views is.
Click to expand...

Good to know you are consistent on this issue... however, I cannot agree that being intolerant of folks who would deny the civil rights of others is being bigoted. I believe that you are expanding the definition of "bigot" to something that is not used, generally. Bigotry is generally used in relation to intolerance towards groups BECAUSE of that group's difference in race, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc... not just their beliefs. For example, being intolerant of conservatives or liberals would not be considered bigotry with the standard usage of the word.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Good to know you are consistent on this issue... however, I cannot agree that being intolerant of folks who would deny the civil rights of others is being bigoted. I believe that you are expanding the definition of "bigot" to something that is not used, generally. Bigotry is generally used in relation to intolerance towards groups BECAUSE of that group's difference in race, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc... not just their beliefs. For example, being intolerant of conservatives or liberals would not be considered bigotry with the standard usage of the word.
Click to expand...

Being against the redefinition of marriage shouldn't generally be considered "bigotted", either, but the accusations of bigotry are ubiqutous from the homosexual marriage advocates. And while you may argue that it's really all about civil rights, I think that argument fails miserably because homosexuals have all the rights anyone else has. It's the definition of marriage that doesn't suit their preferences that is the problem. The fact that I have this point of view would have homosexual advocates calling me a bigot and in reality, their hardline position is hateful and utterly intolerant of opposition and is, in fact, bigotted. If you must qualify that by making it against a group, then let's say they're bigotted against "evangelicals". I can't tell you how many times I've heard homosexuals spouting hate speech about them.
 
Papa bull said:
I see you don't approve of affirmative action, either. I think the Supreme Court will be ruling on that soon, too.
Click to expand...

Depends on what kind of affirmative action you are talking about. Most people don't understand what it is and believe it is about quota. They only understand what they have been told.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Depends on what kind of affirmative action you are talking about. Most people don't understand what it is and believe it is about quotas and hiring preferences. They only understand what they have been told.
Click to expand...

The kind that affords special rights.
 
Papa bull said:
Being against the redefinition of marriage shouldn't generally be considered "bigotted", either, but the accusations of bigotry are ubiqutous from the homosexual marriage advocates. And while you may argue that it's really all about civil rights, I think that argument fails miserably because homosexuals have all the rights anyone else has. It's the definition of marriage that doesn't suit their preferences that is the problem. The fact that I have this point of view would have homosexual advocates calling me a bigot and in reality, their hardline position is hateful and utterly intolerant of opposition and is, in fact, bigotted. If you must qualify that by making it against a group, then let's say they're bigotted against "evangelicals". I can't tell you how many times I've heard homosexuals spouting hate speech about them.
Click to expand...

Firstly, when debating the reason for the legality of SSM, I rarely if ever argue the "equality" position. It's a weak argument with lots of holes. Secondly, you are being stereotypical by lumping together all advocates of SSM and all homosexuals in one fell swoop. There are plenty of folks on this board who are against SSM whom I neither consider bigoted, dishonest, or ignorant on the issue. Further, you not being on the other side of the issue, have no experienced being called "defective" or "sick", or being told that one's relationship is any less real, valid or important because of your sexual orientation. Bigoted statements from YOUR side of the issue are quite significant as is the intolerance. I would hope that you would not deny that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, when debating the reason for the legality of SSM, I rarely if ever argue the "equality" position. It's a weak argument with lots of holes. Secondly, you are being stereotypical by lumping together all advocates of SSM and all homosexuals in one fell swoop. There are plenty of folks on this board who are against SSM whom I neither consider bigoted, dishonest, or ignorant on the issue. Further, you not being on the other side of the issue, have no experienced being called "defective" or "sick", or being told that one's relationship is any less real, valid or important because of your sexual orientation. Bigoted statements from YOUR side of the issue are quite significant as is the intolerance. I would hope that you would not deny that.
Click to expand...

There have been voices of hate on the preservation of marriage side but that was no reason for activists to snarl and bite the hand offering civil unions with all the trappings and rights of marriage. At this point, your side is spouting more hate-speech than those opposing homosexual marriage. Just reading these forums, it is blatantly obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom