Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

  1. #11
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I will say that I know little about the Massachusetts state Constitution, however I will say I know a lot about the United States constitution and nowhere does our constitution even recognize marriage...

    Once again gays/gay "rights" advocates have absolutely ZERO understanding of law, the premise of law or the constitution in general. That's why progressives need community organizers and judicial activists on the bench to see it their way from a political perspective and not a legal perspective.

    If it matters I think it's fantastic that more states are embracing the Tenth Amendment but it's also a farce that every time the people speak and vote down gay marriage progressives go running to their progressiveness appointed judges screaming
    "no fair" despite the fact the people of said state have spoken - but that is EXACTLY what Obama and his **** minions want.... Every opportunity to challenge democracy and have democracy be put in the hands of a Judge....

    An informed 12-year-old can see the game the progressives are playing here, well considering they're on the same mental level as a 12-year-olds...
    1) Same-sex marriage bans are a classification on the basis of gender. (not sexuality. I can't marry you, neither of us are gay. I can't marry you because we are both male)
    2) In sex-based equal protection challenges, intermediate scrutiny applies. In such a challenge, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest
    3) The 14th amendment applies to the states, so the 10th amendment is not a shield here. "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    4) The Supreme Court dismissed Virginia's argument that "anyone can marry the same race, therefore there is no racial discrimination." This logic easily applies to the notion that "anyone can marry the opposite gender, therefore there is no gender discrimination."

    So tell me the important state interest served by same-sex marriage bans. Since you're the legal and constitutional expert here. Surely, as a believer in small government, you must agree that for the government to place a restriction on its citizens, it has to show a good reason. Otherwise it has no business making that decision for us. Right? Because that's what I believe.

    Failing that, feel free to point out errors in my legal thinking.
    Last edited by Deuce; 11-24-13 at 11:15 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    We'll include you into the group that fought against interracial marriage as well.
    Your inappropriate and unethical attempt at ad hominem is also erroneous in its premise.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Hopefully you and your ilk will either change with the times
    Though your use of the phrase "and your ilk" is simply meant as an unjustified derogatory, your rhetorical "hope" is unfounded, and obviously so.

    We speak the fact-based truth, and the that doesn't change.

    What usually happens is that those who don't speak the truth get found out, and discredited.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    or die out and make the world a better place.
    Wishing others were killed off by something so you won't have anyone to refute your erroneous arguments is not only futile, it's ethically and morally egregious.

    But, when ideologically compelled people don't have a fact-based truth argument and they eventually begin to get the realistic sense that their political agenda goal isn't going to be, in this case, nationally realized, they do often then succumb to ethically and morally egregious "hopes".

    Let us hope that, unlike the NAZIs in 1930s and 1940s Germany, such ideologues never again come into power to execute their "hopes".
    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?

  3. #13
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    Are you really so desperate in your hate
    Here, in typical "ideologue with an obviously losing argument" fashion, when you can't rationally present a cogent winning argument, you simply project about being desperate and emotionally erupt in castigating your opponent with the false epithet of being someone who "hates".

    Such unjustified name-calling is considered by psychologists as a sign of emotional immaturity.


    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    that you just can't resist pissing on progress
    Your assessment that politically motivated erroneously legislated violations of the word "marriage" in misuse is "progress" is, obviously, false.


    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    by saying that 100 years from now...
    My assessment about 100 years from now is highly the most likely scenario, all things considered.


    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    when of course, none of us will be around to tell you how wrong you were.
    Meaningless and erroneous.

    Meaningless in substance and erroneous in likely outcome.


    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    100 years from now there will be videos of gay weddings that will be available at click of a button, just like they are today.
    Yes .. as testimony to how the word "marriage" was once misused and no longer is.

    Thus they will serve as a timeless reminder against making that same mistake again.


    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    The proof that same sex couples *marry* and will continue to marry isn't going anywhere,
    Your assessment of what these examples are is simply erroneous.

    They are not examples of "marriage".

    They are examples of erroneous application and thus misuse of the word "marriage", misuse that will, not long from now, understandably, all things considered, come to an end.


    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    no matter how much you whine about it.
    Finishing with a projection about the sound you make when presenting your losing argument and the eventual end of that misuse of the word "marriage" is, as always, meaningless.
    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?

  4. #14
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Oh hey he's spouting his favorite meaningless term again.
    Your disparaging of a strawman is simply, as you project, meaningless, as well as irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Usage of words changes. Even "gay" and "faggot" are used differently today than a half century ago.
    Meaningless, as you here take words out of context.

    A "marriage of ideas" illustrates a valid usage of the word "marriage".

    But, "gay-marriage" does not.

    Why?

    Because in the first example a different context of the word "marriage" is being used than when marriage is used to mean the relationship between two people we're employing in this thread.

    So, because the context usage is different, the different though semantically related meaning is considered valid.

    But, when the context usage is the same, as in the "gay-marriage" oxymoron, then that does not exemplify a "changed meaning" of the word "marriage" at all, but simply erroneous usage of the word "marriage", nothing more.

    The different-context uses of "gay" and "faggot" are thus valid, because different context is employed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I'm not sure why you think this violates some universal principle.
    Now you know why it does (see above).


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Language changes, man.
    Your over-generalization is meaningless.

    Language changes according to rules that govern language usage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Instead of getting hung up on semantics,
    Following the rules governing language and word usage is not "getting hung up on semantics".

    Though I do realize that a number of people favoring word misuse in this issue do exhibit oppositional defiant disordered reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    maybe you should try seeing the people behind the issue.
    Meaningless false premise for justifying misuse of words.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Violating definitive propriety. (a term and concept you invented) I'm sure everybody is really, really concerned.
    Your two assessments here are both false, obviously.

    And again, the concerns of irrational reasoning from oppositional defiant disordered motivation isn't important.
    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. #15
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Here, in typical "ideologue with an obviously losing argument" fashion, when you can't rationally present a cogent winning argument, you simply project about being desperate and emotionally erupt in castigating your opponent with the false epithet of being someone who "hates".

    Such unjustified name-calling is considered by psychologists as a sign of emotional immaturity.



    Your assessment that politically motivated erroneously legislated violations of the word "marriage" in misuse is "progress" is, obviously, false.



    My assessment about 100 years from now is highly the most likely scenario, all things considered.



    Meaningless and erroneous.

    Meaningless in substance and erroneous in likely outcome.



    Yes .. as testimony to how the word "marriage" was once misused and no longer is.

    Thus they will serve as a timeless reminder against making that same mistake again.



    Your assessment of what these examples are is simply erroneous.

    They are not examples of "marriage".

    They are examples of erroneous application and thus misuse of the word "marriage", misuse that will, not long from now, understandably, all things considered, come to an end.



    Finishing with a projection about the sound you make when presenting your losing argument and the eventual end of that misuse of the word "marriage" is, as always, meaningless.
    The nonsense you repeatedly vomit on to this message board is based entirely on the ridiculous notion that the usage of words can't ever change.

    And I find it really, really cute that you think people are going to backtrack on the rights of homosexuals because of ​semantics.

    You think the use of words changes based on some sort of rules, but that's not how it works. Words are defined by how people use them, and those usages change.

    But keep whining about words you think you get to define. Rights trump semantics. And yes, it is semantics. You're arguing solely about the usage of words, that's the definition of semantics.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-08-13 at 01:23 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The nonsense you repeatedly vomit on to this message board
    Your projection about "nonsense" and "vomit" is irrelevant, though your and your side's continuous attempt to initiate ad hominems when you have an obvious losing argument is again noted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    is based entirely on the ridiculous notion that the usage of words can't ever change.
    False, with respect to both the erroneous nature of the substance of your clause here and your false accusations of a strawman.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    And I find it really, really cute
    Disparaging derogatory again noted, typical for you and your side when in a losing argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    that you think people are going to backtrack on the rights of homosexuals because of ​semantics.
    Your premise is false.

    There are rules that govern language, as I just got through explaining to you in a recent post in this thread.

    I know liberal political activists don't like valid rules, as they get in the way of making anything mean whatever they want it to mean.

    But, that's life.
    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. #17
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Your projection about "nonsense" and "vomit" is irrelevant, though your and your side's continuous attempt to initiate ad hominems when you have an obvious losing argument is again noted.



    False, with respect to both the erroneous nature of the substance of your clause here and your false accusations of a strawman.



    Disparaging derogatory again noted, typical for you and your side when in a losing argument.



    Your premise is false.

    There are rules that govern language, as I just got through explaining to you in a recent post in this thread.

    I know liberal political activists don't like valid rules, as they get in the way of making anything mean whatever they want it to mean.

    But, that's life.
    Pseudointellectual prose designed to give an air of smug superiority. Might work better if you used the terms correctly. Should I start accusing you of mental disorders too? Oh wait, that would be ad hominem. Can't have that.

    There are rules governing language. None of which require the word "marriage" to indicate a male-female relationship. Rather, it indicates a particular legal contract. Which supposed rule of language creates a barrier for two males to enter a specific legal contract?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Pseudointellectual prose designed to give an air of smug superiority.
    Your false accusation based on projection here is simply that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Might work better if you used the terms correctly.
    Meaningless disconnect, and certainly based on your error of comprehension.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Should I start accusing you of mental disorders too? Oh wait, that would be ad hominem. Can't have that.
    Now you're arguing with a strawman.

    Oppositional defiant disordered thinking and reaction behavior does not mean one is certifiably diagnosable.

    It's simply a valid way to accurately use metaphor to describe and educate about a frequently recurring theme in this matter.

    If you take exception to the metaphor, then it might be best to do some self-examination.

    Regardless, what I initiate isn't ad hominem, obviously.

    Ad hominem is initiating false accusation of "pseudointellectual prose" and "air of smug superiority" and "hater!" and other obvious ad hominems.

    When I then suggest, in response to your initiated ad hominem, via metaphor, that you examine your own stuff in reply to your initiation of ad hominems, accurately referring to them as projections when appropriate, that's always in response to you first castigating via ad hominems.

    You're just complaining here because you got your initiated ad hominems reflected back to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    There are rules governing language.
    As I accurately pointed out to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    None of which require the word "marriage" to indicate a male-female relationship.
    Here you employ obfuscation via subterfuge.

    The rules I presented to you about context prevent a word from having contradictory in-context meanings.

    The reason marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" has nothing whatsoever to do with those rules, I'm sure you know.

    It has everything to do with the fact that that's what marriage simply means in this context.

    Talk about taking things out of context!


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Rather, it indicates a particular legal contract.
    And, talk about pseudointellectual presentation, here you meander from an erroneous premise to erroneously conclude that the foundational meaning of the word "marriage" isn't "between a man and woman as husband and wife" but is "indicative of a particular legal contract".

    Pseudointellectuals often meander from relevant apples to irrelevant oranges, never realizing their error.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Which supposed rule of language creates a barrier for two males to enter a specific legal contract?
    And, since your premise about apples is expressed in irrelevant and thus meaningless oranges terms, your oranges conclusions is erroneous as it does not apply to apples.

    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?

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Your inappropriate and unethical attempt at ad hominem is also erroneous in its premise.



    Though your use of the phrase "and your ilk" is simply meant as an unjustified derogatory, your rhetorical "hope" is unfounded, and obviously so.

    We speak the fact-based truth, and the that doesn't change.

    What usually happens is that those who don't speak the truth get found out, and discredited.



    Wishing others were killed off by something so you won't have anyone to refute your erroneous arguments is not only futile, it's ethically and morally egregious.

    But, when ideologically compelled people don't have a fact-based truth argument and they eventually begin to get the realistic sense that their political agenda goal isn't going to be, in this case, nationally realized, they do often then succumb to ethically and morally egregious "hopes".

    Let us hope that, unlike the NAZIs in 1930s and 1940s Germany, such ideologues never again come into power to execute their "hopes".
    Oh I see you finally managed to Godwin the thread. How very useless of you. Facts don't change, you and your ilk have already lost and will soon have to deal with SSM becoming a REALITY. Deal with it. I will add you to the people I will toast when SSM becomes legal across the U.S.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Oh I see you finally managed to Godwin the thread. How very useless of you. Facts don't change, you and your ilk have already lost and will soon have to deal with SSM becoming a REALITY. Deal with it. I will add you to the people I will toast when SSM becomes legal across the U.S.
    Meaningless, all of your reply .. except to point out that you know longer state that you wish "me and my ilk" death.

    Regardless, I assure you, 100 years from now, essentially no same-sex couples will want to "marry".

    And, nobody will be "toasting" anyone about it.
    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?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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