Know this. No one, ever, in the history of this forum or any other, has ever changed their opinion based on these meaningless exchanges on the internet anyway. And my side of this has few that care to even bother, while your side pretty much lives on these sites 24/7. I'm in unfriendly territory every time I peak into this digitally socialist baby shower of a chat room.
We're all just practicing our typing skills and refining our grammatical prowess. Nothing more.
No, you can't. You can leave your property to a human being in a trust to be used to take care of the dog. The dog does not actually own the property.Can I leave my property to my dog? Sure i can.
True, but not relevant to this discussion. The state is barring gays from getting some of those benefits, in violation of the 14th amendment.I dont need a legal contract to get married and neither do gays unless i want something from the state
Between a man and a woman isn't universal either.The definition of having to be the same race was not universal in fact it was the exception
You're full of it. You absolutely do want to block someones' rights. You're hiding it behind this libertarian nonsense because you know the other arguments failed. You never, ever, even once expressed the idea that the government should "get out of marriage" until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was definitely going to happen.I dont want to block anyones rights. Im a Libertarian. What part of get government out of the marriage business escapes you?
Correct. Same-sex marriage does not affect you, and therefore should be legal. While the government can constitutionally eliminate all marriages, you know as well as everyone else that this isn't going to happen. As long as the government recognizes marriage, it must do so in accordance with the 14th amendment, which precludes a gender-based distinction in absence of an important state interest.Let anyone marry anyone and anything they like. It wont effect me.
See? This is how I know your libertarianism is bull****. An actual libertarian wouldn't be spitting out the social conservative rhetoric like this. An actual libertarian would recognize that the people have the right to dissolve a contract they created.If your going to do it go all the way. Of course marriage wont mean much anymore but then again its been all down hill since progressives introduced no fault divorce
You aren't a libertarian. Stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to me.
Last edited by Deuce; 03-06-14 at 11:02 AM.
One of you will end up here next!
Even if it's "changing" the definition of a man made social construct...so? That's fine if you want to whine, bitch, and complain about that...but that's not a constitutional argument against the notion that our current laws are unconstitutional. Nor is it the first time we've changed the definition of a man made social construct in the law. Being of "voting age" at one time meant you were over 21, later the definition was changed to mean someone over 18, as an example.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
An oldie but a goodie:
It's time to play: "Is this argument against interracial marriage or same sex marriage?" (Applause)
"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage."
This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."
State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.
“It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”
This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."
This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."
This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."
"Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."
"A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."
"I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."
We'll return with the answers...after these messages!