Page 188 of 193 FirstFirst ... 88138178186187188189190 ... LastLast
Results 1,871 to 1,880 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1871
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,496

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    They are two completely different things. In one situation a man and a woman are being prevented from getting married because of race. Marriage is still between a man and a woman, no one is trying to change marriage, it was between a man and a woman, as always, before and after.

    In the other, people want marriage itself changed, expanded to include different mixes of genders, no longer just a man and a woman.

    Of course, this is quite obvious, but the left needs to ignore facts to advance their agenda, and that's all this is about. If they thought it would work in their favor to switch their beliefs, they'd do it tomorrow.

    Just like Obama did when they decided he'd get more money to no longer believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Jusy played you guys like a fiddle.
    Who is this "they"? It's not most of the citizens out there, that's for sure.

    And of course politicians follow the herd on SSM like they do on all other issues. Politicians out in front and out of step with their constituents on big issues are AKA 'Losers.' The GOP will come around soon enough and it will be like supporting segregation or bans on interracial marriage.

  2. #1872
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    None of your points above rebut anything I posted.
    Well, you really didn't post anything of substance, just generalizations

    TV is not being banned by law from children because it might be bad for them, yet that argument was used as to why same sex couples and interracial couples should not have been allowed to marry legally.
    The fact is, the Loving case was not about marriage at all, it was about a black man being discriminated against because of the color of his skin. Marriage just happened to be involved in this case. Again, not about marriage, it was about racism.

    And Southern Democrats of the past are currently conservative Republicans...
    LOL!!! You have got to be kidding me! Boy, democrats will not take responsibility for ANYTHING! Yeah, when did Robert Byrd become a Republican? I don't remember that happening.

    History Lesson.jpg

    .
    Last edited by Anthony60; 07-05-15 at 10:17 PM.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  3. #1873
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Who is this "they"? It's not most of the citizens out there, that's for sure.
    You know who you are.

    And of course politicians follow the herd on SSM like they do on all other issues. Politicians out in front and out of step with their constituents on big issues are AKA 'Losers.' The GOP will come around soon enough and it will be like supporting segregation or bans on interracial marriage.
    A comment like that tells me that you don't even know what the issue is. But if you do, let's hear it.

    I think it is pretty despicable that Obama switched solely for votes and contribution. It sure says a lot about those that voted for him too.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  4. #1874
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Well, you really didn't post anything of substance, just generalizations


    The fact is, the Loving case was not about marriage at all, it was about a black man being discriminated against because of the color of his skin. Marriage just happened to be involved in this case. Again, not about marriage, it was about racism.



    LOL!!! You hace got to be kidding me! Boy, democrats will not take responsibility for ANYTHING! Yeah, when did Robert Byrd become a Republican? I don't remember that happening.History Lesson.jpg

    .
    You know absolutely nothing about the Loving case. The first clue is the fact that you think it was a black man involved. No. Mr. Loving was white, Mrs. Loving was black.

    ilovemylife: INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE - U.S. Supreme Court Case trumps states' rights in Loving v. Virginia in 1967

    And the late Senator Byrd renounced the hateful things he did in the past, during the Civil Rights Era.

    "For the 2003–2004 session, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[61] rated Byrd's voting record as being 100 percent in line with the NAACP's position on the 33 Senate bills they evaluated. "

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...olitical_views

    So, no Sen. Byrd ended up just renouncing the "Southern Democrat" ways.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #1875
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You know absolutely nothing about the Loving case. The first clue is the fact that you think it was a black man involved. No. Mr. Loving was white, Mrs. Loving was black.
    Wow, how absolutely foolish of you. That's what you choose to comment on, that it's a woman, not a man? As usual, zero substance. It doesn't matter, as I have shown, this case has nothing to do with SSM. Something you have been unable to challenge with any type of thoughtful argument. Just a flip comment about who is who.

    And the late Senator Byrd renounced the hateful things he did in the past, during the Civil Rights Era.
    Oh, how very nice of him. Klansman. Still got elected, time after time, democrats kept voting for him, until he died. Klu Klux Klan. Think the left would be okay with the Republican Majority leader being a former Klansman? I wouldn't be okay with that. Democrats were all to happy too keep voting for one. That was the best guy they could put up, a former Klansman? For shame.

    So, no Sen. Byrd ended up just renouncing the "Southern Democrat" ways.
    Awww... well that makes it all right then, doesn't it.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  6. #1876
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Wow, how absolutely foolish of you. That's what you choose to comment on, that it's a woman, not a man? As usual, zero substance. It doesn't matter, as I have shown, this case has nothing to do with SSM. Something you have been unable to challenge with any type of thoughtful argument. Just a flip comment about who is who.

    Oh, how very nice of him. Klansman. Still got elected, time after time, democrats kept voting for him, until he died. Klu Klux Klan. Think the left would be okay with the Republican Majority leader being a former Klansman? I wouldn't be okay with that. Democrats were all to happy too keep voting for one. That was the best guy they could put up, a former Klansman? For shame.

    Awww... well that makes it all right then, doesn't it.
    You're the one who doesn't know anything about the case, obviously, and when shown the similarities that are there, especially in the legal arguments, argue about how they aren't of any substance, despite not even knowing what is being talked about.

    I could care less what or why anyone voted for Sen. Byrd. I didn't. He wasn't even in a state I ever lived in. But he denounced them in 1952. I tend to look at who people are and give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't hold old "crimes" or deeds against people if they appear to be sorry for what they did. They still may have to face punishment for what they did, if it was an actual crime, but that doesn't require holding a grudge. Unlike you appear to be, I'm not partisan. I also don't care whether someone has a D or an R or anything else by their name as a candidate or representative, but rather where they actually stand on issues and how they conduct themselves as a representative, if they have already served or what they have been doing if they haven't.

    It is dishonest though to try to claim Southern Democrats of the past are not conservative Republicans now if they maintained that same ideology from the past that led them to fighting things like taking down interracial marriage bans or integration.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #1877
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,496

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    You know who you are.
    My brother is gay. I can promise you that my view on SSM has nothing to do with politics. I've also been married for 24 years, and am damn positive him getting married does exactly NOTHING to diminish my marriage or my life in any way whatsoever. It's a mystery to me how expanding rights to marriage can possibly diminish the institution of marriage.

    A comment like that tells me that you don't even know what the issue is. But if you do, let's hear it.
    No idea what you're looking for.

    I think it is pretty despicable that Obama switched solely for votes and contribution. It sure says a lot about those that voted for him too.
    Obama is a politician, running for a national office. Anyone who has ever won that office, at least in the past century or more, has taken dozens of positions based on politics, polling, preferences of their donor class, political realities, whatever. The ones who stand on principles, no matter what, are those folks who poll in single digits, aka losers, and not-POTUS when the counting is done.

  8. #1878
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,496

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Well, you really didn't post anything of substance, just generalizations


    The fact is, the Loving case was not about marriage at all, it was about a black man being discriminated against because of the color of his skin. Marriage just happened to be involved in this case. Again, not about marriage, it was about racism.



    LOL!!! You have got to be kidding me! Boy, democrats will not take responsibility for ANYTHING! Yeah, when did Robert Byrd become a Republican? I don't remember that happening.
    Just remember, as of 2011 46% of Republicans in Mississippi still believe interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. Only 40% thought it should be allowed. These stone age cave dwellers are the GOP's problem now.

  9. #1879
    Engineer
    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    12,253

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Well, you really didn't post anything of substance, just generalizations

    The fact is, the Loving case was not about marriage at all, it was about a black man being discriminated against because of the color of his skin. Marriage just happened to be involved in this case. Again, not about marriage, it was about racism.
    That's not true. The same arguments that are used against SSM today were used to ban interracial marriage back then. Black people weren't denied the right to marry, only the right to marry white people. They always had the ability to marry someone of their own race. Likewise, gays have always had the opportunity to marry someone of an opposite sex. It's essentially identical.
    "If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger

  10. #1880
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    That's not true. The same arguments that are used against SSM today were used to ban interracial marriage back then. Black people weren't denied the right to marry, only the right to marry white people. They always had the ability to marry someone of their own race. Likewise, gays have always had the opportunity to marry someone of an opposite sex. It's essentially identical.
    Nope. One was trying to constrict marriage to less than what it was, between a man and a woman. The other is trying to change the very definition to include more than just a man and a woman. Completely different. But anyway, that is getting way off on a tangent away from what the Court did.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

Posting Permissions

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