Page 47 of 69 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 690

Thread: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

  1. #461
    Advisor Macintosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    11-18-08 @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    325

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    The fact that it can't even remotely be proven is sufficient for me to call it nonsense. That's kinda the whole reason people DONT believe in things like fairies and leprechauns. And gods and goddesses. Their existance cannot be proven, so believing in them is pretty.... senseless, really.
    It's called faith. You should look it up.


    You shouldn't use wikipedia, it's really not a very reliable source.
    Actually, if the information is referenced - it is. If not, then no, it isn't reliable.

    And yeah, I know idiots have made people's natural sexuality a crime in the past. Prior to the nonsense spouted in the bible.

    But that really wasn't my point. My point was that things being "right" or "wrong" are not so because they were penned in some mystical book of fairy tales.
    If you are living according to God's law, they are wrong. But, as I noted, God does not sanction legislating His law. Therefore, I have no problem with same-sex marriage.

    I make fun of adults who believe in Santa too.
    Well, you're really only making fun of yourself. I don't know why you think you have the right to denigrate others for believing in something you cannot disprove.
    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

  2. #462
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Simpleton Trolls

    "Simpleton Trolls"
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    I specifically asked, "Can I legally kill an ILLEGAL immigrant?" To most people, the term ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT indicates that I'm speaking of those ILLEGALLY PRESENT on U.S. territory. And you said that they could, in fact, be killed - legally. If you continue down this path, I will be forced to link the post in which you said this. You were proven wrong, of course, by a Supreme Court decision and, more importantly, a statement from the author of the Fourteenth Amendment. Verily, you have no clue what you are talking about.
    Your proof, as you put it, is a joke.
    The jist of your comical proof was a case dictating that Texas must offer a positive right of education to illegal immigrant children.
    Start a thead and defend that goofball position and see how much support you get.
    You should be arrested for pandering to criminals!!
    But you do not consider that to be judicial activism; buffoonery.
    As an even greater brain fart, you use that nonsense as justification against fundamental precepts of the collective institution; retarded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Not true. I disagree with tons of Supreme Court decisions, but the only one I consider to be judicial activism is Roe v. Wade. The rest I just disagree with but I can understand where the majority opinion arises from.
    Nice try; you assert that illegals being entitled to education is not judicial activism and that dissenting opinions are insignificant; a directive to look up would be brief, however, in classic form, all you see is more of your own intestines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Um, sure.
    Yes, genius, because it's clear to most people that laws against murder, involuntary servitude, etc. come from these rights you say do not exist. They have been legislated, which means they are laws. Which means that the Equal Protection clause guarantees these laws protect all people, not just citizens.
    And these laws come from? Yay! Natural Law!
    Perhaps coward is not the correct term for your avoidance for a defense of inalienable rights, as it is clear that you are uneducated and ignorant, which may indicate that there is no purpose in discussing something beyond your scope of reason.

    Natural laws, as defined by convention, are meant to indicate laws for the nature of man, and the justification for the assertion of those laws is divine conscription, which is inconsistent with natural selection.
    The conventional misapplication of the terms natural laws is entirely different from the laws of nature, which is the greater meaning of the term natural laws, and natural law is morally relative.

    Thus, eventhough Equal Protection extended rights to persons within US jurisdiction, those persons, which are not in the US legally, are abdicated from US jurisdiction and therefore unentitled to protected rights.

    The aforementioned rhetoric avoids the basic ineptitude of your person argument, which is that non-citizens within jurisdiction must be born in order to meet the equal requirement of citizens to be bequeathed with rights.
    That is, your pathetic person at any stage argument is a hopeless lie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye
    Moreover, I expounded that equal protection cannot abate, and must be compliant with, the requirements incumbent upon a citizen to receive rights, most notably, the specific requirement of birth.
    Which is false. Why don't you tell the members of this thread why you were unable to prove what you say. "My logic has not found its way into mainstream consideration." P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C
    You cannot contend and lose again.
    Anyone with any sense understands my statements, and anyone with any sense sees through the shallow depths of your canned, empty, inept, response of denial.
    You seek allegiance through a popularity contest, that is the only way for you to win because your "logic" and "proof" are overwhelmed and defeated.
    It is all important to you that you be accepted as part of your uniform fettish.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye
    Permit this preamble comic assay - (all MEN - literally unincluding females?)
    Why don't you just admit that you have no clue what you're talking about and that your legal reasoning is comparable to that of a smurf's?
    You blatantly lie that my positions are false, classic lawyer, classic fundamentalist psychosis.
    Though I honestly wonder if you lack the ability to fathom my positions.

    The comic assay was that the Preamble states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." and, you reference the assertion to justify "natural rights"; yet, women did not have the right to vote; thus, it literally meant only men.
    And, do not forget slavery, which according to the book of israelism, and book of qurayshism is satisfactory; so much for natural laws.

    My assertions are beyond your ad homen; their popularity grows and, your lame attempts at reason are increasingly mocked.
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 11-09-08 at 03:48 AM.

  3. #463
    The Image b4 Transition
    Lightdemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    beneath the surface
    Last Seen
    05-31-12 @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,829

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    I haven't seen Monk-Eye get this pissed in a long time

    Via gon Dios, Macintosh....
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Let the public school provide the basics, you as the parent can do the fine tuning.

  4. #464
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    It's called faith. You should look it up.
    Yeah I know what it's called. Knowing what it's called doesn't make it any more rational.


    If you are living according to God's law, they are wrong. But, as I noted, God does not sanction legislating His law. Therefore, I have no problem with same-sex marriage.
    Then I have no issue with you. Obviously I misread some of your posts, then.

    Well, you're really only making fun of yourself. I don't know why you think you have the right to denigrate others for believing in something you cannot disprove.
    How am I making fun of myself? (I mean, I DO make fun of myself, but not for this reason)

  5. #465
    Advisor Macintosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    11-18-08 @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    325

    Re: Simpleton Trolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Simpleton Trolls"
    Your proof, as you put it, is a joke.
    Yes. Supreme Court decisions and statements from the Fourteenth Amendment's author are jokes; an amendment, I might add, you are trying to use as evidence for your whole "Equal Protection is granted to citizens only!"

    The jist of your comical proof was a case dictating that Texas must offer a positive right of education to illegal immigrant children.
    It was simply establishing that non-citizens are in fact protected by the Equal Protection clause. Let us just look at Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment just one more time:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    So the blue portion defines just what a citizen is, hence the bolded word "citizen." Now the red portion delineated just who is entitled to Equal Protection. The bolded word is of course the most important. Tell me, you can read well, is the red bolded word "citizen" or is it "person"?

    If that isn't enough for you, perhaps this snip from an online Google book entitled "American Civil Liberties" will:

    The Supreme Court has held that aliens or non-citizens in the United States are entitled to constitutional protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. This view is consistent with the plain language of the amendments that extend protection in the relevant clauses "persons," not citizens. Even non-citizens who are undocumented are guaranteed protection by these amendments.

    Now let's look at a statement by an author of the Fourteenth Amendment:

    "A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."


    Google Book

    Start a thead and defend that goofball position and see how much support you get. You should be arrested for pandering to criminals!!
    I'm pretty sure most people would err on the side of the Constitution, which means you'll have no supporter except for maybe your mom.

    But you do not consider that to be judicial activism; buffoonery.
    As an even greater brain fart, you use that nonsense as justification against fundamental precepts of the collective institution; retarded.
    Oh, you mean those "fundamental precepts" that you can't seem to find any evidence for because your logic "...has not found its way into mainstream consideration." Talk about retarded.

    Nice try; you assert that illegals being entitled to education is not judicial activism and that dissenting opinions are insignificant; a directive to look up would be brief, however, in classic form, all you see is more of your own intestines.
    Perhaps the plain language in the Fourteenth Amendment is the reason illegals and non-citizens, generally, are entitled to Equal Protection under the law. It says, "...nor deny any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It doesn't say CITIZEN like you want it to say - it says PERSON!

    Perhaps coward is not the correct term for your avoidance for a defense of inalienable rights, as it is clear that you are uneducated and ignorant, which may indicate that there is no purpose in discussing something beyond your scope of reason.
    Ah, yes. So now that I've made you look like the flaming ignoramus you are, you resort to these halfassed attacks.

    The bottom line is that inalienable rights have been legislated from the time our nation first raised its flag. The problem, however, was figuring out who would be considered a person thereby deserving the protection these rights granted. As your degree in Wikipedia has taught you, black people were not, at first, considered people, therefore rights were not extended to them. They are now, however.

    Natural laws, as defined by convention, are meant to indicate laws for the nature of man, and the justification for the assertion of those laws is divine conscription, which is inconsistent with natural selection.
    And I care about natural selection why? We don't live in caves anymore. Wait. Strike that. Most of us don't live in caves anymore.

    How is the connection from that cave, anyway?

    The conventional misapplication of the terms natural laws is entirely different from the laws of nature, which is the greater meaning of the term natural laws, and natural law is morally relative.
    Another failed attempt to sound intelligent. You are on a roll.

    Thus, eventhough Equal Protection extended rights to persons within US jurisdiction, those persons, which are not in the US legally, are abdicated from US jurisdiction and therefore unentitled to protected rights.
    Good thing every legal scholar, Supreme Court, judge, person, citizen, dog, and parasite disagrees with you.

    The aforementioned rhetoric avoids the basic ineptitude of your person argument, which is that non-citizens within jurisdiction must be born in order to meet the equal requirement of citizens to be bequeathed with rights.
    Yet again you make another claim you are unable to support with any evidence. I've debunked this particular claim roughly ten times now - on the other thread. Good to see you don't give up, however.

    That is, your pathetic person at any stage argument is a hopeless lie.
    You cannot contend and lose again.
    Um, in your little mind - maybe. In reality? Nope. I've actually referenced all of my contentions and assertions. You've not referenced a solitary one. But, I'm sorry, that's because your logic "has not found its way into mainstream consideration."

    Anyone with any sense understands my statements, and anyone with any sense sees through the shallow depths of your canned, empty, inept, response of denial.
    And the shallow depths of the canned, empty, inept U.S. Constitution, I might add.

    You seek allegiance through a popularity contest, that is the only way for you to win because your "logic" and "proof" are overwhelmed and defeated.
    Um, sure. Even though I've pissed off the majority of people on this forum, I seek victory via popularity. Riiight. So, plan on actually proving all that BS you spout? Wait. My bad again. I keep forgetting that your "...logic has not found its way into mainstream consideration." Silly 'ol me.

    It is all important to you that you be accepted as part of your uniform fettish. You blatantly lie that my positions are false, classic lawyer, classic fundamentalist psychosis.
    You do mean "fetish," right? And I've not lied once. If you think attacking me like you have is going to draw intelligent people away from the fact that you're a wannabe lawyer who is completely ignorant of the law, then you are sorely mistaken. Your thesaurus-influenced posts do not befuddle the minds of most people, which is what you attempt with the constant usage of ten-dollar words. It might help, too, if you used them in the right context once in awhile. Just a piece of advice.

    Though I honestly wonder if you lack the ability to fathom my positions.
    Your positions are ridiculous. They contain not a single, solitary brick of constitutional foundation. You posting is like a horse climaxing. It's messy and the horse doesn't remember much of it afterwards.

    The comic assay was that the Preamble states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." and, you reference the assertion to justify "natural rights"; yet, women did not have the right to vote; thus, it literally meant only men.

    And, do not forget slavery, which according to the book of israelism, and book of qurayshism is satisfactory; so much for natural laws.
    And I explained all of this above.

    My assertions are beyond your ad homen; their popularity grows and, your lame attempts at reason are increasingly mocked.
    Anyone who agrees with your positions must be related to you. That's the only logical conclusion one draws. Education in American cannot be THAT bad.
    Last edited by Macintosh; 11-09-08 at 08:11 AM.
    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

  6. #466
    Advisor Macintosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    11-18-08 @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    325

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    I haven't seen Monk-Eye get this pissed in a long time

    Via gon Dios, Macintosh....
    I always go with God. Although, divine intervention is not necessary when debating someone like Monk. He thinks he's sophisticated.


    He's not.

    He's pro-choice and against same-sex marriage, but can't muster up a reasonable argument for either one of 'em. LOL.
    Last edited by Macintosh; 11-09-08 at 08:20 AM.
    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

  7. #467
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Covering Lies With Truth

    "Covering Lies With Truth"
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Yes. Supreme Court decisions and statements from the Fourteenth Amendment's author are jokes; an amendment, I might add, you are trying to use as evidence for your whole "Equal Protection is granted to citizens only!"
    Only a complete retarded dumb ass would retort that my assertions direct that only citizens are granted "Equal Protection".
    That is because any other than a complete retarded dumb ass understands that citizens already have constitutional protections - degenerate.
    The constitutional protections posessed by citizens are granted to them upon a completion requirement of birth - that is my unconventional proposition. Consequently, any non-citizens under US jurisdiction which is entitled to equal protection will likewise be granted rights upon a completion of birth.
    You cannot defeat the prerequisite of birth, thus your alternative is to LIE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    It was simply establishing that non-citizens are in fact protected by the Equal Protection clause. Let us just look at Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment just one more time:
    The entire precept for establishing an Equal Protection clause is that non-citizens are not entitled to protected rights unless these rights are stipulated within the constitution.
    Again, you LIE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Now let's look at a statement by an author of the Fourteenth Amendment:
    [indent]"A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
    The only person who has asserted that equal protection applies only to citizens is yourself; and that assertion is retarded, and again you LIE.
    Clearly, the citation from the author of the fourteenth amendment does not address the adage "under US jurisdiction"; for that justification you appeal to opinion, and LIE.
    Again, you LIE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    I'm pretty sure most people would err on the side of the Constitution, which means you'll have no supporter except for maybe my mom.
    Your suggestion that there is no support to forbid children of illegal aliens (which are illegal aliens) and that the constitution requires that they be educated is another of your LIEs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Oh, you mean those "fundamental precepts" that you can't seem to find any evidence for because your logic "...has not found its way into mainstream consideration." Talk about retarded.
    The fundamental precepts that require an Equal Protection clause.
    Again, you LIE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macinslosh
    You do mean "fetish," right? And I've not lied once.
    You have persistently lied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    And I care about natural selection why?
    Because the patriarchal religion which you reference for personal foundation has the purpose of preserving, by tradition and city state laws, the genetic perpetuation of the male haploid for the eponymous descendants of abraham, via isaac.
    You care because the phrase "a chance at eternal life" is a metaphor for perpetuation of self through procreation, and the phrase has nothing to do with a delusion of awaking from death, except that it be the reiteration of the physical body.
    I am in the father and the father is in me -
    The religion proposes practices that will (might) facilitate reproductive perpetuity.

    A male lion, upon assuming control of the pride, kills (or drives away) the cubs of the former male leader so that he may perpetuate his genetic lineage.
    Nature does not lie as you have lied to yourself and everyone else.

    It is likely that Lightdemon told you to go with god because succumbing to the abyss causes illusion to fade.
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Good thing every legal scholar, Supreme Court, judge, person, citizen, dog, and parasite disagrees with you.
    ...
    Um, sure. Even though I've pissed off the majority of people on this forum, I seek victory via popularity. Riiight.
    You hope that your continued LIES will take hold, with a mob mentality, premised on blatant ignorance, in a popular majority affiliated with yourself -- that is your appeal to popularity.
    Your appreciation is minimal because even basic reason leads one to understand that you LIE.
    Your appreciation is minimal because the analytic, objective, and overall intelligence faculties of others are greater than your credit, and greater than that required to rally behind your LIEs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    Your positions are ridiculous. They contain not a single, solitary brick of constitutional foundation.
    You persistently lie, that is another lie.

  8. #468
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-17-15 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Illuminating Dullard Insight

    "Illuminating Dullard Insight"
    Quote Originally Posted by Macintosh View Post
    He's pro-choice and against same-sex marriage, but can't muster up a reasonable argument for either one of 'em. LOL.
    You have lost the pro-life argument.

    I accept a general understanding of a marriage as a civil contract between two or more entities (a union -- civil union) that involves shared future interests in some real property.

    Thus I see no distinction between a civil union and a marriage.

    I however do see a distinction between forms of civil unions (marriages); for example, corporations may marry; however, corporations (regarded as individuals) which do abide by tax codes (positive obligations, positive laws) under the law, based on their status, cannot register in a similar manner with monogomous, heterosexual civil unions.

    That does not mean that I object to certain positive rights being granted to homosexual civil unions, that is why particular examples are significant, and why the lack of example does not create compelling argument from homosexual civil union proponents.

    I am stating that as the rights are positive rights, the rights need not be equally endowed with that of heterosexual civil unions.

    Thus, I have not stated an objection, I have clarified the interpretation of law.

  9. #469
    Advisor Macintosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    11-18-08 @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    325

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Monk, there is no point in arguing with you anymore. The more I ask you to prove anything you say, the more you insult. You want to claim victory - be my guest.

    This is boring. You say the same things over and over again, yet you never prove a single, solitary one of your assertions. You insult people when they call you on your own words. You lie, you back pedal, and you're generally rude.

    Have fun.
    "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

  10. #470
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Moderator's Warning:
    Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclearInfractions have been awarded. Threadbans are next.

    Everyone please remember the Forum Rules and the standard of civility that we expect upstairs.

Page 47 of 69 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... 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
  •