Page 32 of 38 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 373

Thread: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Showdow

  1. #311
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    1.)Of course it matters

    2.)This has nothing to do with "equal rights".
    3.) If it's about equal rights, then every deviant sex group should get to marry too.
    4.) Group Marriage and Polygamy should be legal in all 50 states.
    5.) If we're going to trivialize marriage and make it about the feelings of people who put things in dirty holes, then no limits should be set.

    If you don't agree with what I'm adding to the conversation and if you don't like it, you're welcome to stop responding to my posts at any time.
    1.) no it factually doesnt because its not the late 1700s. what they thought is meaningless
    what did they think about slavery, womens rights, incest, internet? who cares
    its 100% factually meaningless to the issue at hand

    2.) 100% false. Law, facts, courts and precedence already disagree with you and prove you wrong

    3.) false because that's not what equal rights is, again facts disagree with you. try to educate yourself on this mater.

    4.) if you FEEL this way, thats fine by me, fight for that new right but it will have nothing to do with equal rights for gays, this fact as been clearly established already

    5.) well we factually arent doing that so let me know when that factually happens and we'll talk about

    let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #312
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) no it factually doesnt because its not the late 1700s. what they thought is meaningless
    what did they think about slavery, womens rights, incest, internet? who cares
    its 100% factually meaningless to the issue at hand
    Gays are not being denied the right to vote. They are trying to force their dirty morality on the rest of society. I have a right to resist and refuse to accept their dirty disgusting behavior as "normal". There is no genetic proof that it is.

    2.) 100% false. Law, facts, courts and precedence already disagree with you and prove you wrong
    Nope. Unless you believe gays should be elevated above transgendered and polygamists which would make you a bigot

    3.) false because that's not what equal rights is, again facts disagree with you. try to educate yourself on this mater.
    What's your definition of "equal rights" then

    4.) if you FEEL this way, thats fine by me, fight for that new right but it will have nothing to do with equal rights for gays, this fact as been clearly established already
    What's your opinion on the subject? Should polygamy be legal in all 50 states?

    5.) well we factually arent doing that so let me know when that factually happens and we'll talk about

    let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.
    That's exactly what we're doing. Gay marriage is a laughable pointless sham. Adds nothing of value to society.

  3. #313
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    1.)Gays are not being denied the right to vote.
    2.) They are trying to force their dirty morality on the rest of society.
    3.) I have a right to resist and refuse to accept their dirty disgusting behavior as "normal".
    4.) There is no genetic proof that it is.
    5.)Nope. Unless you believe gays should be elevated above transgender and polygamists which would make you a bigot
    6.) What's your definition of "equal rights" then
    7.) What's your opinion on the subject? Should polygamy be legal in all 50 states?
    8.) That's exactly what we're doing. Gay marriage is a laughable pointless sham. Adds nothing of value to society.
    1.) who said they were? thats right nobody just a meaningless stupid point brought up as more deflection
    2.) false they are fighting for equal rights and your subjective morals and opinions are meaningless to that fact.
    3.) nobody is forcing you to accept anything so again another meaningless stupid failed point that is another failed starwman
    4.) theres no genetic proof you are normal either but then again that doesnt matter and is yet another meaningless point that is a failed strawman.
    5.) again facts, laws, rights and precedence destoy your failed strawman. another fail
    6.) "my" definition doesnt matter that what you dont get, just like YOURS dont matter either, they just are, its what will be decided in court and what is already written in law.
    what you are trying to do and majorly failing at is making a slipper slope argument for equal rights where there isnt one

    if you disagree PLEASE PLEASE argue your point with facts. Simply show us all how granting equal rights to gays will directly leads to polygamy marriage based on soley nothing but factual precedence from the gay marriage.

    Id LOVE to read it, please do this, my guess is you wont even try because you know it will further destroy your failed arguments.

    7.) i have no opinion on the subject because i have no interest in it. BUT if polygamist want to fight for that new right that would be fine by me as long as it follows the rules of other marriage legal age consenting sound mind adults and doesnt violate any rights.

    its simple non of my business in that cases.

    their biggest issues is how to write the NEW law for them, what happens when somebody dies, divorces etc etc. My guess is if this new right ever happened a basic marriage contract would be set up and the rest would have to be determined by the parties involved.

    8.) again factually wrong on the first part and your opinion on the second part is meaningless, the funniest part of about your failed arguments is some how you think that YOU get to determine peoples rights and what morals they should have, if thats not the purest definition of hypocrisy i dont know what is

    again let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #314
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Actually what you said was:



    I didn't say anything about "Congress can grant powers to the states."

    What I said was when Congress exercised it's Article IV Section 1 powers, they exempted States from being required to recognize Public Acts from another State. That was a power granted to Congress in the Constitution.



    >>>>
    Thanks for the clarification. If I was confused about you saying that congress can grant powers to the state, it was only because you said
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    You should read what is above. The Constitution grants the power to Congress in Article IV Section 1, Congress exercised that power in DOMA Section 2.
    >>>>
    However, the constitution does not say that congress can exempt states from being required to recognize public acts from another state. It says the opposite.

    However, it does say that congress can determine the manner in which those public acts can be proved and the effects thereof which may give them some wiggle room when it comes to SSM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #315
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) who said they were? thats right nobody just a meaningless stupid point brought up as more deflection
    You're the one who made the comparison. It was a lousy comparison.

    2.) false they are fighting for equal rights and your subjective morals and opinions are meaningless to that fact.
    Morality isn't relative. The Founders certainly believed that as well. Founders > You. Gays don't deserve special rights.

    3.) nobody is forcing you to accept anything so again another meaningless stupid failed point that is another failed starwman
    Yea sure and Obama's IRS and NSA aren't purposely targeting people for their religious beliefs. Oh wait they are. Nevermind.

    4.) theres no genetic proof you are normal either but then again that doesnt matter and is yet another meaningless point that is a failed strawman.
    No gay gene. Homosexuality = not genetic

    5.) again facts, laws, rights and precedence destoy your failed strawman. another fail
    Nonsense. The groundwork is already being laid. Nothing about homosexuality is special. It's sexual deviancy and perversion like any of the others, including pedophilia. Gender identification based upon mental illness and fetishes. "We're born this way so it's normal and acceptable".

    6.) "my" definition doesnt matter that what you dont get, just like YOURS dont matter either, they just are, its what will be decided in court and what is already written in law.
    what you are trying to do and majorly failing at is making a slipper slope argument for equal rights where there isnt one
    The courts are filled with activist lawyers in black robes. The people should decide, but you wouldn't want that because you know you'd lose.

    if you disagree PLEASE PLEASE argue your point with facts. Simply show us all how granting equal rights to gays will directly leads to polygamy marriage based on soley nothing but factual precedence from the gay marriage.
    What is your definition of equal rights? Can't answer a simple question?

    7.) i have no opinion on the subject because i have no interest in it. BUT if polygamist want to fight for that new right that would be fine by me as long as it follows the rules of other marriage legal age consenting sound mind adults and doesnt violate any rights.

    So you're not for equal rights after all. Got it.

    its simple non of my business in that cases.

    .) again factually wrong on the first part and your opinion on the second part is meaningless, the funniest part of about your failed arguments is some how you think that YOU get to determine peoples rights and what morals they should have, if thats not the purest definition of hypocrisy i dont know what is

    again let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.
    Factually correct actually. If gay marriage was such a great idea, it would have been tried in the past and found to be successful. It's never been considered a good idea for obvious reasons, but hey Lady Gaga says homosexual perversion is cool and trendy so let's get on the internet and yell at each other over gay people.

  6. #316
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    1.)You're the one who made the comparison. It was a lousy comparison.
    2.)Morality isn't relative. The Founders certainly believed that as well. Founders > You.
    3.)Gays don't deserve special rights.
    4.)Yea sure and Obama's IRS and NSA aren't purposely targeting people for their religious beliefs. Oh wait they are. Nevermind.
    5.) No gay gene. Homosexuality = not genetic
    6.)Nonsense. The groundwork is already being laid. Nothing about homosexuality is special. It's sexual deviancy and perversion like any of the others, including pedophilia. Gender identification based upon mental illness and fetishes. "We're born this way so it's normal and acceptable".
    7.)The courts are filled with activist lawyers in black robes. The people should decide, but you wouldn't want that because you know you'd lose.
    8.) What is your definition of equal rights? Can't answer a simple question?

    9.)So you're not for equal rights after all. Got it.

    10.)actually correct actually. If gay marriage was such a great idea, it would have been tried in the past and found to be successful. It's never been considered a good idea for obvious reasons, but hey Lady Gaga says homosexual perversion is cool and trendy so let's get on the internet and yell at each other over gay people.

    1.) nope you did, and its a lie but i agree it was silly for you to try and make the comparison. FAIL
    2.) well this changed nothing, morals are subjective and your opinion and the founders are meaningless to the law, facts and rights, FAIL
    3.) good thing nobody is talkign about giving them "special rights: this strawman always fails
    4.) cool story, what does this change again? thats right nothing nobody is forcing you to accept anything so again another meaningless stupid failed point that is another failed starwman AGAIN
    5.) meaningless to equal rights: FAIL
    6.) more lies you cant prove and that have been defeated many times. its hilarious you thinkn anybody buys your lies. again facts, laws, rights and precedence destroy your failed strawman. FAIL
    7.) yeah yeah your opinion the jugdes are all evil lol sorry we dont vote on taking rights away from others. ANd you are right of course i wouldnt want that because thats not how the country works, I like the government that protects the rights of my fellow americans. You dont like that because you want to force your morals and bigoted views on others. fortunately the country doesnt listen to your hurt feelings.
    8.) i factually answer, you have no come back so you are deflecting.

    so ill ask you AGAIN
    if you disagree PLEASE PLEASE argue your point with facts. Simply show us all how granting equal rights to gays will directly leads to polygamy marriage based on soley nothing but factual precedence from the gay marriage.

    i noticed you dodge this question

    9.) another failed lie and defletion, got it

    10.) please list thes fact then
    like i said
    again factually wrong on the first part and your opinion on the second part is meaningless, the funniest part of about your failed arguments is some how you think that YOU get to determine peoples rights and what morals they should have, if thats not the purest definition of hypocrisy i dont know what is

    well your post got destroyed with fact again

    again let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.

    do you have ANY facts to support your failed claims, any that dont get destroyed

    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #317
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,183

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    We are talking about individual rights
    Wrong, that right is not afforded to them in Texas and they knew it before they moved here.

    Again nothing but another attempt to change the laws of a [what should be] sovereign state for selfish reasons.

  8. #318
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,383

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Well....you are just plain and simply wrong. There is something in the Constitution called "Equal Protection". It was exactly what Kennedy was referencing in his majority opinion in the DOMA case and the reason why Scalia was so vitriolic in his dissent. The writing is on the wall. This war is over, only a small battle or two remain, but this one is DOA for the bigots who are clinging to their fight against marriage equality.
    Except equal protection doesn't apply when it something you disagree with, like Bush v Gore.

  9. #319
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,183

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Sorry...but the Supremacy Clause trumps states rights when dealing with a fundamental right.
    That hasn't come before the SCOTUS. Neither has SSD.

    Fact of the matter, if the FedGov continues to push their agenda on the states, it will set a dangerous precedence.

  10. #320
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,383

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    If you go into a store in Massachusetts and buy a widget at a local store and return it home to Texas, don't try to return it to a local store in Texas since it wasn't that store that sold you the widget in the first place.

    Why should Texas issue a divorce when it doesn't recognize them as being married. Don't want to be married? Great, you aren't. Married people can't just do that, but SSM people can. So much for equal protection.

Page 32 of 38 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... 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
  •