By June....one way or the other? Do we all agree?

Whew, I thought you were going to say the "immorality of drinking". Somebody posted a couple days ago that drinking is a sin. For my own part, I see so much immorality on a daily basis that the immorality of gay marriage barely budges the immorality scale.

 

When a Rightwinger argues in FAVOR of "Jim Crow".....they fail to see how it makes the argument against their position on gay rights.

 

Only id you're too emotionally invested and conditioned by their culture and group to respond in a certain way to see if their arguments actually have and real and valid points to be dismissed.

And I am not a right winger.

 

OK then. You were not taking a position on same sex marriage. But it did sound as though you have an issue with the courts actions in these case, and it still sounds like that. I don't think that the concept of tyranny-whether of a minority or a majority- is applicable to these rulings. Tyranny implies oppression, it implies that something-tangible or intangible is being taken away. No one has been able to explain what is being taken away from or how anyone is oppressed by same sex marriage. The only tyranny being. imposed is on the part of those who support discrimination. And I seriously doubt if a majority would still support the bans in a national poll or in many states that passed them previously.
.

 

George Wallace was a Democrat, Tram, who supported Medicare.....he was also pro-segregation, pro-Jim Crow.

Your line "Yes they were" to Azrael's "Was states rights being overridden when segregation was ended? Was states rights being overridden when interracial marriage bans were overturned?"....

is identical to what the guys who wanted to keep segregation in the 50s and 60s said.

 

No, it isn't. You liberals have an extremely limited way of thinking, that we eithe3r have to agree with you or you're a racist and a bigot. You also do not believe in choice and do not understand what an inalienable right is. And most of you do not believe in liberty or the adult's right to choose for themselves, and that we all have to obey your morality. And you think it's okay to impose your morality by any dirty rotten trick you can think of, such as your false dichotomy that you tried, and failed, to label me with in order to try to make me the bad guy here.

And your dishonest attempt to try to redefine what i said is just another one of your bags of dirty tricks, and the reason why I despise you liberals. You must have it your way and if somebody disagrees with you it must because of bigotry and racism and it can't be anything else.

You can not have an open and honest discussion without you liebrals resorting to these dishonest tricks you pull because it's not abo0ut a discussion, it's about forcing people to obey you and bow down to your ideology. All the while allowing your fellow liberals who engage in the exact same things ge4t off scott free.

i will never submit to you,

It's called and adult's right to choose what they want in their society. The constitution calls it the right of association.

But then again, you liberals have no respect for the constitution anyway either.

 

Looks like they are finally smartening up enough to know that they don't wont to be on the losing side again

 

Well then it was a prohibition outside the role of government. The government is not empowered to promote or maintain the "sanctity" of anything.

The 2nd circuit appeals court ruling in Windsor said something along the lines of: government can "enforce"or "dissolve" a marriage but it cannot "sanctify" or 'bless" it, for that you have to go next door (i.e. house of worship).

I'm in a 30+ year old "unsanctified' heterosexual marriage and it makes my skin crawl to imagine some people, in moments of smug disdain masquerading as pitiful benevolence, must think it's OK to let us slip under the "sanctified" rug, just because we happen to possess the "right' naughty bits.

Makes me want to don some leather chaps and mince around the Castro; even if it's just for effect!

 

My bold. Seriously? That's all your side has been doing forever! You have been imposing your morality on us for decades. Now that we're telling you we won't put up with your s*** anymore, you're crying. That is the truth whether you like it or not.

Well guess what? I'll be the first to say it- if you think that gay people (and same sex couples) do not deserve the same legal rights you do, then yes- that's bigotry. That is the textbook definition of bigotry. It is YOU who does not understand what an inalienable right is. You don't get to push us around anymore and that p***es you off.

That's exactly right. And don't use religion as an excuse. My parents are Christians and have a gay kid- me. They are all for equal marriage rights. This issue has nothing to do with religion.

 

If they were gonna punt, they wouldn't have taken the cases in the first place. And unlike the Prop 8 decision, which IMO was a "punt" for political expedience, there is no question of Standing. The precedent is overwhelming. First you had Windsor, which has been used by 35 Courts more or less to overturn the bans. You have one lone dissenting voice from an Appeals Court. The Justices aren't stupid, they know what direction the wind is blowing, they are fully aware of the direction society is headed, so I see this as a slam dunk. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they already know how the vote is going down and are writing there responses now.

 

Yawn. You people should never learn to assume anything by a few posts or the one

I see no difference between you and them. You're all just a pack of thugs to me.

And you guys are very dishonest about it too.

[video=youtube;0hhhPCSeDH0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hhhPCSeDH0[/video]

But it's like Nagilum says:

 

I'm 45 years old, and spent the better part of a decade living in NYC. I have NEVER seen a gay pride parade. Not to say they are a figment of your imagination, they are real, but much more rare, I think, than your protestations would indicate.

 

I don't think it has legs that long. Yes, here in Florida when the court overturned the ban and the stay was allowed to expire, it was the top story. For about 24 hours. It has since dropped off the newscycle radar, people are just not talking about it, and perhaps some that were afraid of have noticed that nothing in their own lives changed as a result.

 

Same to you: You're all just a pack of thugs to me. And even more dishonest about it.

It is you who does not believe in liberty. It is you trying to keep others down who you don't like.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, this will be over in June.

 

Now you're just being argumentative. Here's a fair warning: That tactic does not have any power over me. While I love Monty Python style arguing, I also know the difference between dishonest argumentation and Monty Python style for fun.

When argumentation is being used in a dishonest fashion like you are, I know you're just trying to turn it against me in order to try to make me out to be the bad guy here. Under that context, you are not proving anything to me and your words have no substance or credibility, and I also consider it just another form of bullying. for which you people are well known for.

If you want actual dialogue with me, which I'm sure you don't, don't assume things, don't try to get me to shut up, don't try to turn arguments back onto me, and be objective and don't take things personally, and I will return the favor.

Otherwise I will summarily dismiss and never take you seriously ever again.

 

I said one thing....one thing you cannot deny....your argument is IDENTICAL to the argument and objections the pro-segregationists and pro-Jim Crow people made.

In fact, you ARE saying what they said even today- "Yes they are"? To "Was states rights being overridden when segregation was ended? Was states rights being overridden when interracial marriage bans were overturned?"....

What IS that but saying "Overturning Jim Crow was wrong"?

- - - Updated - - -

No.....I figure 2016 maybe 2020....but that'll be it. By then, tired of trying to fight a war they have already lost, the homophobes will give up on imagining any political support from the GOP, and will recognize the promises as phony.

And then in 20-30 more years? Republican apologists will claim "It was us Republicans who supported gay marriage rights....the Democrats blocked it!"

 

I will deny it is the same thing. It is not. You are being incredibly dishonest here.

Don't try your dirty tricks with me. I am not the bad guy here. Your dishonesty and limited thinking proves that you are.

 

He is not being dishonest. It IS the same thing.

 

No it is not. You're just ASSuming it is.

And now I know you don't want a real discussion, you just want me top be the bad guy here. I am not. You are.

Good day how do and I send a smiloe to you
Don't waste, waste your breath
And I won't waste my hate on you
I think I'll keep it all to myself

 

It is a "trick"....to QUOTE you?

Let's review-

Azrael- "Was states rights being overridden when segregation was ended? Was states rights being overridden when interracial marriage bans were overturned?"....

Tram Law- ""Yes they are"


That is saying that you think overturning Jim Crow, segregation, laws against inter-racial marriage....was wrong.

Clearly, anybody can read it.

 

Amazing how even if you QUOTE somebody...they claim you are being "dishonest".

Reminds me of the Eddie Murphy bit where he talked about a buddy whose girlfriend SAW him making out with another girl. He denies it saying "Wasn't me"....she says "I SAW you"...."Wasn't me"....."It was you...wearing these exact same clothes"....."Wasn't me"......"After you finished, you got inito YOUR car and drove off!!!!"....."Wasn't me"....

until finally he gets the girlfriend to say "Hmmm...maybe it wasn't him."

 

That's called quote mining and i was not advocating or fighting anything, just having a conversation.

You're so damned indoctrinated you can't see the difference.

And here's where you're being dishonest and misrepresenting me.

I do not support discrimination, but I also believe that the issue of homosexual marriage should be left up to the states as an issue of state's rights. That is what the proper conclusion the supreme court should take. The fourteenth does NOT override the tenth either.

Toy are the one who is getting upset at me and coming to the wrong conclusions. Because for you this is not about ending discrimination, this is about cultural and social engineering, and an effort to correct me to what you think is the proper opinion to have and to express.

And for some reason, you think I don't see what it is you're trying to do.

So in short all you're going to do is harass me and misrepresent my stance on the matter.

And that is why you are the one who is being dishonest here.

I am not.

But it's like I always say, you can not have an open and honest discussion for the sake of learning without them taking it personal and resorting to these dishonest tactics.every single chance you get to get what you want.

Because you would find out that you really are skating on thin ice and how unpopular your views really and truly are.

and you can't have that. So you resort to the usual trash and bash crap.

You have no decency or sense of honesty or integrity.

You should be thankful I am not a moderator here, or you would be gone. I do not appreciate your dishonesty.

They are not the same thing as Jim crow laws.



Or you wouldn't be so invested in making me out to be the bad guy here.

I am not.

 

Rrrriiiiighhhttt.

Really, that says it all right there.

 

Standard dishonest trash and bash crap.

So typical.

 

Yeah, and he just doubled down on it in his new post.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can sleep at night. If you want to have an honest discussion, the first person you need start being honest with is yourself.