Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 8:23:00 PM (view original):
The example stipulated exactly what I typed.   Two strangers met and fell in love.   You seem to believe one set is cool to get married yet there's a problem with the other set.   I want to understand why you think there's a difference. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Incest is only illegal based on morality.  We've already determined that the government doesn't care about health issues.  Religious folk consider homosexuality immoral.   Something has to give.  

AGREED. AND TRUCKING

ON POLITICS, MIKETITTY IS WEAK. I REMEMBER HIS DUBYA LOVE IN 03-04

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/16/2012 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 8:23:00 PM (view original):
The example stipulated exactly what I typed.   Two strangers met and fell in love.   You seem to believe one set is cool to get married yet there's a problem with the other set.   I want to understand why you think there's a difference. 

"Two strangers met and fell in love.   You seem to believe one set is cool to get married yet there's a problem with the other set.   I want to understand why you think there's a difference."



Read that again. And again. And again until you realize how it undercuts your entire argument.

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/16/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Incest is only illegal based on morality.  We've already determined that the government doesn't care about health issues.  Religious folk consider homosexuality immoral.   Something has to give.  

Debunked several pages ago.

When certain Grand Canyon-sized holes are made in your arguments (and many have been pointed out), you quickly move to something else. Watching you squirm is also fun. But mostly, I admire the way you can spout the most idiotic drivel with boundless condescension. It's like you're the Jonah Goldberg of WIS.

Please point it out.  

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/16/2012 4:21:00 PM (view original):
And I realize I've said this before, but stick to baseball. It's what you know.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
You've already dismissed religious reasons.    I assume you don't feel that religi-folk have valid opinions/reasons.    I've said, repeatedly, that many of our laws have moral backgrounds.   And many of our moral backgrounds come from religion.  If laws are going to be passed for moral reasons, that seems like a legal reason.    You just don't like that. 

If you were going to go to court and argue that same sex marriage should be banned, how successful do you think you would be if your only argument was, "some religious people consider it immoral"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
You've already dismissed religious reasons.    I assume you don't feel that religi-folk have valid opinions/reasons.    I've said, repeatedly, that many of our laws have moral backgrounds.   And many of our moral backgrounds come from religion.  If laws are going to be passed for moral reasons, that seems like a legal reason.    You just don't like that. 

If you were going to go to court and argue that same sex marriage should be banned, how successful do you think you would be if your only argument was, "some religious people consider it immoral"?

Aren't states banning SSM right now?   What do you think their reasoning is?   What, exactly, do you think their argument consists of?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/16/2012 4:21:00 PM (view original):
And I realize I've said this before, but stick to baseball. It's what you know.

I'd recommend you stick to something you know but, other than being an *** with little to say, I'm not sure what it is.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 4:59:00 PM (view original):
I've answered the question many times.  I don't care enough about SSM to find out why states think they have a legal standing when banning SSM.   But they do.   Perhaps, since SSM is your cause, it would be better if you did the research to find out why they're passing laws that you consider illegal.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 5:16:00 PM (view original):
I'm going to help you because this is sort of like fishing with dynamite.

Laws banning SSM are being passed because politicians are pandering for votes.   The majority of the US either A) objects to SSM(probably based on religious views) or B) just doesn't care about SSM.   If a lawmaker passes a law that goes thru federal courts in three years and gets repealed, he's still pacified his constituency and/or may not even be in office. 

This topic has now gone full circle since the first post was about Obama pandering for votes by saying he's for SSM.   The people who aren't going to vote for him aren't doing it because of his views on SSM. He didn't lose a vote by making a statement.   By being "vague" on the issue, he wasn't getting the support from people who actually care about SSM.  By taking a stand, he's going to get some extra votes.