Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2012 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Yep. I'm sure you don't think so but that's the fun of it.   This has been a subject that I couldn't care less about.  It's really hard to be "wrong" or get tied into a belief when you don't care.  Your declarations of "victory" are funny. 
I've never once declared victory.  But you have spent 40 pages and several days arguing with me about a subject I care about and enjoy discussing.  You claim to have no interest in the subject.

Who's getting the free entertainment?
5/22/2012 11:32 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I know I am.  Watching you quote a court case that declared marriage vital to our existence then backpeddle on that statement is funny. 
5/22/2012 11:45 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
5/22/2012 11:47 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I know I am.  Watching you quote a court case that declared marriage vital to our existence then backpeddle on that statement is funny. 
I never backpeddled.  Marriage is a right.
5/22/2012 11:51 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
If you meet certain guidelines, it sure is.   But, either way, it isn't vital to our existence so a court judgement can be wrong. 
5/22/2012 11:59 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Voting is also a right where you have to meet guidelines.  But it wouldn't be constitutional to pass a law that says gays can't vote.  Or women can't vote.  Or blacks can't vote.  Just because some guidelines are constitutional (must be 18, etc.) doesn't mean that all guidelines are constitutional.
5/22/2012 12:03 PM
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
172 11
All Star
Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 5:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 5/21/2012 11:23:00 PM (view original):

I assume you think any judge whose religion opposes SSM should also recuse himself, right tec?

What does religion have to do with it?
Can't be objective about something that contradicts your religion, right?


Christians are going to have to recuse themselves an awful lot.
5/22/2012 12:17 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 11:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I know I am.  Watching you quote a court case that declared marriage vital to our existence then backpeddle on that statement is funny. 
I never backpeddled.  Marriage is a right.
What is a right?

The very first statement negates your insistence that "marriage is a right".

In order to get married, you need to fulfill certain requirements.  Age being one.  Proof of identify being another.  Obtaining a marriage license is yet another.  And, most importantly, having the permission of your intended spouse to marry her / him.
5/22/2012 12:18 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by genghisxcon on 5/22/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 5:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 5/21/2012 11:23:00 PM (view original):

I assume you think any judge whose religion opposes SSM should also recuse himself, right tec?

What does religion have to do with it?
Can't be objective about something that contradicts your religion, right?


Christians are going to have to recuse themselves an awful lot.
It depends on how strictly they adhere to their religion.
5/22/2012 12:20 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 11:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I know I am.  Watching you quote a court case that declared marriage vital to our existence then backpeddle on that statement is funny. 
I never backpeddled.  Marriage is a right.
What is a right?

The very first statement negates your insistence that "marriage is a right".

In order to get married, you need to fulfill certain requirements.  Age being one.  Proof of identify being another.  Obtaining a marriage license is yet another.  And, most importantly, having the permission of your intended spouse to marry her / him.
Aren't legal rights different than fundamental rights?
5/22/2012 12:22 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 11:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I know I am.  Watching you quote a court case that declared marriage vital to our existence then backpeddle on that statement is funny. 
I never backpeddled.  Marriage is a right.
What is a right?

The very first statement negates your insistence that "marriage is a right".

In order to get married, you need to fulfill certain requirements.  Age being one.  Proof of identify being another.  Obtaining a marriage license is yet another.  And, most importantly, having the permission of your intended spouse to marry her / him.
Aren't legal rights different than fundamental rights?
Yes they are.  Legal rights are what people in a legal capacity to do so define them to be.  

And those people can be influenced by any number of factors, including religious, moral, and adherence to and belief in traditional values.
5/22/2012 12:27 PM
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
172 11
All Star
Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 5/22/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 5:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 5/21/2012 11:23:00 PM (view original):

I assume you think any judge whose religion opposes SSM should also recuse himself, right tec?

What does religion have to do with it?
Can't be objective about something that contradicts your religion, right?


Christians are going to have to recuse themselves an awful lot.
It depends on how strictly they adhere to their religion.
Still, there's the appearance of conflict.

Besides, weren't you saying that SSM sullies the good name of your church sanctified union? Or was that Todd? Damn, I can't tell you apart.
5/22/2012 12:27 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 164 32 129
Prospect
I have not brought or included religion into my discussion on this topic.
5/22/2012 12:29 PM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 12:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 5/22/2012 11:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):
I know I am.  Watching you quote a court case that declared marriage vital to our existence then backpeddle on that statement is funny. 
I never backpeddled.  Marriage is a right.
What is a right?

The very first statement negates your insistence that "marriage is a right".

In order to get married, you need to fulfill certain requirements.  Age being one.  Proof of identify being another.  Obtaining a marriage license is yet another.  And, most importantly, having the permission of your intended spouse to marry her / him.
Aren't legal rights different than fundamental rights?
Yes they are.  Legal rights are what people in a legal capacity to do so define them to be.  

And those people can be influenced by any number of factors, including religious, moral, and adherence to and belief in traditional values.
True.  But there are guidelines for the legality of those laws.  In order for a law to be constitutional, it can't violate those guidelines.  When it does, it gets overturned in court.
5/22/2012 12:29 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
I hate to keep pulling this back but this shouldnt be about philosophy, theology or theoretical physics.

This is about actual law.
the 14th Amendment allowed the federal government to throw its weight onto the states, but it isnt an absolute right.

Can anyone show a clear harm that comes from not redefining marraige to include same sex couples? This isnt riding a bus or eating in a restaurant. This is having to fill out extra forms for a civil union, as opposed to a marriage. No one is preventing parties or regestiering for a shower. This is a technical issue, not a civil rights issue,

We need to draw a line in the sand and let government "Of and by the people" have some meaning. We cannot allow a handful of people tell millions how to live!
5/22/2012 12:46 PM
◂ Prev 1...63|64|65|66|67...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.