Posted by genghisxcon on 5/16/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):

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.

No need to.  Are you denying that there's any possibility that one has never met a sibling at an advanced age without knowing said sibling even existed?  Women put children up for adoption every day.   Women leave husbands, with their children, every day.    Do you think they stop procreating when that happens?  

That's just utterly stupid. 

Good god, are you just playing dumb?



"You (MikeT23) seem to believe one set is cool to get married (teh breeders) yet there's a problem with the other set (teh ghey)."


Oh, btw, I never claimed incest was morally wrong. I said it was considered taboo across most cultures, the taboo pre-dates Christianity, and that it is likely due to genetic reasons.

Oh, now I see why you(genghix) seem to be braindead.

When sometime types "you" in a sentence they are NOT referring to themselves.  They are referring to someone else.

As for me(MIKET23), I don't care if teh ghey get married or not.   I'm just saying it's not some God-given, or government-given, right.

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/16/2012 8:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 4:44:00 PM (view original):

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.  

see above post

I did.  You completely misunderstand grammar.    I tried to clear it up for you with my response.    Seems remedial but I hope it helps you.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 4:55:00 PM (view original):

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?

Answer the question.  I've answer several of yours.

If you had to go to court and argue against same sex marriage, do you think it's likely that you would win with a "some religious people consider it immoral" argument?

Still waiting for a yes or no.

Still waiting. Yes or no?

Get a Snickers.   I'm done with you(some people could have figured that out when I responded to everyone else who posted after I left but not you). 

I told you why states are passing laws banning SSM and why they don't care if the SC overturns the law.  And, previously, I explained that another similiar law, using different wording, would pass if that's what the people of the state wanted.     There's really nothing else I can tell you.

You've insisted that religion/morality is a valid reason to ban SSM. Do you think you would win in court using that argument?

You can't answer. Wanna know why?

If you say yes, you're brain dead. Everyone knows you can't go in to court and win with that argument.

But if you say no, oh ****, your entire argument disappears.

You still don't understand my argument.   I'll type slower.

Marriage
is
not
a
right

It
is
not
a
right
for
gay
or
straight
people

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):
The question is what vital interest does the court have in overturning the will of the people?

Protecting the minority from the will of the people is a vital duty of the courts.  That was clearly the founders' intent.

Was it the founder's intent that the will of the majority should be overruled by minority special interest groups?

You argued several times that morality and religion were valid reasons to ban SSM.

You even dragged out a convoluted incest analogy to try to prove your point.

If you think religion and morality are valid reasons to ban SSM, then you think you can win in court with that argument.

If you can't win in court with that argument, then your argument losses and what I said 30 pages ago is right, religion is irrelevant.

Quote those posts.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:04:00 AM (view original):
It's tradition going back to when marriages were arraigned and daughters were sold off with goats. "The way we've done it before" doesn't mean we can't allow others to do it differently.

And for the government to discriminate against a group of people, there needs to be a compelling legal reason. And, so far, a compelling legal reason doesn't exist.

Felons can't vote.  
Naturalized citizens can't be President.

Why?
Are convicted felons incapable of making rational political decisions?
If you're not born in the US are you incapable of leading the country?

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!

Many states allow felons to vote.

But beside the point, there are valid legal reasons for those distinctions.

List the compelling legal reasons. 

I dont know them. But I wouldn't stand in the way of a challenge to those laws.

Please list the legal reasons to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

I've already told you it's religion-based.   You're the one claiming that there has to be compelling legal reasons to discriminate against a group of people.   I don't think "compelling legal reasons" is the only reason specific laws are made.

Here's one from page 14

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/16/2012 11:54:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure that jrd is incapable of independent thought.  

Hence his inability to answer questions on why he holds the "opinions" he does.  

All he has done for nearly 30 pages in this thread is say "A is legal, B is illegal", or he avoids answering direct questions by deflecting/asking questions of his own.

Since you're obviously so capable of independent thought, I'll try you.

Mike asks why a couple, who don't know each other and have been sterilized, but happen to be brother and sister, shouldn't be allowed to get married, while two gay guys who aren't related, should.

My answer is that one relationship is illegal while the other isn't.  That's an important distinction.  In order for incestual marriage to be legal, incest itself would need to be legal.  If you or mike want to make that argument, go ahead.

My question to mike (or you) is this:

Couple A is in a legal romantic relationship.  They want to get married.
Couple B is not in a legal romantic relationship.  They want to get married.
Which couple should be allowed to get married?

OK, I'm getting tired of jerking you around, as fun as it's been.

I'm a "traditional values" kind of person.  Thousands of years of human culture and social norms have defined marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.  Marriage is the bond that creates and holds the traditional family unit together.  Traditional family being a man/husband/father, a woman/wife/mother, and zero to many children.  I hold these traditional definitions of marriage and family to be the correct ones.  As have many billions of people throughout the course of human history.

Same-sex marriage is a perversion of tradition, and spits in the face of thousands of years of human culture and social norms.  The majority of people in this country do not want it, as can be seen by the fact that so many states have chosen to very specifically and emphatically define marriage as "the legal union of one man and one woman".

You can talk about the legality and constitutionality of same-sex marriage all you want.  The FACT is that, legally, marriage has been defined at both a federal level and the state level as described above . . . one man and one woman.  Yes there have been challenges, and some of these laws have been overruled in the courts, but every one of these overrulings are currently under appeal and have not definitively been upheld.  Unless and until that happens, the constitutionality of same-sex marriage has not been established, and the traditional definition of marriage is still the legal law of the land.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:04:00 AM (view original):
It's tradition going back to when marriages were arraigned and daughters were sold off with goats. "The way we've done it before" doesn't mean we can't allow others to do it differently.

And for the government to discriminate against a group of people, there needs to be a compelling legal reason. And, so far, a compelling legal reason doesn't exist.

Felons can't vote.  
Naturalized citizens can't be President.

Why?
Are convicted felons incapable of making rational political decisions?
If you're not born in the US are you incapable of leading the country?

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!

Many states allow felons to vote.

But beside the point, there are valid legal reasons for those distinctions.

List the compelling legal reasons. 

I dont know them. But I wouldn't stand in the way of a challenge to those laws.

Please list the legal reasons to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

I've already told you it's religion-based.   You're the one claiming that there has to be compelling legal reasons to discriminate against a group of people.   I don't think "compelling legal reasons" is the only reason specific laws are made.

Here's one from page 14

Did I argue that it was a "valid reason" or did I simply point out that it's why laws banning SSM are being passed?

Try again.   Should be easy as I've "argued" the point "several time".

Good luck.

Really???? This is hilarious. I love how you hedged your entire argument with "some people" and "sometimes" and " I don't care" but then spent 30 pages arguing retarded **** about incest. And then when it's clear you've lost, that we all clearly see that religion and the morality of some isn't a valid reason to ban same sex marriage, you try to back out of your argument.

But I'm glad that you now agree that the bible isn't a valid reason to ban same sex marriage.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 10:22:00 AM (view original):
Really???? This is hilarious. I love how you hedged your entire argument with "some people" and "sometimes" and " I don't care" but then spent 30 pages arguing retarded **** about incest. And then when it's clear you've lost, that we all clearly see that religion and the morality of some isn't a valid reason to ban same sex marriage, you try to back out of your argument.

But I'm glad that you now agree that the bible isn't a valid reason to ban same sex marriage.

Yet you haven't provided a single reason why it should be allowed.