Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Would you care to point out where anyone has claimed it's constitutional?

I'm asking you if you agree or disagree.  I'm not saying you've claimed anything.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Would you care to point out where anyone has claimed it's constitutional?

I'm asking you if you agree or disagree.  I'm not saying you've claimed anything.

As I've said time and time again, laws are being passed banning SSM.    I assume those lawmakers feel they have legal ground to stand on.   Much like you don't know why felons are denied the right to vote in some states(and didn't care enough to find out the legal reasons why), I don't care enough to research the subject to find out why these laws are being passed.   I just know that they are and that you keep screaming "THEY CAN'T!!!"

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Myopinion doesn't matter, as I have no direct say or influence on the laws of the land.  I assume that neither do you.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The whole point of this is to give your opinion.  If you don't want to, you don't have to.  But I'm a little unsure why you're engaging if you don't want to give it.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Myopinion doesn't matter, as I have no direct say or influence on the laws of the land.  I assume that neither do you.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The whole point of this is to give your opinion.  If you don't want to, you don't have to.  But I'm a little unsure why you're engaging if you don't want to give it.

My opinion was stated at the top of page 13 of this thread, that President Flip-Flop made his proclamation in order to pander for votes immediately after the North Carolina decision.

You're the one who's been blathering on for page after page about how this was the "right" decision, that it is "constitutional", yet when pressed to explain why that is so you just throw your hands up and say it's just your opinion.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Would you care to point out where anyone has claimed it's constitutional?

I'm asking you if you agree or disagree.  I'm not saying you've claimed anything.

As I've said time and time again, laws are being passed banning SSM.    I assume those lawmakers feel they have legal ground to stand on.   Much like you don't know why felons are denied the right to vote in some states(and didn't care enough to find out the legal reasons why), I don't care enough to research the subject to find out why these laws are being passed.   I just know that they are and that you keep screaming "THEY CAN'T!!!"

Well that's a cop out.

It's ok if you don't think the laws are constitutional, no one will hate you for agreeing with me.

If you have no opinion, that's ok too.

If you think they are constitutional, I'll gladly listen to your reasoning.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Myopinion doesn't matter, as I have no direct say or influence on the laws of the land.  I assume that neither do you.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The whole point of this is to give your opinion.  If you don't want to, you don't have to.  But I'm a little unsure why you're engaging if you don't want to give it.

My opinion was stated at the top of page 13 of this thread, that President Flip-Flop made his proclamation in order to pander for votes immediately after the North Carolina decision.

You're the one who's been blathering on for page after page about how this was the "right" decision, that it is "constitutional", yet when pressed to explain why that is so you just throw your hands up and say it's just your opinion.

I think banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment and the laws do not pass the compelling interest test.  

Agree or disagree?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Would you care to point out where anyone has claimed it's constitutional?

I'm asking you if you agree or disagree.  I'm not saying you've claimed anything.

As I've said time and time again, laws are being passed banning SSM.    I assume those lawmakers feel they have legal ground to stand on.   Much like you don't know why felons are denied the right to vote in some states(and didn't care enough to find out the legal reasons why), I don't care enough to research the subject to find out why these laws are being passed.   I just know that they are and that you keep screaming "THEY CAN'T!!!"

Well that's a cop out.

It's ok if you don't think the laws are constitutional, no one will hate you for agreeing with me.

If you have no opinion, that's ok too.

If you think they are constitutional, I'll gladly listen to your reasoning.

My opinions have actually been fact.

First opinion:  Those who believe in the Bible believe there are compelling reason to ban SSM.
Second opinion:  SSM is being banned in some states.
Third opinion:  The constitition and laws are open to interpretation.
Fourth opinion:  Some lawmakers do believe in the Bible and use it for guidance. 
Fifth opinion:  You live in some fantasy world where men can't interpret things, like the Bible and the constitution, differently.

1. We know for a fact that many religious people point to the bible as reason to ban same sex marriage.  That isn't a legal reason though.

2. Yes, it is.  But just because a law passes, doesn't mean it is constitutional.

3. It sure is.  What is your take on the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans?

4. Yes they do.  But when ruling on a case, a judge has to give a reason other than the bible says so.  

5. I agree that both those things are open to interpretation.  I really don't give a sh*t about the bible, but I'd be interested in hearing what your opinion is on the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans.
 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Myopinion doesn't matter, as I have no direct say or influence on the laws of the land.  I assume that neither do you.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The whole point of this is to give your opinion.  If you don't want to, you don't have to.  But I'm a little unsure why you're engaging if you don't want to give it.

My opinion was stated at the top of page 13 of this thread, that President Flip-Flop made his proclamation in order to pander for votes immediately after the North Carolina decision.

You're the one who's been blathering on for page after page about how this was the "right" decision, that it is "constitutional", yet when pressed to explain why that is so you just throw your hands up and say it's just your opinion.

I think banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment and the laws do not pass the compelling interest test.  

Agree or disagree?

Disageee.

Nobody is denied the right to marriage.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Would you care to point out where anyone has claimed it's constitutional?

I'm asking you if you agree or disagree.  I'm not saying you've claimed anything.

As I've said time and time again, laws are being passed banning SSM.    I assume those lawmakers feel they have legal ground to stand on.   Much like you don't know why felons are denied the right to vote in some states(and didn't care enough to find out the legal reasons why), I don't care enough to research the subject to find out why these laws are being passed.   I just know that they are and that you keep screaming "THEY CAN'T!!!"

Well that's a cop out.

It's ok if you don't think the laws are constitutional, no one will hate you for agreeing with me.

If you have no opinion, that's ok too.

If you think they are constitutional, I'll gladly listen to your reasoning.

My opinions have actually been fact.

First opinion:  Those who believe in the Bible believe there are compelling reason to ban SSM.
Second opinion:  SSM is being banned in some states.
Third opinion:  The constitition and laws are open to interpretation.
Fourth opinion:  Some lawmakers do believe in the Bible and use it for guidance. 
Fifth opinion:  You live in some fantasy world where men can't interpret things, like the Bible and the constitution, differently.

1. We know for a fact that many religious people point to the bible as reason to ban same sex marriage.  That isn't a legal reason though.

2. Yes, it is.  But just because a law passes, doesn't mean it is constitutional.

3. It sure is.  What is your take on the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans?

4. Yes they do.  But when ruling on a case, a judge has to give a reason other than the bible says so.  

5. I agree that both those things are open to interpretation.  I really don't give a sh*t about the bible, but I'd be interested in hearing what your opinion is on the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans.
 

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/11/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Myopinion doesn't matter, as I have no direct say or influence on the laws of the land.  I assume that neither do you.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The whole point of this is to give your opinion.  If you don't want to, you don't have to.  But I'm a little unsure why you're engaging if you don't want to give it.

My opinion was stated at the top of page 13 of this thread, that President Flip-Flop made his proclamation in order to pander for votes immediately after the North Carolina decision.

You're the one who's been blathering on for page after page about how this was the "right" decision, that it is "constitutional", yet when pressed to explain why that is so you just throw your hands up and say it's just your opinion.

I think banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment and the laws do not pass the compelling interest test.  

Agree or disagree?

Disageee.

Nobody is denied the right to marriage.

That's semantics.  Same sex couples are denied the right to marry the person they are in a legal romantic relationship with.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Would you care to point out where anyone has claimed it's constitutional?

I'm asking you if you agree or disagree.  I'm not saying you've claimed anything.

As I've said time and time again, laws are being passed banning SSM.    I assume those lawmakers feel they have legal ground to stand on.   Much like you don't know why felons are denied the right to vote in some states(and didn't care enough to find out the legal reasons why), I don't care enough to research the subject to find out why these laws are being passed.   I just know that they are and that you keep screaming "THEY CAN'T!!!"

Well that's a cop out.

It's ok if you don't think the laws are constitutional, no one will hate you for agreeing with me.

If you have no opinion, that's ok too.

If you think they are constitutional, I'll gladly listen to your reasoning.

My opinions have actually been fact.

First opinion:  Those who believe in the Bible believe there are compelling reason to ban SSM.
Second opinion:  SSM is being banned in some states.
Third opinion:  The constitition and laws are open to interpretation.
Fourth opinion:  Some lawmakers do believe in the Bible and use it for guidance. 
Fifth opinion:  You live in some fantasy world where men can't interpret things, like the Bible and the constitution, differently.

1. We know for a fact that many religious people point to the bible as reason to ban same sex marriage.  That isn't a legal reason though.

2. Yes, it is.  But just because a law passes, doesn't mean it is constitutional.

3. It sure is.  What is your take on the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans?

4. Yes they do.  But when ruling on a case, a judge has to give a reason other than the bible says so.  

5. I agree that both those things are open to interpretation.  I really don't give a sh*t about the bible, but I'd be interested in hearing what your opinion is on the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans.
 

1.   Didn't say there was a legal reason.
2.   Nope, it sure doesn't.  But someone, or several someones, think it is.
3.   Don't care enough to form or verbalize an opinion.
4.   I doubt you'll find one using that wording.  Doesn't mean it didn't influence his decision.
5.  Still don't care.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 3:16:00 PM (view original):
The relationship isn't illegal (consenting adults with the capacity to contract) and is romantic.