Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Yeah, I'm not gonna do this with you. You're not worth the time. At this point in time, the denial of rights has been overturned by a federal judge. It is my expectation that when prompted with the opportunity to agree with said Judge, the supreme court will come through with flying colors.

Should they fail, I'll accept it for what it is - I'm not the one on crusade anyway - but I won't suddenly agree with their position, either. And yes, even if the Supreme Court rules against marriage for homosexual partners, I'll still think you're an idiot, for reasons already stated.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You agreed that the term racist wasn't as encompassing as homophobe. I guess the only thing left for you to do is get over it.



Because the definition of marriage has changed so many times over the years. AS a matter of fact, it was changed to being only between a man and a woman because people were kicking up a fuss about same-sex marriage. I'm pretty sure you didn't **** and moan about that.





Those "illogical" arguments seemed to work pretty damn well in various courts of law, so you'll excuse me if I don't find your opinion on them too upsetting.

ETA: By the way, for a guy who ******* about no one admitting when they're wrong and touting how you're the only one who does it, I didn't see an apology or admission of being wrong when you accused me of thinking everyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is a homophobe.

Edited, Aug 26th 2010 2:52pm by Belkira

That's because it was a moronic and illogical argument, with no evidence shown.



The SCOTUS said that marriage is a fundamental right. You can disagree with it, but yes, you're wrong. If the SCOTUS makes same-sex marriage illegal, it will be illegal. I can disagree with it, but it will still be illegal.

Come on, Alma. You can do better than this, surely.

That was never the argument. The argument was that the US government got into the business of marriage because it was a carry-over from British law. No one is arguing that marriage law c.2010 AD is based entirely on British common law. On the other hand, there's no evidence that marriage law in the US since 1780 or so has been based on any single overriding factor or rationale. That's the burden someone needs to take up if they want to claim otherwise and try to project all marriage-affecting legislation through a single prism. So far no one has managed to do so.

So you have no problem using words incorrectly? Alrighty then.



Sure, whatever you say.



Sure. You know, those places where the outcome actually counts.



So when you accused me of that, you had no idea what you were talking about? You were just talking out your ***? Why don't you go back and look, since it seems to bother you so much when people can't be bothered to learn what your arguments are?

Edited, Aug 26th 2010 3:26pm by Belkira

It's a social change of definition. You seem to have objections to being labeled a negative term filled with hatred. Why is that?



Now you're learning



Uhh...So you acknowledge that a ruling can be inaccurate, but then you ridicule a person for standing against a ruling that s/he seems inaccurate?



No. You are only arguing with me. I argue with numerous posters all at once. I've stated plenty times before that I will confuse who said what because of that. The point that I argued was mentioned by more than one poster. So, once again, if I misspoke on your behalf, I apologize, I was wrong.

I don't, when it comes from someone who has no idea what they're talking about. I just find your hypocrisy amusing.



I'm not sure when I ridiculed you about "standing against a ruling." We were talking about an argument being illogical. I mentioned that it seems to work in a court of law, so it must not be exactly "illogical." Then you went off on another tangent. Do try to keep up at least a little about what we're talking about.



We all argue with numerous posters all at once. But you want everyone to dig back into a 30 page thread and find exactly what your point was, but don't bother to do it yourself. The apology is appreciated, but this is just another reason why people get frustated with you. You're arrogant and hypocritical.

oh ye of little faith.

How is asking you if you have a problem being called a hatred filled word when you don't have that hatred translates to me "having no idea what I'm talking about".

The point is that the word homophobe contains the same hatred that a supremacist would have towards homosexuals. This is the same hatred that a supremacist would have against other ethnic backgrounds. So you're telling me to "get over it" when being compared to a supremacist, but you question my words when I label you a similar word for the same reasoning, not supporting a cause.



Back when you kept saying SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS!!!! Your whole argument was that the SCOTUS says marriage is a right and so not allowing SSM is somehow denying their right to marry. You defended your illogical argument saying that it seemed to work in court. I countered to say, yes it does, the same place where the truth doesn't matter as long as you can argue your point. You countered to say, sure, but that's where it counts.

So you admitted that it isn't about the truth, but how you argue. This means that what the SCOTUS says doesn't necessarily support reality. This doesn't support your actions of yelling SCOTUS SCOTUS but the SCOTUS said it's a right!!!

I've been keeping along quite well.



That's not hypocritical at all.

In my case, I'm talking about my main point which I have stated multiple times over that people seem to over look. It's a way for me to stop repeating myself, by telling you the exact page it was on, not 30 pages.

In your case, it was a side point which had no relevance because the point that I was arguing was still present. Besides, YOU DIDN'T EVEN take the time out to look to see what you said, why should I?

I go back and find the exact wording before I tell the forum to look for anything. I actually do more work telling you to find it than just saying it.

So, there's no hypocrisy at all.






Moron, I wasn't focusing on what you think of me...

Besides, you not changing your mind supports my whole point of what the SCOTUS says is moot as no one will change their opinion based on what they say.

I read about as much of them as I quote, which is to say...

I'll go with that.

Er? You misunderstood me. It's not a restriction on that freedom. Let me explain:

In the absence of marriage laws, marriage is purely defined by the participants. That's freedom. That's choice. When the government creates marriage laws, it imposes its view of what marriage should be on the people. Now the people could just ignore the government and do their own thing (common law marriage), but the government sweetens the deal by including a set of benefits that a couple can only get if they agree to enter into the agreement that the government has defined.

This is not freedom. It's government control. It always has been. And for generations, heterosexual couples have been forced to enter into a three way contract with the government as the senior partner in order to be considered "married" by the state. It has no effect at all on their love for each other, but a combination of social pressures and government incentives makes it so that in the course of a century or so, we move from having almost no statutory marriages in the US, to having almost all of them be that way.

I'll say the same thing I have said many many many times in the past. Not providing someone with a benefit is *not* the same as taking a freedom away from them. Gay couples are just as free to marry as heterosexual couples have been for thousands of years. No one has removed or is blocking that freedom. The government does not have the authority to say what "marriage" is. It can only define a set of conditions, label it "marriage" and then dole it out as it wills.

You are a sucker if you somehow think you gain freedom by being allowed to qualify for a government status. That's not what freedom is. Freedom is when you can do what you want without the government getting involved.




That's a separate issue. That's about why the government created the status and why it limits who can obtain it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom.

Edited, Aug 26th 2010 3:57pm by gbaji

Sure it is. You just don't like the idea of being on the "let's just get rid of the government status" side for whatever reason, which is peculiarly at odds with your repeated statements that you want less interference of the government in people's lives.