Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

I have plenty of logic, you dim witted ********* I'm just not going to waste any significant amount of keystrokes arguing with someone who barely manages the intellect of a brick wall.

Add delusional to the list of attributes you exude, and I think I'm done here.

There are some people here from the Brick Wall Anti-Defamation League who want to talk to you, Stubbs.

Mr. to

No point you've made in this thread is valid. I'm not just interested in debating the illogical. Keep on thinking you've struck a nerve though. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

It only fails because you refuse to accept the point. The point was being called a word that is filled with hatred when you do not posses that said hatred. You told me to "get over it", yet you don't seem so welcoming to be called a hate filled word when you don't have any hatred.

In that aspect, the words are the same exact thing. The fact that this behavior is only acceptable under the word "homophobe", should ring a bell that there is probably something wrong with the utility of that word. If you want to pretend that there isn't anything wrong with it, then so be it, but since you said that you like to stay away from that word, that tells me that you at least some what understand my point.



Well maybe I used the wrong word by saying "ridiculing". I'm not going to look it up and try to prove that you were ridiculing because that isn't the point. I'll just say that you're right for the sake of time and arguing.

If marriage is indeed a "right" in the context that you are referring, then why is it that the ban is still there after years of fighting? Like I said, if California banned women voting, it would be overturned rather quickly. Given the fact that every year for the past years, the same argument is ongoing and there are still bans across the nation proves the fact that there are other interpretations that are being used to argue. Simple as that.

As mentioned, you can't admit that court rulings don't necessarily represent the truth, but who argued better and then expect people to care what the SCOTUS says. You said yourself that you wouldn't change your opinion, so did Brown Duck so why do you think I should GAF what the SCOTUS says?

You're simply fighting the law when it isn't on your side and hiding behind it when you think it is on your side. That's a set up for failure. Your points should be supported by logic, not what the current SCOTUS says.

Besides, I told you a million times that I wasn't arguing if marriage was a right or not, you just keep refusing to accept that while yelling SCOTUS SOCTUS SCOTUS!!! I didn't deny that. I even said a few pages ago that I might have said something earlier in the thread, but I wasn't going to argue that point with you. What did you do? You came back with SCOTUS and said "You're wrong" when I never said anything to the contrary.

If you remember correctly, we were arguing about equality not rights. You're confusing my statement on interracial marriage with SSM.

You never proved to me how separate but equal wasn't equal.

All you did is state what the SCOTUS said, but with nothing to show how the law changes between two men with varying sexuality. Given the fact that your opinion nor anyone's opinion would change after the upcoming ruling, what the SCOTUS says is completely moot. It all comes down to the simple facts.



My focus wasn't on you, but on the forum since that was what was being argued. You claimed that everyone responds to multiple people like me, I wont deny it because I'm not on here often, but I've never seen it. The only reason why my responses are low now is because most people gave up on me. I remember when I first started on OOT, I would literally come back to almost an entire page or two of responses.




That's not true. I expect people to know my over all stance before attacking me on it, especially after I state it multiple times through out a thread. Don't come in on page 15 saying that I like oranges over apples when I said multiple times over that I like apples over oranges. When people make a mistake over a post that I just wrote, I tend to quote myself not go say "find it". I'm more concerned with the concept not the details. So, no, it's no hypocritical at all. You can think it is, but it's not.

In your situation, it was in reference to a detail that not only didn't matter, but YOU ALSO DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO LOOK IT UP BEFORE POSTING. I ask again, if you didn't care about the accuracy about something that was irrelevant, why should I? If you said, "go look on page 4", I would have. You didn't. Your post showed that it wasn't that important, so I moved on.

I actually paused and said "should I address this, it's not like me to not do so". Since you didn't show any accuracy, I left it as is.

It's a lose-lose situation. Before you said I was on a tangent, now I'm wrong for skipping irrelevant details.



I get it, it's you that don't get it. I'm not arguing the legality of the ruling, I'm arguing the logic behind it. What the SCOTUS says is completely irrelevant in that case. If the SCOTUS made it legal for the Irish to steal with no punishment, it maybe law, but it doesn't mean it's just or logical. I'm arguing the latter and you're stuck on the former because you think in your dense little mind that just because the SCOTUS says its ok, then it's ok. No, it just makes it law and I wasn't arguing against the law.

Get it?

Posting on page 34.

I'd be prouder of this thread if the last 33 pages weren't full of circular logic, reasoning failures, and terrible writing. It's like verbal whack a mole. You smack one, and another 3 paragraphs pop up. It's futile, in the end. Even if you do score points, the moles keep coming back, unharmed, to taunt you some more.

I apologize to the Great Data Cloud In The Sky for initiating all this useless content.

In penance, I'm gonna go off and write some RNC chairman slash. Mehlman/Steele will meet in a log cabin, have sloppy buttsex, then run off to San Francisco to cross-dress as Nancy Pelosi in the next Pride Parade.

I thought they reproduced by infection, like the zombie virus in biohazard. (OK, OK, they probably aren't zombies but I haven't played the game yet, don't kill me ok? ;;)

There are two ways to "appeal" a Supreme Court decision.

The first would be to change the law of the land legislatively; for example if we repealed the 14th amendment and then ratified the Federal Marriage Amendment. If such a hypothetical decision granted SSM based on the 14th, then it's repeal followed by enshrining hetro-marriage in the Constitution would effectively overturn the courts ruling.

The other option is to wait fifty years for a new Court and bring a challenge of some type before a different group of judges. That's how we went from Plessy to Brown. In 1896 it was determined that separate but equal was equal but in 1954 it was determined that separate could not be equal by the vary nature of separation.

This is why some supporters of SSM feel that the current case over Prop 8 is premature. There is a concern that the Roberts Court might make a Plessy ruling whereas a future court might be more inclined to make a Brown.

Personally I am hopeful that both the Ninth Circuit and the current court will uphold Judge Walker's decision. The rights, benefits and responsibilities that accrue to married couples and to parents/guardians should not be affected by the gender or sexual orientation of the people involved.

Go fuck a cactus.

A 34 page thread about a wedge issue designed to occupy stupid Americans?


Mission Accomplished, I'd reckon.

What are thanking her for? Being frustrated by your density? God, you're a blight upon all Africans. Like famine but less charismatic.