Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

I read that a while back, further supports my claim. What's your point?



I'm not denying your claim. Matter of fact when I said "not enough people or not the right people", it meant just that. My argument was that you can't say the ban on SSM wasn't lifted because of common law. It simply wasn't a large enough force before in favor of SSM.



That's true. At the same time, the Constitution also specifically addresses practices that were/are widely used.



What question? This thread didn't get up to 35 pages by me "avoiding questions".

The source of a law or rule is irrelevant if the law itself is justified.

It's a very simple practice, is the law justified? Yes or no. If yes, you keep it. If no, you alter or remove it. There's no "doubt" factor.

Edited, Aug 28th 2010 5:31pm by Almalieque

Nothing but here.

You want this to be true, but it isn't. /Shrug. It isn't justified because the reasoning used for it doesn't apply. If you're banning something the onus is always on the people who want to keep the ban. Keep dodging the question of why the law is justified though.

Edited, Aug 28th 2010 11:27am by Xsarus

We don't, and I have no idea how to explain it to you. That was as simple as I could possibly put it, and I just watched you do some Olympic-caliber linguistic and mental gymnastics to avoid having to even confront my point.

I don't know what else I can do.

Edited, Aug 28th 2010 1:05pm by Eske

The law is equally discriminatory on one level. That level, which I agreed with you on, is a strawman argument. It does nothing to support any argument that you've made thusfar.

The level that matters is the one that I keep trying to explain, the one which you keep using your puzzling semantic logic to dismiss. It is an inequality through law. You keep saying "unfairness", which seems to satisfy something in your head, though I have no idea why.

Nothing much, I just found it amusing. I've given up trying to show you anything because it really isn't worth the effort. You're missing some basic foundation that I don't have any inclination to lay.

oops

Edited, Aug 28th 2010 2:15pm by Xsarus

All I got from this is Joph thinks Alma is too stupid to have sex with.

Foundation, not formation.

And please do.

Try again.

The foundation you lack was once taught to students before they finish High School. Then bit by bit our education system has crumbled as budgets were cut across the land.

My daughters learn more at home about American history and government then they were at school. The schools were too busy trying to manage constant fixes to the reading and math curriculum imposed by the school board and administration every 2 years and lack of supplies for the restrooms. Meanwhile all the social studies classes became mere afterthoughts to trying to prepare students for being educated citizens who can actually think for themselves, instead of following whatever the latest meme push by political pundits.

So now we have a cry for making America return to it's values.

Which ones? Slavery? Jim Crow Laws? Poll Taxes? Women not being full Citizens who's opinions matter? When I heard Beck and company saying we should return to the values that make America Great, I imagine them taking us back to the day when only white land owners could vote. Sorry, but I find that each time we have push for more equality in America, the country is far Greater then back when the government was founded.

go into historically black neighborhoods and ask the senior citizens what life was like before Civil Rights finally started to bear fruit in the late 60's. MLK Jr. Dream is still a long way off for most of us who remember how life was back then.

Sorry folks until we can learn not to judge others due to them being different from us, then I will fight for equality of those left behind and pushed from out of mind, because we don't want to face our own failures to fulfill the hope of our founding fathers to build a country were all Men are truly created equal in the laws that govern us.

Oh I'm aware that you don't have the balls or the understanding to actually be able to take a position on something. I'm going on the off chance that you'll say something stupid in response. So far it's worked pretty well.

It is sort of refreshing that you actually ran out of meaningless criticisms and finally might have understood the point though, kudos. I'll give you benefit of the doubt here.

You're wrong. All I have to show is reasonable evidence to examine the law, and at that point the onus is always to justify the law rather then the other way around. I'm surprised that someone who (I'm under the impression) identifies themselves as on the right would oppose that philosophy. If the law can be justified then the onus is on the opposing party, but it always has to be justified first.

Oh also, I'm not sure what skin you use, but yellow is really really annoying and hard to read, could you stop using it?

Edited, Aug 28th 2010 11:48pm by Xsarus