The party of tolerance (political)

Pages

467 posts / 0 new
Last post
fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Alpine-I see you really should brush up on your history instead of letting your mouth run. Your caustic but very simplistic approach is nauseating to say the least. Franklin signed the Treaty of Paris , the Declaration and the Constitution and also the first abolitionist petition to Congress. HE believed in diversity, enlightenment and progress. By your standards what would he be,...a socialist? How about James Madison' s 10 commandments of civil rights and liberty? How about Abe Lincoln freeing black people. Guess he was a totalitarian hmmm? IF you look at most of the forefathers they loathed self appointed stooges to an official church telling everyone else what to believe. IF you, Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh had been around you would have been crying for the Crown to intercede! I suggest you do more then sit around and gab but actually enroll in a few classes to further your understanding so everything isn't so confusing, If this seems too much for you perhaps you'd feel better if you actually went out and actually contributed a little more to society by working a little.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"HE believed in diversity, enlightenment and progress."
   And you're dope enough to think socialism stands for diversity, enlightenment, and PROGRESS???   Franklin BELIEVED in the individual, he believed in free enterprise, he believed more than anything in limited government.  He would have as staunchly fought todays stinking socialists as he did the British.

You have zero understanding of this countries own history, and I don't think you even understand Marxism or Fascism.  You only blindly follow the bed wetter in front of you.

 How about James Madison' s 10 commandments of civil rights and liberty?

Yes, what about them?  Madison more so than any of our founders left more documentation of his loathing of big government and the ideals that became todays socialism.  He would have clearly seen "gay issues" as states issues, not for the federal government to be involved.  He was strongly in favor of the laws that all 13 colonies and then states carried at the time regarding so.
 
How about Abe Lincoln freeing black people. Guess he was a totalitarian hmmm?

What does he and this have to do with anything?   Socialists desperately trying to grab any figure from history they can associate themselves and their tainted beliefs with no matter how much of it is a lie.  Similar to what gays do to many figures from history, many of which were NOT gay.  Lincoln had many profound writings and quotes clearly AGAINST socialism.  The only totalitarians are socialists, you won't find any among supporters of free enterprise, capitalism, or the individual.

 

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

 "IF you, Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh"

Another blind and dumb sheep ragging on the likes of Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh.  While they quietly gobble up everything Matthews, Shultz, and Madow offer as news!

A demonstration of their cluelessness.

 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Great words alpy! I see if you don't interject diaper, boogers, Marxist or socialist you're somewhat of a hollow drone. Or ....did you get a paper route? IF so, I apologize. Just carry on.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Alpine we need a definition of what tolerance has become today.  Liberals will hold it up as a virtue when in truth it's simply a lack of principles.  Tolerance is what conservatives have.  They put up with things they don't agree with as long as it doesn't interfere with social dignity.  Liberals on the other  hand have changed it to acceptance.  The fewer principles you have the more tolerant you can be today.  If you have no principles you can accept even murder.  We see liberals today more angry with a firearm than the criminal.  That's enlightening to their true character and lack of reason. 

I will have to say more and more each day I see the democrat party as the party of immorality, and dishonesty.  They call black white, up down, light dark etc.  You don't have to go to New York or Chicago to find human screwed up liberal thinking.

I have talked with people who say it's natural even one male dog will jump another.  Yes, but they don't understand canine behavior either.  There is nothing sexual happening only one dog showing dominance by insult to the other dog.  It would be like one man shoving another or spitting on them. 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Plainsman Said:
Alpine we need a definition of what tolerance has become today.  Liberals will hold it up as a virtue when in truth it's simply a lack of principles.  Tolerance is what conservatives have.  They put up with things they don't agree with as long as it doesn't interfere with social dignity.  Liberals on the other  hand have changed it to acceptance.  The fewer principles you have the more tolerant you can be today.  If you have no principles you can accept even murder.  We see liberals today more angry with a firearm than the criminal.  That's enlightening to their true character and lack of reason. 

I will have to say more and more each day I see the democrat party as the party of immorality, and dishonesty.  They call black white, up down, light dark etc.  You don't have to go to New York or Chicago to find human screwed up liberal thinking.

I have talked with people who say it's natural even one male dog will jump another.  Yes, but they don't understand canine behavior either.  There is nothing sexual happening only one dog showing dominance by insult to the other dog.  It would be like one man shoving another or spitting on them. 

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

sparetire Said:
 

gst Said:

So if the "govt" grants the "right" to practice medicine to a medical doctor is the govt then obligated to grant that "right" to everyone else?

The govt "grants" the license to marry just as they grant the license to practice medicine.

To be granted these licenses the state requires certain things.

By your argument any "segment of the population" should then be able to demand the same "rights" to marry whomever or what ever they wish.

One man would then be able to have 10 wives, one woman could marry her German Shepard, a fella in Arkansas could then marry his cousin,  ect......

Where would the "right" to marry begin and end?

I never said the government shouldn't discriminate.  The right to practice medicine requires education, passing a few tests, and getting licensed.  Any person of any gender, race, faith, or sexual orientation, may try to meet the requirements.  

As far as the marrying whomever they wish, I would say yes, as long as that person is a consenting adult.  There is currently no law that allows for some people to marry 10 people and for some people to marry dogs.  To continue to allege that those who support gay marriage support bestiality is just a smokescreen.  

I also comprehend completely that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child.  It also takes a fertile male and a fertile female to conceive a child.  So?  If the support for heterosexual-only marriage is that it takes a man and woman to conceive a child, isn't the next logical step to limit marriage only to those who are fertile?  You never did answer directly my question about how you would handle the marriages of people with intersex conditions.

Spare, no one is saying people that support gay marriage support pedophilia or bestiality. I thought you would have understood that. What is being suggested is that as each incremental step is taken to ":change" in the name of "non discrimination" it becomes harder to stop that incremental movement and finally decide to discriminate against someone at some point.

Spare I did answer your question. I can't help if you do not understand.

I have yet to see ND issue a "transgender" drivers license or official ID. (I would imagine at some point if we are not there already some state will be forced to do so in avoidance of "discrimination".

Once you are identified as a male or female for all purposes in life that legal matters pertain to, that suffices to abide by a law that states marriage should be between a man and a woman. Whether they CAN have a child or not is not the issue it is whether they are of the right sexes to reproduce.

No matter how you slice it, only a man and a woman can reproduce.

sparetire Said:

The who should be allowed to have kids can be a whole different discussion.  There are HORRIBLE heterosexual parents out there.  

Again, why not take the government out of the business of licensing marriages?  

It appears from this statement that you do not seem to be following through with your "rights granted to a group of people" theory here because of YOUR viewpoint.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"Liberals will hold it up as a virtue when in truth it's simply a lack of principles." 

No sentence more profound than this one.  The rest of your post Plainsman spot on.
Liberalism stands for nothing more than the decay and end to the freedom and liberties of the citizen in exchange for a power state with big government crushing the skull of the individual citizen.  To think how many liberal blind sheep socialists are teaching our kids in government schools.  Government has seized our schools, our health care from the private sector.  From the people.  Guns and energy are next.

The Democratic party has become nothing more than a far left wing radical Socialist Party.  The liberals are doing their best to make the Republican Party even more liberal than they presently are.  Then they'll have a Marxist/Fascist party called the Democrats, and a liberal socialist party that can be considered "conservative".  Those will be your two choices.  It's time to turn that around right now, and it's going to take a lot of Americans to wake up to do it.  We'll start by moving the House more conservative. Not just more Republican, and taking the Senate from the socialists.

Impeachment proceedings in the waiting for OBOZO if he makes further unconstitutional move regarding executive orders.

 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fish, despite what you think of your own self intellect you are out of your league in discussing the ideals and intents of those who founded this nation.

But the nature of the progressive liberal automatically negates the true understanding because it is in direct conflict with your principals and ideals so you have no choice but to twist things to fit your views.

It seems now according to the liberal education standards  under Common Core, Lincolns religious views were "liberal" .

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Here is an example of liberal hate for tradition and religion.

STUDIO FIGHT OVER 'NOAH'...

Efforts made to appease conservative Christians...

Multiple versions tested in screenings, director Aronofsky furious...

Movie fixated on overpopulation, environment...



I didn't read everything, but they portray Noah as someone who wanted to kill everyone.  When they talk about overpopulation and environment I can just see liberals trying to tell us that the flood was a result of global warming.  Sick, sick people. They can't leave marriage alone because it shows their messed up sexuality, and they can't take a religious story and tell it right without turning it into a mockery.  Sick

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

try for 20.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/us/holder-says-state-attorneys-general-dont-have-to-defend-gay-marriage-bans.html

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Monday injected the Obama administration into the emotional and politicized debate over the future of state same-sex marriage bans, declaring in an interview that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.

Mr. Holder was careful not to encourage his state counterparts to disavow their own laws, but said that officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.

Six state attorneys general — all Democrats — have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage, prompting criticism from Republicans who say they have a duty to stand behind their state laws, even if they do not agree with them.

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.

“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.

As an example, Mr. Holder cited the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, which forced public school integration in 1954.

“If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities,” Mr. Holder said.

The nation’s first black attorney general, Mr. Holder has said he views today’s gay-rights campaigns as a continuation of the civil rights movement that won rights for black Americans in the 1950s and ’60s. He has called gay rights one of “the defining civil rights challenges of our time.”

In his role as the administration’s leading voice on civil rights issues, he has at times earned sharp criticism from Republicans who see him as infringing on state autonomy. He has sued Texas and North Carolina, for example, over laws that would require voters to show identification at the polls. Studies show poor and minority voters are least likely to have identification.

His comments signal the latest manifestation of the Obama administration’s evolving position on gay rights. Mr. Obama came into office opposed to same-sex marriage. But in 2011, he decided against defending the Defense of Marriage Act and ended the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from the military. The next year, the president said he personally supported gay marriage.

Mr. Holder is scheduled to address the National Association of Attorneys General at a conference on Tuesday, but reports of his comments drew immediate criticism from the president of the bipartisan group.

“It really isn’t his job to give us advice on defending our constitutions any more than it’s our role to give him advice on how to do his job,” said Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin, a Republican. “We are the ultimate defenders of our state constitutions.”

While the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, it has not weighed in on whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The legal battleground, for now, has shifted to the states, and the collective voice of several attorneys general refusing to defend their laws could help sway those cases.

One of those cases is in Wisconsin, where four same-sex couples sued this month to overturn the state’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Mr. Van Hollen said Mr. Holder’s analysis might make sense in rare cases related to state laws. But he said that in states that have passed constitutional amendments, attorneys general must defend them.

“If there’s one clear-cut job I have, it’s to defend my Constitution,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “There is no one else in position to defend the State Constitution if it comes under attack.”

Colorado’s attorney general, John W. Suthers, a Republican, has also warned against attorneys general making decisions about which laws to defend.

“I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs,” Mr. Suthers wrote in The Washington Post this month. “But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.”

Same-sex couples in the state are challenging Colorado’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

But in Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia, state attorneys general have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage. Attorneys general in California and Illinois similarly refused to defend bans that were later overturned.

“The answers to these questions are crystal clear,” said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “Attorneys general can’t close their eyes to something that’s blatantly unconstitutional. They’re not supposed to defend the laws at all costs.”

In Arizona this week, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow business owners to deny service to same-sex couples. Asked in the interview about the legislation, Mr. Holder said he had not reviewed that bill and had no view on whether it was constitutional.

But he said he was certain that, if signed into law, it would face swift legal challenges. And the state’s attorney general would have to decide whether to defend it.

For those that wish to claim the gay marriage agenda does not affect others, please explain how the Federal US Attorney General instructing state attorney generals they can pick and choose what laws they wish to uphold from their states constitutions when it comes to gay marriage not affect all residents of that state?

States rights? About as much as the states right to require a valid ID to vote is any more.

I wonder if Mr. Holder would "uphold" laws that force an employer to hire people based on race rather than qualifications?

I wonder if Mr. Holder would "uphold" laws that require schools to accept people on race rather than academic performance? 
 
Discrimination? Apparently it is in the eyes of the be"Holder".

Here is a clear cut example of how an agenda is being used to steamroll over basic states rights by over reaching Federal activism.

No wonder the courts are overturning these bans and will continue to do so at an accelerated pace in the future , the President now has unfettered abilities to place whatever judges will meet his ideals rather than uphold the Constitution thanks to the Democratic controlled Senate.

But hey this is not a part of the incrementalism destroying this nation nor does it really affect anyone else.

 

DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

GST, you seem to be a very intelligent individual and you are very passionate about politics and similar topics.  However, I think I speak for everyone here when I ask you to take this shit elsewhere.  You do your research and you back each statement you make with facts.  I actually agree with a lot of what you say, I'd just rather come to an outdoors website and not have to sift through political topics or topics you and plainsman make political.  You should be spewing your message to a group of people that will actually change the course of this country.  I don't think the Fishing Buddy Lobbyists are too active in any political forum.  So, please, pretty please, utilize your abilities where they may actually gain traction. 


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

DirtyMike Said:
GST, you seem to be a very intelligent individual and you are very passionate about politics and similar topics.  However, I think I speak for everyone here when I ask you to take this shit elsewhere.  You do your research and you back each statement you make with facts.  I actually agree with a lot of what you say, I'd just rather come to an outdoors website and not have to sift through political topics or topics you and plainsman make political.  You should be spewing your message to a group of people that will actually change the course of this country.  I don't think the Fishing Buddy Lobbyists are too active in any political forum.  So, please, pretty please, utilize your abilities where they may actually gain traction. 

Thanks for the nice words DirtyMike. and I can appreciate this being an outdoors site, and those that come here to enjoy that portion of it. I enjoy all the outdoors related topics and stories and pictures people share here as well. On occasion I pipe in with comments relating to the outdoors in them as well.

But whether we are hunters, fisherman, shooting enthusiasts we are also citizens of a country that seems to be undergoing a transformation that will eventually impact the very hunting and fishing and outdoors activities you and I like to read about on FBO as these people wishing to transform this nation achieve their goals and move on to the next issue.

So perhaps there is a place for these political discussions on a hunting and fishing outdoor site.

And besides, one can always simply avoid running a cursor over and clicking any one topic.

I mean I could not even tell you what the FBO sausagefest thread was about.

And besides we are only 12 posts away from another 20 pager this winter.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

" However, I think I speak for everyone here when I ask you to take this shit elsewhere. "

No, you speak for yourself.  Nobody asked you to click on this thread, and a political section was included for a purpose.  So if you don't like the topic, beat it.

On top of that, political issues both indirectly and directly impact the sportsman to be specific and the citizen in general as gst indicated.  If you do not want a voice, so be it.  Every citizen and especially every sportsman should have the brains to thank those that do.

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:


BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:
Btr, like it or not, it is nothing more than your opinion that the reasons to allow gay marriage are more substantial than the ones to ban it. I've explained this to you multiple times now on this thread alone. Opinions are not always equal. Opinions can be wrong. When one group has repeatedly disproved, debunked, or shown the other groups ideas to be illogical, then the arguments are not equal. Question. Lets assume two groups disagree on a subject. One of these groups has all the logic and facts supporting it and the other group has nothing and has been proven wrong. Are these two groups opinions equal? 


You really have a hard time accepting your "opinion" is not as "special" as you believe don't you btr.


No different than the majority of NDans opinions that have lead to laws defending traditional marriage here in this state. Yes, 14 years ago.

How much would you like to bet the percentages would not be significantly different

1. If you honestly have no problem is a "guy taking a dump" in the same bathroom at the same time your junior high daughter is in the bathroom, I am betting you are in the very small minority of NDans. Most people probably haven't though about it. Are you afraid to take a dump in a stall next to a women? To me privacy is privacy whether it is a male or female. If I have to go to the bathroom have no problem taking a nasty dump with a women in the stall next to me. This by the way is a little off topic, but that's how you roll when you've been going around in circles many many times now. 

Come on btr you KNOW I am not talking about adult unisex bathrooms. I am talking about the forcing of STUDENTS in public schools to allow gay kids and transgender kids access. BIG difference.

But what you seem to wish to overlook is the agenda that is forcing that onto others who may have a problem with their teenage daughter being subjected to using the same bathroom at the same time as teenage boys. (I am betting you do not have a teenage daughter) quite frankly, this has nothing to do with not allowing gays to marry.

Your answer reinforces by belief you do not have a young daughter that would be affected by this govt ruling.

You and others ask how does someone being gay affect someone else??? Right there is your answer if you wish to be honest. To be honest, people judge different topics on their own merits. 

I know, I know, your "opinion" once again

2.Hell even YOU are willing to discriminate against someone that is gender confused by not allowing them to use the same locker room. Why should YOU get to choose that distinction but I can not choose whether the mixed bathroom is alright or not? Your question was boys and girls, not a gender confused kid. For a guy who has called me a liar a few times in this thread alone, please try to be honest. I never said you can't choose whether mixed bathrooms are alright or not. 
http://www.bing.com/search?q=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&form=MSNH14&refig=99ff67775028401ebf81e4b5550e0929&pq=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&sc=0-27&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&ghc=1

btr I have referenced "gender confused kids"/transgender a number of times
in this thread and others. But do you think the schools will have separate bathrooms for non "gender confused kids" ?

Anyone that still claims gays are not attempting to "force" their views onto others and impacting their lives, please read btr's replies and make that claim with a straight face.

It is clear if you do not believe in gay marriage your opinion is worthless and simply wrong and does not deserve recognition or consideration.

I find it kind of funny all the times you called me a liar, yet you wrote the last paragraph. Again, the reason more and more people are accepting gay marriage is because gay marriage supporters have used logic during debate. 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

3. btr says when asked about a man marrying a 12 year old boy:
"If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

And right there is the example of incremental acceptance from gay marriage to what most would veiw as pedophilia. As you have mentioned, it is legal in that state for an adult to marry a child. If that state chooses to allow pedophilia, that is their choice. An adult man marrying a 12 year old boy is as much pedophilia as an adult man marrying a 12 year old girl. I thought you supported states rights?
 
The question was not about whether or not the STATE should allow it btr, (if the state wants to be that screwed up so be it) it was about whether YOU would allow it. It was asked as a question to show the incremental slide from gay marriage to what most people other than yourself consider pedophilia.

Thanks for making my argument for me.

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

btr you once again either miss or dodge the point of the question should you HAVE to hire unqualified minorities? "I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone" That was my answer. It isn't my fault that you didn't understand it. 

btr the "explanation" is simple even you should understand, the govt forces that upon you because of anti "discrimination" lawsuits.
why would you hire them? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? I would not hire and unqualified individual over a qualified individual. I don't care what race or sex they are. Unless the qualified individualis a d bag, just like I said before. 

In some states you simply do not have this choice. Sucks when the "anti discrimination" issue affects you doesn't it.

why should you accept boys going into the girls locker room? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? You don't have to accept it, just like you don't have to vote to allows gay to marry. No one has achieved it yet. You sure love logical fallacies. 

btr, I have provided a number of links to a couple of different states that have this as state law! Are you denying it?

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

When they are forcing combined bathrooms and locker rooms onto people. When they are accepting of 40 year old men "marrying" 12 year old boys if that is their "right".
Perhaps the "big bad gay man" is "out to get" people that do not hold those same moral standards. So you want to force your morals onto everyone? That's it. That's the reason you are against gay marriage?you just don't like it. I've asked you that a few times, it's ok to answer. 

btr, I have stated numerous times I believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman because that is the batting teams that are required to reproduce. Try not to deflect.

As of today btr, no mater how much you hate it, the people of North Dakota support the role of traditional marriage by banning gay marriage despite your opinion there is no valid reason to. Yes, because it hasn't been voted on since 2014. And no, it doesn't bother me.

you sure seem to act like it "bothers you" claiming everyone with this "opinion" is simply wrong.

I would be very surprised if someone from NY has as good an understanding of ND moral views as they might think. Could be. 
Prove it.

It appears btr all you are now doing is dragging the conversation away from questions you know the answers to will not support your position.
Incorrect. You are the one changing topics and trying desperately for some sort of "win' in this extensive thread. 
Enjoy working to change North Dakotans views on gay marriage by telling them they don't know what they are talking about and are simply wrong so their opinions are invalid and simply should not count.
 Can you at least admit that you are against gay marriage just because you don't like it? Since you never answered my question again. Again, opinions are not always equal. I'm sorry. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 

zogman Said:
I am going to give this a bump.  I would like to see BTR answer the gst and plainsman questions.

That really isn't necessary because almost all of gst's questions have been answered at least a couple times now. Or at least it seems like it. He's been going off topic a little as of late though. 

funny, most everyone else would likely believe the same points are likely being made  over and over to the point of nausea!

It appears that you are getting a little upset, because you can't honestly believe that. There really isn't a point you've made that I have not debunked at this point. It is ok to accept that gst. Repeatedly asking question after question, then slighty changing the wording isn't getting you anywhere. Going off topic searching for something if anything to try and make it look like you are getting somewhere. Then, going to the lengths of calling me a liar and blatantly attempting to alter my point of view or stance on the topic. Honestly it is somewhat juvenile at this point. Not trying to be a prick, just the best way to describe it. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

guywhofishes Said:

If you want a non-religious argument for marriage remaining a hetero arrangement - this man's work sums it up pretty nicely. I understand Fargo's (ugh) Jon Lindgren struggled to define marriage when this article's author debated on this topic yesterday at NDSU.

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

By

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
Article here:
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Here is Jon's blog where he discusses yesterday's debate:
redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/02/12/gay-marriage-must-cause-some-problem-somewhere-but-what-is-it/

guywhofishes Said:

If you want a non-religious argument for marriage remaining a hetero arrangement - this man's work sums it up pretty nicely. I understand Fargo's (ugh) Jon Lindgren struggled to define marriage when this article's author debated on this topic yesterday at NDSU.

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

By

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
Article here:
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it

Here is Jon's blog where he discusses yesterday's debate:
redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/02/12/gay-marriage-must-cause-some-problem-somewhere-but-what-is-it/

I really don't see it as an argument at all, considering having children is not the only, or even an important part of marriage. Plenty of unmarred couples out there with children that are doing just fine. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

btr, I have to admit I simply do not remember, so if I have called you a liar and it was unjustly done, my apologies.

Please point out where I may have done so improperly if you would.

I am curious what you have to say about the US AG claiming states attorneys should not uphold their states constitutions regarding their individual states views on gay marriage?

Would that agenda not affect every citizen within that given state as the ideals of a republic form of govt are trampled?

btr you ask "Can you at least admit that you are against gay marriage just because you don't like it? Since you never answered my question again. Again, opinions are not always equal. I'm sorry."

I have repeatedly answered this question for you. I "like" the fact that marriage should be between two sexes that have the possibility of reproduction. I "like" that marriage here in ND is defined as being between a man and a woman.

I have repeatedly said if gays are granted civil union status with all the same legal "rights" other than title by the voters of this state so be it.

So by default yes I do not "like" marriage being defined as between anything other than a man and a woman.

And at least for now I live in a state whose population seems to agree despite others claims they can not prove and whose attorney general is not as willing to trample the constitution as our Federal attorney general appears willing to do.
'
btr I thought you were all for states rights so I am curious to hear your take on Mr. Holders views?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 

zogman Said:
I am going to give this a bump.  I would like to see BTR answer the gst and plainsman questions.

That really isn't necessary because almost all of gst's questions have been answered at least a couple times now. Or at least it seems like it. He's been going off topic a little as of late though. 

funny, most everyone else would likely believe the same points are likely being made  over and over to the point of nausea!

It appears that you are getting a little upset, because you can't honestly believe that. There really isn't a point you've made that I have not debunked at this point. It is ok to accept that gst. Repeatedly asking question after question, then slighty changing the wording isn't getting you anywhere. Going off topic searching for something if anything to try and make it look like you are getting somewhere. Then, going to the lengths of calling me a liar and blatantly attempting to alter my point of view or stance on the topic. Honestly it is somewhat juvenile at this point. Not trying to be a prick, just the best way to describe it. 

BringingTheRain Said:
  Again, opinions are not always equal. I'm sorry. 

indeed, your above emboldened "opinion" is not always as equal to fact as you might believe.

Once again please show me where I have wrongfully called you a liar btr.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 If anyone has noticed, gay marriage can't seem to lose in court. Federal judges are agreeing that states banning gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Gst and me might both be wrong on the topic after all. I've assumed that it was the states's right to make decisions on marriage. But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:

I really don't see it as an argument at all, considering having children is not the only, or even an important part of marriage. Plenty of unmarred couples out there with children that are doing just fine. 

btr, it seems as if you simply are demanding the people of ND do what you say because you believe the majority of everyone else in this state is wrong.

You repeatedly simple deem others views as invalid even though in reality you have "debunked" nothing with anything other than your own "opinion".

As of now the majority of "opinions" here in ND disagree with you. 

Quit being "juvenile" and get over it.

btr, what do you think of Holders comments?

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

" But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. "

Tell that to Obozo the proven liar and his band of merry socialists.  I'm talking about issues of sovereignty,  oath, and misuse of executive order and regulation in an attempt to concentrate power to himself and away from Congress.

As far as the courts on this issue goes, some of the recent decisions are simply wrong by the very definition of our Constitution.  This is what you get when more and more leftist legislative judges and Justices are placed behind the bench by liberal and socialist presidents.

This is strictly a states issue.  If the idea of marriage as being defined as being between one man and one woman is unconstitutional then so is blocking polygamy and marriage.  Then so is that intimate marriage between a man and his well cared for and loved Collie a marriage if they want it to be.   Who are YOU to judge?

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 If anyone has noticed, gay marriage can't seem to lose in court. Federal judges are agreeing that states banning gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Gst and me might both be wrong on the topic after all. I've assumed that it was the states's right to make decisions on marriage. But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. 

btr until the S COTUS deems states creating definitions of marriage in their constitutions is unconstitutional you can not make assumptions based off these rulings by district courts.

And the gay rights activists are more hesitant to approach the lands highest court because they are not as sure these judges hold as liberal a view of the constitution as the ones they have picked in other states.

Given this Senates and Presidents distain for the centuries long process of nominating and confirming judgeships more and more states will likely see the rulings you mention. If you are happy with the results regardless of how they are achieved it says a lot.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 At least be honest, it is NOT about gaining "rights", it is about gaining the TITLE which means they will have dismantled what is accepted as traditional marriage. 

Christ almight btr, you really can not comprehend simple things or you are simply not willing to be honest. 

At least be honest to admit that as it is glaringly easy to see. 

Quit lying btr. it is NOT about the "privilege of marriage" when a domestic partnership gives that very "privilege"  to them. Try being honest here for once. 

honesty goes a long ways towards credibility. 

Lie to yourself if you wish to convince yourself this is NOT about incrementally dismantling Christian values, but when you start to lie to others what this is really about to achieve an agenda is when I take exception. 







johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

The definition is what they are after, makes it seem more exceptable.

If the federal government is just going to force their laws unto the states, why even have a state government. Maybe obama and his ilk could come to ND and take over our state government and find a better way to spend our surplus for the good of the children

Neat

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 At least be honest, it is NOT about gaining "rights", it is about gaining the TITLE which means they will have dismantled what is accepted as traditional marriage. 

Christ almight btr, you really can not comprehend simple things or you are simply not willing to be honest. 

At least be honest to admit that as it is glaringly easy to see. 

Quit lying btr. it is NOT about the "privilege of marriage" when a domestic partnership gives that very "privilege"  to them. Try being honest here for once. 

honesty goes a long ways towards credibility. 

Lie to yourself if you wish to convince yourself this is NOT about incrementally dismantling Christian values, but when you start to lie to others what this is really about to achieve an agenda is when I take exception. 







Most people have a hard time acknowledging their less than honest stances whether they are intentional or not.

Read each of those quotes in the context of the entire discussion including your claims and tell me once again where I have wrongfully accused you of lying btr.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Congratulations john r you are mister 20 pages!

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
btr, I have to admit I simply do not remember, so if I have called you a liar and it was unjustly done, my apologies.

Please point out where I may have done so improperly if you would. I posted them.

I am curious what you have to say about the US AG claiming states attorneys should not uphold their states constitutions regarding their individual states views on gay marriage? It depends on whether or not is actually unconstitutional. 

Would that agenda not affect every citizen within that given state as the ideals of a republic form of govt are trampled? The republic form of government recognizes rights that protect the minority from mob rule. 

btr you ask "Can you at least admit that you are against gay marriage just because you don't like it? Since you never answered my question again. Again, opinions are not always equal. I'm sorry."

I have repeatedly answered this question for you. I "like" the fact that marriage should be between two sexes that have the possibility of reproduction. I "like" that marriage here in ND is defined as being between a man and a woman. So, is it safe to say this is your best reason to deny gays marriage? A lesbian woman can still have a child. A gay man can still produce sperm. Many heterosexual couples never get married with the intentions of having children and many unmarried couples with children create a perfectly happy and healthy family. 

I have repeatedly said if gays are granted civil union status with all the same legal "rights" other than title by the voters of this state so be it.

So by default yes I do not "like" marriage being defined as between anything other than a man and a woman. Ok. So can you accept that fact that the same sex marriage supporters have gained much support because they have done a better job at explaining why marriage does not belong to hetero couples? This argument basically went from people being afraid to come out of the closet, to trying to gain marriage because gay supporters have done a better job at providing validity to the argument. By answering questions and debunking logical fallacies. 

And at least for now I live in a state whose population seems to agree despite others claims they can not prove and whose attorney general is not as willing to trample the constitution as our Federal attorney general appears willing to do. First of all, majority doesn't automatically equal right. But, yes, the majority of the population agreed 10 years ago for sure. 
'
btr I thought you were all for states rights so I am curious to hear your take on Mr. Holders views? I am, but on this topic, of states being able to ban gay marriage, we might both be wrong. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 At least be honest, it is NOT about gaining "rights", it is about gaining the TITLE which means they will have dismantled what is accepted as traditional marriage. 

Christ almight btr, you really can not comprehend simple things or you are simply not willing to be honest. 

At least be honest to admit that as it is glaringly easy to see. 

Quit lying btr. it is NOT about the "privilege of marriage" when a domestic partnership gives that very "privilege"  to them. Try being honest here for once. 

honesty goes a long ways towards credibility. 

Lie to yourself if you wish to convince yourself this is NOT about incrementally dismantling Christian values, but when you start to lie to others what this is really about to achieve an agenda is when I take exception. 







Most people have a hard time acknowledging their less than honest stances whether they are intentional or not.

Read each of those quotes in the context of the entire discussion including your claims and tell me once again where I have wrongfully accused you of lying btr.

You need to re read them as a whole, because I answered your accusations of me being a liar. I understand you have to defend yourself blatantly calling me a liar, because it is against your nature to ever admit you were wrong. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

johnr Said:

sparetire Said:
 
I also comprehend completely that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child.  It also takes a fertile male and a fertile female to conceive a child.  So?  If the support for heterosexual-only marriage is that it takes a man and woman to conceive a child, isn't the next logical step to limit marriage only to those who are fertile?  You never did answer directly my question about how you would handle the marriages of people with intersex conditions.

Well you see that is why it is between a man and a woman, as they can potentially recreate. However this will be unknown until after marriage, and trying for a period of time. Then if no pregnancy happens, we will know that one of them or possibly both are infertile.

No matter how many times Lance tries to get Jim pregnant it just aint happening...

And worse yet is the poor child that has to go thru life having Lance and Jim as his loving gay dads. Kids are cruel, and I just dont see the love in adding to that.

A child needs a mother and a father, regardless of what nonsense talking points are out there. Do Lance and Jim love the adopted child? I am sure as much as any parent would. Does that make it a great situation? I guess I really dont think so, as love is only one aspect of what comes from a mother and a father in learning lifes lessons.

A couple of dudes or chicks want that life style, whatever, but to call it a marriage, and put some children into the mix, I just dont see the good. However I am a Christian, and also a conservative, and a North Dakotan, who raised/raising 4 kids, so what the hell do I know.

If the importance of heterosexual marriage is because that couple can reproduce, then I can help you feel better right now. The gay man down the street can still get a women pregnant. A lesbian can still get pregnant. You're welcome!

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 If anyone has noticed, gay marriage can't seem to lose in court. Federal judges are agreeing that states banning gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Gst and me might both be wrong on the topic after all. I've assumed that it was the states's right to make decisions on marriage. But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. 

btr until the S COTUS deems states creating definitions of marriage in their constitutions is unconstitutional you can not make assumptions based off these rulings by district courts.

And the gay rights activists are more hesitant to approach the lands highest court because they are not as sure these judges hold as liberal a view of the constitution as the ones they have picked in other states.

Given this Senates and Presidents distain for the centuries long process of nominating and confirming judgeships more and more states will likely see the rulings you mention. If you are happy with the results regardless of how they are achieved it says a lot.

If every federal judge agrees on the topic, I think scotus will have a hard time finding an argument to disagree with. But, maybe not. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

Alpine Said:
" But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. "

Tell that to Obozo the proven liar and his band of merry socialists.  I'm talking about issues of sovereignty,  oath, and misuse of executive order and regulation in an attempt to concentrate power to himself and away from Congress.

As far as the courts on this issue goes, some of the recent decisions are simply wrong by the very definition of our Constitution.  This is what you get when more and more leftist legislative judges and Justices are placed behind the bench by liberal and socialist presidents.

This is strictly a states issue.  If the idea of marriage as being defined as being between one man and one woman is unconstitutional then so is blocking polygamy and marriage.  Then so is that intimate marriage between a man and his well cared for and loved Collie a marriage if they want it to be.   Who are YOU to judge?

Again, something is either unconstitutional or it is not. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:
btr, I have to admit I simply do not remember, so if I have called you a liar and it was unjustly done, my apologies.

Please point out where I may have done so improperly if you would. I posted them.

I am curious what you have to say about the US AG claiming states attorneys should not uphold their states constitutions regarding their individual states views on gay marriage? It depends on whether or not is actually unconstitutional. 
  So when has it become the duty of the state attorney general to determine that?
Would that agenda not affect every citizen within that given state as the ideals of a republic form of govt are trampled? The republic form of government recognizes rights that protect the minority from mob rule. 

And it also protects from one branch of govt controlling govt perhaps you can explain that to Obama and the Senate and Mr Holder

btr you ask "Can you at least admit that you are against gay marriage just because you don't like it? Since you never answered my question again. Again, opinions are not always equal. I'm sorry."

I have repeatedly answered this question for you. I "like" the fact that marriage should be between two sexes that have the possibility of reproduction. I "like" that marriage here in ND is defined as being between a man and a woman. So, is it safe to say this is your best reason to deny gays marriage? A lesbian woman can still have a child. A gay man can still produce sperm. Many heterosexual couples never get married with the intentions of having children and many unmarried couples with children create a perfectly happy and healthy family. 

again to adnuseum, can two women or two men ever create a child?

I have repeatedly said if gays are granted civil union status with all the same legal "rights" other than title by the voters of this state so be it.

So by default yes I do not "like" marriage being defined as between anything other than a man and a woman. Ok. So can you accept that fact that the same sex marriage supporters have gained much support because they have done a better job at explaining why marriage does not belong to hetero couples? This argument basically went from people being afraid to come out of the closet, to trying to gain marriage because gay supporters have done a better job at providing validity to the argument. By answering questions and debunking logical fallacies. 

btr I thought it was about gaining the "rights" associated with marriage. Now you admit the gay community will not be happy until they have taken the the title as well. As far as "debunking" any thing, btr your own comments prove the very point many have about the incremental aspects of this from a purely legal standing

And at least for now I live in a state whose population seems to agree despite others claims they can not prove and whose attorney general is not as willing to trample the constitution as our Federal attorney general appears willing to do. First of all, majority doesn't automatically equal right. But, yes, the majority of the population agreed 10 years ago for sure. 
'
btr I thought you were all for states rights so I am curious to hear your take on Mr. Holders views? I am, but on this topic, of states being able to ban gay marriage, we might both be wrong. 

So you have no problem with Holder telling states to disregard their constitutions?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 If anyone has noticed, gay marriage can't seem to lose in court. Federal judges are agreeing that states banning gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Gst and me might both be wrong on the topic after all. I've assumed that it was the states's right to make decisions on marriage. But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. 

btr until the S COTUS deems states creating definitions of marriage in their constitutions is unconstitutional you can not make assumptions based off these rulings by district courts.

And the gay rights activists are more hesitant to approach the lands highest court because they are not as sure these judges hold as liberal a view of the constitution as the ones they have picked in other states.

Given this Senates and Presidents distain for the centuries long process of nominating and confirming judgeships more and more states will likely see the rulings you mention. If you are happy with the results regardless of how they are achieved it says a lot.

If every federal judge agrees on the topic, I think scotus will have a hard time finding an argument to disagree with. But, maybe not. 

is that every Federal judge or those appointed because of the liberal ideals that matched that of their appointer?

I would imagine the percentage just went up after your Senate and President have unrestricted abilities to put whomever they wish on the bench now.

Nice how this "republic" thing works eh btr?   Sarcasm intended.

You are willing to completely overlook this dismantling just to obtain your goal. 
 
Nice.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

This thread is a dumpster fire.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 

Alpine Said:
" But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. "

Tell that to Obozo the proven liar and his band of merry socialists.  I'm talking about issues of sovereignty,  oath, and misuse of executive order and regulation in an attempt to concentrate power to himself and away from Congress.

As far as the courts on this issue goes, some of the recent decisions are simply wrong by the very definition of our Constitution.  This is what you get when more and more leftist legislative judges and Justices are placed behind the bench by liberal and socialist presidents.

This is strictly a states issue.  If the idea of marriage as being defined as being between one man and one woman is unconstitutional then so is blocking polygamy and marriage.  Then so is that intimate marriage between a man and his well cared for and loved Collie a marriage if they want it to be.   Who are YOU to judge?

Again, something is either unconstitutional or it is not. 

to make that claim shows you know little or are not being honest once again. Many things that were once declared "constitutional" have been overturned simply because of the make up of the court which has nothing to do with constitutionality.

You know damn well if 5 of the SCOTUS justices died tomorrow and were replaced by this president the 2nd amendment would be declared "unconstitutional" as soon as the case could be fast tracked thru the courts along with many other things currently "constitutional" 

So either you are being a fool or dishonest. you pick btr.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Meelosh Said:
This thread is a dumpster fire.

ah hell it hit 20 and most everything has been repeated now at least 5 times put er in the files!

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:

I really don't see it as an argument at all, considering having children is not the only, or even an important part of marriage. Plenty of unmarred couples out there with children that are doing just fine. 

btr, it seems as if you simply are demanding the people of ND do what you say because you believe the majority of everyone else in this state is wrong. Again, I am not demanding anything. I've simply put forward my reasoning against not allowing gays to marry. 

You repeatedly simple deem others views as invalid even though in reality you have "debunked" nothing with anything other than your own "opinion".  This is just seems more like denial. All you have to do is reread these threads we've had on here for the answers you don't think exist. My opinions have explained why the following arguments are either wrong, or mostly wrong. and why they just aren't good enought to deny gays marriage. "It's not natural", "It's non Christian", "It's not traditional", "it's detrimental to society", "it's bad for family values", etc etc. All you have done, is made evident that you are against gay marriage just because you don't like it. Because you think marriage belongs to man and woman because that can reproduce. 

As of now the majority of "opinions" here in ND disagree with you. I would agree with that, again doesn't mean majority is right, and no doubt more and more North Dakotans are beginning to  support gay marriage. I think you will find that is mainly the older generation of Dakotan's that disagree with gays being able to marry, and I would bet most of that generations first and foremost reasoning behind their decisions is the bible. 

Quit being "juvenile" and get over it. I would think from anyone reading this thread, that is being completely honest with themselves, that they would clearly see who has been the more 'juvenile' with his responses.

btr, what do you think of Holders comments? I haven't really read them yet.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Meelosh Said:
This thread is a dumpster fire.

Neat

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 

Alpine Said:
" But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. "

Tell that to Obozo the proven liar and his band of merry socialists.  I'm talking about issues of sovereignty,  oath, and misuse of executive order and regulation in an attempt to concentrate power to himself and away from Congress.

As far as the courts on this issue goes, some of the recent decisions are simply wrong by the very definition of our Constitution.  This is what you get when more and more leftist legislative judges and Justices are placed behind the bench by liberal and socialist presidents.

This is strictly a states issue.  If the idea of marriage as being defined as being between one man and one woman is unconstitutional then so is blocking polygamy and marriage.  Then so is that intimate marriage between a man and his well cared for and loved Collie a marriage if they want it to be.   Who are YOU to judge?

Again, something is either unconstitutional or it is not. 

to make that claim shows you know little or are not being honest once again. Many things that were once declared "constitutional" have been overturned simply because of the make up of the court which has nothing to do with constitutionality.

You know damn well if 5 of the SCOTUS justices died tomorrow and were replaced by this president the 2nd amendment would be declared "unconstitutional" as soon as the case could be fast tracked thru the courts along with many other things currently "constitutional" 

So either you are being a fool or dishonest. you pick btr.

Imagine that 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

johnr Said:

Meelosh Said:
This thread is a dumpster fire.

Wish I had a dumpster. Bags suck.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 If anyone has noticed, gay marriage can't seem to lose in court. Federal judges are agreeing that states banning gay couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Gst and me might both be wrong on the topic after all. I've assumed that it was the states's right to make decisions on marriage. But if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. 

btr until the S COTUS deems states creating definitions of marriage in their constitutions is unconstitutional you can not make assumptions based off these rulings by district courts.

And the gay rights activists are more hesitant to approach the lands highest court because they are not as sure these judges hold as liberal a view of the constitution as the ones they have picked in other states.

Given this Senates and Presidents distain for the centuries long process of nominating and confirming judgeships more and more states will likely see the rulings you mention. If you are happy with the results regardless of how they are achieved it says a lot.

If every federal judge agrees on the topic, I think scotus will have a hard time finding an argument to disagree with. But, maybe not. 

is that every Federal judge or those appointed because of the liberal ideals that matched that of their appointer?

I would imagine the percentage just went up after your Senate and President have unrestricted abilities to put whomever they wish on the bench now.

Nice how this "republic" thing works eh btr?   Sarcasm intended.

You are willing to completely overlook this dismantling just to obtain your goal. 
 
Nice.

The judges are ruling this way because they are having a hard time finding a valid reason not to have the ruling. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:
btr, I have to admit I simply do not remember, so if I have called you a liar and it was unjustly done, my apologies.

Please point out where I may have done so improperly if you would. I posted them.

I am curious what you have to say about the US AG claiming states attorneys should not uphold their states constitutions regarding their individual states views on gay marriage? It depends on whether or not is actually unconstitutional. 
  So when has it become the duty of the state attorney general to determine that?
Would that agenda not affect every citizen within that given state as the ideals of a republic form of govt are trampled? The republic form of government recognizes rights that protect the minority from mob rule. 

And it also protects from one branch of govt controlling govt perhaps you can explain that to Obama and the Senate and Mr Holder

btr you ask "Can you at least admit that you are against gay marriage just because you don't like it? Since you never answered my question again. Again, opinions are not always equal. I'm sorry."

I have repeatedly answered this question for you. I "like" the fact that marriage should be between two sexes that have the possibility of reproduction. I "like" that marriage here in ND is defined as being between a man and a woman. So, is it safe to say this is your best reason to deny gays marriage? A lesbian woman can still have a child. A gay man can still produce sperm. Many heterosexual couples never get married with the intentions of having children and many unmarried couples with children create a perfectly happy and healthy family. 

again to adnuseum, can two women or two men ever create a child?

I have repeatedly said if gays are granted civil union status with all the same legal "rights" other than title by the voters of this state so be it.

So by default yes I do not "like" marriage being defined as between anything other than a man and a woman. Ok. So can you accept that fact that the same sex marriage supporters have gained much support because they have done a better job at explaining why marriage does not belong to hetero couples? This argument basically went from people being afraid to come out of the closet, to trying to gain marriage because gay supporters have done a better job at providing validity to the argument. By answering questions and debunking logical fallacies. 

btr I thought it was about gaining the "rights" associated with marriage. Now you admit the gay community will not be happy until they have taken the the title as well. As far as "debunking" any thing, btr your own comments prove the very point many have about the incremental aspects of this from a purely legal standing

And at least for now I live in a state whose population seems to agree despite others claims they can not prove and whose attorney general is not as willing to trample the constitution as our Federal attorney general appears willing to do. First of all, majority doesn't automatically equal right. But, yes, the majority of the population agreed 10 years ago for sure. 
'
btr I thought you were all for states rights so I am curious to hear your take on Mr. Holders views? I am, but on this topic, of states being able to ban gay marriage, we might both be wrong. 

So you have no problem with Holder telling states to disregard their constitutions?

to nip this in the butt right away, I haven't paid attention to what holder has said or read or watched. I'll have to look into it. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 btr I thought it was about gaining the "rights" associated with marriage. Now you admit the gay community will not be happy until they have taken the the title as well. As far as "debunking" any thing, btr your own comments prove the very point many have about the incremental aspects of this from a purely legal standing


From the very beginning I have said it is about gays being able to marry, nothing has changed. Not being able to get married and settling for anything else is 2nd class. You're incremental comments are silly to me because this society is going to go through changes many many changes over it's time and you are probably not going to like anyone of them. I don't worry about conspiracy theories. 


johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

401 suckers

Neat

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 

Alpine Said:
" However, I think I speak for everyone here when I ask you to take this shit elsewhere. "

No, you speak for yourself.  Nobody asked you to click on this thread, and a political section was included for a purpose.  So if you don't like the topic, beat it.

On top of that, political issues both indirectly and directly impact the sportsman to be specific and the citizen in general as gst indicated.  If you do not want a voice, so be it.  Every citizen and especially every sportsman should have the brains to thank those that do.

 

DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

Let me rephrase that for you, Alpine.  I believe these topics are very important.  People make good points throughout a lot of these types of topics.  I just don't think this is the forum for these topics.  People bitch about nothing ever getting done yet they only come on here to complain about it.  If they would call their senators, run for office, picket an office, etc., they might actually change something. 

Alpine Said:
" However, I think I speak for everyone here when I ask you to take this shit elsewhere. "

No, you speak for yourself.  Nobody asked you to click on this thread, and a political section was included for a purpose.  So if you don't like the topic, beat it.

On top of that, political issues both indirectly and directly impact the sportsman to be specific and the citizen in general as gst indicated.  If you do not want a voice, so be it.  Every citizen and especially every sportsman should have the brains to thank those that do.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

DirtyMike Said:
Let me rephrase that for you, Alpine.  I believe these topics are very important.  People make good points throughout a lot of these types of topics.  I just don't think this is the forum for these topics.  People bitch about nothing ever getting done yet they only come on here to complain about it.  If they would call their senators, run for office, picket an office, etc., they might actually change something. 

Alpine Said:
" However, I think I speak for everyone here when I ask you to take this shit elsewhere. "

No, you speak for yourself.  Nobody asked you to click on this thread, and a political section was included for a purpose.  So if you don't like the topic, beat it.

On top of that, political issues both indirectly and directly impact the sportsman to be specific and the citizen in general as gst indicated.  If you do not want a voice, so be it.  Every citizen and especially every sportsman should have the brains to thank those that do.

why not do both?

You might consider the number of people that read these threads without commenting on them. I did for a couple years. I can tell you I read and thought and had some thoughts swayed on what was posted on these sites like this.

Pages