Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by Makedde, Dec 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 2 of 23
  1. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOLOLOL!!!! Court precedent isnt passion, it is the law. YOU people are the ones with NOTHING other than hysterics, emotions and hormones. Its what you do, what you are.
     
    dixon76710, Dec 20, 2011
    #26
  2. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    XD

    Yes we're all homosexuals, all of us who support same-sex marriage, WE ARE THE 53%!!!

    Court "precedents" and interpretations haven't stayed consistent since the constitution was written. Take slavery and civil rights.

    Things change in light of cultural changes and shifts in popular opinion. Opinion on SSM over the past 10-15 years has changed dramatically, and so must draconian laws.
     
    DevilMay, Dec 20, 2011
    #27
  3. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No straight judge has upheld anything. Straight judges stayed his decision, preventing it from having any effect. Revealing how your own mind fabricates your own reality to fit with the one you imagined.
     
    dixon76710, Dec 20, 2011
    #28
  4. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You obviously dont even comprehend the meaning of the word.
     
    dixon76710, Dec 20, 2011
    #29
  5. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    DevilMay, Dec 20, 2011
    #30
  6. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    semanticsplural of se·man·tics (Noun)
    Noun:
    The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
    The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".

    ......
     
    DevilMay, Dec 20, 2011
    #31
  7. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dixon76710, Dec 20, 2011
    #32
  8. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, the article said "upheld Walker's decision"...

    But on closer inspection, as much as it pains me to admit it, I guess you're right. I can admit that.

    But basically what he said was that Walker being gay was irrelevant, which it is. I don't even know why I said "upheld by a straight judge". Walker was no more incapable of reaching an impartial, constitutional conclusion than a married judge isn't able to preside over a divorce hearing. This was what a judge in the Ninth Circuit told the Prop 8 lawyer...
     
    DevilMay, Dec 20, 2011
    #33
  9. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Aaaand where are the semantics in my post you labeled as semantics?

     
    dixon76710, Dec 21, 2011
    #34
  10. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    ....

    It wasn't the part I quoted. Your post had quotations in explaining the historical "meaning" of the word marriage. Absolutely irrelevant in legal terms.
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #35
  11. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    <<< MODERATOR EDIT: DELETE INSULT >>>

    I hit "quote" for your entire post - outside quotes and all. And obviously MY post didn't pick those up, but I thought (wrongly) you'd have the slight intellectual capacity to realise this. You're simply digressing.
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #36
  12. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So the only thing you actually quoted, "wasn't the part I quoted", got it.

    And the claim is

    And I provided definitions from old court cases and BC Roman law as evidence of what marriage was "founded upon", and since it includes definitions, youve convinced yourself that your single word reply "semantics" is actually making a point. Youre the foolish one.
     
    dixon76710, Dec 21, 2011
    #37
  13. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But regardless of their use in court, I'M saying it's semantics - aka not a good argument. That's what I was saying. The only one who looks foolish for all to see is you. I promise.
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #38
  14. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's irrelevant because you could use previous historical definitions of marriage to support all kinds of wacky cases - for example a man claiming his wife should be forced to be his subservient concubine and answer his beck and call. It's ridiculous. The definition is fluid, as with any word. Semantics are irrelevant.
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #39
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It only seems that way to you because you still havent even figured out what the argument is. Typical
     
    dixon76710, Dec 21, 2011
    #40
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yep, you dont even have a clue.
     
    dixon76710, Dec 21, 2011
    #41
  17. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Please "educate" me Dixon. I'm all ears.

    What relevance does the previous historical definition of marriage have on the current legal definition of marriage, bearing in mind it has already changed dramatically over the years?
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #42
  18. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The current legal definition of marriage isnt the topic of discussion. The OP says

    The relationship that marriage was founded upon.
     
    dixon76710, Dec 21, 2011
    #43
  19. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sooo what's the relevance of the type of relationship it was founded on to the thread "what rights (if any) should be awarded to homosexual couples?"
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #44
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You would need to ask Osiris Faction. Essentially he thinks two 18 yr old boys who bone each other in the butt IS the type of relationship that marriage is "founded upon", while a single mother and grandmother raising 3 chilren/grandchildren are NOT the type of relationship marriage was "founded upon" so no rights for them, only rights "awarded to homosexuals" because they are homosexual and mom and grandma are not.
     
    dixon76710, Dec 21, 2011
    #45
  21. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOL

    Well if it was irrelevant, why did you accept his "strawman". Clearly, you're a sucker for it.
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #46
  22. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And where did he say marriage was founded on same-sex couples??
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #47
  23. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody said it was irrelevant. No strawman that I see and merely a distorted perception of what type of relationship marriage was "founded upon".
     
    dixon76710, Dec 21, 2011
    #48
  24. DevilMay

    DevilMay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    4,902
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Show me where he said marriage was founded on same-sex relationships...
     
    DevilMay, Dec 21, 2011
    #49
  25. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    59,171
    Likes Received:
    4,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are in a thread about what rights "should be awarded to homosexuals" his advocacy for homosexual marriage in this and other threads,

    combined with his arguments that mom and grandmom dont get to marry because they are not the type of relationship that marriage was "founded upon". A resonable assumption. Do you think I am wrong? If so, why is departure from the type of relationship marriage was founded upon justification for the denial of marriage in the case of mom and grandmom, but not the two 18 year old boys?
     
    dixon76710, Dec 21, 2011
    #50
Page 2 of 23
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page