New Hampshire Bans Gay Marriage

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-18 05:18pm

jegs2 wrote:Only when the judicial system (read: SCOTUS) decides to interpret a piece of the Constitution unfavorably, robbing states of their rightful authority, would I support an amendment to the Constitution.

What a bunch of window dressing. The intepretation of the Establishment Clause espoused by fundies and conservatives everywhere was not the original intent, nor is it the legally supported precedent.

It is your interpretation which is in the wrong and against the grain. It is your interpretation which is revisionism upon the point, purpose, spirit, and intent of the Establishment Clause.

What you're really saying is so long as no one enforces a part of the Constitution you don't like, you'll let it sit by. You're pleased with it only insofar that it treated in such a manner as it might as well not exist at all, which is practically no different with saying it should not be there in the first place.

jegs2 wrote:One individual asked me what punishment we should levy against those who break the Sabbath (i.e. work on Sunday), to which I replied that I would recommend no punishment, as neither would I recommend punishment for those who refuse to honor their parents.

You're the one what lumped "sin" as a justification for your opinion. So I wanted to know--if local folks made common law with punishments for working on the Sabbath, would you not support a striking down of this law, as it "normalizes" sin? What about the right to divorce, something which is apparently disavowed by Christ? Do you not support the right to divorce, since it is apparently against the Lord's will?

The rest is just using the fact that as an American citizen you have the right to vote as an excuse for bigotry. No one disputed your right to vote, and vote as you please. We're just calling a duck...a duck.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2004-05-18 05:21pm

"Being a Southerner" is such a half-hearted cop-out. I've suspected the real situation (even a page before he mentioned he was southern), that Jegs2 is actually a former Confederate soldier, holed up in a foxhole ~8m northeast of Fredericksburg, Virginia, polishing his black-powder musket and washing his grey Confederate uniform, eagerly waiting the call to arms that signifies the fight for "states' rights" is arising again.

Or do most southerners just act that way in general? Goddamn, we didn't have a civil war just so morons could tout irrational and inferior government models as thinly-veiled excuses for bigotry.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-18 05:24pm

jegs2 wrote:If the SCOTUS forces states to see homosexual marriage as a civil right, then they are in effect trumping states rights -- hus the amendment.

State's rights are an a priori good? Since when?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-05-18 05:42pm

Why are people addressing arguements agains someone who left the debaiting table HOURS ago?
I under stand posting lag, but come on here, he left the topic more than four hours from this post. He basicly conceeded by quiting, yet you still want to argue with someone not even there any more?

When the judge slams the gavel, and rules "Not Guilty," don't keep arguing. Just how much MORE not guilty do you want to be?

You are doing the equivalent of screeming at the back of a receeding car, who is far out of hearing range by now. It makes you look foolish at best.

After the first TWO hours after he left this was pointless. The next TWO are ridiculous, Rouge Ice, Andrew J., I.P., and Darth U.
Just who are you arguing with now, any way?
The man who left the room, or your selves?
Give it a rest guys. The fat lady sang hours ago, and badly off key.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-18 05:44pm

There's a huge hole there with that logic, he ran off without conceeding, just saying "You dont play nice!". It's closer to the judge just walking off to the pub part way through the trial because he doesnt like the jury.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-05-18 05:56pm

The horse is dead, and you can't ride it.
Keep beating though.

Just who ARE you arguing with anyway?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-05-18 06:02pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:The horse is dead, and you can't ride it.
Keep beating though.

Just who ARE you arguing with anyway?

The cowardly bigot who, like all those that say they're leaving hasnt really left, he's just not talking. Why are you wasting your time pointing out what people already know?

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-05-18 06:13pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:After the first TWO hours after he left this was pointless. The next TWO are ridiculous, Rouge Ice, Andrew J., I.P., and Darth U.

I wasn't even talking about jegs2 directly in my reply. I addressed that to Alyeska.

Why don't you actually read what people post rather than just assuming it was all about jegs2 and calling them idiots/pointless/whatever for it?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-05-18 06:21pm

You are not arguing now, except with me. An agrument requires TWO or more parties of differing opinion.
You are giving a speach.
You are NOT addressing Jeggs, as he isn't listening. GOT THAT?
He left HOURS ago. 11:54 AM to be precise, at the time of this post.
That was his last post, and he isn't on line as I write. That makes it 5 hours from this post.

The court analogy is quite a good one , as it is not the judge who has left the court in the middle of the case, but the prosecuting attorney, (You know, the who has to prove his case to get his way) after being overruled too many times, has fled the court (of public opinion) claiming the juy doesn't understand his evidence, and the judge is biased to boot.

Don't be a poor winner.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-05-18 06:25pm

Are you going to defend every moron who flees from a fallacy-based arguement?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-05-18 07:34pm

Straw man ASSHOLE
How do you go from
He isn't here to hear your arguements,
To
I am defending his arguements?

"Don't be a poor winner."
That sounds like I'm thinking he's right?

Defending a man who flees from and arguement.

Saying that talking at an empty chair,( that has been empty for 4 hours plus) isn't an arguemment, it is a speach.
Yup, the last two look just the same to me too.
The only arguement left on this topic is this one.
Since this will be my last post in this topic, THAT one will be over as well. Feel free to make speaches and call them arguments however.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-05-18 07:37pm

Sod off EmperorChrostas the Cruel.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-05-18 08:17pm

Another person who can't justify their actions.

I hope this isn't contagious.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-18 08:44pm

While Chrostas may be overstating the point, it is true that this was a clear-cut case of "piling on" syndrome.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-18 10:22pm

All right, this has clearly turned into a vulture fest. I'm locking it.