Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[kaz]

Why doesn't he ask his spouse why she felt she NEEDED "government validation"? According to him, she forced him into a civil marriage he didn't want.

Strawman. I told you I was married to have this discussion, I'm not afraid of it. However, I never said how we got married.



If you want to post this as a question rather than a strawman accusation then I would be happy to address it, but I'm not addressing anything that's put in such a bull manner.

It's not a Strawman. You loathe those seeking civil marriage...the same civil marriage you take advantage of with the excuse "my wife made me do it". Are you as contemptuous of your own as you are of others?

Strawman

 

[kaz]

Strawman. I told you I was married to have this discussion, I'm not afraid of it. However, I never said how we got married.



If you want to post this as a question rather than a strawman accusation then I would be happy to address it, but I'm not addressing anything that's put in such a bull manner.

It's not a Strawman. You loathe those seeking civil marriage...the same civil marriage you take advantage of with the excuse "my wife made me do it". Are you as contemptuous of your own as you are of others?

Wait....His wife "made him do it"? Really? Where is that gem to be seen? I must read it! I must!

Seawytch isn't going be able to produce that quote because it doesn't exist, I never said my wife "made" me do it.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not a Strawman. You loathe those seeking civil marriage...the same civil marriage you take advantage of with the excuse "my wife made me do it". Are you as contemptuous of your own as you are of others?

Wait....His wife "made him do it"? Really? Where is that gem to be seen? I must read it! I must!

Seawytch isn't going be able to produce that quote because it doesn't exist, I never said my wife "made" me do it.

Right...you did it "for" her because she wanted and NEEDED it. The reluctant hypocrite.

 

[kaz]

It's a fair point. But what is government "demanding" from people in this case? I would say this is a case where the people are more than entitled to demand something from the government, that being equal treatment under the law.

Actually, government marriage is not about equal treatment, it's specifically about treating people differently. In fact, if it were about "equal treatment" no one would care. Government should treat all it's citizens equally. Expanding inequality doesn't create equality no matter how you slice it. So no, no one has any "right" to demand unequal treatment from anyone, including government.

You may feel legal marriage causes inequality, and hey, I won't even argue with you. But this is a narrower topic. The government has offered to recognize marriages in order to facilitate the legal issues of two people sharing their lives. If they only give this to some people and not others, that is not equal treatment under the law.

Bull, gays can get married just the same as straights can. The law isn't a formula, wanting something different is irrelevant to "equal treatment under the law."

And I'm not going down your rat hole. Marriage is unequal treatment under the law and all citizens should be treated the same under the law. Expanding an injustice is not reducing the injustice.

 

[kaz]

This is why I banter with you, you really have no ability to follow any logical flow in a discussion at all, you're a hoot. Your point was about me, it wasn't about straights in general, your statement about "gays" is completely irrelevant to that.



You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct. At what point exactly do you feel that their opinion became such a great standard that merely stating one doesn't agree with the SCOTUS make them wrong? Was is 1920? 1950? I just want to be clear here when they stopped being unreliable and became The Standard. Were they The Standard in 2000? Remember how they installed W as President? At what point can we stop questioning their views and just take it as fact?

Um...when it comes to interpretation of our Constitutional RIGHTS, they are....if a case comes before them.

Welcome to the United States.

Remember how they installed W as President?

Even SCOTUS is not infalible - but just think of the alternative
AL GORE

Yes, the lunatic Al Gore. The ruling was correct, the Florida recount procedure was clearly a sham and unequal treatment based on counting votes differently. I was picking a ruling a liberal would disagree with. She didn't flinch, the kool-aid is strong within her...

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, government marriage is not about equal treatment, it's specifically about treating people differently. In fact, if it were about "equal treatment" no one would care. Government should treat all it's citizens equally. Expanding inequality doesn't create equality no matter how you slice it. So no, no one has any "right" to demand unequal treatment from anyone, including government.

You may feel legal marriage causes inequality, and hey, I won't even argue with you. But this is a narrower topic. The government has offered to recognize marriages in order to facilitate the legal issues of two people sharing their lives. If they only give this to some people and not others, that is not equal treatment under the law.

Bull, gays can get married just the same as straights can. The law isn't a formula, wanting something different is irrelevant to "equal treatment under the law."



And I'm not going down your rat hole. Marriage is unequal treatment under the law and all citizens should be treated the same under the law. Expanding an injustice is not reducing the injustice.

Argument tried (and failed) in Loving.

They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally.

http://hnn.us/article/4708

 

[kaz]

Wait....His wife "made him do it"? Really? Where is that gem to be seen? I must read it! I must!

Seawytch isn't going be able to produce that quote because it doesn't exist, I never said my wife "made" me do it.

Right...you did it "for" her because she wanted and NEEDED it. The reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman. I like how you like to keep telling me why I got married, and you're consistently wrong, and you can't be bothered to ask why I got married. The only reason I am not addressing that is you insist on telling me why you want me to have gotten married instead of wanting to know why I did. I'm not interested in taking out words you put in my mouth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct.

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

"Correct" according to whom, you?

You've got to be kidding.

 

[kaz]

You may feel legal marriage causes inequality, and hey, I won't even argue with you. But this is a narrower topic. The government has offered to recognize marriages in order to facilitate the legal issues of two people sharing their lives. If they only give this to some people and not others, that is not equal treatment under the law.

Bull, gays can get married just the same as straights can. The law isn't a formula, wanting something different is irrelevant to "equal treatment under the law."



And I'm not going down your rat hole. Marriage is unequal treatment under the law and all citizens should be treated the same under the law. Expanding an injustice is not reducing the injustice.

Argument tried (and failed) in Loving.

They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally.

History News Network | Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Can't get off this failed argument can you? Being gay does not change who you can marry. Being black did change who you could marry. You haven't come up with a counter example ... because there isn't one ...

 

[kaz]

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

"Correct" according to whom, you?

You've got to be kidding.

Um ... yeah, Homey, I'm stating my views. So if you're not stating your views, who's are you stating?

 

[Seawytch]

Seawytch isn't going be able to produce that quote because it doesn't exist, I never said my wife "made" me do it.

Right...you did it "for" her because she wanted and NEEDED it. The reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman. I like how you like to keep telling me why I got married, and you're consistently wrong, and you can't be bothered to ask why I got married. The only reason I am not addressing that is you insist on telling me why you want me to have gotten married instead of wanting to know why I did. I'm not interested in taking out words you put in my mouth.

I'm only paraphrasing what you've said here. Your wife wanted a marriage license and you didn't. You got one because she NEEDED one. What part is wrong?

 

[Seawytch]

Bull, gays can get married just the same as straights can. The law isn't a formula, wanting something different is irrelevant to "equal treatment under the law."



And I'm not going down your rat hole. Marriage is unequal treatment under the law and all citizens should be treated the same under the law. Expanding an injustice is not reducing the injustice.

Argument tried (and failed) in Loving.

They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally.

History News Network | Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Can't get off this failed argument can you? Being gay does not change who you can marry. Being black did change who you could marry. You haven't come up with a counter example ... because there isn't one ...

I'm not allowed to marry the consenting adult of my choice because of gender...just like they weren't for race. Parallels are clear.

http://hnn.us/article/4708

 

[bodecea]

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct.

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

So...let's be clear on this....you do not consider the Judicial Branch, whom the Constitution gave the power to interpret law....to have the authority to interpret law.

So...this is really about you being a petulant child because you don't like what the government is doing.

 

[bodecea]

Then, don't have a legal marriage. Why would anyone feel the NEED to keep others from getting a legal marriage if they wish to do so?

Why doesn't he ask his spouse why she felt she NEEDED "government validation"? According to him, she forced him into a civil marriage he didn't want.

Strawman. I told you I was married to have this discussion, I'm not afraid of it. However, I never said how we got married.

If you want to post this as a question rather than a strawman accusation then I would be happy to address it, but I'm not addressing anything that's put in such a bull manner.

You don't like government getting into the marriage business...but you have a governmentally sanctioned marriage......something you were NOT required to get.

Huh?

 

[bodecea]

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

"Correct" according to whom, you?

You've got to be kidding.

Sad to say....I don't think he is.

 

[Seawytch]

Why doesn't he ask his spouse why she felt she NEEDED "government validation"? According to him, she forced him into a civil marriage he didn't want.

Strawman. I told you I was married to have this discussion, I'm not afraid of it. However, I never said how we got married.



If you want to post this as a question rather than a strawman accusation then I would be happy to address it, but I'm not addressing anything that's put in such a bull manner.

You don't like government getting into the marriage business...but you have a governmentally sanctioned marriage......something you were NOT required to get.



Huh?

His wife wanted it. He did it for her. Very gentlemanly and self sacrificing. I just want to know why it's okay for her to NEED civil marriage, but gays are loathsome for wanting the same thing.

 

[kaz]

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

Bam! That was my point, they are the authority to you ... when you agree with them. LOL. I never consider them an authority on anything, they have consistently proven they are not worthy of it regardless that they get some rulings correct.

So...let's be clear on this....you do not consider the Judicial Branch, whom the Constitution gave the power to interpret law....to have the authority to interpret law.

So...this is really about you being a petulant child because you don't like what the government is doing.

Strawman. And wow, the bullet hits the bone! The truth hurts, LOL. BTW, big girls use words, they don't lash out in angry little outbursts like you.

Hi, you have received -2873 reputation points from bodecea.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Strawman

Regards,
bodecea

Note: This is an automated message.

LOL, thanks!

 

[kaz]

Right...you did it "for" her because she wanted and NEEDED it. The reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman. I like how you like to keep telling me why I got married, and you're consistently wrong, and you can't be bothered to ask why I got married. The only reason I am not addressing that is you insist on telling me why you want me to have gotten married instead of wanting to know why I did. I'm not interested in taking out words you put in my mouth.

I'm only paraphrasing what you've said here. Your wife wanted a marriage license and you didn't. You got one because she NEEDED one. What part is wrong?

You can't "paraphrase" something that I never addressed. I said I am married, I never said anything about when I got married. When you say I said things I never addressed, that is just putting words in my mouth. I will tell you, if you ask without putting words in my mouth...

 

[kaz]

Argument tried (and failed) in Loving.

They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally.

History News Network | Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Can't get off this failed argument can you? Being gay does not change who you can marry. Being black did change who you could marry. You haven't come up with a counter example ... because there isn't one ...

I'm not allowed to marry the consenting adult of my choice because of gender...just like they weren't for race. Parallels are clear.

History News Network | Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Neither can polygamists or narcissists or people who's dream don't want to marry them.

 

[kaz]

Strawman. I told you I was married to have this discussion, I'm not afraid of it. However, I never said how we got married.



If you want to post this as a question rather than a strawman accusation then I would be happy to address it, but I'm not addressing anything that's put in such a bull manner.

You don't like government getting into the marriage business...but you have a governmentally sanctioned marriage......something you were NOT required to get.



Huh?

His wife wanted it. He did it for her. Very gentlemanly and self sacrificing. I just want to know why it's okay for her to NEED civil marriage, but gays are loathsome for wanting the same thing.

Strawman