The use of the 14th Amendment by gays for gay marriage can't be used

[drsmith1072]

Here ya' go Dr........So we don't have to go off topic on this thread, and put up with your usual whiney spins and deflections, take your ass over to the following thread and tell us exactly what your beloved Obama's going to use as his record showing all the things he's done to address the problems of the economy.....Surely he must have a record beyond blaming everybody else for his abject failngs.....You'll notice over there, not one of your fellow Obamabots can come up with Jack Shit beyond the usual Obamabot spin and deflection they've become masters at these days.

www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/180186-ok-libs-its-obama-campaign-time.html

Your problem is that you are so blinded by partisan hatred and biased that any reason given no matter how valid will seem like "spin and deflection" to you.
I remember that thread you started on the msnbc message baord where you tried to blame obama for the drop in the stock market that began BEFORE he was even elected, then as the stock market rebounded and went back up you and the other republicans in that thread started arguing how the president really has little effect on the markets so you could avoid giving him credit for anything. Even though you are more than willing to blame him for any drop that same entity may take.

Oh and BTW since you claim he has a list of "abject failings" then he must have a record so please list it. Has he done alot and failed? if so then why did he "fail?" I am sure you have something of substance becuase you wouldn't just spew out baseless partisan nonsence now would you?

Nooooooooo, that thread wasn't about blaming Obama.

BS. you blamed him for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected and even had to backtrack after making a lame claim that it dropped 3,000 points in his first month in office. You just can't be honest can you?

It was about his asinine statement about not really keeping an eye on it, and that it just goes up and down.

actually the title had something to do with that satement because you argued that you were going to keep an eye on it beucase according to you he wasn't and that he was to blame for it dropping. Then after the market started to rebound and you started backtracking your arguments you pretty much vanished from your own thread.

.....The first lil' inkling we all had that he is completely economically illiterate.

and it was one in many of a long line of inklings that you are nothing but a partisan hack. That you cannot deny, but we all know you will try.

He does have a record of abject economic failings. That you cannot deny, but we all know you will try.

So, we'll sit here and wait for even one of you to come up with a record that shows he addressed the main problems in this economy, and came up with a successful plan.....You know, how did he address the debt, deficit, spending, borowing. Where are all those jobs, etc.

So where is your LIST?? You claim he hasn't DONE anything and yet you claim that he has many abject failures. So where is your SUBSTANCE?? You do have something real don;t you?

 

[drsmith1072]

Do you really not understand? I swear to God you are just being an ass on purpose.

Incest = something some people find disgusting.
Homosexuality = something some people find disgusting.
State requirements for marriage = a states stance on who you are eligible to marry.
Your stance on same sex marriage = I don't find it offensive. You should be able to marry whoever you want.
Your stance on incest = I find it offensive. Hell no you can't marry whoever you want.

It is THAT simple.

Mike

Are you really that moronic?? I swear to God you just pretend to be this stupid on purpose.

incest= has nothing to do with whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or not

Morons who continue to bring incest up= Morons who have failed miserably to provide a substantive reason to support the claim that the 14th amendment does not apply to same sex marriage so they instead wish to "obfuscate" the issues by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage.

texasmike= a dishonest hack who likes to make shite up and attribute it to other people so he can define their opinions based on his work of fiction in a desperate attempt to attack the messenger because mike has no substantive argument or counter argument.

It is THAT simple.

Of course you see it that way. You are not capable of seeing that whether you are disallowing same sex marriage or same family marriage both are essentially the same as it applies to the 14th amendment. That is because you find same sex marriage to be acceptable but you don't want to hear about two cousins banging eachother. Of COURSE you don't get it.


But its a nice try. The ironic thing here is that you have zero conviction about the right thing. Your conviction is about same sex marriage not about the 14th Amendment. I will try one more time for the slow people at the back of the class:

Dr. Why do you cite the 14th amendment, saying that gay people should have the right to marry whoever they want but not the right of someone who's in love with their cousin to marry whoever they want? Is it not because you will stand up for people, as long as their behavior is not "too" objectionable.

Yeah. Its really that simple. Nobody is obfuscating anything. By the way... did you just learn that word? Is it the word of the week? It just seems like you need a reason to put it in every other post. Are you sponsored by webster? Now. Go read the 14th amendment. For that matter go research the writing of the 14th Amendment. Can you tell me who actually authored it? Quick, go google it.

I know you hate me already. It really sucks when you can't just declare yourself the smartest people in the room because people demand evidence. You cannot tell me how the 14th amendment grants the federal government the authority to step in for same sex marriage. The 10th amendment says that if the federal government isn't given an authority then it doesn't hold it and it is left to the states. How is saying "nobody may marry someone of the same sex" contrary to the 14th?

Why do I even try to be civil? I'm not going to convince you of anything. Oh well, maybe you'll learn something.


Mike

Do you ever tire and being a dishonest cowardly hack who has to put words into the mouths of others in order totry and make a point??

How is being that dishonest even as you engage in attacking me personally considered "civil" in your mind??

I am using "obfuscating" where it applies because bass tried to apply it where it did not apply. Funny how he disappeared after I pointed that out to him, made him look even more foolish than usual and then another troll chimes right back in the pick up right where he left off.

BTW I have explained my position on HOW the 14th and the constitution applies but here are a few examples of your "explanations".

the first amendment doesn't apply to all religious practices. You cannot claim to be committing an honor killing in the name of religion, for example. As a better example, polygamy is part of a religion. It is not legal. I agree that DOMA violates the constitution but gay marriage is not protected under the Constitution.

Mike

So where in there did you explain how it does not apply?? Not there?? Hmm?

Here is another perhaps you can show it here.

So wait, gay marriage is not legal (in most places) but polygamy, which is unquestionably part of several religions, isn't either. You are going to be the first one to campaign to the status of one but not the other?
Seriously I cannot see the difference here. Neither was legal before the debate began, neither infringe on anyone's "rights" and yet you defend one without the other. Look, I am all for states having the right to determine who can and cannot get married and honestly I don't see why polygamy can't be legal in one state, gay marriage in another state and in yet another state they should both be legal. How you can make the argument against polygamy and not against gay marriage is beyond me. I'm not judging either act or inserting my personal opinion into the situation, I'm merely reading what exists already.

Nope. That is you making the slippery slope, "gateway marriage" argument where you also try to put words into my mouth.
So, What about this one which is shorter but pretty much sums up every other argument that you have made, is it there?

What is at issue here is not "do you want gay marriage to be legal". It is, "can the 14th amendment be used in support of gay marriage". The answer is no.

Nope there you were just make the usual usubstantiated claim. imagine that.


So where is this substantive argument that you claim to have made?

 

[drsmith1072]

Are you really that moronic?? I swear to God you just pretend to be this stupid on purpose.

incest= has nothing to do with whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or not

Morons who continue to bring incest up= Morons who have failed miserably to provide a substantive reason to support the claim that the 14th amendment does not apply to same sex marriage so they instead wish to "obfuscate" the issues by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage.

texasmike= a dishonest hack who likes to make shite up and attribute it to other people so he can define their opinions based on his work of fiction in a desperate attempt to attack the messenger because mike has no substantive argument or counter argument.

It is THAT simple.

Of course you see it that way. You are not capable of seeing that whether you are disallowing same sex marriage or same family marriage both are essentially the same as it applies to the 14th amendment. That is because you find same sex marriage to be acceptable but you don't want to hear about two cousins banging eachother. Of COURSE you don't get it.

But its a nice try. The ironic thing here is that you have zero conviction about the right thing. Your conviction is about same sex marriage not about the 14th Amendment. I will try one more time for the slow people at the back of the class:

Dr. Why do you cite the 14th amendment, saying that gay people should have the right to marry whoever they want but not the right of someone who's in love with their cousin to marry whoever they want? Is it not because you will stand up for people, as long as their behavior is not "too" objectionable.

Yeah. Its really that simple. Nobody is obfuscating anything. By the way... did you just learn that word? Is it the word of the week? It just seems like you need a reason to put it in every other post. Are you sponsored by webster? Now. Go read the 14th amendment. For that matter go research the writing of the 14th Amendment. Can you tell me who actually authored it? Quick, go google it.

I know you hate me already. It really sucks when you can't just declare yourself the smartest people in the room because people demand evidence. You cannot tell me how the 14th amendment grants the federal government the authority to step in for same sex marriage. The 10th amendment says that if the federal government isn't given an authority then it doesn't hold it and it is left to the states. How is saying "nobody may marry someone of the same sex" contrary to the 14th?

Why do I even try to be civil? I'm not going to convince you of anything. Oh well, maybe you'll learn something.


Mike

One thing about the lad, he will never get along with anybody who challenges or disagrees with him. He's an ankle biter, always has been. Notice his post count and rep. Even those on his side understand what he's all about....You'll never see him on a fun thread getting along with everybody else. To him it's all about his insecurity, and paranoia of being proven wrong. It's all about ankle biting with him. One can only imagine what he's like in real life.....Very lonely and insecure due to his attitude, one can only surmise.

Thanks for trolling LIAR. You be sure to let me know when you have anything of substance to provide. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

I explained that pages back. You didn't like the explanation because it refutes your point so you just simply declare it invalid.

Mike

WHERE??????? Post the link, if it exist then post it. Thus far, throughout this thread all you and others have done is simply stated that the 14th amendment does not apply with nothing of substance to support that claim.

So please either repeat your grand argument or post a link to when and where you made it. If you actually made such an argument then it should not be too hard for you to do either.

However, if you did not present such an argument then my guess is that you will continue this charade and refuse to complete such a simple task because you know that you have not presented anything of substance and will not because you have NOTHING of substance to offer.

I've posted it TWICE. I showed you the difference between the possible circumstances when it comes to the 14th and marraige. You did not like it. You called it a lie (which is funny) or something like that. I'm not really interested in this debate with you anymore. It is more or less like a train wreck.

You are not interested in debating the issue you just want to be right. I'm not digging through a 22 page thread to dig up something I wrote and then reposted again, my guess is around page 6 or 7.

Go on, call me a liar, tell me I haven't written anything substinative do it... I know you want to. Oh and call me a moron again. That only helps your argument.

Mike

If that is true then WHERE IS IT?? it should be easy enough ot either repeat said argument or post a link to it to show it's existence.

However, you won't do it because it doesn't exist.

BTW I already went back to check on some of your previous less than substantive arguments and found nothing as expected. How typical. LOL

 

[Wicked Jester]

Your problem is that you are so blinded by partisan hatred and biased that any reason given no matter how valid will seem like "spin and deflection" to you.
I remember that thread you started on the msnbc message baord where you tried to blame obama for the drop in the stock market that began BEFORE he was even elected, then as the stock market rebounded and went back up you and the other republicans in that thread started arguing how the president really has little effect on the markets so you could avoid giving him credit for anything. Even though you are more than willing to blame him for any drop that same entity may take.

Oh and BTW since you claim he has a list of "abject failings" then he must have a record so please list it. Has he done alot and failed? if so then why did he "fail?" I am sure you have something of substance becuase you wouldn't just spew out baseless partisan nonsence now would you?

Nooooooooo, that thread wasn't about blaming Obama.

BS. you blamed him for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected and even had to backtrack after making a lame claim that it dropped 3,000 points in his first month in office. You just can't be honest can you?



actually the title had something to do with that satement because you argued that you were going to keep an eye on it beucase according to you he wasn't and that he was to blame for it dropping. Then after the market started to rebound and you started backtracking your arguments you pretty much vanished from your own thread.

.....The first lil' inkling we all had that he is completely economically illiterate.

and it was one in many of a long line of inklings that you are nothing but a partisan hack. That you cannot deny, but we all know you will try.

He does have a record of abject economic failings. That you cannot deny, but we all know you will try.

So, we'll sit here and wait for even one of you to come up with a record that shows he addressed the main problems in this economy, and came up with a successful plan.....You know, how did he address the debt, deficit, spending, borowing. Where are all those jobs, etc.

So where is your LIST?? You claim he hasn't DONE anything and yet you claim that he has many abject failures. So where is your SUBSTANCE?? You do have something real don;t you?

Yeah, i've got everything I need:

9.1% unemployment

No record of tackling spending or borrowing.

No record of passing a budget.

No record of balancing the budget.

No record of tackling the debt.

No record of tackling the deficit.

Passing an unpopular healthcare bill, that is proving to be a future jobs killer, particularly for small business.

A failed stimulus.

Tiredly placing the blame on everybody else, but himself.

Not accepting responsibility.

No shovel ready jobs....In fact, just a few weeks ago it seemed to just be a big joke to him.

Number of food stamp recipients going through the roof.

And on and on and on.



Now....Are you gonna provide that record that shows he's ecomically literate, and has tackled the true issues that are killing this economy........You know, the record he's going to have to show to convince people he has a handle on the problem?

Or are you just gonna continue with your lame deflections, because you can't point to one?

Oh, and no that thread wasn't placing blame on Obama.....It was merely meant to keep an eye on the stock market for him. Since he fully proved that he's an economic illiterate who said it just goes up and down.

LMAO!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

drsmithtroll is intentionally deflecting, he's ok for "discriminating" against incestuous relationships and polygamists but is pro-gay, he's a hypocrite arguing for selective equality like the people he calls "bigots."

 

[drsmith1072]

Nooooooooo, that thread wasn't about blaming Obama.

BS. you blamed him for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected and even had to backtrack after making a lame claim that it dropped 3,000 points in his first month in office. You just can't be honest can you?



actually the title had something to do with that satement because you argued that you were going to keep an eye on it beucase according to you he wasn't and that he was to blame for it dropping. Then after the market started to rebound and you started backtracking your arguments you pretty much vanished from your own thread.




and it was one in many of a long line of inklings that you are nothing but a partisan hack. That you cannot deny, but we all know you will try.

He does have a record of abject economic failings. That you cannot deny, but we all know you will try.

So, we'll sit here and wait for even one of you to come up with a record that shows he addressed the main problems in this economy, and came up with a successful plan.....You know, how did he address the debt, deficit, spending, borowing. Where are all those jobs, etc.

So where is your LIST?? You claim he hasn't DONE anything and yet you claim that he has many abject failures. So where is your SUBSTANCE?? You do have something real don;t you?

Yeah, i've got everything I need:

9.1% unemployment

No record of tackling spending or borrowing.

No record of passing a budget.

No record of balancing the budget.

No record of tackling the debt.

No record of tackling the deficit.

Passing an unpopular healthcare bill, that is proving to be a future jobs killer, particularly for small business.

A failed stimulus.

Tiredly placing the blame on everybody else, but himself.

Not accepting responsibility.

No shovel ready jobs....In fact, just a few weeks ago it seemed to just be a big joke to him.

Number of food stamp recipients going through the roof.

And on and on and on.



Now....Are you gonna provide that record that shows he's ecomically literate, and has tackled the true issues that are killing this economy........You know, the record he's going to have to show to convince people he has a handle on the problem?

Or are you just gonna continue with your lame deflections, because you can't point to one?

LMAO!

Thanks for the partisan opinions but where is the SUBSTANCE?? You do know the difference between your OPINION and REALITY don't you?

You claiming it does NOT make it so. I thought for sure you would ahve realized that by now.

Oh, and no that thread wasn't placing blame on Obama.....It was merely meant to keep an eye on the stock market for him. Since he fully proved that he's an economic illiterate who said it just goes up and down.

Nice bs but then how do you explain your backtrack from your lie about the 3,000 point drop that you falsely attributed to obama along with all of the other attempts to hold him accounatable for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected?

You won't be honest about it. That level of integrity is far too much to ask of a partisan hatefilled hack like you.

 

[Wicked Jester]

BS. you blamed him for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected and even had to backtrack after making a lame claim that it dropped 3,000 points in his first month in office. You just can't be honest can you?



actually the title had something to do with that satement because you argued that you were going to keep an eye on it beucase according to you he wasn't and that he was to blame for it dropping. Then after the market started to rebound and you started backtracking your arguments you pretty much vanished from your own thread.




and it was one in many of a long line of inklings that you are nothing but a partisan hack. That you cannot deny, but we all know you will try.





So where is your LIST?? You claim he hasn't DONE anything and yet you claim that he has many abject failures. So where is your SUBSTANCE?? You do have something real don;t you?

Yeah, i've got everything I need:

9.1% unemployment

No record of tackling spending or borrowing.

No record of passing a budget.

No record of balancing the budget.

No record of tackling the debt.

No record of tackling the deficit.

Passing an unpopular healthcare bill, that is proving to be a future jobs killer, particularly for small business.

A failed stimulus.

Tiredly placing the blame on everybody else, but himself.

Not accepting responsibility.

No shovel ready jobs....In fact, just a few weeks ago it seemed to just be a big joke to him.

Number of food stamp recipients going through the roof.

And on and on and on.



Now....Are you gonna provide that record that shows he's ecomically literate, and has tackled the true issues that are killing this economy........You know, the record he's going to have to show to convince people he has a handle on the problem?

Or are you just gonna continue with your lame deflections, because you can't point to one?

LMAO!

Thanks for the partisan opinions but where is the SUBSTANCE?? You do know the difference between your OPINION and REALITY don't you?

You claiming it does NOT make it so. I thought for sure you would ahve realized that by now.

Oh, and no that thread wasn't placing blame on Obama.....It was merely meant to keep an eye on the stock market for him. Since he fully proved that he's an economic illiterate who said it just goes up and down.

Nice bs but then how do you explain your backtrack from your lie about the 3,000 point drop that you falsely attributed to obama along with all of the other attempts to hold him accounatable for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected?

You won't be honest about it. That level of integrity is far too much to ask of a partisan hatefilled hack like you.

What, all you've got is deflection and no record to show?

And, why don't you just show where I blamed Obama for that first drop?......You're making the claim, prove it. Failure to do so only proves yet again you're a hack.

Now, where's that record?

 

[Wicked Jester]

BS. you blamed him for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected and even had to backtrack after making a lame claim that it dropped 3,000 points in his first month in office. You just can't be honest can you?



actually the title had something to do with that satement because you argued that you were going to keep an eye on it beucase according to you he wasn't and that he was to blame for it dropping. Then after the market started to rebound and you started backtracking your arguments you pretty much vanished from your own thread.




and it was one in many of a long line of inklings that you are nothing but a partisan hack. That you cannot deny, but we all know you will try.





So where is your LIST?? You claim he hasn't DONE anything and yet you claim that he has many abject failures. So where is your SUBSTANCE?? You do have something real don;t you?

Yeah, i've got everything I need:

9.1% unemployment

No record of tackling spending or borrowing.

No record of passing a budget.

No record of balancing the budget.

No record of tackling the debt.

No record of tackling the deficit.

Passing an unpopular healthcare bill, that is proving to be a future jobs killer, particularly for small business.

A failed stimulus.

Tiredly placing the blame on everybody else, but himself.

Not accepting responsibility.

No shovel ready jobs....In fact, just a few weeks ago it seemed to just be a big joke to him.

Number of food stamp recipients going through the roof.

And on and on and on.



Now....Are you gonna provide that record that shows he's ecomically literate, and has tackled the true issues that are killing this economy........You know, the record he's going to have to show to convince people he has a handle on the problem?

Or are you just gonna continue with your lame deflections, because you can't point to one?

LMAO!

Thanks for the partisan opinions but where is the SUBSTANCE?? You do know the difference between your OPINION and REALITY don't you?

You claiming it does NOT make it so. I thought for sure you would ahve realized that by now.

Oh, and no that thread wasn't placing blame on Obama.....It was merely meant to keep an eye on the stock market for him. Since he fully proved that he's an economic illiterate who said it just goes up and down.

Nice bs but then how do you explain your backtrack from your lie about the 3,000 point drop that you falsely attributed to obama along with all of the other attempts to hold him accounatable for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected?

You won't be honest about it. That level of integrity is far too much to ask of a partisan hatefilled hack like you.

Partisan opinions?.....Really.........So, provide that record and prove me wrong.....You don't seem to be able too?

Gee, I wonder why that might be?

 

[drsmith1072]

drsmithtroll is intentionally deflecting, he's ok for "discriminating" against incestuous relationships and polygamists but is pro-gay, he's a hypocrite arguing for selective equality like the people he calls "bigots."

LOL says the troll who incorrectly used the word obfuscate in a lame attempt to troll me and then disappeared after being called out for it. LOL

So since you are back I will ask you once again to explain your claims about me and show HOW i am deflecting??

The morons like you, who are bringing up incest and polygamy and are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not are the dishonest hacks.

I have made no argument for or against the legalization of polygamy or incest but have stated based on the facts that they have no bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage.

In your attempts to claim that I have made such arguments you are only exposing yourself as a LIAR.

Good job loser. LOL

 

[Texanmike]

Are you really that moronic?? I swear to God you just pretend to be this stupid on purpose.

incest= has nothing to do with whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or not

Morons who continue to bring incest up= Morons who have failed miserably to provide a substantive reason to support the claim that the 14th amendment does not apply to same sex marriage so they instead wish to "obfuscate" the issues by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage.

texasmike= a dishonest hack who likes to make shite up and attribute it to other people so he can define their opinions based on his work of fiction in a desperate attempt to attack the messenger because mike has no substantive argument or counter argument.

It is THAT simple.

Of course you see it that way. You are not capable of seeing that whether you are disallowing same sex marriage or same family marriage both are essentially the same as it applies to the 14th amendment. That is because you find same sex marriage to be acceptable but you don't want to hear about two cousins banging eachother. Of COURSE you don't get it.


But its a nice try. The ironic thing here is that you have zero conviction about the right thing. Your conviction is about same sex marriage not about the 14th Amendment. I will try one more time for the slow people at the back of the class:

Dr. Why do you cite the 14th amendment, saying that gay people should have the right to marry whoever they want but not the right of someone who's in love with their cousin to marry whoever they want? Is it not because you will stand up for people, as long as their behavior is not "too" objectionable.

Yeah. Its really that simple. Nobody is obfuscating anything. By the way... did you just learn that word? Is it the word of the week? It just seems like you need a reason to put it in every other post. Are you sponsored by webster? Now. Go read the 14th amendment. For that matter go research the writing of the 14th Amendment. Can you tell me who actually authored it? Quick, go google it.

I know you hate me already. It really sucks when you can't just declare yourself the smartest people in the room because people demand evidence. You cannot tell me how the 14th amendment grants the federal government the authority to step in for same sex marriage. The 10th amendment says that if the federal government isn't given an authority then it doesn't hold it and it is left to the states. How is saying "nobody may marry someone of the same sex" contrary to the 14th?

Why do I even try to be civil? I'm not going to convince you of anything. Oh well, maybe you'll learn something.


Mike

Do you ever tire and being a dishonest cowardly hack who has to put words into the mouths of others in order totry and make a point??

How is being that dishonest even as you engage in attacking me personally considered "civil" in your mind??

I am using "obfuscating" where it applies because bass tried to apply it where it did not apply. Funny how he disappeared after I pointed that out to him, made him look even more foolish than usual and then another troll chimes right back in the pick up right where he left off.

BTW I have explained my position on HOW the 14th and the constitution applies but here are a few examples of your "explanations".



So where in there did you explain how it does not apply?? Not there?? Hmm?

Here is another perhaps you can show it here.

So wait, gay marriage is not legal (in most places) but polygamy, which is unquestionably part of several religions, isn't either. You are going to be the first one to campaign to the status of one but not the other?
Seriously I cannot see the difference here. Neither was legal before the debate began, neither infringe on anyone's "rights" and yet you defend one without the other. Look, I am all for states having the right to determine who can and cannot get married and honestly I don't see why polygamy can't be legal in one state, gay marriage in another state and in yet another state they should both be legal. How you can make the argument against polygamy and not against gay marriage is beyond me. I'm not judging either act or inserting my personal opinion into the situation, I'm merely reading what exists already.

Nope. That is you making the slippery slope, "gateway marriage" argument where you also try to put words into my mouth.
So, What about this one which is shorter but pretty much sums up every other argument that you have made, is it there?

What is at issue here is not "do you want gay marriage to be legal". It is, "can the 14th amendment be used in support of gay marriage". The answer is no.

Nope there you were just make the usual usubstantiated claim. imagine that.


So where is this substantive argument that you claim to have made?

There is no gateway argument here. Or maybe you are making one. I'm not for the legalization of pot, I'm for the legalization of all drugs because you should not be arrested for what's in your blood. I'm saying that if this is an all encompassing argument, that anyone can get married, then it should include incest. Its not a gateway argument, just let the states decide. Hell I even argued that the DOMA was unconstitutional (even though it gives a lot of 'conservatives' what they want).

The same equal protection applies for all here. The 14th amendment does not apply to criteria, it applies to individuals. It doesn't apply to couples either, it applies to individuals. If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, you are not descriminating against an individual. Should we have a universal age of concent for marriage? That varies from state to state too.

United States: 18 (one exception: 19, in Nebraska). Most states, however, allow marriage at a younger age with parental and/or judicial consent. Some states allow marriage at a still younger age if the female is pregnant.
Alabama: 18, 16 with parental consent. (statute).
Alaska: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Arizona: no statutory minimum, under 18 with parental consent, under 16 with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent. (statute)
Arkansas: 18, 16 for females and 17 for males with parental consent.[57]
California: no statutory minimum, those under 18 must receive approval of a superior court judge, or parental consent.
Colorado: 18, 16 with parental consent, no minimum with judicial approval.[57][58][59]
Connecticut: 18, 16 with parental consent;[60] Under 16 w/ judicial & parental consent.[61]
District of Columbia: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Delaware: 18, 16 for females with parental consent, 17 for males with parental consent.[57]
Florida: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Georgia: 18, 15 with parental consent, 16 without parental consent if pregnant.[57]
Hawaii: 18, 15 with parental consent.[57]
Idaho: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Illinois: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Indiana: 18, 17 with parental consent, 15 in the case of pregnancy with both parental and judicial consent.[62]
Iowa: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Kansas: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Kentucky: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Louisiana: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Maine: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Massachusetts: 18 for first marriage, 14 (male) 12 (female) with parental and judicial consent.[57]
Maryland: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Michigan: 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 and under with parental consent and probate judge approval.
Minnesota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Mississippi: 17 for males, 15 for females, no minimum with parental and judicial consent. (statute)
Missouri: 18, 15 with parental consent.[57]
Montana: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Nebraska: 19, 17 with parental consent.[57]
Nevada: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
New Hampshire: 18, 14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of "special cause" with parental consent and court permission.
New Jersey: 18, 16 with parental consent and in the case of pregnancy.
New Mexico: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
New York: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 with parental and judicial consent.[63]
North Carolina: 18, 16 with parental consent, unlimited in case of pregnancy or birth of child with parental consent.
North Dakota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Ohio: 18 for males, 16 for females, less with parental consent.
Oklahoma: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Oregon: 18, 17 with parental consent. The consenting parent or guardian must accompany the applicant when applying for the marriage license.
Pennsylvania: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 in case of pregnancy and with the approval of a Judge of the Orphans Court.
Rhode Island: 18, 16 for females with parental consent.[57]
South Carolina: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
South Dakota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Tennessee: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Texas: 18, 16 with parental consent. 14 with judicial consent or if person under 18 had previously married and divorced.
Utah: 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 with court approval.[64]
Vermont: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Virginia: 18, 16 with parental consent.[65]
Washington: 18, 17 with parental consent.[57] May be waived by superior court judge.(statute)
West Virginia: 18, 16 with parental consent, under 16 (unspecified limit) with parental and judicial consent[57][66]
Wisconsin: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]
Wyoming: 18, 16 with parental consent.[57]

By the way, why the hell are we letting a 12 year old get married? Who in history has wanted to marry a 12 year old? /bashing Mass

I hate to quote wiki but I checked the top 7 sates and it was accurate so I'll quote it rather than 50 different links.

I've even gone to the extent to tell you when it would be against the 14th amendment and when it isn't. There is no protection for everyone must be able to marry everyone. Look man, I'm going to put a stop to the foolishness. You read the 14th and you believe it goes one way. We happen to disagree. I think that's pretty much a summary of the argument.

As for the gateway argument nonsense, that's not the intention. I am simply saying that if we are saying "well the state government shouldn't be able to say who you can and cannot marry" then lets do that. I don't care if cousins/samesex/multiple partners etc. marry I just want the Constitution followed. This application of the 14th Amendment, if it is used will be the argument for having no difference between state laws. If a state cannot determine the criteria for a marriage license then all licenses should be issued by a federal authority. <- there is your gateway/slippery slope argument. I don't think that is unfounded though because we have seen over the last 100 years or so, an ever increasing intrusion into our lives. I disagreed with a few of the recent rulings regarding gun ownership (even though I am a huge gun rights guy) because they applied the 14th amendment (in the opinion) when it doesn't really apply.

Hell, why not join me in calling for the government to get the hell out of marriage? If you do that then there is no need for this petty argument. End the tax and all other advantages to being married and let it be a civil thing. The whole marriage debate is a waste of our time. I don't care who marrys who... hell Mr. Ed could talk, let him get hitched for all I care. The argument is the perfect example of why the government should be out of the marriage industry period. Instead of solving our debt problem and cutting spending, we're arguing about who can marry who? Seriously? WHAT THE HELL? This stuff doesn't matter if the debt gets to 30T and the credit rating hits BBB. Who cares if you can get married if you interest rates are 30%.

You don't like me, or my argument I get that... but it is made in good faith; we just disagree.

Mike

 

[Bass v 2.0]

drsmithtroll is intentionally deflecting, he's ok for "discriminating" against incestuous relationships and polygamists but is pro-gay, he's a hypocrite arguing for selective equality like the people he calls "bigots."

LOL says the troll who incorrectly used the word obfuscate in a lame attempt to troll me and then disappeared after being called out for it. LOL

So since you are back I will ask you once again to explain your claims about me and show HOW i am deflecting??

The morons like you, who are bringing up incest and polygamy and are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not are the dishonest hacks.

I have made no argument for or against the legalization of polygamy or incest but have stated based on the facts that they have no bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage.

In your attempts to claim that I have made such arguments you are only exposing yourself as a LIAR.

Good job loser. LOL

The thread is about the 14th Amendment Drsmithtroll, using the logic you're using for gays, the same can be said for polygamists and incest couples, put things in proper context instead of trolling and deflecting.

 

[Wicked Jester]

drsmithtroll is intentionally deflecting, he's ok for "discriminating" against incestuous relationships and polygamists but is pro-gay, he's a hypocrite arguing for selective equality like the people he calls "bigots."

LOL says the troll who incorrectly used the word obfuscate in a lame attempt to troll me and then disappeared after being called out for it. LOL

So since you are back I will ask you once again to explain your claims about me and show HOW i am deflecting??

The morons like you, who are bringing up incest and polygamy and are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in topics that have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not are the dishonest hacks.

I have made no argument for or against the legalization of polygamy or incest but have stated based on the facts that they have no bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage.

In your attempts to claim that I have made such arguments you are only exposing yourself as a LIAR.

Good job loser. LOL

He disappeared, really?.....Funny, but he was just up here at 12:33 pm.

Looks like you just stepped on your dick, yet again, lil' man.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yeah, i've got everything I need:

9.1% unemployment

No record of tackling spending or borrowing.

No record of passing a budget.

No record of balancing the budget.

No record of tackling the debt.

No record of tackling the deficit.

Passing an unpopular healthcare bill, that is proving to be a future jobs killer, particularly for small business.

A failed stimulus.

Tiredly placing the blame on everybody else, but himself.

Not accepting responsibility.

No shovel ready jobs....In fact, just a few weeks ago it seemed to just be a big joke to him.

Number of food stamp recipients going through the roof.

And on and on and on.



Now....Are you gonna provide that record that shows he's ecomically literate, and has tackled the true issues that are killing this economy........You know, the record he's going to have to show to convince people he has a handle on the problem?

Or are you just gonna continue with your lame deflections, because you can't point to one?

LMAO!

Thanks for the partisan opinions but where is the SUBSTANCE?? You do know the difference between your OPINION and REALITY don't you?

You claiming it does NOT make it so. I thought for sure you would ahve realized that by now.

Oh, and no that thread wasn't placing blame on Obama.....It was merely meant to keep an eye on the stock market for him. Since he fully proved that he's an economic illiterate who said it just goes up and down.

Nice bs but then how do you explain your backtrack from your lie about the 3,000 point drop that you falsely attributed to obama along with all of the other attempts to hold him accounatable for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected?

You won't be honest about it. That level of integrity is far too much to ask of a partisan hatefilled hack like you.

Partisan opinions?.....Really.........So, provide that record and prove me wrong.....You don't seem to be able too?

Gee, I wonder why that might be?

So now I have to prove you wrong?? But that was not your poistion in the response prior to this one where you demand that I prove my claim about you blaming obama for teh drop nor was it your position in the "trivialize" thread so why the hypocrisy?

What, all you've got is deflection and no record to show?

And, why don't you just show where I blamed Obama for that first drop?......You're making the claim, prove it. Failure to do so only proves yet again you're a hack.

Now, where's that record?

Why is is that others must prove their claims even as you demand that they must prove you wrong??

You made the claims where is your proof??

I admit that the MSNBC message board no longer exists so I cannot prove what you once said even though you and I both know that you did so i concede and retract my claim about how you blamed obama for the drop in the stock market.

Now where is the proof of YOUR claims??

 

[kaz]

Incorrect.

If two men apply for a marriage license in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, the application will be denied. That’s the Constitutional violation, because the state has no rational basis for doing so. Since licenses are issued one per couple, not two for each member of the couple, the same-sex couple will be unable to present a license to a designated authority to perform the wedding.

To paraphrase Romer: this the states can not do. To exclude access to a state’s marriage laws from a particular class of persons with no rational basis is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Your argument is just a rationalization. People cannot tell the government what marriage is to government. I can't go and demand polygamy, to marry a goat or a book. And I can't go demand to marry a man. Liberalism is endless spin and redefinition. Government defines government marriage for government. Two people, opposite sex, applies to everyone equally. My solution to that problem is to limit the role of government to critical functions. Yours is to parse words and then apply them to your whim and then scream hysterically when someone else does the same thing for something you disagree with.

Why wouldn't a new law saying two people, any sex, apply to everyone equally, also?

A new law absolutely could say that. That would be a completely different thing then the courts legislating from the bench and saying the old one did.

Just so you know, I oppose government recognized gay marriage. Then again I oppose government recognized straight marriage too. I think marriage should be a private matter not a government one.

 

[kaz]

WOW I honestly am beginning to believe that all of these posters are the same person posting the same moronic talking points under diffrerent names after it embarasses itself under a previous name

So basically you're a moron or everyone else is. So you went with the only option available to you, everyone else is. I'd reconsider your position...

 

[Wicked Jester]

Thanks for the partisan opinions but where is the SUBSTANCE?? You do know the difference between your OPINION and REALITY don't you?

You claiming it does NOT make it so. I thought for sure you would ahve realized that by now.



Nice bs but then how do you explain your backtrack from your lie about the 3,000 point drop that you falsely attributed to obama along with all of the other attempts to hold him accounatable for the drop that began BEFORE he was even elected?

You won't be honest about it. That level of integrity is far too much to ask of a partisan hatefilled hack like you.

Partisan opinions?.....Really.........So, provide that record and prove me wrong.....You don't seem to be able too?

Gee, I wonder why that might be?

So now I have to prove you wrong?? But that was not your poistion in the response prior to this one where you demand that I prove my claim about you blaming obama for teh drop nor was it your position in the "trivialize" thread so why the hypocrisy?

What, all you've got is deflection and no record to show?

And, why don't you just show where I blamed Obama for that first drop?......You're making the claim, prove it. Failure to do so only proves yet again you're a hack.

Now, where's that record?

Why is is that others must prove their claims even as you demand that they must prove you wrong??

You made the claims where is your proof??

I admit that the MSNBC message board no longer exists so I cannot prove what you once said even though you and I both know that you did so i concede and retract my claim about how you blamed obama for the drop in the stock market.

Now where is the proof of YOUR claims??

I've made claims that are absolutely true. Laid out that Obama doesn't have a record to point to that shows he has a handle on the siuation. That nothing he's done, or failed to provide leadership on, shows he's had success getting the fiscal house in order. Shows that unemployment hasn't dropped. Shows that jobs creation is happening. Shows that he's tackled the meat and potato's that caused the downgrade he was warned of months ago.

Now, why can't you address those issues, and prove me wrong on anything i've clamed?

Your spinning and deflecting only makes you look weak.

Now, prove me wrong.....Show us where he's been successful in turning this economy around. Show us the record that disputes my claims.

Funny, but I have yet to see even one Obamabot provide one.....Like you, it's nothing but spin and deflection, in an attempt to avoid his lack of leadership, and failings like the plague.

 

[drsmith1072]

Of course you see it that way. You are not capable of seeing that whether you are disallowing same sex marriage or same family marriage both are essentially the same as it applies to the 14th amendment. That is because you find same sex marriage to be acceptable but you don't want to hear about two cousins banging eachother. Of COURSE you don't get it.


But its a nice try. The ironic thing here is that you have zero conviction about the right thing. Your conviction is about same sex marriage not about the 14th Amendment. I will try one more time for the slow people at the back of the class:

Dr. Why do you cite the 14th amendment, saying that gay people should have the right to marry whoever they want but not the right of someone who's in love with their cousin to marry whoever they want? Is it not because you will stand up for people, as long as their behavior is not "too" objectionable.

Yeah. Its really that simple. Nobody is obfuscating anything. By the way... did you just learn that word? Is it the word of the week? It just seems like you need a reason to put it in every other post. Are you sponsored by webster? Now. Go read the 14th amendment. For that matter go research the writing of the 14th Amendment. Can you tell me who actually authored it? Quick, go google it.

I know you hate me already. It really sucks when you can't just declare yourself the smartest people in the room because people demand evidence. You cannot tell me how the 14th amendment grants the federal government the authority to step in for same sex marriage. The 10th amendment says that if the federal government isn't given an authority then it doesn't hold it and it is left to the states. How is saying "nobody may marry someone of the same sex" contrary to the 14th?

Why do I even try to be civil? I'm not going to convince you of anything. Oh well, maybe you'll learn something.


Mike

Do you ever tire and being a dishonest cowardly hack who has to put words into the mouths of others in order totry and make a point??

How is being that dishonest even as you engage in attacking me personally considered "civil" in your mind??

I am using "obfuscating" where it applies because bass tried to apply it where it did not apply. Funny how he disappeared after I pointed that out to him, made him look even more foolish than usual and then another troll chimes right back in the pick up right where he left off.

BTW I have explained my position on HOW the 14th and the constitution applies but here are a few examples of your "explanations".



So where in there did you explain how it does not apply?? Not there?? Hmm?

Here is another perhaps you can show it here.



Nope. That is you making the slippery slope, "gateway marriage" argument where you also try to put words into my mouth.
So, What about this one which is shorter but pretty much sums up every other argument that you have made, is it there?

What is at issue here is not "do you want gay marriage to be legal". It is, "can the 14th amendment be used in support of gay marriage". The answer is no.

Nope there you were just make the usual usubstantiated claim. imagine that.


So where is this substantive argument that you claim to have made?

There is no gateway argument here. Or maybe you are making one. I'm not for the legalization of pot, I'm for the legalization of all drugs because you should not be arrested for what's in your blood. I'm saying that if this is an all encompassing argument, that anyone can get married, then it should include incest. Its not a gateway argument, just let the states decide. Hell I even argued that the DOMA was unconstitutional (even though it gives a lot of 'conservatives' what they want).

Putting words into my mouth again. BTW I noticed that you failed to respond to your own words and show how and when you substantiated your claims. Imagine that. You are arguing that one should lead to the other and so on in a desperate attempt to make the "slippery slope" argument. Denying it even as you continue to amke such argument won;t change the fact that you are making "slippery slope" arguments.

The same equal protection applies for all here. The 14th amendment does not apply.

repeated the claim with no substance as per usual. That is how you have presented your "argument" throughout this thread. You make a statement and then go into other types of relationship you think should be allowed instead of addressing how the 14th does not apply.

If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, you are not descriminating. In fact, until recently (like the last 10 years) marriage was defined as the union of two dissimilar things.

again with your BS definitoin of discriminating. I have asked for the source of the definition multiple times and you have failed to provide one every time you were asked. Why is that? How is limiting something, like marriage, to only a few people not discrimination??

I've even gone to the extent to tell you when it would be against the 14th amendment and when it isn't.

that is your problem you seem to see you "telling" someone something as substantiating your argument when it is NOT.

There is no protection for everyone must be able to marry everyone.

is that supposed to make sense??

Look man, I'm going to put a stop to the foolishness. You read the 14th and you believe it goes one way. We happen to disagree. I think that's pretty much a summary of the argument.

i'm sorry but when you go out of your way to make shite up and attribute it to me so you can frame my argument and create counterpoints to things I never said so you can claim I am wrong based on your works of fiction that goes above and beyond mere disagreement.

As for the gateway argument nonsense, that's not the intention. I am simply saying that if we are saying "well the state government shouldn't be able to say who you can and cannot marry" then lets do that. I don't care if cousins/samesex/multiple partners etc. marry I just want the Constitution followed. This application of the 14th Amendment, if it is used will be the argument for having no difference between state laws. If a state cannot determine the criteria for a marriage license then all licenses should be issued by a federal authority. <- there is your gateway/slippery slope argument. I don't think that is unfounded though because we have seen over the last 100 years or so, an ever increasing intrusion into our lives. I disagreed with a few of the recent rulings regarding gun ownership (even though I am a huge gun rights guy) because they applied the 14th amendment (in the opinion) when it doesn't really apply.

You claim it's not the intention but that is the only intention available because they have NO bearing on whether the 14th applies to same sex marriage or not. Throwing them in only serves to muddy the waters, obfuscate, confuse the debate by introducing topics that have no bearing but only serve to distract.
Then your NEW "gateway" argument is even more absurd and a strawman. No one is arguing that the states licenses don't count or that they should be replaced by federal licenses. The argumnet is that they should only be issued fairly and equally.

Hell, why not join me in calling for the government to get the hell out of marriage? If you do that then there is no need for this petty argument. End the tax and all other advantages to being married and let it be a civil thing. The whole marriage debate is a waste of our time. I don't care who marrys who... hell Mr. Ed could talk, let him get hitched for all I care. The argument is the perfect example of why the government should be out of the marriage industry period. Instead of solving our debt problem and cutting spending, we're arguing about who can marry who? Seriously? WHAT THE HELL? This stuff doesn't matter if the debt gets to 30T and the credit rating hits BBB. Who cares if you can get married if you interest rates are 30%.

You don't like me, or my argument I get that... but it is made in good faith; we just disagree.

Mike

The sad thing is that even though you see the inequality you still argue against applying equality claiming that the 14th doesn't apply while failing to show how. A married opposite sex couple has certian rights and priveledges that same sex partners do not have or qualify for so how is that NOT a violation of the 14th amendment?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[CryingKoala]

Just so you know, I oppose government recognized gay marriage. Then again I oppose government recognized straight marriage too. I think marriage should be a private matter not a government one.

Well isn't that special. Its all well and good for you until a married person dies, has custody issues or owns property jointly. Then it becomes a government matter. Marriage is a legal shorthand which creates default positions in a lot of legal issues concerning a couple. There is more to justify its nature as a government defined institution than anything else.

 

[kaz]

Well isn't that special. Its all well and good for you until a married person dies, has custody issues or owns property jointly. Then it becomes a government matter. Marriage is a legal shorthand which creates default positions in a lot of legal issues concerning a couple. There is more to justify its nature as a government defined institution than anything else.

There are far simpler solutions to all those problems then "marriage."

OMG, if you need to pound in a brad, what are you going to do without a sledge hammer!!!! Yeah, good argument that. Not.