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

[Bass v 2.0]

Funny how everyone sees sodomites as being discriminated against but not incest couples and ploygamists, they've been thoroughly brainwashed by gay-liberal political agenda.

 

[drsmith1072]

The thing that I find most hilarious is that despite mike's lame personal attacks and attempts to tear down my arguments, it was my arguments that got him to admit that as long as the fed is involved then the 14th amendment does apply.

The sad thing is that even though you see the inequality again putting words in my mouth 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?

You are exactly right about the bolded part. I am FINE with that statement. The solution is not to interfere with the states actions, it is to pare back the federal actions. Stop the tax loopholes for married people. The 14th amendment isn't violated by the definition of marriage, it is violated by the tax laws period. End the rights and privileges for married people period. I've advocated that almost this entire thread.

So now you agree that the 14th applies in order to argue in favor of removing the fed even though you have previously argued that it did not apply at all?? Contradict yourself much?? BTW the states have laws that only apply to straight married couples as well which means as individuals they are protected under the law while same sex couples are not offered that equal protection so how can that be remedied by removal of the fed?

 

[Texanmike]

The thing that I find most hilarious is that despite mike's lame personal attacks and attempts to tear down my arguments, it was my arguments that got him to admit that as long as the fed is involved then the 14th amendment does apply.

The sad thing is that even though you see the inequality again putting words in my mouth 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?

You are exactly right about the bolded part. I am FINE with that statement. The solution is not to interfere with the states actions, it is to pare back the federal actions. Stop the tax loopholes for married people. The 14th amendment isn't violated by the definition of marriage, it is violated by the tax laws period. End the rights and privileges for married people period. I've advocated that almost this entire thread.

So now you agree that the 14th applies in order to argue in favor of removing the fed even though you have previously argued that it did not apply at all?? Contradict yourself much?? BTW the states have laws that only apply to straight married couples as well which means as individuals they are protected under the law while same sex couples are not offered that equal protection so how can that be remedied by removal of the fed?

Its this simple man. I am concerned with original intent. My personal opinions do not matter to me at all. I want the Constitution followed. A couple does not necessarliy have the ability to exercise all of the same rights and privileges that an individual can. The reason I have introduced polygamy and incest is to show how criteria can be set by a state in accordance with the local values. You are applying the 14th amendment and saying that because two people cannot marry that a privilege has been taken away from them. In reality they both individually still hold the right to marry but that right clearly not a "right" that is inalienable. <- THAT IS NOT A GATEWAY ARGUMENT. If it were an inalienable right, then the couple who are brother and sister would be able to exercise that right together but they can not. Some communities believe that people of the same sex should have a sanctioned marriage, some do not. Some communities believe that first cousins should have a sanctioned marriage, some do not. In both cases the individuals do not hold the right to marry anyone but all four (the brother/sister and the same sex couple) can still exercise the privilege of getting married just like everyone else. That is the parallel that I am drawing. It is not an attempt to scare, it is establishing exactly how the privilege is exercised by an individual. Seperately they still hold the right to get married to anyone that fits the state's criteria.

After further consideration I would withrdraw my statement that the 14th amendment applies to taxes because all individuals are treated the same under the tax laws. I arrived at that decision under much the same logic that I arrive at the conclusion that same sex marriage is not protected by the 14th amendment. The law applies to all individuals equally. Now look, if you don't like it, I encourage you to start a campaign or voice your desire to have an amendment. That is part of the reason that the amendment process is there. It should also be something that the vast majority of the states agree on (thus the 3/4 requirement). I don't like the tax laws, I think they stink... but clearly they apply to all individuals equally.

When it comes to personal attacks I have yet to see you make a post in which you didn't attack someone. The first sentence of this post is an attack. I approach the subject with out prejudice where you are trying to argue for a specific privilege. I am not arguing for or against it, I am merely arguing to follow the constitution. You can pat yourself on the back and yell and scream and declare victory if you need to... point and me and laugh that's fine too. I may not like your argument and several posts ago I tried to tone down the rhetoric and have a civil discussion; you are clearly not interested. I have tried to disengage the argument once and if you respond with the whole "you're putting words in my mouth... GATEWAY" I'll just walk away again because you just reframing the argument to avoid having to deal with parallels that support my case. Do you want a discussion or not?

Mike

 

[drsmith1072]

The thing that I find most hilarious is that despite mike's lame personal attacks and attempts to tear down my arguments, it was my arguments that got him to admit that as long as the fed is involved then the 14th amendment does apply.

You are exactly right about the bolded part. I am FINE with that statement. The solution is not to interfere with the states actions, it is to pare back the federal actions. Stop the tax loopholes for married people. The 14th amendment isn't violated by the definition of marriage, it is violated by the tax laws period. End the rights and privileges for married people period. I've advocated that almost this entire thread.

So now you agree that the 14th applies in order to argue in favor of removing the fed even though you have previously argued that it did not apply at all?? Contradict yourself much?? BTW the states have laws that only apply to straight married couples as well which means as individuals they are protected under the law while same sex couples are not offered that equal protection so how can that be remedied by removal of the fed?

Its this simple man. I am concerned with original intent.

That you ASSUME to know that the 14th does not apply even though you admitted that it does. Yout lost the debate accept it and move on.

My personal opinions do not matter to me at all.

That's a sad argument to make. if you care so little for your own perosnal opinions then why should anyone listen to anything that you ahve to say?

I want the Constitution followed.

in accordance with your personal opinion on how YOU believe that it should be interpreted. Kind of counters your previous statement about your own opinion.

A couple does not necessarliy have the ability to exercise all of the same rights and privileges that an individual can.

I don't see how that fits into anything that you have said. Random thought?

The reason I have introduced polygamy and incest is to show how criteria can be set by a state in accordance with the local values.

And yet that is not what you said previously so which is it? Should your previous opinion on the matter be the real one or your new "interpretation"?

You are applying the 14th amendment and saying that because two people cannot marry that a privilege has been taken away from them.

Is that what I am saying? I didn't say anything of the kind. I clearly stated that according to the 14th all citizens should ahve equal protection under the law and in this case they do NOT seeing as how the law applies to them differently.

In reality they both individually still hold the right to marry but that right clearly not a "right" that is inalienable.

in reality this is you making the same BS argument about how aman can marry a woman so there is no discrimination that has been addressed over and over. Why parrot such a lame talking point?

<- THAT IS NOT A GATEWAY ARGUMENT.

Never said it was.

If it were an inalienable right, then the couple who are brother and sister would be able to exercise that right together but they can not.

How does incest have any bearing on whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or not?? how many times do you ahve to be asked the same question before you answer it??

Some communities believe that people of the same sex should have a sanctioned marriage, some do not. Some communities believe that first cousins should have a sanctioned marriage, some do not. In both cases the individuals do not hold the right to marry anyone but all four (the brother/sister and the same sex couple) can still exercise the privilege of getting married just like everyone else. That is the parallel that I am drawing. It is not an attempt to scare, it is establishing exactly how the privilege is exercised by an individual. Seperately they still hold the right to get married to anyone that fits the state's criteria.

thanks for the gateway argument. "If same sex marriage is allowed then so much incest." that is the argument you are making and it has nothing to do with whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or NOT.

Do you have any argument that actually SHOWS how the 14th does not apply or do all of your arguments consist of "if you allow that the you must allow this"?

I didn't think so.

 

[drsmith1072]

After further consideration I would withrdraw my statement that the 14th amendment applies to taxes because all individuals are treated the same under the tax laws.

LOL that is hilarious. You get caught countering the argument from the right and yourself for this whole thread and then come back AFTER the fact and say basically " I didn't mean it." LOL

I arrived at that decision under much the same logic that I arrive at the conclusion that same sex marriage is not protected by the 14th amendment.

You made it up?? LOL Based on how you have failed to show anything of substance to explain HOW the 14th does not apply that can be the only real conclusion. LOL

The law applies to all individuals equally. Now look, if you don't like it, I encourage you to start a campaign or voice your desire to have an amendment. That is part of the reason that the amendment process is there. It should also be something that the vast majority of the states agree on (thus the 3/4 requirement). I don't like the tax laws, I think they stink... but clearly they apply to all individuals equally.

Nice spin but that is NOT what you said previously. Face it you admitted that you were wrong and are now back tracking because my arguments, which you attacked, were what made you accept the TRUTH that you are now running away from. LOL

You still didn't address the state laws that apply more priveleges to married couples than non married couples so how is that equal protection under the law?

You lost and admitted that the 14th applied and now after being called out for it you try oh so desperately to save face and "take it back" but your reasons given for "taking it back" are not sound nor are they based on anything real.

Thanks for the laughs. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

When it comes to personal attacks I have yet to see you make a post in which you didn't attack someone.

Have you read your posts?? Then stop whining about it. you engage it so take it like a man when you get it in return.

The first sentence of this post is an attack.

Really??

The thing that I find most hilarious is that despite mike's lame personal attacks and attempts to tear down my arguments, it was my arguments that got him to admit that as long as the fed is involved then the 14th amendment does apply

So where is the personal attack?? Was it when i refered to your personal attacks as lame?? WOW you really must be desperate after admitting that you position throughout this thread that the 14th did not apply was WRONG.

I approach the subject with out prejudice where you are trying to argue for a specific privilege. I am not arguing for or against it,

BS. take that crap somewhere else because no one is buying it here. You have done nothing BUT argue agaisnt it so don;t even bother telling that bold faced LIE again.

I am merely arguing to follow the constitution.

as you beleive it should be applied based on your own OPINIONS while failing to show any REAL reason why the 14th amendment shouldn't apply. Your arguments have consisted of "if you allow that you must allow incest and polygamy" and that is about all that you have said. No substance just declarative statement that it does not apply followed by scare tactics. That is all that you've got.

You can pat yourself on the back and yell and scream and declare victory if you need to...point and me and laugh that's fine too.

I don't have to, you already admitted that you were WRONG you new denial does nothing to cahnge that fact.

I may not like your argument and several posts ago I tried to tone down the rhetoric and have a civil discussion; you are clearly not interested.

So how is insulting me and my arguments toning down the rhetoric and having a civil discussion?? Your problem is that the actual content of your posts does not match what you believe that you said.
You can't take the high road as you wade through the sewers, so don't even try it.

I have tried to disengage the argument once and if you respond with the whole "you're putting words in my mouth... GATEWAY" I'll just walk away again because you just reframing the argument to avoid having to deal with parallels that support my case. Do you want a discussion or not?

Mike

You tried to "disengage" because you lost the argument and tried to claim it was because I was being unreasonable and not because you failed to substantiate your claims and ended up admitting that you were WRONG. Now you come back out of sheer desperation in an attempt to save face and only made yourself look wishy washy and exposed your alck of integrity. Now go ahead and run away.
You lost the debate after conceding the primary point and admitting that the 14th amendment does apply to same sex marriage. You and I both know that and none of yuor new spin or running away will change that FACT. BYE BYE. lol

 

[Wicked Jester]

What, no record?.......Yeah that's what I thought.

LMAO!

 

[Wicked Jester]

When it comes to personal attacks I have yet to see you make a post in which you didn't attack someone.

Have you read your posts?? Then stop whining about it. you engage it so take it like a man when you get it in return.

The first sentence of this post is an attack.

Really??



So where is the personal attack?? Was it when i refered to your personal attacks as lame?? WOW you really must be desperate after admitting that you position throughout this thread that the 14th did not apply was WRONG.





BS. take that crap somewhere else because no one is buying it here. You have done nothing BUT argue agaisnt it so don;t even bother telling that bold faced LIE again.




as you beleive it should be applied based on your own OPINIONS while failing to show any REAL reason why the 14th amendment shouldn't apply. Your arguments have consisted of "if you allow that you must allow incest and polygamy" and that is about all that you have said. No substance just declarative statement that it does not apply followed by scare tactics. That is all that you've got.



I don't have to, you already admitted that you were WRONG you new denial does nothing to cahnge that fact.

I may not like your argument and several posts ago I tried to tone down the rhetoric and have a civil discussion; you are clearly not interested.

So how is insulting me and my arguments toning down the rhetoric and having a civil discussion?? Your problem is that the actual content of your posts does not match what you believe that you said.
You can't take the high road as you wade through the sewers, so don't even try it.

I have tried to disengage the argument once and if you respond with the whole "you're putting words in my mouth... GATEWAY" I'll just walk away again because you just reframing the argument to avoid having to deal with parallels that support my case. Do you want a discussion or not?

Mike

You tried to "disengage" because you lost the argument and tried to claim it was because I was being unreasonable and not because you failed to substantiate your claims and ended up admitting that you were WRONG. Now you come back out of sheer desperation in an attempt to save face and only made yourself look wishy washy and exposed your alck of integrity. Now go ahead and run away.
You lost the debate after conceding the primary point and admitting that the 14th amendment does apply to same sex marriage. You and I both know that and none of yuor new spin or running away will change that FACT. BYE BYE. lol

Your abject insecurity is friggin' laughable, smitty........Seriously, it is.

You didn't win any argument. You just practice your usual and tired insecure ankle biting BS.

Grow up already, would ya'?

Go find some of the fun threads up here, and interact beyond your usual weird shit.

 

[Texanmike]

After further consideration I would withrdraw my statement that the 14th amendment applies to taxes because all individuals are treated the same under the tax laws.

LOL that is hilarious. You get caught countering the argument from the right and yourself for this whole thread and then come back AFTER the fact and say basically " I didn't mean it." LOL

So wait? I'm not able to reevaluate my positions? What the hell is the point then? Let me explain this to you simply.

The tax laws do not violate the 14th amendment because they do apply to all people. Even though people who make more money are taxed a higher percentage, they are done so in a bracketed fashion. In other words if you were to make 100,000 and I made 1,000,000 the first 100k that I make is taxed at the exact same rate. That is why the tax law is not in the violation of the 14th amendment. I will try to avoid adding topics as clearly it confuses the conversation.

I arrived at that decision under much the same logic that I arrive at the conclusion that same sex marriage is not protected by the 14th amendment.

You made it up?? LOL Based on how you have failed to show anything of substance to explain HOW the 14th does not apply that can be the only real conclusion. LOL

No, I am looking at how it applies to an individual. I was making the mistake of saying "Person A makes a million dollars a year and person B makes 100k. Person A is taxed at a higher percentage than person B which is violates the 14th amendment". That is an ineffective argument though because person A's first 100k is taxed at the same rate as person B's.

The law applies to all individuals equally. Now look, if you don't like it, I encourage you to start a campaign or voice your desire to have an amendment. That is part of the reason that the amendment process is there. It should also be something that the vast majority of the states agree on (thus the 3/4 requirement). I don't like the tax laws, I think they stink... but clearly they apply to all individuals equally.

Nice spin but that is NOT what you said previously. Face it you admitted that you were wrong and are now back tracking because my arguments, which you attacked, were what made you accept the TRUTH that you are now running away from. LOL

I was incorrectly at how I evaluate the tax laws because I didn't consider the bracketing. I was looking at the effective tax rate and saying it was unequal. Its not because the bracketed money is taxed the same.

You still didn't address the state laws that apply more priveleges to married couples than non married couples so how is that equal protection under the law?

I didn't because you didn't give me an example. Not all things are the same. There are some laws which probably can be challanged and others that cannot. Don't make a blanked "should all laws be..." That's a ridiculous argument to have.

You lost and admitted that the 14th applied and now after being called out for it you try oh so desperately to save face and "take it back" but your reasons given for "taking it back" are not sound nor are they based on anything real.

Thanks for the laughs. LOL

DRs. I don't need to save face. So far you have done nothing to actually argue your point, all you have done is say "its this way because I want it to be". You aren't considering original intent and you haven't demonstrated the difference between polygamy or incest. Tell me how it is functionally different? You can't because its not. You don't like that they parallel one another so you ignore the fact that you do.

You have not yet demonstrated that there are some actions that a couple cannot execute that an individual can. The privilege of marriage for example is one of them.

Is a corporation a person? If it is, does it have all of the same rights as a person. Corporations are made up of individuals and all of the individuals have rights/privileges that they cannot necessarily exercise together. How do you not understand that the 14th doesn't apply to a couple's ability to marry?

I swear. You don't read. You are more interested in pounding your chest than learning anything. Pound your chest again...

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

thanks for the gateway argument. "If same sex marriage is allowed then so much incest." that is the argument you are making and it has nothing to do with whether the 14th amendment applies to same sex marriage or NOT.

Do you have any argument that actually SHOWS how the 14th does not apply or do all of your arguments consist of "if you allow that the you must allow this"?

I didn't think so.

Here is the problem, right here. I am not telling you that they should both be allowed. You are saying that it is someone's right to marry whoever they want, unless YOU say they can't. You can't get over the fact that YOU are the one picking and choosing the winners and losers. Choose a side and stay on it. The problem is that you can't because you fear one and not the other.


Sucks having to be a grown up sometimes man....

You have no idea how the Constitution works, you're not well read, you're well trained. Ever read any of the letters or books I've mentioned? I didn't think so. Ever looked at why it is? Probably not. The reality is you are like so many people out there who parrot what their Con Law, HS history teacher, or Poly sci 101 taught them. The reason you cannot give your argument is beause you don't have one. You have an opinion that was spoon fed to you buy a guy you consider to be an authority.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

You tried to "disengage" because you lost the argument and tried to claim it was because I was being unreasonable and not because you failed to substantiate your claims and ended up admitting that you were WRONG. Now you come back out of sheer desperation in an attempt to save face and only made yourself look wishy washy and exposed your alck of integrity. Now go ahead and run away.
You lost the debate after conceding the primary point and admitting that the 14th amendment does apply to same sex marriage. You and I both know that and none of yuor new spin or running away will change that FACT. BYE BYE. lol

The only reason I am here is for intellectual conversation. You lack the abilty to do that because you don't have a background for why you feel the way you do. Actually the fact that this is a matter of feeling and emotion is part of the problem. I actually tried to give you some information for you to reconsider but you have displayed no willingness to do that so I left the conversation. I did reconsider something and actually changed a conclusion I came to. I'm not so vain that I cannot reconsider my positions. After you called me on it I looked at the differences and found that you were right. It was similar to a broken clock being right, but it was still right. I withdrew that opinion and made the correct Constitutional argument. Now we're back to square one, so I've left the argument again.

The fact that you feel the need to declare victory says enough man.

Have a nice day.



Mike

 

[drsmith1072]

When it comes to personal attacks I have yet to see you make a post in which you didn't attack someone.

Have you read your posts?? Then stop whining about it. you engage it so take it like a man when you get it in return.




Really??



So where is the personal attack?? Was it when i refered to your personal attacks as lame?? WOW you really must be desperate after admitting that you position throughout this thread that the 14th did not apply was WRONG.





BS. take that crap somewhere else because no one is buying it here. You have done nothing BUT argue agaisnt it so don;t even bother telling that bold faced LIE again.




as you beleive it should be applied based on your own OPINIONS while failing to show any REAL reason why the 14th amendment shouldn't apply. Your arguments have consisted of "if you allow that you must allow incest and polygamy" and that is about all that you have said. No substance just declarative statement that it does not apply followed by scare tactics. That is all that you've got.



I don't have to, you already admitted that you were WRONG you new denial does nothing to cahnge that fact.



So how is insulting me and my arguments toning down the rhetoric and having a civil discussion?? Your problem is that the actual content of your posts does not match what you believe that you said.
You can't take the high road as you wade through the sewers, so don't even try it.

I have tried to disengage the argument once and if you respond with the whole "you're putting words in my mouth... GATEWAY" I'll just walk away again because you just reframing the argument to avoid having to deal with parallels that support my case. Do you want a discussion or not?

Mike

You tried to "disengage" because you lost the argument and tried to claim it was because I was being unreasonable and not because you failed to substantiate your claims and ended up admitting that you were WRONG. Now you come back out of sheer desperation in an attempt to save face and only made yourself look wishy washy and exposed your alck of integrity. Now go ahead and run away.
You lost the debate after conceding the primary point and admitting that the 14th amendment does apply to same sex marriage. You and I both know that and none of yuor new spin or running away will change that FACT. BYE BYE. lol

Your abject insecurity is friggin' laughable, smitty........Seriously, it is.

You didn't win any argument. You just practice your usual and tired insecure ankle biting BS.

Grow up already, would ya'?

Go find some of the fun threads up here, and interact beyond your usual weird shit.

Says you, the hack who after getting owned in one thread has to stalk me into another and troll me here in a desperate attempt to save face. Now that is insecurity.

Sorry but it's too late for you too. You have shown you have no intregity and are a hypocrite based on your own words.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4020699-post247.html

That is something you will have to deal with on your own and attacking me personally, no matter how many threads you follow me into, will not change anything.

 

[drsmith1072]

You tried to "disengage" because you lost the argument and tried to claim it was because I was being unreasonable and not because you failed to substantiate your claims and ended up admitting that you were WRONG. Now you come back out of sheer desperation in an attempt to save face and only made yourself look wishy washy and exposed your alck of integrity. Now go ahead and run away.
You lost the debate after conceding the primary point and admitting that the 14th amendment does apply to same sex marriage. You and I both know that and none of yuor new spin or running away will change that FACT. BYE BYE. lol

The only reason I am here is for intellectual conversation. You lack the abilty to do that because you don't have a background for why you feel the way you do. Actually the fact that this is a matter of feeling and emotion is part of the problem. I actually tried to give you some information for you to reconsider but you have displayed no willingness to do that so I left the conversation. I did reconsider something and actually changed a conclusion I came to. I'm not so vain that I cannot reconsider my positions. After you called me on it I looked at the differences and found that you were right. It was similar to a broken clock being right, but it was still right. I withdrew that opinion and made the correct Constitutional argument. Now we're back to square one, so I've left the argument again.

The fact that you feel the need to declare victory says enough man.

Have a nice day.



Mike

If you lack the integrity to respond to the full and complete context of my posts including the parts that question you on WHY you believe what you do and what supports that position then you are not worth the time.

Why is your new correct argument the correct constitutional argument?? once again you make a claim you failed to substantiate? Why do I bother asking you questions when you would rather attack me and then run away from any form of debate as you dishonestly try to pretend that you are taking the high road and I am the one refusing to debate when the opposite is the truth?

Again, you aren't worth the time so go ahead and run away already. LOL

 

[Texanmike]

You tried to "disengage" because you lost the argument and tried to claim it was because I was being unreasonable and not because you failed to substantiate your claims and ended up admitting that you were WRONG. Now you come back out of sheer desperation in an attempt to save face and only made yourself look wishy washy and exposed your alck of integrity. Now go ahead and run away.
You lost the debate after conceding the primary point and admitting that the 14th amendment does apply to same sex marriage. You and I both know that and none of yuor new spin or running away will change that FACT. BYE BYE. lol

The only reason I am here is for intellectual conversation. You lack the abilty to do that because you don't have a background for why you feel the way you do. Actually the fact that this is a matter of feeling and emotion is part of the problem. I actually tried to give you some information for you to reconsider but you have displayed no willingness to do that so I left the conversation. I did reconsider something and actually changed a conclusion I came to. I'm not so vain that I cannot reconsider my positions. After you called me on it I looked at the differences and found that you were right. It was similar to a broken clock being right, but it was still right. I withdrew that opinion and made the correct Constitutional argument. Now we're back to square one, so I've left the argument again.

The fact that you feel the need to declare victory says enough man.

Have a nice day.



Mike

If you lack the integrity to respond to the full and complete context of my posts including the parts that question you on WHY you believe what you do and what supports that position then you are not worth the time.

Why is your new correct argument the correct constitutional argument?? once again you make a claim you failed to substantiate? Why do I bother asking you questions when you would rather attack me and then run away from any form of debate as you dishonestly try to pretend that you are taking the high road and I am the one refusing to debate when the opposite is the truth?

Again, you aren't worth the time so go ahead and run away already. LOL

Attack you and run away? You are the one that insists on attacking me, for no real reason. I made a few attacks I probably shouldn't have made and apologized for them. They have no place in debate. At the same time, you don't actually think about what I say you just find some reason to discount it.

If you are going to have an argument in which you are the ultimate authority and you have already decided what the truth is and isn't then there is no reason to debate with you. That's why I walk away. I don't even know why I bother. I am trying to take the high road but you would rather attack me than just let it be. Here, why not start over.

How do you think the 14th amendment is an argument for same sex marriage?

Mike

 

[drsmith1072]

The only reason I am here is for intellectual conversation. You lack the abilty to do that because you don't have a background for why you feel the way you do. Actually the fact that this is a matter of feeling and emotion is part of the problem. I actually tried to give you some information for you to reconsider but you have displayed no willingness to do that so I left the conversation. I did reconsider something and actually changed a conclusion I came to. I'm not so vain that I cannot reconsider my positions. After you called me on it I looked at the differences and found that you were right. It was similar to a broken clock being right, but it was still right. I withdrew that opinion and made the correct Constitutional argument. Now we're back to square one, so I've left the argument again.

The fact that you feel the need to declare victory says enough man.

Have a nice day.



Mike

If you lack the integrity to respond to the full and complete context of my posts including the parts that question you on WHY you believe what you do and what supports that position then you are not worth the time.

Why is your new correct argument the correct constitutional argument?? once again you make a claim you failed to substantiate? Why do I bother asking you questions when you would rather attack me and then run away from any form of debate as you dishonestly try to pretend that you are taking the high road and I am the one refusing to debate when the opposite is the truth?

Again, you aren't worth the time so go ahead and run away already. LOL

Attack you and run away? You are the one that insists on attacking me, for no real reason. I made a few attacks I probably shouldn't have made and apologized for them. They have no place in debate. At the same time, you don't actually think about what I say you just find some reason to discount it.

If you are going to have an argument in which you are the ultimate authority and you have already decided what the truth is and isn't then there is no reason to debate with you. That's why I walk away. I don't even know why I bother. I am trying to take the high road but you would rather attack me than just let it be. Here, why not start over.

How do you think the 14th amendment is an argument for same sex marriage?

Mike

You engaged in personal attacks in your last post and you did NOT apologize nor have you seriously apologized previously considering how you continued your personal attacks.

Furthermore, unlike you I read and responded to every comment you made. You are the one that skipped to the end and responded to one sentence posting nothing but a longwinded personal attack as your repsonse.
It's not my fault that you failed to substantiate your claims so please stop trying to make your failures about me.

LIke I said before you can't take the high road when you are wading in the sewers.

If you want to start over then start over where this thread began by EXPLAINING HOW the 14th amendment does not apply same sex marriage.

Saying it doesn't isn't good enough.

 

[Texanmike]

If you lack the integrity to respond to the full and complete context of my posts including the parts that question you on WHY you believe what you do and what supports that position then you are not worth the time.

Why is your new correct argument the correct constitutional argument?? once again you make a claim you failed to substantiate? Why do I bother asking you questions when you would rather attack me and then run away from any form of debate as you dishonestly try to pretend that you are taking the high road and I am the one refusing to debate when the opposite is the truth?

Again, you aren't worth the time so go ahead and run away already. LOL

Attack you and run away? You are the one that insists on attacking me, for no real reason. I made a few attacks I probably shouldn't have made and apologized for them. They have no place in debate. At the same time, you don't actually think about what I say you just find some reason to discount it.

If you are going to have an argument in which you are the ultimate authority and you have already decided what the truth is and isn't then there is no reason to debate with you. That's why I walk away. I don't even know why I bother. I am trying to take the high road but you would rather attack me than just let it be. Here, why not start over.

How do you think the 14th amendment is an argument for same sex marriage?

Mike

You engaged in personal attacks in your last post and you did NOT apologize nor have you seriously apologized previously considering how you continued your personal attacks.

Furthermore, unlike you I read and responded to every comment you made. You are the one that skipped to the end and responded to one sentence posting nothing but a longwinded personal attack as your repsonse.
It's not my fault that you failed to substantiate your claims so please stop trying to make your failures about me.

LIke I said before you can't take the high road when you are wading in the sewers.

If you want to start over then start over where this thread began by EXPLAINING HOW the 14th amendment does not apply same sex marriage.

Saying it doesn't isn't good enough.

I didn't start the thread. I was asking why you thought it can be used especially since it hasn't been successfully used to this point. Quite simply a couple is not an individual and couples don't necessarily carry all of the same rights/privileges or whatever as individuals. I am using incest as a parallel because the laws that prevent (and in some cases allow) various versions of cousins to get married.

Mike

 

[Wicked Jester]

Have you read your posts?? Then stop whining about it. you engage it so take it like a man when you get it in return.




Really??



So where is the personal attack?? Was it when i refered to your personal attacks as lame?? WOW you really must be desperate after admitting that you position throughout this thread that the 14th did not apply was WRONG.





BS. take that crap somewhere else because no one is buying it here. You have done nothing BUT argue agaisnt it so don;t even bother telling that bold faced LIE again.




as you beleive it should be applied based on your own OPINIONS while failing to show any REAL reason why the 14th amendment shouldn't apply. Your arguments have consisted of "if you allow that you must allow incest and polygamy" and that is about all that you have said. No substance just declarative statement that it does not apply followed by scare tactics. That is all that you've got.



I don't have to, you already admitted that you were WRONG you new denial does nothing to cahnge that fact.



So how is insulting me and my arguments toning down the rhetoric and having a civil discussion?? Your problem is that the actual content of your posts does not match what you believe that you said.
You can't take the high road as you wade through the sewers, so don't even try it.



You tried to "disengage" because you lost the argument and tried to claim it was because I was being unreasonable and not because you failed to substantiate your claims and ended up admitting that you were WRONG. Now you come back out of sheer desperation in an attempt to save face and only made yourself look wishy washy and exposed your alck of integrity. Now go ahead and run away.
You lost the debate after conceding the primary point and admitting that the 14th amendment does apply to same sex marriage. You and I both know that and none of yuor new spin or running away will change that FACT. BYE BYE. lol

Your abject insecurity is friggin' laughable, smitty........Seriously, it is.

You didn't win any argument. You just practice your usual and tired insecure ankle biting BS.

Grow up already, would ya'?

Go find some of the fun threads up here, and interact beyond your usual weird shit.

Says you, the hack who after getting owned in one thread has to stalk me into another and troll me here in a desperate attempt to save face. Now that is insecurity.

Sorry but it's too late for you too. You have shown you have no intregity and are a hypocrite based on your own words.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4020699-post247.html

That is something you will have to deal with on your own and attacking me personally, no matter how many threads you follow me into, will not change anything.

Ya' got NOTHIN' son!....just an insecre lil' ankle biting chihuaha, who's constantly getting bit by the big dogs right between the eyes.

Didn't anybody ever teach ya' that it's best to let a sleepin' dog lie, 'cause if ya' don't, you're gonna get bit right between the eyes?

LMAO!

 

[drsmith1072]

Attack you and run away? You are the one that insists on attacking me, for no real reason. I made a few attacks I probably shouldn't have made and apologized for them. They have no place in debate. At the same time, you don't actually think about what I say you just find some reason to discount it.

If you are going to have an argument in which you are the ultimate authority and you have already decided what the truth is and isn't then there is no reason to debate with you. That's why I walk away. I don't even know why I bother. I am trying to take the high road but you would rather attack me than just let it be. Here, why not start over.

How do you think the 14th amendment is an argument for same sex marriage?

Mike

You engaged in personal attacks in your last post and you did NOT apologize nor have you seriously apologized previously considering how you continued your personal attacks.

Furthermore, unlike you I read and responded to every comment you made. You are the one that skipped to the end and responded to one sentence posting nothing but a longwinded personal attack as your repsonse.
It's not my fault that you failed to substantiate your claims so please stop trying to make your failures about me.

LIke I said before you can't take the high road when you are wading in the sewers.

If you want to start over then start over where this thread began by EXPLAINING HOW the 14th amendment does not apply same sex marriage.

Saying it doesn't isn't good enough.

I didn't start the thread. I was asking why you thought it can be used especially since it hasn't been successfully used to this point. Quite simply a couple is not an individual and couples don't necessarily carry all of the same rights/privileges or whatever as individuals. I am using incest as a parallel because the laws that prevent (and in some cases allow) various versions of cousins to get married.

Mike

This thread was started with a claim that the 14th amendment did not apply, you agreed with that premise now PROVE it. Again, saying it does not make it so, if you cannot SHOW how it does not apply then concede the point and leave like you threatened to do several posts ago. LOL

BTW I find your argument hilarious since corporations now have individual rights but according to you couples do not. LOL "corporations are people." LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Your abject insecurity is friggin' laughable, smitty........Seriously, it is.

You didn't win any argument. You just practice your usual and tired insecure ankle biting BS.

Grow up already, would ya'?

Go find some of the fun threads up here, and interact beyond your usual weird shit.

Says you, the hack who after getting owned in one thread has to stalk me into another and troll me here in a desperate attempt to save face. Now that is insecurity.

Sorry but it's too late for you too. You have shown you have no intregity and are a hypocrite based on your own words.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4020699-post247.html

That is something you will have to deal with on your own and attacking me personally, no matter how many threads you follow me into, will not change anything.

Ya' got NOTHIN' son!....just an insecre lil' ankle biting chihuaha, who's constantly getting bit by the big dogs right between the eyes.

Didn't anybody ever teach ya' that it's best to let a sleepin' dog lie, 'cause if ya' don't, you're gonna get bit right between the eyes?

LMAO!

Well it's obvious that you are delusional as ever. You get owned, expose yourself as a hypocrite and yet you continue to try to pretend that it never happend. LOL

WOW! Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Texanmike]

You engaged in personal attacks in your last post and you did NOT apologize nor have you seriously apologized previously considering how you continued your personal attacks.

Furthermore, unlike you I read and responded to every comment you made. You are the one that skipped to the end and responded to one sentence posting nothing but a longwinded personal attack as your repsonse.
It's not my fault that you failed to substantiate your claims so please stop trying to make your failures about me.

LIke I said before you can't take the high road when you are wading in the sewers.

If you want to start over then start over where this thread began by EXPLAINING HOW the 14th amendment does not apply same sex marriage.

Saying it doesn't isn't good enough.

I didn't start the thread. I was asking why you thought it can be used especially since it hasn't been successfully used to this point. Quite simply a couple is not an individual and couples don't necessarily carry all of the same rights/privileges or whatever as individuals. I am using incest as a parallel because the laws that prevent (and in some cases allow) various versions of cousins to get married.

Mike

This thread was started with a claim that the 14th amendment did not apply, you agreed with that premise now PROVE it. Again, saying it does not make it so, if you cannot SHOW how it does not apply then concede the point and leave like you threatened to do several posts ago. LOL

BTW I find your argument hilarious since corporations now have individual rights but according to you couples do not. LOL "corporations are people." LOL

I find your opinion uninformed since corporations can hold some rights but not others. They can do the things that all of the collective people may do (not have their right to freedom of speech infringed on) but they cannot exercise rights which the people that are a member of the corporation cannot do (like vote).

Then again, I've always maintained you are un(der)informed.

Mike