Supreme Court.......STRIKES DOWN...Defence of Marriage Act !

[EastUS1]

When you get right down to it if you believe in individual rights (as conservatives claim they do) there is no reason to prevent the 'marriage' between any two (or more) consenting adults.  
 
East obviously has no legal argument to put forth.  Do you?

 
And you've provided no rational arguments advancing your position: Ms Tree, on 08 Nov 2013 - 10:07 PM, said: "Marriage is used because people are used to it."  You defend even a word, purely due to it's  traditionally accepted usage, but immediately then wish to entirely change the nature of of that which the very word describes. So; you now argue to accept something "because people are used to it", but simultaneously demand that all embrace massive changes in what those same people "are used to", and appear completely oblivious to the inherent irony, much less the illogical incoherence of your thoughts there? So now; we should all accept what "people are used to" if it suits your purposes, but otherwise immediately embrace anything "people" aren't "used to" whenever it suits YOU? After uttering that childish nonsense; you quickly retreat to legal notions only, and can but offer such as the now-must-be-supposed ONLY venue for proper debate...? How can you honestly expect other than laughter in response? 🙂
 
 

 

 

[Ms Tree]

 
 
And you've provided no rational arguments advancing your position: Ms Tree, on 08 Nov 2013 - 10:07 PM, said: "Marriage is used because people are used to it."  You defend even a word purely due to it's  traditionally accepted usage, but immediately wish to entirely change the nature of of that which the very word describes. So; you argue to accept something "because people are used to it", but simultaneously demand that all embrace massive changes in what those same people "are used to", and are completely oblivious to the inherent irony, much less logical incoherence? How can you expect other than laughter in response? 🙂
 



 

 

I'm not talking about a word, I never have been.  Only you seem to be hung up on that nonsense.  You can call it a widget for all I care.  AIl I have ever been talking about is the right for any two people enter in to a legal contract that the state/nation define as marriage.  What people are used to is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.  What people are used to is the use of the word marriage.  If you want to replace that word with another, good luck. People are used to it and I doubt you will succeed.  I don't care what the word is.  I never have.  I use it to describe the contract between my wife and I because it is convenient and universal.  I do not care about the word.  I use the word because the state of Texas put that word on the legal document it issued required for us to enter into the legal contract.  I do not care about the word.
 
So do you have a legal argument against allowing any two consenting adult humans from entering into a legal marriage contract?  Are you smarter than the courts of the land who cannot come up with a legal reason?

 

[delldude]

I don't know what all the hoopla is anyway. We are an Islamic Nation now. With that said, gay pride will soon go the way of the Edsel. Allah-Ahkbar!

 

[EastUS1]

Ms Tree, on 08 Nov 2013 - 10:07 PM, said: "Marriage is used because people are used to it."
 

I'm not talking about a word, I never have been. 

 
"I never have been." would appear more than bit disengenuous from the lines above. You are whenever you imagine it suits your purposes it seems. Kindly define for us all your personal notions of what actually constitutes "Marriage" and we can perhaps proceed. I think I've had sufficient chuckles for now. 😉
 
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
 
http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

 

[Ms Tree]

Ms Tree, on 08 Nov 2013 - 10:07 PM, said: "Marriage is used because people are used to it."
 
 
"I never have been." would appear more than bit disengenuous from the lines above. You are whenever you imagine it suits your purposes it seems. Kindly define for us all your personal notions of what actually constitutes "Marriage" and we can perhaps proceed. I think I've had sufficient chuckles for now. 😉

I was responding to your silliness.  I have never brought up the issue.  The only thing disingenuous is your lies to imply that I give a rats ass about the word.
 
My statement was a response to this comment of yours
 

 
"Things" indeed are always changing. Not-so-much human nature. "we no longer use horses to travel long distances, our cars.."...? So...Why then do we not refer to "our cars" as horses anymore? Why even employ the term Marriage anymore?
 
I note you're happy with offering up a definition of "Prejudice" (as if anyone disagreeing with your tripe must needs be), but you've yet to provide anything even approaching a definition of Marriage. Care to now, finally make that effort?

 

 
 
But you already know that and you're lying about it because you have nothing else.  And if you are going to quote me at least have the integrity to use the entire quote.
 
 

Marriage is used because people are used to it.  You cannot legally compel people to use certain words.
 
I have given a definition earlier.  Marriage so far as the state is concerned is a legal contract.  Same as a home loan, employment contract or any other legal document.  Nothing more nothing less.

 

 

[delldude]

 
I was responding to your silliness.  I have never brought up the issue.  The only thing disingenuous is your lies to imply that I give a rats ass about the word.
 
My statement was a response to this comment of yours
 
 

 
But you already know that and you're lying about it because you have nothing else.  And if you are going to quote me at least have the integrity to use the entire quote.
 
 
 

 

[EastUS1]

 
I was responding to your silliness.  I have never brought up the issue.  The only thing disingenuous is your lies to imply that I give a rats ass about the word.
 
But you already know that and you're lying about it because you have nothing else.  And if you are going to quote me at least have the integrity to use the entire quote.

 
"your lies"..."you're lying"...Seriously? 😉 I merely reprinted portions of what you wrote. If you felt that inappropriately done, then feel yourself now perfectly free to repost or rephrase as you wish, and you're certainly encouraged to fully demonstrate any "lies" contained, or unfair useage of your words in any form......Well? Take your time, as I've other things to now do, and I've already had more than my fair share of chuckles from here for the moment. Seeing some liberal angrilly sputter and implode was just icing on the cake. 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

 
"your lies"..."you're lying"...Seriously? 😉 I merely reprinted portions of what you wrote. If you felt that inappropriately done, then feel yourself now perfectly free to repost or rephrase as you wish, and you're certainly encouraged to fully demonstrate any "lies" contained......Well?

No you did not reprint what I wrote, you took it out of context and only reprinted part of it.  You lied.  
 
And you still have not provided any legal basis for denying marriage equality to all.  

 

[Ms Tree]

Ms Tree, on 08 Nov 2013 - 10:07 PM, said: "Marriage is used because people are used to it."
 
 
"I never have been." would appear more than bit disengenuous from the lines above. You are whenever you imagine it suits your purposes it seems. Kindly define for us all your personal notions of what actually constitutes "Marriage" and we can perhaps proceed. I think I've had sufficient chuckles for now. 😉
 
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
 
http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

 
Perhaps if you would read some of the posts you might have caught this.
 
 

Marriage is used because people are used to it.  You cannot legally compel people to use certain words.
 
I have given a definition earlier.  Marriage so far as the state is concerned is a legal contract.  Same as a home loan, employment contract or any other legal document.  Nothing more nothing less.

 

 

[EastUS1]

I merely reprinted portions of what you wrote.
 

No you did not reprint what I wrote, you took it out of context and only reprinted part of it.  You lied.  
 
And you still have not provided any legal basis for denying marriage equality to all.  

 
"No you did not reprint what I wrote, you took it out of context and only reprinted part of it." Fully and openly confessed to....Perhaps some reading comprension issues are in play here? 😉
 
"You lied. " Demonstrate where that supposedly happened...but don't burst any blood vessels vainly ("veinly"..sorry) searching....? 🙂
 
If you truly believe your below line: What rational basis do you now have for demanding that any type of contract be afforded it's own, unique name? Why not use the term employment contract whenever purchasing a new pet? What elements make any marriage contract unique?
 
"Marriage so far as the state is concerned is a legal contract.  Same as a home loan, employment contract or any other legal document.  Nothing more nothing less."

 

[Ms Tree]

I merely reprinted portions of what you wrote.
 
 
"No you did not reprint what I wrote, you took it out of context and only reprinted part of it." Fully and openly confessed to....Perhaps some reading comprension issues are in play here? 😉
 
"You lied. " Demonstrate where that supposedly happened...but don't burst any blood vessels vainly ("veinly"..sorry) searching....? 🙂
 
If you truly believe your below line: What rational basis do you now have for demanding that any type of contract be afforded it's own, unique name? Why not use the term employment contract whenever purchasing a new pet? What elements make any marriage contract unique?
 
"Marriage so far as the state is concerned is a legal contract.  Same as a home loan, employment contract or any other legal document.  Nothing more nothing less."

Geez, still hung up on words.  Here, let me write it bigger for you.  
 
I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT WORD IS USED FOR ANY CONTRACT.
 
Do you have any legal argument to deny equal marriage to all consenting adults?

 

[Ms Tree]

This entire conversation is really a moot issue anyway.  There are 13 states that currently allow same sex marriage.  IL and VA are next on the list as both governors (thanks Tea Party for VA) have said they will sign the legislation as soon at their Senates pass the bills which both will.  More will follow.  Once a case gets heard by the SCOTS where all parties have standing and the Justices can't weasel their way out of the case it will be settled and marriage equality will be the law of the land.  The only variable I see is if the SCOTUS make up changes with a activist republican appointee.  Barring that, the right wing is screwed on this issue. 

 

[southwind]

When you get right down to it if you believe in individual rights (as conservatives claim they do) there is no reason to prevent the 'marriage' between any two (or more) consenting adults.  
 
East obviously has no legal argument to put forth.  Do you?

So lets make the world a free for all, with no standards or morals, then Dog can marry his...........dog, and consummate the marriage on his wedding night !

Sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with it.........right?

 

[Ms Tree]

So lets make the world a free for all, with no standards or morals, then Dog can marry his...........dog, and consummate the marriage on his wedding night !

Sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with it.........right?

So now you want to talk about morals? Who's morals do you want to use? Yours I assume? Not sure I'm comfortable with using someones morals who is infatuated with animal sex.

What is it with you and bestiality? Do you have something you want to share with the class?

 

[delldude]

So now you want to talk about morals? Who's morals do you want to use? Yours I assume? Not sure I'm comfortable with using someones morals who is infatuated with animal sex.

What is it with you and bestiality? Do you have something you want to share with the class?

 
 
Ooh Ooh....I gotta see a source now....
 
I wonder if slander and lible apply on the net?