User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 268

  1. #131
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    We like President Obama and we don't like Ron Paul.

    President Obama is addressing the great issue of the day, the rise of China and India. And as we share this hemisphere with China and India, we are pleased President Obama is taking his attention off the Middle East and paying attention to Asia.

    Ron Paul on the other hand would betray his allies in the interests of narcissism.

  2. #132
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazashin View Post
    As in, they believe in it more than reason.
    That statement doesn't make sense. If a gay marriage case i brought before the Supreme Court, relying on the constitution is what you'd want.....

    If the supreme court decides to rule in favor of prop 8, they would have no constitutional basis for it. They would be relying on tradition, rather than the constitution. The constitution guarantees equal protection to all citizens and does not specify that homosexuals cannot marry. The 9th Circuit court, 2-1, voted that a ban on gay marriage(prop 8) is unconstitutional, so I would consider that relying on the constitution. I don't think the Supreme Court will necessarily rule the same way.

    Over time this won't even be an issue, and I think that's overlooked by many people when it comes to gay marriage, birth control, etc, etc. You can't change things overnight without expecting tension, but eventually people will come to accept homosexual's rights as they have women's rights, minority rights and politicians and the Supreme Court will follow suit. A change in society is a prerequisite to a change in the law.

    Constitutionalists tend to believe that any power not specifically delegated to the federal govt falls to the individual states. I disagree to some extent with Paul and others when it comes to states deciding these kinds of things, but I think his state's rights idea would be better than having more federal laws about something as intimate as marriage. I prefer, as do most constitutionalists, for the government to keep out of marriage altogether(which would eliminate the problem immediately).

    Failing that, the decision should not be given to the federal government, but rather, it should be dealt with at the state level. My fear, were I a homosexual, would be that the Supreme Court or Congress would get involved, rule that gay marriage is not "technically" marriage, ban it, and then all of the states that currently allow marriage/civil union would no longer be able to do so.

    Youre obviously a proponent of gay marriage, but you need to understand that tradition is more important to people than the constitution or individual liberties. Congress is more likely to ban gay marriage than to legalize it, so while I agree that this shouldn't even be an issue, I also realize that most gays would rather have the option of getting married(even if out-of-state) than having a federal ban on all gay marriage.

    If the Supreme Court decides to hear the prop 8 case, I hope they'll rule based on the constitution and not religious-based tradition.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  3. #133
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We like President Obama and we don't like Ron Paul.

    President Obama is addressing the great issue of the day, the rise of China and India. And as we share this hemisphere with China and India, we are pleased President Obama is taking his attention off the Middle East and paying attention to Asia.

    Ron Paul on the other hand would betray his allies in the interests of narcissism.
    We can't afford it, Victor.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  4. #134
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    A change in society is a prerequisite to a change in the law.
    This is an idea that many people fail to either understand or acknowledge. There would be no Civil Rights Act of 1964 without popular support (popular =/= universal).
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #135
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    *puts on Devil's Advocate cap*

    *doesn't not believe in gay marriage*

    *just had this discussion with lawyer friend two days ago*

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    If the supreme court decides to rule in favor of prop 8, they would have no constitutional basis for it.
    So says you.

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    They would be relying on tradition, rather than the constitution.
    They would be relying on a definition of marriage. All definitions are in some way derived through "tradition", so unless you want to make us incapable of using words in court, and thus incapable of litigating at all, by saying that the definitions of all words are "tradition", and because our legal system is not based on common law, we cannot base our definitions on "tradition", and thus words have no place in legal reasoning, or all words must be defined by the Supreme Court, exclusive of tradition, then your point is bunk.

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    The constitution guarantees equal protection to all citizens and does not specify that homosexuals cannot marry.
    Nor does homosexuals not being able to marry deny them equal protection. Nowhere does prop 8 say that homosexuals can't marry. It says that marriage, as a term, is defined as being between a man and a woman. There is no gender discrimination at all in prop 8. Any man, or any woman, whether homosexual, or heterosexual, or somewhere in between, can marry, as defined by prop 8.

    They simply cannot marry someone of the same sex, because that is not what marriage is.

    Likewise, they cannot marry a dog. They cannot marry a cat. Nor can they marry a horse.

    If you define marriage as not being between a man and a dog: where are you getting that definition from? Oh yes, tradition... which you said was not proper grounding for the words we use... which means... ewww, that's messy...

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    The 9th Circuit court, 2-1, voted that a ban on gay marriage(prop 8) is unconstitutional, so I would consider that relying on the constitution.
    Well excuse me if I'm not so whimsical.

    I believe the judge presiding over this case is the most overturned Circuit court judge in United States history, and Circuit court decisions have been overturned plenty of times, so unless the Constitution means one thing based on one decision, but then means the opposite thing a second later, if the decision is overruled by a higher court, then your statement doesn't really have any merit (or the Constitution is essentially a meaningless document, whose meaning is at the whim of whatever court is interpreting it [which, unfortunately, is probably closer to the truth than not {this is more true of the second part of that statement}]).

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    I don't think the Supreme Court will necessarily rule the same way.


    Ok, read this after writing all the previous stuff...

    Apparently then, you do believe what I said above...

    Regardless, that still makes you a very capricious Constitutional interpreter.

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Over time this won't even be an issue, and I think that's overlooked by many people when it comes to gay marriage, birth control, etc, etc. You can't change things overnight without expecting tension, but eventually people will come to accept homosexual's rights as they have women's rights, minority rights and politicians and the Supreme Court will follow suit. A change in society is a prerequisite to a change in the law.
    I do agree with this.

    But, once again, you're framing the issue in language that serves your cause -- not language that is universally or undeniably true.

    My argument from above still holds: If marriage is defined as between a man and woman, then no rights are being denied to homosexuals; they, like anybody else, are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like anybody else.

    If you complain that such a definition is based only on tradition, then you're opening the door to marriages between a person and anything, as your definition of marriage as being between two human beings is based on nothing more than tradition as well.

    As such, your legal reasoning would be opening the road based on the exact same legal reasoning to heterobestial marriage, and the only way you could avoid opening said legal road would be to define marriage as being only between two human beings, which, according to your argument for gay marriage, would deny the bestiosexuals their rights based on nothing more than tradition, the exact same error you purport prop 8 to be committing.

    I know that people on your side of the argument like to try and write this argument off, say that it's not serious, that it's nothing more than a trivial joke, but the truth is that it is not. It uses the exact same legal reasoning that you are using to say that gay marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution.

    In 50 years, someone just like you, perhaps your grandson, could use the exact same argument you used above to "show" why the poor, maligned bestiosexuals just want their and their partner's individual dignity to be respected and rights protected:

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN's hypothetical grandson
    Over time this won't even be an issue, and I think that's overlooked by many people when it comes to heterobestial marriage. You can't change things overnight without expecting tension, but eventually people will come to accept bestiosexual's rights as they have homosexual's rights, women's rights, minority rights and politicians and the Supreme Court will follow suit. A change in society is a prerequisite to a change in the law.


    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Constitutionalists tend to believe that any power not specifically delegated to the federal govt falls to the individual states. I disagree to some extent with Paul and others when it comes to states deciding these kinds of things, but I think his state's rights idea would be better than having more federal laws about something as intimate as marriage. I prefer, as do most constitutionalists, for the government to keep out of marriage altogether(which would eliminate the problem immediately).

    Failing that, the decision should not be given to the federal government, but rather, it should be dealt with at the state level. My fear, were I a homosexual, would be that the Supreme Court or Congress would get involved, rule that gay marriage is not "technically" marriage, ban it, and then all of the states that currently allow marriage/civil union would no longer be able to do so.
    I agree with this.

    Particularly the part about the Federal government staying out of it.

    I may or may not agree about the government staying out of it completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Youre obviously a proponent of gay marriage, but you need to understand that tradition is more important to people than the constitution or individual liberties. Congress is more likely to ban gay marriage than to legalize it, so while I agree that this shouldn't even be an issue, I also realize that most gays would rather have the option of getting married(even if out-of-state) than having a federal ban on all gay marriage.

    If the Supreme Court decides to hear the prop 8 case, I hope they'll rule based on the constitution and not religious-based tradition.
    Legalize bestiosexual marriage!

  6. #136
    Senior Member Critical Hit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Munchies View Post
    I agree it looks scary. Very scary. But he is the only politician that speaks with real subtance and not empty words and emotional stimuls only.
    Define "substance".


    Him, Infowars, Ventura and everything else are on the same side.
    The side of making money off idiots?

    I don't trust any media. This is mearly herding sheep. No matter what, in each group there are mindless sheep. The mindless religiouse sheep voting for Santurom (or whatever his name is)only because he is religiouse, is the same thing. It's all identity politics. People vote for ron because they smoke weed, or because they are conspiracy theorist... OR a person voting for the only candidate with any real substance. Besides that, What will be will be, you can't hold back the tide, even if you cast a vote. lol
    Once again, define.
    +10% Crit Chance

  7. #137
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    don't you want freedom? do you honestly believe grown adults are incapable of making their own decisions? do we need government mandates everywhere trying to run the show?
    I really don't understand what people see in other ideologies.
    Obama is going to get reelected anyway, so all those other guys are wasting their time.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  8. #138
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    *puts on Devil's Advocate cap*

    *doesn't not believe in gay marriage*

    *just had this discussion with lawyer friend two days ago*
    Are you serious?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  9. #139
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Are you serious?
    About what?

    Showing why your legal reasoning was seriously flawed?

    Yes, I was serious.

  10. #140
    Secret Sex Freak Hazashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    That statement doesn't make sense. If a gay marriage case i brought before the Supreme Court, relying on the constitution is what you'd want.....

    If the supreme court decides to rule in favor of prop 8, they would have no constitutional basis for it. They would be relying on tradition, rather than the constitution. The constitution guarantees equal protection to all citizens and does not specify that homosexuals cannot marry. The 9th Circuit court, 2-1, voted that a ban on gay marriage(prop 8) is unconstitutional, so I would consider that relying on the constitution. I don't think the Supreme Court will necessarily rule the same way.

    Over time this won't even be an issue, and I think that's overlooked by many people when it comes to gay marriage, birth control, etc, etc. You can't change things overnight without expecting tension, but eventually people will come to accept homosexual's rights as they have women's rights, minority rights and politicians and the Supreme Court will follow suit. A change in society is a prerequisite to a change in the law.

    Constitutionalists tend to believe that any power not specifically delegated to the federal govt falls to the individual states. I disagree to some extent with Paul and others when it comes to states deciding these kinds of things, but I think his state's rights idea would be better than having more federal laws about something as intimate as marriage. I prefer, as do most constitutionalists, for the government to keep out of marriage altogether(which would eliminate the problem immediately).

    Failing that, the decision should not be given to the federal government, but rather, it should be dealt with at the state level. My fear, were I a homosexual, would be that the Supreme Court or Congress would get involved, rule that gay marriage is not "technically" marriage, ban it, and then all of the states that currently allow marriage/civil union would no longer be able to do so.

    Youre obviously a proponent of gay marriage, but you need to understand that tradition is more important to people than the constitution or individual liberties. Congress is more likely to ban gay marriage than to legalize it, so while I agree that this shouldn't even be an issue, I also realize that most gays would rather have the option of getting married(even if out-of-state) than having a federal ban on all gay marriage.

    If the Supreme Court decides to hear the prop 8 case, I hope they'll rule based on the constitution and not religious-based tradition.
    You make an excellent point. I have nothing to say.
    MBTI: INFP
    Enneagram: 6w7, phobic
    Tritype: 6-9-2
    Instinctual Variant: Sx/Sp
    Temperament: Pure Supine
    D&D Alignment: Neutral Good
    Political Stance: Solid Liberal
    Religious Views: Atheist

    Fi > Ne > Ti > Fe > Se > Si > Te > Ni

    "Forgiveness means letting go of the past." ~ Gerald Jampolsky
    "I am justice!" ~ Light Yagami, Death Note
    "The choices people make tell you a lot about a person, but the reasons [...] tell you even more." ~ Albus Dumbledore (paraphrased)

    Tatiana ♥

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] NF, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 08-27-2017, 05:28 PM
  2. [SJ] SJ, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-04-2017, 06:25 PM
  3. [SP] SP, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 05-15-2017, 03:39 AM
  4. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul Shouldn't be President is completly stupid or ignorant...
    By Munchies in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  5. [NT] NT, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO