Obama says gay couples deserve same rights as all

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and unfortunately you're still here trolling. Shame isn't it?

I'm trolling? Yeah, Paul, that must be it. But my posts are still around.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A "couple" isn't two guys. It may be in Vermont and a few other places, but it isn't here nor is it in Washington state.

Depends on who you ask even in Alaska or Washington state. The state of Alaska considers two guys (or two gals) a couple. Your state supreme court decided as much in 2007. Washington passed same sex partnerships in 2007 as well. So, two guys (pr two gals) are a couple there as well. These couples just aren't afforded the right marry in either of these states. Yet. It'll get there. Get used to the thought or the disappointment will be more severe.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm trolling? Yeah, Paul, that must be it. But my posts are still around.

and a second trolling post. Keep them coming!

[SMR 368]

NY state just passed the bill. The march goes on and those that want to stop it are in the minority.

New York is unfortunate. Your appeal to a so-called majority is an unfounded logical fallacy. And if in fact you are in the majority that doesn't make you correct.

As for the SCOTUS, has it overstepped it's bounds when it ruled in Loving vs. Virginia?

No, the ruling was based on the 14th amendment. Races are not legally definable. Genders are.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

NY state didn't pass jack ####### yet. It just went to the Senate an hour ago for vote.

[faust-yusov 103]

I understand what the thread title is trying to imply and am disputing it.

With a fallacious, poisonous and (I maintain) deliberate mistep in reasoning, no less moronic than the assertion that a bill decreeing it punishable by death to have sex with another man while in wedlock applies as equally and readily to men as it does to women.

The problem with your couple argument is that couples as a group don't have rights. Individuals have rights. Some of those rights pertain to their ability to make agreements and relationships with other individuals who have the same rights. But that doesn't mean the couple has rights as a group beyond those afforded to its individual members.

Rights are nebulous ideals, fundamentally and necessarily resistant to rearticulation under restrictive legislation.

Thus we hold that atemporal 'rights' (e.g. those to "family"; "equality before the law"; "the pursuit of happiness"; etc) should supercede the ever shifting parameters by which contemporary doctrine outlines our civil liberties. Your tacit assumption that rights are to be assessed solely with regard to the latter perspective is (I would assume) an act of willful ignorance on your part, likely to an end of derailing a quite straightforward debate into one of semantic pedantry.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

New York is unfortunate. Your appeal to a so-called majority is an unfounded logical fallacy. And if in fact you are in the majority that doesn't make you correct.

You're right, the fact that I am part of a majority doesn't make me correct. Same sex couples continue to be and always will be a minority and that doesn't make them wrong, either. Cuts both ways. That said, the mood in America is shifting towards marriage equality. There now is a majority of Americans in favor of marriage equality.

No, the ruling was based on the 14th amendment. Races are not legally definable. Genders are.

That wasn't the basis for the decision, however. In fact, the court found quite the opposite. It found that the VA law that was struck down was designed precisely to perpetuate white supremacy. That finding was based on the fact that the VA law only criminalized marriages between a white person and a person of another race while not addressing at all any other interracial marriages not involving a white person. If, as you falsely claim, the decision was handed down because races are not legally definable, then that particular part of the ruling would make no sense whatsoever.

But yes, it was based on the 14th amendment. The court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right of man fundamental to our existence and that such right can not be restricted invidiously. Then, it was the racial discrimination. Now, it's discrimination based on sexual orientation. Same sex marriage will be legal in this great country of ours and it won't be decades until that happens. I even doubt it will be another decade.

I suggest you consider a conservative voice in defense of same sex marriage. It's a very convincing argument.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Edited June 25, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

Are your nephews gay now? Man, I read your rants and realize I can't put down as much food as I want to throw up.

talking about gay stuff induces your gag reflex?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right of man fundamental to our existence and that such right can not be restricted invidiously.

Again. The SCOTUS does not create law. Does not create 'rights.'

It has OPINIONS and is there to uphold the law. It cannot create 'rights' out of thin air however.

There is nothing that the Federal Government has any business in when it comes to marriage. Until it does, a 'right' in such a manner cannot be dictated by anyone. Not the president, not the congress and sure as hell not the SCOTUS.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Again. The SCOTUS does not create law. Does not create 'rights.'

It has OPINIONS and is there to uphold the law. It cannot create 'rights' out of thin air however.

There is nothing that the Federal Government has any business in when it comes to marriage. Until it does, a 'right' in such a manner cannot be dictated by anyone. Not the president, not the congress and sure as hell not the SCOTUS.

Paul, all you produce are opinions. Very uninformed opinions at that. Now, you do have a right to express those opinions. You do not, however, have any right to be taken seriously. Nor should you have any expectation of being taken seriously. Especially not when all you ever do is rant, rant, rant.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, all you produce are opinions. Very uninformed opinions at that. Now, you do have a right to express those opinions. You do not, however, have any right to be taken seriously. Nor should you have any expectation of being taken seriously. Especially not when all you ever do is rant, rant, rant.

and now you're becoming a troll, troll, troll. Becoming a lot like Rob actually in this thread. Instead of posting opinions on the subject, all you can do is attack the poster.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and now you're becoming a troll, troll, troll. Becoming a lot like Rob actually in this thread. Instead of posting opinions on the subject, all you can do is attack the poster.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Opinions on what's right or wrong are evolving. Just like the President's views are evolving. Today we are trying to figure out whether or not it's okay for same sex partners to get married. Tomorrow we may realize that there is no deeper love than the one between a parent and their child. Woody Allen showed us that such love can be real. Who knows, perhaps a few decades from now anybody will be allowed to get married to anybody they like . . .

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Opinions on what's right or wrong are evolving. Just like the President's views are evolving. Today we are trying to figure out whether or not it's okay for same sex partners to get married. Tomorrow we may realize that there is no deeper love than the one between a parent and their child. Woody Allen showed us that such love can be real. Who knows, perhaps a few decades from now anybody will be allowed to get married to anybody they like . . .

Ya it's gays today, and tomorrow what...animals or some weird #######? I mean this country is going to h*ll, and to add fuel to the fire we have these gay marriages and the Dream Act. I see nothing good for this county's future if this ####### keeps up.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ya it's gays today, and tomorrow what...animals or some weird #######? I mean this country is going to h*ll, and to add fuel to the fire we have these gay marriages and the Dream Act. I see nothing good for this county's future if this ####### keeps up.

Odd how they legalized same sex marriages in real developed countries long ago and nobody is talking about marrying their goats in those places. But yeah, keep on worshiping that straw-man. Maybe one day you get to marry him.