Supreme Court Will Review DOMA, Prop 8 Challenges

[Tony C]

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
If you do then you don't know how to recognize the truth.
I've seen a lot of that from your side.

Oh please. You and your ilk lie constantly.

[lides]

Wondering wrote:

If you do then you don't know how to recognize the truth.
I've seen a lot of that from your side.

Wondering, does the 14th Amendment state:
"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."

Yes or no?

Your lies are all to apparent, which is to say you aren't a very savvy liar. The truth remains that all people are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and you cannot provide ANY legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection for same sex couples to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.

You are a liar. You are an idiot. You are a bigot.

[Wondering]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh please. You and your ilk lie constantly.

Well, here you are again. Can't help yourself?
At least I know you only make time for posters that matter, your words.

[Strel]

Say, how about that legitimate state interest in banning gay marriage?

Did any of you get around to tell us exactly what you think that might be?

Harumph.

[Tony C]

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, here you are again. Can't help yourself?
At least I know you only make time for posters that matter, your words.

Are you twelve years old?

[Wondering]

Strel wrote:

Say, how about that legitimate state interest in banning gay marriage?
Did any of you get around to tell us exactly what you think that might be?
Harumph.

Many times. Of course none of them were accepted by those that are pushing for gay marriage. That's ok, the decisions won't be made here on this message board.

[Wondering]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you twelve years old?

If you want me to be twelve in your little world it's ok with me.
I'm not necessarily honored by you opinion that my posts are worth your time but it is funny.

[Strel]

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Many times. Of course none of them were accepted by those that are pushing for gay marriage. That's ok, the decisions won't be made here on this message board.

No, not at all.

You see, some of us here actually have some kind of clue as to what flies as a legitimate state interest and what does not.

I have no actual dog in this fight, being a married heterosexual my interest in this is largely academic. I have the benefit of objectivity, something you clearly lack in this debate.

Give me ONE example of a legitimate state interest being met by the banning of gay marriage.

HINT: Don't bother with the "to encourage reproduction" business, that's been diced, sliced and thoroughly refuted here already.

Got anything else?

I'm guessing not.

[Tony C]

Every one of these threads has at least one dippy-do comparable to Wondering. Jeff, Born Again Whatever, etc. It's to the point I can't tell them apart. They all sound the same. They're all stupid, stubborn, arrogant, and the most un-Christian people I've ever heard (who call themselves that.)

[lides]

Wondering wrote:

Many times. Of course none of them were accepted by those that are pushing for gay marriage. That's ok, the decisions won't be made here on this message board.

Wondering, it is not that they haven't been accepted, they have been successfully refuted, and you have regularly failed to defend them with a rational argument. Often times you advance a line of logic that actually is in conflict with other arguments that you have advanced. At the end fo the day, you aren't to terribly bright. The funny part is that you lack the self awareness to realize that you can't offer and support a factually supported argument.

Feel free to prove you are an adult by either a) offering a factually supported argument in defense of your position, or b) admitting that you have no such argument, either in writing or tacitly.

[Wondering]

Strel wrote:

I have the benefit of objectivity,

No you don't, I've read your posts. You are clearly for gay marriage. You are clearly for introducing gay literature and discussions to 5 year old elementary school kids whose parents object.

[Wondering]

Tony C wrote:

Every one of these threads has at least one dippy-do comparable to Wondering. Jeff, Born Again Whatever, etc. It's to the point I can't tell them apart. They all sound the same. They're all stupid, stubborn, arrogant, and the most un-Christian people I've ever heard (who call themselves that.)

The stupid, arrogant, stubborn "dippy-do" can be seen daily in your mirror. The most un-Christian posts I've ever seen come from your side. "Sky fairy" and "buy-bull."

[lides]

Wondering wrote:

No you don't, I've read your posts. You are clearly for gay marriage.

Sure we are. There's no rational reason to be against constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law, which you prove each and every time you fail to indicate one.

Wondering wrote:

You are clearly for introducing gay literature and discussions to 5 year old elementary school kids whose parents object.

Wondering, can you indicate any circumstance where a five year old is being taught anything more than that some children have two dads, or two moms?
You truly are a fool.

[Tony C]

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Wondering, it is not that they haven't been accepted, they have been successfully refuted, and you have regularly failed to defend them with a rational argument. Often times you advance a line of logic that actually is in conflict with other arguments that you have advanced. At the end fo the day, you aren't to terribly bright. The funny part is that you lack the self awareness to realize that you can't offer and support a factually supported argument.
Feel free to prove you are an adult by either a) offering a factually supported argument in defense of your position, or b) admitting that you have no such argument, either in writing or tacitly.

bingo!

[Tony C]

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
No you don't, I've read your posts. You are clearly for gay marriage. You are clearly for introducing gay literature and discussions to 5 year old elementary school kids whose parents object.

That doesn't mean they haven't arrived at those conclusions objectively.

[Tony C]

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
The stupid, arrogant, stubborn "dippy-do" can be seen daily in your mirror. The most un-Christian posts I've ever seen come from your side. "Sky fairy" and "buy-bull."

They aren't pretending to be Christian. They have no obligation to reverence. You are a different story.

[Wondering]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
That doesn't mean they haven't arrived at those conclusions objectively.

Of course not. I say the same thing about Mass Resistance and the FRC. They don't buy it, why should I?

[Wondering]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
They aren't pretending to be Christian. They have no obligation to reverence. You are a different story.

It could be that we have that in common. You see, I'm not a religious person. I can determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong though. Attempting to force gay literature and class discussion on 5 year old kids in a public school setting is wrong.

[lides]

Wondering wrote:

It could be that we have that in common. You see, I'm not a religious person. I can determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong though. Attempting to force gay literature and class discussion on 5 year old kids in a public school setting is wrong.

Of course, you have consistantly failed to support this claim with fact, or to illustrate a correlation between same sex marriage and school curricula, which would render such an argument relevant to the topic at hand.

Keep up the incompetent work, Wondering. Your inept posts do more to illustrate the reasons to promote equality, than to persuade people that marriage equality is a bad idea. Which is to say, you are your own worst enemy.

Oh, Tony C if you stop feeding the troll, it will die.

[Wondering]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
bingo!

You shouldn't be agreeing with morons. It reduces your credibility, not that you have much to begin with.