“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160647 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My gut tells me it's his persona, and he's no dummy.
Having tried what you're attempting, I think you're wrong.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#160648 Mar 28, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Having tried what you're attempting, I think you're wrong.
You're probably right, although he sometimes makes sense!

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160649 Mar 28, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>From what I can tell through searches on the case, the Constitutionality of DOMA is still being considered by the Court, and there has, as yet, been no ruling.
If you have better information, please provide it.
I am in favor of States recognizing the right of gays to marry - however, I am not in favor of the Federal government involving itself in regulating or defining marriage, which was not a power enumerated for the Federal government in the Constitution, and therefore is the province of the States. In my opinion, DOMA should be ruled Unconstitutional, and, as 'unequal' as this opinion sounds on its face, Proposition 8, as duly voted for by the citizens of California, should stand...even though I completely disagree with the law itself.
I also realize that without the Federal government's assumption of its right to rule on interracial marriage, it would now only be legal in certain states, and that this argument would also open the door faster than anything else currently before the court, to overturning Roe V. Wade. And we all know how I feel about that one.
Isn't America GREAT!!!!
The Supreme Court is not really being asked to regulate or define marriage.

The Supreme Court is being asked to determine whether denying same sex couples the same rights as different sex couples discriminates against same sex couples under the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment says:

"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."
Realist

Syracuse, NY

#160650 Mar 28, 2013
TOBY wrote:
Antonyto---If you want to get down to the facts on the decision that Bush made Read The Bible.He went totally by scripture and did his best to solve this without a war.Nobody wants to see the death and destruction of a war,but if we pull out before the job is done then we will be considered cowards and ANYONE can do what they want with our country.
The bible? HA! What a joke that is. Why don't you use some common sense before you say things as ignorant as that.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160651 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right, although he sometimes makes sense!
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, Catcher. Listen to BB and Willie, and the rest of us who have been on this thread a long time. The World Idiot is a world-class fruitcake.(Scratch that--I like fruitcake!) He's a world-class headcase. You may not know it yet, but you will.

You said "he's no dummy." No, I'm sure his I.Q. is decent, but there's plenty of very intelligent loons out there.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#160652 Mar 28, 2013
Realist wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible? HA! What a joke that is. Why don't you use some common sense before you say things as ignorant as that.
Why don't YOU use some common sense to see if your post makes MORE sense at the end of a thread that's been running for at least 6 years?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#160653 Mar 28, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>From what I can tell through searches on the case, the Constitutionality of DOMA is still being considered by the Court, and there has, as yet, been no ruling.
If you have better information, please provide it.
I am in favor of States recognizing the right of gays to marry - however, I am not in favor of the Federal government involving itself in regulating or defining marriage, which was not a power enumerated for the Federal government in the Constitution, and therefore is the province of the States. In my opinion, DOMA should be ruled Unconstitutional, and, as 'unequal' as this opinion sounds on its face, Proposition 8, as duly voted for by the citizens of California, should stand...even though I completely disagree with the law itself.
I also realize that without the Federal government's assumption of its right to rule on interracial marriage, it would now only be legal in certain states, and that this argument would also open the door faster than anything else currently before the court, to overturning Roe V. Wade. And we all know how I feel about that one.
Isn't America GREAT!!!!
From what I've read, they're not trying to define marriage. In fact, it looks to me like they're addressing the social implications with the greatest of reluctance, tho' they can't help but tiptoe thru that minefield a bit.

They're merely tasked to determine if Prop 8 discriminates against a particular group. For me, the bigger question is whether social "norms" and "morality" can be defined and dictated by popular vote, and force the state's hand to enforce it. That sounds like tyranny of the mob to me.

Shout out to the libertarian/Tea Party wannabe's - this >should< be right in your wheelhouse. Yet, I hear silence........
lisw

Georgetown, OH

#160654 Mar 28, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
An Obama enabler, now you wanna STOMP on traditional marriage clearly defined as between 1 man and 1 woman. Like the annointed one, there seems to be NO end in your crusade to fundamentally change the US.
You want equality? After traditional marriage goes down in flames, look for 1 man wanting numerous wives (legally), or vice versa. Or why not brothers marrying aunts, or 2 guys marrying their horses? The combinations are limitless.
The "neigh" sayers here argue that would be impossible. But I can pretty much guarantee you, court dockets will be loaded with people asking for "equality".
I do understand your concern. Exposure makes for acceptance. If you've ever watched "sister wives" you know that at least those ladies are really nice people. The worry is definitely for those children because everything you do is like a ripple in a pond. It affects lots of others. I don't agree with polygamy but I can't say it doesn't work for them.
Maybe if we had all handled traditional marriage a little better, didn't have a 50% divorce rate, with blended families that the kids can't figure out, maybe if we'd treated marriage as more sacred, we'd have a leg to stand on. But we can hardly say that all kids need a mom and a dad, when so many are raised by moms or multiple people. What kids need is stability.
lisw

Georgetown, OH

#160655 Mar 28, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, Catcher. Listen to BB and Willie, and the rest of us who have been on this thread a long time. The World Idiot is a world-class fruitcake.(Scratch that--I like fruitcake!) He's a world-class headcase. You may not know it yet, but you will.
You said "he's no dummy." No, I'm sure his I.Q. is decent, but there's plenty of very intelligent loons out there.
I like headcases.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#160656 Mar 28, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I do understand your concern. Exposure makes for acceptance. If you've ever watched "sister wives" you know that at least those ladies are really nice people. The worry is definitely for those children because everything you do is like a ripple in a pond. It affects lots of others. I don't agree with polygamy but I can't say it doesn't work for them.
Maybe if we had all handled traditional marriage a little better, didn't have a 50% divorce rate, with blended families that the kids can't figure out, maybe if we'd treated marriage as more sacred, we'd have a leg to stand on. But we can hardly say that all kids need a mom and a dad, when so many are raised by moms or multiple people. What kids need is stability.
I agree with everything you say here.

Go figure.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160658 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what I post about, you make it about Obama. Well, turnabout is fair play. Yes, I want equality and I'm not going to discuss it with a G W Bush troglodyte.
Oh I'm PROUD to be a GW Bush supporter. The current occupant should not even have been put there in the 1st place, much less
twice. And it was because of Obama enablers just like you, that
made that happen. Ridiculous.

You want equality, but don't care at what price, as that "equality" may open the door for untold combinations. How can <you> allow one and deny the other?

My reply to you about the troll that refuses to learn our language wasn't about Obama, but you wanna use any excuse to avoid the issues. Ain't gonna work. As long as you post in here, I'll reply, whether you choose to respond or not. I even prefer you DIDN'T reply, because I don't believe you're as street-smart as you want people to think, Summa cum laude notwithstanding.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160659 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My gut tells me it's his persona, and he's no dummy.
One using a "persona", doesn't post in terribly fractured English for over 4 years. No one said he was dummy, just an irritating
parrot, repeating the same thing endlessly.

Don't take my word for it, all ya gotta do is go back and read what he's been posting. And it's not just in here, either. He
says the same thing on the Soldier thread, and wherever else he ventures.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160660 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right, although he sometimes makes sense!
He's a G-D troll, but you feed him anyway.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#160661 Mar 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA died today.
One more step toward equality.
Lol. If you had a clue.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#160662 Mar 28, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>There may be people on the left who do as you say, although I've never seen any of them here - and there are people on the right who do it as well.
What I have seen are people on the right who cry sexism or hostility to women as an easy out, a way to discredit a poster rather than deal with what they say.
Catcher has said absolutely NOTHING than could be interpreted as sexist or hostile to women or paternalistic by any reasonable person, but that's a handy-dandy way to deflect the conversation from, well, anything onto Catcher.
Of course, you know what I say - the more often a person talks about libs and cons, left and right, the less likely they have anything to say at all.
Really don't care man. Words from him mean as much as they do from obama to me. Actions speak. His are quite clear.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#160663 Mar 28, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I'm PROUD to be a GW Bush supporter. The current occupant should not even have been put there in the 1st place, much less
twice. And it was because of Obama enablers just like you, that
made that happen. Ridiculous.
You want equality, but don't care at what price, as that "equality" may open the door for untold combinations. How can <you> allow one and deny the other?
My reply to you about the troll that refuses to learn our language wasn't about Obama, but you wanna use any excuse to avoid the issues. Ain't gonna work. As long as you post in here, I'll reply, whether you choose to respond or not. I even prefer you DIDN'T reply, because I don't believe you're as street-smart as you want people to think, Summa cum laude notwithstanding.
Thats the thing, he DOES NOT WANT EQUALITY. Like healthcare it just a means to an end. Listened to a gay man say today he doesn't want this as the main reason for marriage is children. Then this flake turns around and claims he is all for stable home for kids.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160664 Mar 28, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I do understand your concern. Exposure makes for acceptance. If you've ever watched "sister wives" you know that at least those ladies are really nice people. The worry is definitely for those children because everything you do is like a ripple in a pond. It affects lots of others. I don't agree with polygamy but I can't say it doesn't work for them.
Hiya Lis.(BTW I have a new email address), so if you sign in I'll get it to ya.

As to your msg, it's not only about the children, or who's nice, or even how traditional marriage has been handled. I don't care if same-sex couples wanna declare themselves "married" amongst their friends and families. But traditional marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the fabric by which civilization has endured since biblical times, and I don't wanna see traditional marriage made a mockery, by allowing first same-sex, then multiple combinations, and finally inter-species, or the joining of inanimate objects.

If same-sex couples have the universal right to "marry", how can Polygamy, or any other combination be stopped legally?
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if we had all handled traditional marriage a little better, didn't have a 50% divorce rate, with blended families that the kids can't figure out, maybe if we'd treated marriage as more sacred, we'd have a leg to stand on. But we can hardly say that all kids need a mom and a dad, when so many are raised by moms or multiple people. What kids need is stability.
Kids can absolutely have stability with same-sex couples, and I wouldn't be surprised to see better results than with broken marriages, or even sometimes with unbroken marriages, where one spouse has to be away for long periods, either job-related or military.

But if same-sex couples receive exactly the same benefits and rights under the 14th amendment, they should have NO beef using
Civil Unions as the vehicle to get them there.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#160665 Mar 28, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!
If this is meant to have a point, I missed it.

We already have earthquakes & volcanoes. Human & animal sacrifice in some parts of the world. Many dogs and cats already live together peacefully (often playfully). And you can currently see mass hysteria in parts of Europe, and other places.

The rest? Probably not at this time, altho bombing could be considered "fire coming down from the sky", I s'pose.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160666 Mar 28, 2013
The subject of gay marriage deserves a more serious approach than bringing up inter-species relationships (since only humans are capable of consent) or relationships with inanimate objects.

Since there have always been people arguing for polygamy, I'm sure some polygamists will say 'why not us'. That's their right. Even with that, there's no domino effect in play here. It doesn't follow that if you change the gender requirements for two people in a civil marriage, you would have to allow three or four or whatever.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#160667 Mar 28, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is meant to have a point, I missed it.
We already have earthquakes & volcanoes. Human & animal sacrifice in some parts of the world. Many dogs and cats already live together peacefully (often playfully). And you can currently see mass hysteria in parts of Europe, and other places.
The rest? Probably not at this time, altho bombing could be considered "fire coming down from the sky", I s'pose.
What?

You don't think all those things are going to happen if the culture warriors steal the word marriage from heterosexual couples?

You coulda fooled me. From here you're sounding like the Ghostbusters talking to the mayor.

Oh, and mass hysteria? I see it right here in this thread every time Obama's name is mentioned, or can be gratuitously brought into the conversation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 28 min Seentheotherside 1,017
safe abortion clinic in manila (Jul '13) 29 min krissy8 47
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 36 min Seentheotherside 39,668
gay whatsapp agroup (Nov '13) 45 min Mahesh 40
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr lightbeamrider 97,935
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 810,638
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Seentheotherside 608,295
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pokay 269,096
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr marge 574,554
More from around the web