Originally Posted By ecdc >>My arguments are both linear and logical.<< No they weren't, which is why you repeatedly cherry-picked what you were going to respond to and then when called on it came up with the lame excuse that you don't have time. You just labeled the stuff that pointed out your poor reasoning as "denigrating." Convenient, that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <As I said earlier, the WSJ runs liberal opinion articles all the time. > Those are the ones that tend to make sense. Anyway, this one rocked.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "My arguments are both linear and logical." Maybe if you're the Mad Hatter...but otherwise, no.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan This particular line of logic Douglas presented is linear in that if you follow it long enough, you'll end up in a corner. When I pointed out just one of those corners, it was met with "it's not my fault you can't come up with workable definitions." And that's not a logical response.
Originally Posted By piperlynne Still waiting for responses to the following: • (a little OT but kinda relevant to the arguments) Am I to understand that Doug is of the belief that one of the jobs of the Supreme Court is NOT to rule upon the constitutionality of laws that are passed by our legislative branch or laws that are executed by our executive branch? Just curious. Wanted some clarification. • <<<Specifically what "Legislative Process" termed marriage a "contract with society" and where is it documented?> See post 108.>> EXACTLY MY POINT. WOW! So, gay people are not part of society and don't deserve the same protections and rights? What exactly are you saying. If that is what constitutes a "contract with society", then not allowing a group of the population to marry that are citizens of the united states and protected under its laws, is infringing on their right to have those rights. • "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." Does this Amendment include ALL citizens or only heterosexual citizens of the United States? • <<The 14th amendment was actually written and agreed to in order to prevent discrimination based on skin color; if homosexuals think they need something similar, then let them do the work and get an amendment ratified, instead of relying on judges to reinterpret an existing one.>> ACTUAL TEXT OF THE 14th AMENDMENT: Section 1. 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. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1] Where is there anything about skin color in here? • Maybe you meant the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that specifically mentions it: ""Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding."" It basically establishes citizenship(including former slaves)of the United States for those born in country and not subject to a foreign power. It says "regardless of race or color". And further goes on to establish that citizens of the United States have the right to enter into contracts. It doesn't say "can enter into society accepted contracts". • Explain how marriage is a contract with society please. Seriously. How? Anyone can answer. . really. ..
Originally Posted By DAR With all this talk of linear and logic are we still talking gay marriage or advanced mathematics?
