...and here's the slippery slope

[Denny Crane]

The definition of marriage has been there for many millennial, nothing tyrannical about that nor does it have squat to do with slavery. That was a rather weak diversion for an asshole that wants the majority of the people to pound sand. You must be feeling inadequate. Heh heh! Maybe just weak, heh?

You are simply wrong. Who told you the definition of marriage?

It's not at all what you claim.

Prove you are right.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, I'll make it easy for you.

Many of the prominent figures in the bible had more than one wife. Polygamists.

Not at all the "one man, one woman" claim.

There are legal plural marriages today, in many nations.

Historically, the Romans and Egyptians had legal same sex marriages. Polygamy, too. Often marriages between multiple men and women.

 

[oldguy]

You man up. There are 25 states with blue laws banning sale of alcohol for religious reasons.

We weren't talking about blue laws Denny. Here's what you said:

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking...

How many of those blue law states ban alcohol?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

We weren't talking about blue laws Denny. Here's what you said:



How many of those blue law states ban alcohol?

Go Blazers

OK, I said "your religious friends think blah blah"

As far as I know he doesn't have any "religious" friends. So what exactly do you think I was talking about?

Other than what I already explained to you. You need it in greater detail?

The point is, "where do you stop pandering to religious people getting bent out of shape over good policy?"

Pretty much any policy enacted on behalf of religion is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Do you know anyone who's gay? Seriously. If you do, why on earth do you want to deny them happiness, when it's truly no skin off your nose.

 

[oldguy]

OK, I said "your religious friends think blah blah"

As far as I know he doesn't have any "religious" friends. So what exactly do you think I was talking about?

I thought you were talking about how religious people want to ban alcohol.

Other than what I already explained to you. You need it in greater detail?

Okay, if you want to make another lame attempt to back up your nonsense, go ahead.

The point is, "where do you stop pandering to religious people getting bent out of shape over good policy?"

So, is it "pandering to religious people" when the majority of the voters want blue laws, and vote them in?

Pretty much any policy enacted on behalf of religion is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Like Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Do you know anyone who's gay? Seriously. If you do, why on earth do you want to deny them happiness, when it's truly no skin off your nose.

Nice straw man Denny. Where did I say I want to deny gay people a damned thing?

And yeah, I know, and have known, lots of gay people. What's your point?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

I thought you were talking about how religious people want to ban alcohol.



Okay, if you want to make another lame attempt to back up your nonsense, go ahead.



So, is it "pandering to religious people" when the majority of the voters want blue laws, and vote them in?



Like Thou Shalt Not Kill?



Nice straw man Denny. Where did I say I want to deny gay people a damned thing?

And yeah, I know, and have known, lots of gay people. What's your point?

Go Blazers

I asked you a question about your gay friends that you dodged. Why on earth do you want to deny them happiness when it's truly no skin off your nose? If you're married, is your marriage going to be null and void if two fellas marry 500 miles from you?

The constitution is designed to protect the minority from a tyrannical majority. And the 1st amendment says government will establish no religion. It makes no difference, at all, what the majority of people want IF it is to enact things on a religious basis.

Slave owners eventually had to get over the end of slavery. Bigots had to get over blacks serving in the military. Bigots had to get over interracial marriages. Bigots had to get over gays serving in the military. Now they're going to have to get over gay couples having the same right as other couples.

And that's what I mean by they can go pound sand. Get over it.

Thou shalt not kill, unless you're George Zimmerman. Or a soldier. Or the executioner. etc.

 

[oldguy]

I asked you a question about your gay friends that you dodged. Why on earth do you want to deny them happiness when it's truly no skin off your nose? If you're married, is your marriage going to be null and void if two fellas marry 500 miles from you?

I didn't dodge shit. I never said that gay people should be denied anything. Why would you make up that I want to deny gay people happiness? I don't. Quit trying to draw me into your little pissing contest with Maxie.

The constitution is designed to protect the minority from a tyrannical majority. And the 1st amendment says government will establish no religion. It makes no difference, at all, what the majority of people want IF it is to enact things on a religious basis.

Are blue laws enacted 'on a religious basis'? Seems like they probably make a difference where they're voted in.

Slave owners eventually had to get over the end of slavery. Bigots had to get over blacks serving in the military. Bigots had to get over interracial marriages. Bigots had to get over gays serving in the military. Now they're going to have to get over gay couples having the same right as other couples.

What does that have to do with you saying that religious people want to ban alcohol?

And that's what I mean by they can go pound sand. Get over it.

I'll get over it just fine. But, until you ban me, I'll feel free to call you out when you base your arguments on bullshit.

Thou shalt not kill, unless you're George Zimmerman. Or a soldier. Or the executioner. etc.

NOT GUILTY! Get over it.

Do you think that all homicide laws are a violation of the 1st amendment, since they stem from religious policy?

You've convinced me that you're new shtick is to get more hits during the dog days, as others of noted in other threads. Good luck with that.

Go Blazers

 

[magnifier661]

Denny would make a good captain. He is so stubborn; he would go down with the ship.

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't dodge shit. I never said that gay people should be denied anything. Why would you make up that I want to deny gay people happiness? I don't. Quit trying to draw me into your little pissing contest with Maxie.



Are blue laws enacted 'on a religious basis'? Seems like they probably make a difference where they're voted in.



What does that have to do with you saying that religious people want to ban alcohol?



I'll get over it just fine. But, until you ban me, I'll feel free to call you out when you base your arguments on bullshit.



NOT GUILTY! Get over it.

Do you think that all homicide laws are a violation of the 1st amendment, since they stem from religious policy?

You've convinced me that you're new shtick is to get more hits during the dog days, as others of noted in other threads. Good luck with that.

Go Blazers

What does your focus on a question I asked have to do with slippery slopes and enacting civil unions?

You can unbunch your panties. I think you went way out to left field looking for something you didn't find.

 

[maxiep]

So sad to see. Denny doesn't even realize that he's making my point for me. I want to take the morality issue out of government, by making civil unions for all and making marriage for religious institutions. If you want the legal benefits/implications of joining your life with another or others, then your government has no right to discriminate, so civil unions for all.

If you wish to have the spiritual aspect of marriage, you go to your church, synagogue, mosque, etc., and see if they'll marry you.

Everyone gets equal treatment from those entities that are not allowed to discriminate. Right now, there is a moral aspect being conflated into something that is for legal rights only. I don't want to see people discriminated against, be they gay people who simply wish to have the same rights under the law as straight people, or those people who have a religious conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[oldguy]

What does your focus on a question I asked have to do with slippery slopes and enacting civil unions?

It doesn't have anything to do with slippery slopes or enacting civil unions. It has to do with you making up inflammatory bullshit to try to make your point. Maybe you could show that you didn't make it up, or just shut up about it?

You can unbunch your panties. I think you went way out to left field looking for something you didn't find.

What I did find is that you absolutely made up the nonsense that I've posted multiple times. I've also found that you're not man enough to admit that you made it up.

I noticed you dodged my question about whether the homicide laws violate the 1st amendment.

Feel free to wear your panties any way you want to.

:MARIS61:

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

I already said I asked hypothetical questions. Asking questions is how we determine the truth, be it a court of law or scientific method or education.

I think you don't understand this or rhetoric or the Socratic method.

I also think it's hypocritical to say I made something up when it was well founded in history and fact. The hypocrisy is where you post bullshit like "thou shalt not kill" as if it were our law and put in place by religious zealots.

It's bullshit because its "thou can kill if you're Zimmerman." Regardless of where you come down on the case or the law, he admitted killing and he walked. Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" is bullshit. I gave you other examples, including soldiers "thou shall kill!" On the battlefield. To boot, our laws are in 100% direct opposition to "thou shall have no other God before me."

But it's ok for you to bullshit. I see.

 

[MarAzul]

So sad to see. Denny doesn't even realize that he's making my point for me. I want to take the morality issue out of government, by making civil unions for all and making marriage for religious institutions. If you want the legal benefits/implications of joining your life with another or others, then your government has no right to discriminate, so civil unions for all.

If you wish to have the spiritual aspect of marriage, you go to your church, synagogue, mosque, etc., and see if they'll marry you.

Everyone gets equal treatment from those entities that are not allowed to discriminate. Right now, there is a moral aspect being conflated into something that is for legal rights only. I don't want to see people discriminated against, be they gay people who simply wish to have the same rights under the law as straight people, or those people who have a religious conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Well said and exactly correct.

But I will point out, it takes a redefinition of the word marriage to have it apply to same sex partners. It will take another redefinition and another change in law to have the word marriage to also include a joining of a pervert and his daughter. And then again to include the goat.

 

[oldguy]

I already said I asked hypothetical questions. Asking questions is how we determine the truth, be it a court of law or scientific method or education.

Keep squirming Denny. Once again, here is what you said:

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking, adopt Jesus as our savior, teach creationism in school, etc.

Care to point out the "hypothetical question" in that statement?

I think you don't understand this or rhetoric or the Socratic method.

I'll go out on a limb and say that I think you don't have a clue as to what I do and don't understand. But I do know bullshit when I see it.

I also think it's hypocritical to say I made something up when it was well founded in history and fact. The hypocrisy is where you post bullshit like "thou shalt not kill" as if it were our law and put in place by religious zealots.

You weren't talking about history or fact Denny, but keep up the good (silly) fight. Hits must be worth more than credibility.

Seems to me like that particular 'religious policy' was in place for quite a while before any laws were written for the United States.

But, feel free to just keep up the bullcrap. Don't answer anything I ask you. Keep changing the subject instead of admitting you made that shit up.

It's bullshit because its "thou can kill if you're Zimmerman."

Did Big Al give you a free lifetime membership to National Action Network?

Yeah, you know better than the jury. Judgment by Denny, fuck the laws of the land. The fact is, yes, you can kill someone in self defense. NOT GUILTY. Get the hell over it. (Or, just keep up the whining. It is kind of entertaining, in a pathetic way.)

Regardless of where you come down on the case or the law, he admitted killing and he walked. Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" is bullshit. I gave you other examples, including soldiers "thou shall kill!" On the battlefield. To boot, our laws are in 100% direct opposition to "thou shall have no other God before me."

:MARIS61: IN ZEUS WE TRUST!

Again, Denny, what does that have to do with you saying that Maxie's religious friends think drinking should be banned? That's the subject, as much as you would like to keep steering the conversation away from your bullshit. You seem to be having trouble staying focused.

But it's ok for you to bullshit. I see.

Thanks for your permission. Good that you lead by example.

Where did I make something up? I've pointed out where you did, and you can't defend it.

Other than your straw man arguments, (where you make up things I haven't said), where have I been lying, as you have?

Go Blazers

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Are you really trying to say that no religious people want to ban drinking? Because some most obviously do. What is your point exactly?

Denny is winning every point, but you're just an ignorant oldfool, so you don't even notice. There's no point discussing things with people like you. (and most religious people for that matter)

 

[oldguy]

Are you really trying to say that no religious people want to ban drinking? Because some most obviously do. What is your point exactly?

Are you really so stupid you can't read back to see that I didn't say anything like that? My point, exactly, is that Denny made up that bs, and I want to see him provide some kind of evidence that it is true.

Denny is winning every point, but you're just an ignorant oldfool, so you don't even notice. There's no point discussing things with people like you. (and most religious people for that matter)

So, if there's no point in discussing things with me, why are you inserting your ignorant opinion here? Feel free to put me on ignore....or just go pound sand.

Go Blazers

 

[VanillaGorilla]

It's pretty obvious that some religious people want to ban drinking. Trying to make Denny prove that over and over is just fucking ridiculous.

Unless you think no religious people want to band drinking, or other things, there's absolutely no point to what you're saying.

 

[Denny Crane]

Just wow. The guy doesn't get rhetoric then gets all unhinged when it is explained to him multiple times, and now by two people.

I could have said "they want to ban contraception" for which there is plenty of present day support. It doesn't matter though, because the question is WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? Simply let a bunch of religious fascists make law for everyone else?

For maxiep:

As of July 2013, eleven state governments (those of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Delaware), along with the District of Columbia, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Suquamish tribe, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, and the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel allow same-sex marriage; the states of Rhode Island, and Minnesota will join on August 1, 2013, bringing the total to 30% of the U.S. population. Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not allowed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court ruling,[26] tribal council rulings,[27] and upheld by popular vote in a statewide referendum in three of these states.[28][29] Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

See the part in red maxiep?

That's why king solomon's ruling doesn't work in practice.

 

[maxiep]

Just wow. The guy doesn't get rhetoric then gets all unhinged when it is explained to him multiple times, and now by two people.

I could have said "they want to ban contraception" for which there is plenty of present day support. It doesn't matter though, because the question is WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? Simply let a bunch of religious fascists make law for everyone else?

For maxiep:

As of July 2013, eleven state governments (those of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Delaware), along with the District of Columbia, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Suquamish tribe, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, and the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel allow same-sex marriage; the states of Rhode Island, and Minnesota will join on August 1, 2013, bringing the total to 30% of the U.S. population. Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not allowed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court ruling,[26] tribal council rulings,[27] and upheld by popular vote in a statewide referendum in three of these states.[28][29] Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

See the part in red maxiep?

That's why king solomon's ruling doesn't work in practice.

I not only saw the red part, but the other parts as well.

You seem to be cool with varying rights for people in different states when it comes to joining their lives together legally. I'm not. I want full and equal rights under the law for all people. If they choose to have that union confirmed by a religious institution and they can find one to do it for them, then they're free to do that as well.

 

[Denny Crane]

I not only saw the red part, but the other parts as well.

You seem to be cool with varying rights for people in different states when it comes to joining their lives together legally. I'm not. I want full and equal rights under the law for all people. If they choose to have that union confirmed by a religious institution and they can find one to do it for them, then they're free to do that as well.

The red part says your proposal ends up being "varying subsets of the rights" of marriage. Not equal anything. It's back of the bus. It's separate drinking fountains.

That's not too much hyperbole, either. It really is a civil rights issue.

Actually, I think the whole thing comes to a head when someone married in California moves to Nevada. Even though the "varying subsets of the rights" is already a violation of the 14th.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

(Nevada must recognize marriages made in California)

Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

I'll let law.cornell.edu explain this one:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag9_user.html#art4_sec2

... the clause is a guaranty to the citizens of each State of the natural and fundamental rights inherent in the citizenship of persons in a free society, the privileges and immunities of free citizens, which no State could deny to citizens of other States, without regard to the manner in which it treated its own citizens.

 

[MarAzul]

The red part says your proposal ends up being "varying subsets of the rights" of marriage. Not equal anything. It's back of the bus. It's separate drinking fountains.

That's not too much hyperbole, either. It really is a civil rights issue.

Actually, I think the whole thing comes to a head when someone married in California moves to Nevada. Even though the "varying subsets of the rights" is already a violation of the 14th.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

(Nevada must recognize marriages made in California)

Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

I'll let law.cornell.edu explain this one:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag9_user.html#art4_sec2

... the clause is a guaranty to the citizens of each State of the natural and fundamental rights inherent in the citizenship of persons in a free society, the privileges and immunities of free citizens, which no State could deny to citizens of other States, without regard to the manner in which it treated its own citizens.

At what point in history did this alleged violation of the 14th amendment first begin?

 

[oldguy]

I see. rhetoric = bullcrap.

Got it.

 

[MarAzul]

The definition of marriage:

Oxford Dictionaries;

noun

1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:a happy marriage the children from his first marriage
the state of being married:women want equality in marriage
(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.

2a combination or mixture of two or more elements:a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel
(in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.

Phrases

by marriage
as a result of a marriage:a distant cousin by marriage
in marriage
as husband or wife:he asked my father for my hand in marriage

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/marriage

************

Burton's legal Thesaurus

MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c

http://burtonslegalthesaurus.com/

Who is going to change the definition to to make the equal protection clause violation?

 

[MarAzul]

Oh this was in response to Denny's prove it.
Well the evidence is in the Bible, the Koran, the writings of Buddhist monks, the Oxford dictionary defines it and so does Burtion' Legal Thesaurus.

But here is a question for you supporters of Gay marriage. If one of you decide to take a man' s 14 year old son or grandson in marriage as you undoubtedly claim you have equal protection to do, how long do you expect to live? It better not be mine, now does that make me a Gay rights bigot? Or just very truthful?

 

[Jayps15]

Oh this was in response to Denny's prove it.
Well the evidence is in the Bible, the Koran, the writings of Buddhist monks, the Oxford dictionary defines it and so does Burtion' Legal Thesaurus.

But here is a question for you supporters of Gay marriage. If one of you decide to take a man' s 14 year old son or grandson in marriage as you undoubtedly claim you have equal protection to do, how long do you expect to live? It better not be mine, now does that make me a Gay rights bigot? Or just very truthful?

Everyone making a reasonable argument for marriage equality basically says the exact same qualifier of 'between consenting adults', so no they aren't claiming they should be able to marry your 14yr old son. Noone has said that, it's such a clear strawman that you should get an award for the stupidest fucking question about an idea that literally no one in this thread actually thinks is reasonable.

Now if your son was 18 and gay, hopefully he finds a nice gentlemen that'll put a ring on his finger and feed him dick til jizz comes out of his eyeballs.

 

[maxiep]

The red part says your proposal ends up being "varying subsets of the rights" of marriage. Not equal anything. It's back of the bus. It's separate drinking fountains.

That's not too much hyperbole, either. It really is a civil rights issue.

Actually, I think the whole thing comes to a head when someone married in California moves to Nevada. Even though the "varying subsets of the rights" is already a violation of the 14th.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

(Nevada must recognize marriages made in California)

Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

I'll let law.cornell.edu explain this one:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag9_user.html#art4_sec2

... the clause is a guaranty to the citizens of each State of the natural and fundamental rights inherent in the citizenship of persons in a free society, the privileges and immunities of free citizens, which no State could deny to citizens of other States, without regard to the manner in which it treated its own citizens.

We simply disagree. When you have marriage for men and women and civil unions for everyone else under the rubric of government, then you have unequal rights. I say get marriage out of government and provide civil unions for all. That way we have the government treating everyone equally.

 

[MarAzul]

Everyone making a reasonable argument for marriage equality basically says the exact same qualifier of 'between consenting adults', so no they aren't claiming they should be able to marry your 14yr old son. Noone has said that, it's such a clear strawman that you should get an award for the stupidest fucking question about an idea that literally no one in this thread actually thinks is reasonable.

Now if your son was 18 and gay, hopefully he finds a nice gentlemen that'll put a ring on his finger and feed him dick til jizz comes out of his eyeballs.

So the equal protection applies only as you see it. The other people can go pound sand, heh?

Well I expect that will last until some one else feel they have an equal protection grievance.

Here is the Bruton's definition of Marriage.

"MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage."

The age of consent to Marriage varies from state to state and most prohibit close relatives.
but why would that be problem for Gay cousins? Isn't that denial of equal protection? How about 16 year olds? Where is the equal protection for them?

 

[Denny Crane]

We simply disagree. When you have marriage for men and women and civil unions for everyone else under the rubric of government, then you have unequal rights. I say get marriage out of government and provide civil unions for all. That way we have the government treating everyone equally.

Separate and unequal.

Marriage for all.

It's going to end up that way. May as well get used to the idea.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage


(2), b, and c for the win.

 

[PapaG]

Hurting someone's feelings a tiny bit doesn't count.

We're all supposedly adults on this message board, and people get their feelers hurt here every day.