A gay marriage proposal...

[jack]

Unlike the children in your neighborhood, Gnome, I'm not following you into the weeds.

Now explain how the 14th Amendment has anything to do with marriage.

Lets see, short lame: failed. Fat lame: Failed. Pedophile lame: failed.

You suck at this Castle.

 

[jack]

See, what Jack has done here is apparently a trick he learned at Turdforge: "I'll answer your question, but not until you address this red herring first." Because he can't face the question I asked, he's hoping that he can propose a sufficiently compelling red herring that we'll follow it off into the weeds and never come back to the question I asked him.

Didn't work there, Gnome, won't work here either.

As I recall, I never posted at WF, which you are still obsessed with. Another failure of yours

 

[The Question]

Not going to answer the question, are you, Gnome? Course you're not. Let me explain why by answering it myself: The 14th Amendment has no more bearing on marriage than it has on concealed carry permits for gun owners -- none. But to the extent that you'd like to claim it does, rather than screeching about a non-performing filing clerk, you should be complaining about New Jersey's, California's, and District of Columbia's treatment of gun owners.

I predict that you won't, of course, because you know as well as I do that SCOTUS's 14th Amendment basis for legislating from the bench was utter bullshit.

 

[jack]

Not going to answer the question are you faggot? Of course not, you got caught being wrong, something you never admit to.

Kindly fuck off. You've got nothing as usual, so go piss up a rope.

 

[The Question]

Not going to answer the question are you faggot?

I told you, Gnome, I'm not following your red herring into the weeds. You got caught out, now you've resorted to swearing and bluster as if that's going to cover it up.

It isn't.

 

[jack]

As usual, you fail.

Makes me smile

 

[The Question]

No, YOU fail! NEENER-NEENER-BOO-BOO-PEAS!

Easy to post it. Postin' it don't make it so.

Also:

 

[Sarek]

Didn't take long for this discussion to hit the shitter......

 

[Sarek]

And invoked the 14th Amendment as an excuse for the Feds to legislate on marriage, something the 14th Amendment doesn't remotely empower the Feds to do and which, therefore, the 10th explicitly prohibits them from doing.

The same reason why DOMA was unconstitutional is why removing states' rights from deciding marriage is also unconstitutional.

I have a very simple question for all you that are against gay marriage.

How, in any way, does it affect you?

 

[The Question]

I have a very simple question for all you that are against gay marriage.

How, in any way, does it affect you?

That's another 'let's drag this off into the weeds' gambit that has no relevance.

By the way, since you jokers keep avoiding my question, apparently because it's too hard, here's the answer:

Excerpted from Amendment XIV, Section 1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

How hard was that, you lazy fucks?

Bear in mind that this does not describe marriage of any kind as a right; but marriage does fall under the description of a privilege which the 14th Amendment therefore protects against infringement by state legislation.

 

[The Question]

Dumb, lazy bastards.

 

[Volpone]

:facepalm: I'm starting to remember why Wordforge banned you.

 

[Sarek]

That's another 'let's drag this off into the weeds' gambit that has no relevance.

By the way, since you jokers keep avoiding my question, apparently because it's too hard, here's the answer:

Excerpted from Amendment XIV, Section 1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

How hard was that, you lazy fucks?

Bear in mind that this does not describe marriage of any kind as a right; but marriage does fall under the description of a privilege which the 14th Amendment therefore protects against infringement by state legislation.

My question has every bit of relevance. And I wasn't part of your courting ritual with Jack. So I don't give a fuck about your 14th Amendment issue. I asked a very pointed and very simple question.

 

[Volpone]

Well, this is a fucking goddamn train wreck. I forget where it was going so I'll just jump in with a couple things I was hoping to interject later:

1) My thoughts on whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong are a moo point, courtesy of the Supreme Court, however retarded and wrong they might be.

So the initial premise is, what good can we get out of a bad ruling? Earmarking marriage license fees towards finding a cure for homosexuality makes the tastiest shit sandwich you can make out of what was handed to us.

2) That said, the Supreme Court was as wrong as a dude fucking his nephew. You don't need gay marriage to have equality. A gay dude has just as much right to marry a woman as a straight dude has. That he wants to marry another dude, not a chick is unfortunate, but not unfair.

What's that? A person should be able to marry who/whatever he/she loves? OK, fine. In the Islamic world people as young as 9 regularly get married. Often to people much older--like in their 40s much older. Liberals seem to love Muslims. Should we allow 40 year olds to marry 9 year olds?

Oh, wait. Revise that. People who are able to consent should be able to marry. That dodges the pedo bullet. And the crazy chicks who marry dolphins and snakes and such. OK. What about radical fundamentalist Mormons and others who are into polygamy? That's an easy one. Liberals are OK with polygamy. But what about incest? An adult son should be able to marry his biological father if he wants. Brothers should be allowed to marry. After all, the argument against incest is inbreeding. You can't very well have kids from a gay incestuous marriage. For that matter, since on-demand abortion is hetero incestuous marriages should be fine too. Right?

But I'm getting ahead of myself. The other leg of the gay marriage argument is that marriage is about love. Tell that to any chick who's married Hugh Hefner in the last...30 years or so.

OK. Now since we're talking about consenting legal entities, should I be allowed to marry, say, Coca Cola? Microsoft? They are legal entities. I could argue that I love Coke. (Not so much Microsoft, but I digress.) If Coke wants to marry me, why shouldn't I be allowed to be Mister Coke? (She'll be keeping her maiden name for obvious reasons.)

I should have a tidy way of wrapping this all up, but go fuck yourself.

I await your well reasoned rebuttals--and St. Castle's best efforts to run this train into the nearest ditch.

 

[Sarek]

Is there a single issue that those on the right don't inflate into world ending events?

Your same basic arguments were used against desecration, interracial marriage, women's rights, women's healthcare and equality in general.

Guess what? The world hasn't ended, society is still intact and the right is still as anti non old white guy as it's ever been.

 

[jack]

Well at least now it's a coherent discussion with fucknutz wandering off into the weeds

 

[jack]

OK I'ma take this one on:

Well, this is a fucking goddamn train wreck. I forget where it was going so I'll just jump in with a couple things I was hoping to interject later:

1) My thoughts on whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong are a moo point, courtesy of the Supreme Court, however retarded and wrong they might be.

The supreme court is never right or wrong, it interprets things in a democratic process, according to the rule of law. That's not always simple but it's how democracy works.

So the initial premise is, what good can we get out of a bad ruling? Earmarking marriage license fees towards finding a cure for homosexuality makes the tastiest shit sandwich you can make out of what was handed to us.

That's an odd comment. The Constitution was illegally hijacked by a bunch of rednecks that had the votes to control legislature in a few states. They fixed that bullshit. It wasn't a lawless court doing it, it was lawless politicians in several states breaking the law.

2) That said, the Supreme Court was as wrong as a dude fucking his nephew. You don't need gay marriage to have equality. A gay dude has just as much right to marry a woman as a straight dude has. That he wants to marry another dude, not a chick is unfortunate, but not unfair.

It wasn't about gay marriage, it was about equal rights under the law for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

What's that? A person should be able to marry who/whatever he/she loves? OK, fine. In the Islamic world people as young as 9 regularly get married. Often to people much older--like in their 40s much older. Liberals seem to love Muslims. Should we allow 40 year olds to marry 9 year olds?

Come back from wandering, this isn't about muslims or liberals, it's about equal righjts.

Oh, wait. Revise that. People who are able to consent should be able to marry. That dodges the pedo bullet. And the crazy chicks who marry dolphins and snakes and such. OK. What about radical fundamentalist Mormons and others who are into polygamy? That's an easy one. Liberals are OK with polygamy. But what about incest? An adult son should be able to marry his biological father if he wants. Brothers should be allowed to marry. After all, the argument against incest is inbreeding. You can't very well have kids from a gay incestuous marriage. For that matter, since on-demand abortion is hetero incestuous marriages should be fine too. Right?

It's not about any of that, it's about equal rights, which includes the right to marry whomever you want. Not whatever you want. Twisting it up like that obfuscates the point of the ruling.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. The other leg of the gay marriage argument is that marriage is about love. Tell that to any chick who's married Hugh Hefner in the last...30 years or so.

Tell that to Davis, who was screening people in a way she had no business screening and making decisions for them outside the boundaries of her job.

OK. Now since we're talking about consenting legal entities, should I be allowed to marry, say, Coca Cola? Microsoft? They are legal entities. I could argue that I love Coke. (Not so much Microsoft, but I digress.) If Coke wants to marry me, why shouldn't I be allowed to be Mister Coke? (She'll be keeping her maiden name for obvious reasons.)

Until Citizens United is overturned, technically you could do that but only if your weenie is tiny enough to consummate the marriage.

I should have a tidy way of wrapping this all up, but go fuck yourself.

You could start by having a coherent argument to begin with.

I await your well reasoned rebuttals--and St. Castle's best efforts to run this train into the nearest ditch.

fuck him, he's an idiot.

 

[jack]

 

[The Question]

I asked a very pointed and very simple question.

Which happened to have exactly dick to do with the Kim Davis case under discussion. Thus, it was righteously ignored.

 

[The Question]

:facepalm: I'm starting to remember why Wordforge banned you.

Because their weak and dated gambits don't work on me, and they got frustrated. Then they started ragin'. Then one of the owners got so frothy he busted his own computer monitor in a fit of apoplectic rage and defenestrated himself through his own bedroom window. They had to ban me for their own safety.