Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:Scroll up to my response with ooge, then follow the links. That's the extent of my hand-holding for ya, Sym!
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88ā352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and also women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Scroll up to my response with ooge, then follow the links. That's the extent of my hand-holding for ya, Sym!
Ah- the 1964 one.The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88ā352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and also women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").
You object to this?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Scroll up to my response with ooge, then follow the links. That's the extent of my hand-holding for ya, Sym!
Ah- the 1964 one.The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88ā352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and also women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").
You object to this?
Sym, based on your historic inability to argue well, I see little point in taking you seriously.
Good day! <tips hat>
ooge wrote:Then ALL "marriages" are only considered civil unions in the governments eyes and "marriages" are only a religious practice.I can live with this interpretation of the Constitution.
ooge wrote:I also will add that a religious institution should not be forced to marry anyone they do not want to.
ooge wrote:That I am afraid is were the battle will be fought next.
crispybits wrote:It's like trying to reason with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, shouts "la la la la" at the top of their voice and just keeps repeating the same points that have already been showed to be flawed every other time they've raised them.
If you're not interested in an actual discussion and properly defending your opinion then I'm out.
tzor wrote:Woodruff wrote:The only means of support? Marriage is the only means of support of a significant portion of the general population? I don't even understand what you mean by that, but I don't think it's complimentary of heterosexual marriage.
Marriage is an institution that perpetuates the creation and proper raising of future generations of Homo Sapiens. Recent changes in the institution in the past few centuries has already created significant cracks in the process; ignoring it completely is the number one cause of permanent poverty in large areas of this country.
tzor wrote:Bear in mind that only a very small minority of same gender couples want to "raise a family"
tzor wrote:and an equally small minority of same gender couples want to destroy the notion of marriage completely and bring about the same gender equivalent of the free love hippie era of the 1960's.
tzor wrote:Most want common sense rights which, as far as I can tell, really has nothing to do with supporting couples bearing and raising children.
thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:
"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."
I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.
thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:
"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."
I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.
ooge wrote:Then ALL "marriages" are only considered civil unions in the governments eyes and "marriages" are only a religious practice.I can live with this interpretation of the Constitution.I also will add that a religious institution should not be forced to marry anyone they do not want to.That I am afraid is were the battle will be fought next.
thegreekdog wrote:Thanks guys. That was directed at Phatscotty, Night Strike, and the others.
Also, one of the rules is that they cannot make a "slippery slope" argument. Good luck and god speed!
'It's ok for homosexuals to do what they want at home, how is this different?' Lawyer defends Columbia professor charged with incest
The lawyer representing a professor charged with incest with his 24-year-old daughter has questioned why the alleged affair has been made public.
David Epstein was charged last week with one count of incest for what was allegedly a consensual three-year sexual relationship with his daughter.
The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.
Epstein, who specialises in American politics and voting rights, is also said to have exchanged twisted text messages with the woman during their relationship.
Matthew Galluzzo, defending Epstein, has said that even though his daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could 'best be described as an accomplice'.
Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Thanks guys. That was directed at Phatscotty, Night Strike, and the others.
Also, one of the rules is that they cannot make a "slippery slope" argument. Good luck and god speed!
Interestingly, the slippery slope argument does not need to be made anymore. All you have to do now is pay attention.
crispybits wrote:It's like trying to reason with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, shouts "la la la la" at the top of their voice and just keeps repeating the same points that have already been showed to be flawed every other time they've raised them.
If you're not interested in an actual discussion and properly defending your opinion then I'm out.
thegreekdog wrote:Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:
"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."
I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.
Phatscotty wrote:crispybits wrote:It's like trying to reason with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, shouts "la la la la" at the top of their voice and just keeps repeating the same points that have already been showed to be flawed every other time they've raised them.
If you're not interested in an actual discussion and properly defending your opinion then I'm out.
That's how I feel about you too. You keep redefining terms, like "banning marriage". How can something that has never existed be "banned"?
I don't accept any of the language you use. If you are a trial lawyer and cannot help it, I forgive you, but I suspect you are a student, or were recently.
When I read your post, in the second sentence I have a problem with how you are twisting terms and manipulating the language. Then the rest of your post is built on that false premise. Of course I just disagree with all of it. But you are honorable in your discourse, and I have tried to be too. Maybe we just need to start from the top. And don't let any of the trolls in the convo.
Phatscotty wrote:#1
What is the definition of discrimination
Phatscotty wrote:This is what I look like cuz my words no longer have any meaning or definition:
Phatscotty wrote:That's what it looks like when words no longer have any meaning or definition
Phatscotty wrote:Exactly Symm. So the definition of marriage remains man and woman, just as it always has.
Thanks for clearing that up
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: pmac666