GFR7
New member
Like gays seeking gay marriage and to be accepted by "normal" society. :mock:The opposite is more likely the case. Those lacking... seek outward security.
Like gays seeking gay marriage and to be accepted by "normal" society. :mock:The opposite is more likely the case. Those lacking... seek outward security.
Yes, which is why you won't and haven't heard me echo your rhetorical approach in relation to them.The dissenters are also skilled practicioners and scholars of law.
In that moment they betray the emotional nature of their objection. Reason doesn't demand it.And many others condemned Kennedy's sentimentality
Only if you can prove it to be. This isn't so here.; they called it for what it was, and did not say, "I personally feel" (which is taboo in philosophy. You say, this IS.)
Yes, it is. It will be wholly so.Yes, which is why you won't and haven't heard me echo your rhetorical approach in relation to them.
In that moment they betray the emotional nature of their objection. Reason doesn't demand it.
Only if you can prove it to be. This isn't so here.
No, I don't. I don't care what anyone thinks of me here; Unlike gays, I don't need "recognition" to know I have value. I have confidence in my powers of reason. They've earned me many a distinction and carried me this far.
I have NO desire to push any minority around. I am a minority myself.The recognition doesn't give them value, just equality. You people don't have the ability to push around a minority anymore. That this infuriates so many of you speaks for itself.
Well you don't really seem to. We don't live in a democracy where a show of hands settles things. Tyranny of the 51% and all that. We've got three branches for a reason.
The judicial branch has overturned its previous rulings before.
No, it isn't, which is why a majority of the Court disagrees with you and the minority. And we're back at the beginning.Yes, it is. It will be wholly so.
Like gays seeking gay marriage and to be accepted by "normal" society. :mock:
Of course, the ruling overturned the will of the people.
No sir. With all due respect, this is legislation from the bench. It all started with prop 8 in California. Believe me I know. I watched the will of the people overturned and upheld by a liberal court. That is legislation.
I have NO desire to push any minority around. I am a minority myself.
The idea that marriage was necessary for equality was cooked up by a few advocates.ummm....yea sure, that's one way of expressing their desire for equality.:BRAVO:
No, I don't. It is only the marriage issue which I speak of.you engage in almost constant gay bashing and you hate the fact that it is becoming more and more difficult to discriminate agaisnt gays gays now equal
No, I don't. It is only the marriage issue which I speak of.
Yeah, exactly. That proves our point. You're protesting too much at this rate.
I know I don't hate gay people, and they know it, too. I've worked and lived with them for years. Tracer is mean as the dickens to me, and I still like him.Yeah, exactly. That proves our point. You're protesting too much at this rate.
This was a very slim majority, with the dissenters writing things such as "By all means, celebrate; but it has nothing to do with the Constitution" and "If I were part of a ruling like this, I'd hide my head in a bag." It gave a very strange, unsettling message.No, it isn't, which is why a majority of the Court disagrees with you and the minority. And we're back at the beginning.
This was a very slim majority, with the dissenters writing things such as "By all means, celebrate; but it has nothing to do with the Constitution" and "If I were part of a ruling like this, I'd hide my head in a bag." It gave a very strange, unsettling message.