Gallup- Support for same-sex marriage hits new high majority-

What's interesting is when the majority of the people vote to prohibit same-sex marriage, it becomes the sacrosanct "will of the people" being overridden by "unelected tyrants in robes". But when the will of the people changes and the majority supports same-sex marriage, suddenly the will of the people is irrelevant, it's the Constitution that matters. And when every judge says the Constitution AND the will of the people coincide, then we're becoming morally degenerate.

What we've seen is that bigotry is fundamental - facts don't matter, logic and reasoning don't matter, empirical results don't matter, coherent arguments are unnecessary.
.

 

what do you find funny about my correct statement you quoted?

 

Of course.....the "reasons" don't matter. They can be false, they can even be contradictory to other reasons given. They can even contradict themselves in the same day...not just months or years apart.

There is only ONE reason....hatred of homosexuals. Everything else is window dressing and disguises built on top of that.

 

Actually the legal term is same sex mariage, although I don't see any long lines forming, of buds who just want the benefits of marriage.

 

Do you oppose hertero marriage of steral couples or those who chose to remain childless?
Unmarried couples seem to have no problem creating children, overpopulation seems more of a problem to worry about.

 

That no matter how many times you state it, it isn't getting through to certain posters.

 

From that, Dixon will start in about "the potential to birth children", and on into how marriage was intended to benefit those who procreate.........

 

exactly.

 

And yet, declare he has NO opposition to heterosexual couples with ZERO "potential for procreation" marrying (i.e. a woman who's had a hysterectomy).....

and offer no clear explanation for the "difference", simply claim he's "not contradicting" himself, when clearly he is.

 

OMG, we don't even need him here to argue......something tells me he might like that.

 

It substantiates my claims just fine. Like I said, youl just claim it doesnt mean what it says.

 

Well, we can see with your last three posts without a word relevant to the topic of discussion and instead all about ME, without you guys the conversation would certainly stay more focused on the topic of discussion.

 

His routine is so pat and unchanging...I could do it.

"Marriage has traditionally been about procreation or the potential for procreation. Thus it helps to stop single motherhood because it becomes nearly impossible for a woman to procreate without the father being obligated to marry her by the forces of the Universe. Therefore, if we make marriage legal between homosexuals who cannot procreate, this will lead to women procreating but the men who impregnate them being able to avoid the power of the forces which would obligate them to marry those women, by virtue of the fact we have eliminated the tradition of marriage which is utterly and intractably linked to procreation which is the basis for marriage"

"Do you also oppose marriage rights for infertle heterosexual couples, given you claim marriage rights should not be conferred on homosexuals because they can't procrate?"

"Obviously you are stupid and do not understand what I said. No, infertile heterosexuals should have the right to marry because even though they can't procreate, the idea of heterosexuals being able to procreate is the main basis for marriage, even if it is impossible for an infertile heterosexual couple to procreate. My opposition to homosexuals marrying is that it is impossible for a homosexual couple to procreate. I do not oppose heterosexual couples from marrying even if it is impossible for them to procreate. There is no contradiction there and you cannot prove there is anything contradictory in what I say."

"But you just contradicted yourself when you said you opposed homosexual couples from being allowed to marry because it's impossible for them to procreate....but you support the right of a heterosexual couple to marry even if it's impossible for them to procreate."

"Obviously, you have no reading comprehension and are a fool. Since I clearly said that I oppose homosexual couples from being allowed to marry because it's impossible for them to procreate....but I support the right of a heterosexual couple to marry even if it's impossible for them to procreate.

And I did NOT say that I oppose homosexual couples from being allowed to marry because it's impossible for them to procreate....but I support the right of a heterosexual couple to marry even if it's impossible for them to procreate. Please show me where I said what you said...you can't. I win, you lose."

"Just contradicted yourself again!"

"No I didn't.

"Yes, you did."

"No, I didn't. I clearly said that I oppose homosexuals getting married because they can't procreate. I support infertile heterosexual couples getting married because they can't procreate. There is no 'contradiction'."

"You did it again!!!!"

"No...clearly you are stupid and cannot follow simple logic or read plain English."


((Monty Python predicted dixon 45 years ago]]

[video=youtube;kQFKtI6gn9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]

 

The TOPIC...is the Gallup poll.....and you've refused to discuss it from nearly the beginning to now.

 

Understand context.

 

What is there to discuss? None of my arguments rely upon popularity in the polls.

 

Just in case anyone isn't aware of your habits, the above words are Gorn's alone. He makes them up and merely attributes them to me because he finds those words so much easier to deal with than my words would be. I suspect that is by design.

 

Which threads are you talking about?

 

Like I said- you still haven't provided any quotes which substantiate your claims.

 

He wasn't attributing those words to you. He was satirizing your schtick, which by now has become a joke worthy only of satire. And actually, it's a pretty damn good satire, because it captures the essence of what you've been saying as closely as anything can.

I would add We must prohibit same sex marriage, by which I do NOT mean gay marriage, because permitting it discriminates against polygamists and pedophiles, and since we do not wish to be discriminatory, it's necessary to discriminate against homosexuals, but by that I don't MEAN homosexuals, which have absoutely nothing to do with same sex marriage, despite the clear words of the courts who have never actually said such a thing anyway.

This is by now easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Perhaps the meaning of the word "purpose" escapes you.

1pur·pose noun \ˈpər-pəs\
: the reason why something is done or used : the aim or intention of something

An INTENT to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. Without an intent to discriminate against homosexuals, the court wouldn't have made a judgment upon discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They wouldn't demand from the defendants justification for discrimination intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals, something that could not be justified. Its the plaintiffs strawman that the courts demand the defendants justify. Their entire argument is BASED upon the false claim that marriages limitation is intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. Without it their theory falls apart.
Would be like demanding the state to justify anti polygamy laws intended to disparage and injure Mormons in order to sustain their constitutionality when those laws have nothing to do with Mormons or an intent to harm Mormons.

 

Once again- you have failed to provide any quote which supports your claim.

The court did not find an intent to discriminate against homosexuals, they found that homosexuals belong to a quasi-suspect class which justifies higher scrutiny. The court found that Pennsylvania law did discriminate and therefore was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

 

Actually its no where even close to ANYTHING I have said. I think my speculation was more accurate. He does what he can to avoid addressing what I actually state while still responding to it. A common tactic when you cant address the message, attack the messenger. Standard operating procedure for you people here.

 

You really are clueless here. The "class" is the class being discriminated against. What type of class homosexuals are wouldn't even be relevant to the case without the alleged discrimination against homosexuals.

 

Beautiful example of my point. Ive NEVER even as much as suggested polygamist or pedophiles being discriminated against or that they should be included in marriage.