Supreme Court extends federal benefits to married gay couples

Duke said:
Yes. correct. you should disbelieve anything and everything someone has experienced in the past if it's not explicitly documented to prove it to a naysayer. Right. Got it. I'll mention that to my grandfather when he speaks of WW2.
Click to expand...

Well, depends on what he says. If he's, for example, a Marine that suggests the pacific theater was handled entirely by them and disagrees that the Army conducted more amphibious landings during the island hopping campaigns than they did...then yeah, you might want to mention that his facts are a little off. His personal perspective is important but that doesn't mean it's the only perspective and that it's not colored by time and new information.
Let me point out the stupidity of attacking someone who supports 'your side' of an issue because their inner narrative doesn't fall in lock step 100% with your own. That's not a way to keep support. Yet here we are, with both you and dave going after, and dave actually insulting, someone who is 100% on side with you on this issue, yet doesn't think exactly as you do. Fastest way in the world to lose the middle is by stupidity from the extremes.
Click to expand...

How is asking you to back up a claim you made that has fundamental effects on the argument considered an attack?

Keep support? How does your support have any effect on the issue? Your inner narrative is not the point, I would like to suss out facts. This isn't an extreme.

If you want an attack then I'll point out that I don't give a fuck about the support of someone who claims that an entire group of people likes to "play" the victim when that group of people has actually been victimized.

/shaqattack
 
Last edited:
MapleySyrup said:
As long as dbzeag realizes that just because one state says he's married still doesn't mean other states have to recognize that. The feds will, but other states don't have to. In states where same sex marriage is illegal it is still illegal.
Click to expand...

I completely understand that. I fully recognize that Texas does not (and should not quite frankly) recognize ANY marriage it doesn't have to, unless the laws on Texas' books change.
 
Duke said:
Yes. correct. you should disbelieve anything and everything someone has experienced in the past if it's not explicitly documented to prove it to a naysayer. Right. Got it. I'll mention that to my grandfather when he speaks of WW2.

Let me point out the stupidity of attacking someone who supports 'your side' of an issue because their inner narrative doesn't fall in lock step 100% with your own. That's not a way to keep support. Yet here we are, with both you and dave going after, and dave actually insulting, someone who is 100% on side with you on this issue, yet doesn't think exactly as you do. Fastest way in the world to lose the middle is by stupidity from the extremes.
Click to expand...

Do you support gay MARRIAGE?
 
fly said:
Do you support gay MARRIAGE?
Click to expand...

Of course. It's stupid to fight over a word. Even more importantly, the constitution strictly states all men are created equal. Race, color, creed, doesn't matter. Any attempts to change it for special interests are unconstitutional.

Initially, I had a problem with it. Briefly. Then I looked at the issue from a different perspective, one based on the constitution, and realized any ingrained bias I had from growing up didn't hold water.

I know you like to color me a homophobe, but that just isn't the case.
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
Of course. It's stupid to fight over a word. Even more importantly, the constitution strictly states all men are created equal. Race, color, creed, doesn't matter. Any attempts to change it for special interests are unconstitutional.

Initially, I had a problem with it. Briefly. Then I looked at the issue from a different perspective, one based on the constitution, and realized any ingrained bias I had from growing up didn't hold water.

I know you like to color me a homophobe, but that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...

:heart: I just find your thoughts on a lot of this stuff confusing, that's all. As long as you're for it, then I love you.
 
Duke said:
Of course. It's stupid to fight over a word. Even more importantly, the constitution strictly states all men are created equal. Race, color, creed, doesn't matter. Any attempts to change it for special interests are unconstitutional.

Initially, I had a problem with it. Briefly. Then I looked at the issue from a different perspective, one based on the constitution, and realized any ingrained bias I had from growing up didn't hold water.

I know you like to color me a homophobe, but that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Progressivism has taken your manhood.
 
fly said:
:heart: I just find your thoughts on a lot of this stuff confusing, that's all. As long as you're for it, then I love you.
Click to expand...

Understandable. That's probably because I look at the issue with having zero dog in the fight, and more from a 50,000 foot level than an in-the-trenches perspective that would have a bit more humanity to it. To me, it's black and white. Well, black and yellowish white, whatever color the hemp paper used for the constitution is now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back