6/14/2013 9:23 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 9:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 8:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 1:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense?    Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.  

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit.   Keep your lies straight. 

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.
OK, if you say so.

But you do understand the meaning of "precedent", right? 
6/14/2013 9:29 AM
The definition of sexuality is who you are attracted to.

According to your warped worldview which is based upon doing anything necessary to promote the homosexual agenda. 

Tell me, BL, do you feel badly about the lies you tell to promote the homosexual agenda, or do you actually enjoying telling those lies?

Don't bother to say you aren't doing it, because I don't buy that for a second. You're not some fool who can't reason at all. You know **** well what you are doing.
6/14/2013 9:29 AM
I'm happy you're back to "gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage."


6/14/2013 9:33 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 9:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 9:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 8:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 1:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense?    Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.  

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit.   Keep your lies straight. 

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.
OK, if you say so.

But you do understand the meaning of "precedent", right? 
Like the precedent we set in 1967? You see why the slippery slope is a fallacy, right? Because you can use it to argue that anything could lead to anything.
6/14/2013 9:34 AM
tec took up that argument. 

Mine isn't quite that detailed.   I'm simply saying changing the definition, via court order, sets a precedent. 
6/14/2013 9:35 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 9:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 9:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 8:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 1:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense?    Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.  

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit.   Keep your lies straight. 

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.
OK, if you say so.

But you do understand the meaning of "precedent", right? 
Like the precedent we set in 1967? You see why the slippery slope is a fallacy, right? Because you can use it to argue that anything could lead to anything.
Enlighten me.     What was the definition of marriage in 1967?
6/14/2013 9:35 AM
Posted by bistiza on 6/14/2013 9:29:00 AM (view original):
The definition of sexuality is who you are attracted to.

According to your warped worldview which is based upon doing anything necessary to promote the homosexual agenda. 

Tell me, BL, do you feel badly about the lies you tell to promote the homosexual agenda, or do you actually enjoying telling those lies?

Don't bother to say you aren't doing it, because I don't buy that for a second. You're not some fool who can't reason at all. You know **** well what you are doing.
No, according to the dictionary.

Attraction to one gender or another isn't a choice. The words we use to label what gender you are attracted to are heterosexual and homosexual.
6/14/2013 9:36 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 9:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 9:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 8:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 1:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense?    Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.  

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit.   Keep your lies straight. 

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.
OK, if you say so.

But you do understand the meaning of "precedent", right? 
Like the precedent we set in 1967? You see why the slippery slope is a fallacy, right? Because you can use it to argue that anything could lead to anything.
Enlighten me.     What was the definition of marriage in 1967?
That was when interracial marriage was made legal.
6/14/2013 9:40 AM
I see nothing from the Federal Government banning interracial marriage before 1967.  
6/14/2013 9:42 AM
State laws banned it. 1967 was when the Supreme Court ruled that those laws were illegal.
6/14/2013 9:42 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 6/14/2013 9:29:00 AM (view original):
The definition of sexuality is who you are attracted to.

According to your warped worldview which is based upon doing anything necessary to promote the homosexual agenda. 

Tell me, BL, do you feel badly about the lies you tell to promote the homosexual agenda, or do you actually enjoying telling those lies?

Don't bother to say you aren't doing it, because I don't buy that for a second. You're not some fool who can't reason at all. You know **** well what you are doing.
No, according to the dictionary.

Attraction to one gender or another isn't a choice. The words we use to label what gender you are attracted to are heterosexual and homosexual.
Propaganda conspiracy agenda agenda logic
6/14/2013 9:42 AM
No, according to the dictionary.
We've already been over how arguing from the dictionary definition of word merely shows it is one of the commonly accepted definitions, not a "correct" definition.

In other words, your argument is essentially "people agree with me, therefore I'm right", which isn't a real argument at all.

You'll have to do better than "other people agree with me" to make a convincing argument, and you've never done better.

And please answer this question:

Tell me, BL, do you feel badly about the lies you tell to promote the homosexual agenda, or do you actually enjoying telling those lies?

6/14/2013 9:44 AM
Posted by bistiza on 6/14/2013 9:42:00 AM (view original):
No, according to the dictionary.
We've already been over how arguing from the dictionary definition of word merely shows it is one of the commonly accepted definitions, not a "correct" definition.

In other words, your argument is essentially "people agree with me, therefore I'm right", which isn't a real argument at all.

You'll have to do better than "other people agree with me" to make a convincing argument, and you've never done better.

And please answer this question:

Tell me, BL, do you feel badly about the lies you tell to promote the homosexual agenda, or do you actually enjoying telling those lies?

The words are nothing more than labels for who you are attracted to.
6/14/2013 9:56 AM
I actually enjoying telling those lies.

I actually enjoying telling the lies of parking in my driveway and driving in the parkway as well.
6/14/2013 10:06 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 9:42:00 AM (view original):
State laws banned it. 1967 was when the Supreme Court ruled that those laws were illegal.
Did SCOTUS change the definition of marriage?

I'll assume not so I don't think this situation applies.  Therefore, precedent was NOT set in 1967,
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.