6/14/2013 3:10 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
I may be wrong , but The Feds didnt define marriage until the 90's.
Irrelevant even if you're right/wrong.

My argument is that their ruling in 1967, overturning state restrictions, did not alter the accepted definition of marriage of "one man, one woman".    No precedent was set in 1967 wrt the definition of marriage.
I think you may be the one who doesn't understand how precedent works.
Countering with "you're dumb" doesn't change the facts.

You've been parading "1967" as the time SCOTUS set the precedent of changing the definition of marriage.   They didn't.  

A simple fact. 
Where am I wrong? At the beginning of US history the definition off marriage in several states (and undefined federally) was 1 man/1 woman/same race. SCOTUS changed that in 1967.
6/14/2013 3:15 PM
The Federal government has NEVER changed the accepted "one man, one woman" definition of marriage. 
6/14/2013 3:17 PM
They simply told a few states to knock it off with their race restrictions.
6/14/2013 3:18 PM
What I want to know is, why is it okay for the homosexual agenda to push its beliefs on everyone else, but if anyone says "no, my beliefs are against that", it isn't okay?
6/14/2013 3:18 PM
To put it more clearly, they did not change the definition of marriage in 1967.  No precedent was set.  That's where you're wrong.
6/14/2013 3:21 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):
The Federal government has NEVER changed the accepted "one man, one woman" definition of marriage. 
Sure, but SCOTUS has changed the definition of marriage.
6/14/2013 3:25 PM
No, they didn't.  The forced states to lift restrictions.  They did not change the definition.

A simple fact.
6/14/2013 3:32 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
No, they didn't.  The forced states to lift restrictions.  They did not change the definition.

A simple fact.
Ok. So now they can force states to lift restrictions on gender.
6/14/2013 3:33 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
No, they didn't.  The forced states to lift restrictions.  They did not change the definition.

A simple fact.
Ok. So now they can force states to lift restrictions on gender.
That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

There's no precedent for that.
6/14/2013 3:35 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
No, they didn't.  The forced states to lift restrictions.  They did not change the definition.

A simple fact.
Ok. So now they can force states to lift restrictions on gender.
That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

There's no precedent for that.
Except for when the definition of marriage was limited to same race couples. And then they changed it.
6/14/2013 3:40 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
No, they didn't.  The forced states to lift restrictions.  They did not change the definition.

A simple fact.
Ok. So now they can force states to lift restrictions on gender.
That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

There's no precedent for that.
Except for when the definition of marriage was limited to same race couples. And then they changed it.
We'll call that an "accessory" to the definition of marriage added by some states.   The basic, accepted definition of marriage was not changed.  Has never been changed.   One man, one woman.

No precedent was set.
6/14/2013 3:54 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
No, they didn't.  The forced states to lift restrictions.  They did not change the definition.

A simple fact.
Ok. So now they can force states to lift restrictions on gender.
That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

There's no precedent for that.
Except for when the definition of marriage was limited to same race couples. And then they changed it.
We'll call that an "accessory" to the definition of marriage added by some states.   The basic, accepted definition of marriage was not changed.  Has never been changed.   One man, one woman.

No precedent was set.
The definition of marriage has always been two adults. The gender restriction is an accessory. SCOTUS will remove that accessory and the definition will remain unchanged.
6/14/2013 3:57 PM
Incorrect.  It's always been "one man, one woman".    By using man/woman, you've removed the need to use "adult".  
6/14/2013 4:02 PM
Meanwhile, my question was once again ignored by BL. How convenient for his homosexual agenda.
6/14/2013 4:02 PM
The gender restriction is just an accessory that the Supreme Court will tell states to get rid of.
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.