Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):Heeeeeyyyy duuuuumbshit.
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):Heeeeeyyyy duuuuumbshit.
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):Cool. A couple of things:
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):The slippery slope argument is a fallacy:
I believe the liberal way is to get the door cracked open and then bumrush it with all the other things that want to be let inside.
I believe the conservative way is to close the door, lock it, bolt it and push some furniture in front of it.
I don't like either way. I'm simply asking "OK, if I let you in, why won't I be forced to let those hundred other people in too?"
R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:
It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.
1. Please point out a reference to same sex marriage.
2. Assuming you can't find a reference to SS marriage, do you think polygamy(more than one man/one women) more resembles SS marriage(two men or two women) or interracial marriage(one man/one woman of different races)?
3. Do you think the SC in 1967 even considered SS marriage? Even further, do you think our forefathers in the 1770s even considered SS marriage?
I'm showing you that the exact same arguments (polygamy and incest) were used in 1967 as a reason for not allowing interracial marriage. The AG said if we allow interracial marriage, how can we not allow polygamy and incest?
Yet we allowed interracial marriage for no better reason than "they want to" and "it doesn't affect anyone else" and it didn't force us to allow polygamy or incest.
Way to not answer a single question. Don't you pretend to be a lawyer? If you're going to quote a court case, make your ******* argument.
Wanna answer any of the questions? If not, I'm done with you.
Your argument is weak, at best.
You quote a court case and can't see how it doesn't apply, at all, to today's world or SS/polygamy.
Finally, as I said yesterday, when you realize your argument is weak, you resort to insults. A simple lack of intelligence.