Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Aldebaran]

Well, it appears you are incapable of telling the truth. What you have posted above was in response to this line of discussion:

So no, nowhere did I ask you to provide evidence that President has violated the Constitution, I told you to start a thread on it, then when you refused, I told you to not bring it up if you couldn't support it.

Maybe you didn't ask me to, but when you said, "Well, then don't claim the President has done something unconstitutional if you're not willing to pony up an example or two.", I took that as a challenge to. That's why I came up with a couple examples, causing you to blow a gasket.

So excuuuuuuse me!

 

[Cute Tink]

Was going for a pun but...

It was a bit ... direct.

 

[Skaloop]

Maybe you didn't ask me to, but when you said, "Well, then don't claim the President has done something unconstitutional if you're not willing to pony up an example or two.", I took that as a challenge to. That's why I came up with a couple examples, causing you to blow a gasket. So excuuuuuuse me!

I don't recall you coming up with any examples, nor anyone blowing a gasket.

The best you had was a couple of examples of the president trying to do one thing that was later ruled to be unconstitutional. That's the recess appointments, which weren't so much of an intentional constitutional violation as much as a gray area that needed to be sorted out. Which means he didn't actually get to do them. So what has he actually done that is unconstitutional? Has he been successful at anything that violates the constitution? Because the second thing you mentioned, regarding the individual mandate, was actually upheld by the Supreme Court (the link you provided is older than the Supreme Court ruling). So it was determined to be constitutional. Lower courts ruled it unconstitutional but were overturned.

 

[Belk]

It was a bit ... direct.

Yeah, I thought better of it for this website.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't recall you coming up with any examples, nor anyone blowing a gasket.

The best you had was a couple of examples of the president trying to do some things that were later ruled to be unconstitutional. Which means he didn't actually get to do them. So what has he actually done that is unconstitutional? Has he been successful at anything that violates the constitution?

First of all, I wasn't responding to you. If you'll note what I said and you quoted just a few posts ago, I was replying to Queller. You'll find this post on page 32, post #318. Then you say you don't recall me coming up with any examples, then you admit that I did come up with a couple examples (as Queller challenged me to do). After that you say that the president only "tried" to do a couple things, but didn't actually do them.

Making recess appointments was not something that he tried to do. He actually did that. The people he appointed remain in office, even though the way they got there was ruled unconstitutional. So even though it was ruled unconstitutional, he got away with it anyway. I'd say that's much more than a "try".

The other example sites the Obamacare individual mandate. Again, something he actually did--and still remains in effect--and ruled unconstitutional. This means when you follow the law about being mandated to follow the individual mandate in Obamacare, you are obeying an unconstitutional law as ruled by the SCOTUS.

Do you still wonder why I don't answer all your questions? It's not a very good use of my time. You could have done your own research into what I actually said and you would have your answer.

Now I see you have edited your original posting that I was responding to.

 

[Skaloop]

First of all, I wasn't responding to you. If you'll note what I said and you quoted just a few posts ago, I was replying to Queller. You'll find this post on page 32, post #318. Then you say you don't recall me coming up with any examples, then you admit that I did come up with a couple examples (as Queller challenged me to do). After that you say that the president only "tried" to do a couple things, but didn't actually do them.

Making recess appointments was not something that he tried to do. He actually did that. The people he appointed remain in office, even though the way they got there was ruled unconstitutional. So even though it was ruled unconstitutional, he got away with it anyway. I'd say that's much more than a "try".

The other example sites the Obamacare individual mandate. Again, something he actually did--and still remains in effect--and ruled unconstitutional. This means when you follow the law about being mandated to follow the individual mandate in Obamacare, you are obeying an unconstitutional law as ruled by the SCOTUS.

Do you still wonder why I don't answer all your questions? It's not a very good use of my time. You could have done your own research into what I actually said and you would have your answer.

Now I see you have edited your original posting that I was responding to.

I edited my post, perhaps after you had started your response, so you might have missed this part:

"Because the second thing you mentioned, regarding the individual mandate, was actually upheld by the Supreme Court (the link you provided is older than the Supreme Court ruling). So it was determined to be constitutional. Lower courts ruled it unconstitutional but were overturned."

The individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, but those rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court. From Wikipedia: On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the health insurance mandate as a valid tax, and thus within Congress' tax and spend powers.

SCOTUS never ruled it unconstitutional.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I'm still waiting to hear a proper, substantive critique by those who have an objection to the points made by the judge regarding the argument defendants advanced in this case.

 

[Queller]

n/t

 

[Queller]

I'm still waiting to hear a proper, substantive critique by those who have an objection to the points made by the judge regarding the argument defendants advanced in this case.

I think we're going to be waiting forever.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm still waiting to hear a proper, substantive critique by those who have an objection to the points made by the judge regarding the argument defendants advanced in this case.

I think we're going to be waiting forever.

get comfy...

​

 

[Cute Tink]

get comfy...

​

That really doesn't look all that comfy lol

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm still waiting to hear a proper, substantive critique by those who have an objection to the points made by the judge regarding the argument defendants advanced in this case.

I thought you guys were more interested in whether or not I supported SSM. Which one do you really care about knowing so much that you're willing to wait so long?

 

[poolerboy0077]

I thought you guys were more interested in whether or not I supported SSM. Which one do you really care about knowing so much that you're willing to wait so long?

What I'm interested in is what you just quoted me on, which is the topic of this thread.

 

[Aldebaran]

What I'm interested in is what you just quoted me on, which is the topic of this thread.

Oh, I see. Well, I guess my opinions about it aren't the same as the judges, that's all. He has a basis for his opinions, and I have a basis for mine. They aren't in agreement, which means I don't agree with his opinions.

 

[paul becke]

Love the no true Scotsman fallacy: 'No serious person...'! Serious persons, of course, being such as senior politicians and judiciary - the like of those in the UK Parliament at Westminster who form/formed a paedophile ring, and on whom the dossier drawn up mysterously went missing - just like those that went missing relating to the collusion with the US on 'rendition' flights using our airports.
Fortunately, in the former case, it is likely a number of copies were given out by Geoffrey Dickens, the compiler of the file. What remains to be done, however, is that the Official Secrets Act needs to be waived in respect of the divulgence of such copies. I can't imagine they could find an excuse for refusing to do so.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Oh, I see. Well, I guess my opinions about it aren't the same as the judges, that's all. He has a basis for his opinions, and I have a basis for mine. They aren't in agreement, which means I don't agree with his opinions.

What's the basis for yours?

 

[Aldebaran]

What's the basis for yours?

This is the basis for mine:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]

 

[Glass*Soul]

Love the no true Scotsman fallacy: 'No serious person...'! Serious persons, of course, being such as senior politicians and judiciary - the like of those in the UK Parliament at Westminster who form/formed a paedophile ring, and on whom the dossier drawn up mysterously went missing - just like those that went missing relating to the collusion with the US on 'rendition' flights using our airports.
Fortunately, in the former case, it is likely a number of copies were given out by Geoffrey Dickens, the compiler of the file. What remains to be done, however, is that the Official Secrets Act needs to be waived in respect of the divulgence of such copies. I can't imagine they could find an excuse for refusing to do so.

Are your serious?

Lawyer: Here's my ridiculous argument.
Judge: No serious lawyer would expect that argument to work.
Lawyer: I expect it to work.
Judge: Fine, I have just stopped taking you seriously.

 

[Cearbhall]

Love the no true Scotsman fallacy: 'No serious person...'!

I think it's pretty justified to say that no serious person would tell a judge to make a ruling based on religion. They try to get around it by citing crackpot secular arguments, which are just as laughable.

 

[poolerboy0077]

This is the basis for mine:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]

No, no, no. What's your basis for rejecting the judge's rationale of the specific argument in question. C'mon now. We've been over this several times. This thread has a specific topic, one which you've been conveniently avoiding.