Rick Santorum vows to defy Supreme Court over SSM

[Maren]

Now they can "steal" it from the gays as well.



The fact that the courts agreed with the arguments for not only the blacks, but also the gays gives it plenty of legal legitimacy.
It's called setting a precedent.



If enough money is thrown at something, anything can suddenly appear logical. Was it "logical" to consider 2 men to be married? It never was in the past.

*sigh* Except, as pointed out, it is still the same argument, the same one that has failed while the gays have had success. The first gay marriage ruling was 10 years ago but, despite using the "same argument" for just as long, the pedophiles have failed over that same decade -- even in states where gay marriage was ruled by courts to be a right. Why would the pedophiles argument start working now when it hasn't anywhere, even in states (and other countries) where the gay argument worked?

Again, the arguments, while similar, are not the same. There are no precedents for lowering the age of consent, they do not exist. Additionally, the "logic" of gay rights is very solid, scientifically (including psychology) there was no reason they should be denied rights. By contrast, science continues to find that children, even in their teens, are not capable of making "mature" decisions as their brains are not yet fully developed. There was logic to give gays equal rights; at the same time there is plenty of "logic" to keep the age of maturity the same or even raise it.

 

[Green Sun]

I already addressed that in post #322

I don't understand why you consistently can't answer yes/no questions.

They're using the same arguments as the pro-gay crowd. Did I say they used the same arguments as Blacks? Nope! I sure hope you're not saying that Black people are all gay!

Except the argument that the 14th amendment prevents discrimination is the exact same argument that was used to strike down bans on interracial marriage.

I honestly don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't understand why you consistently can't answer yes/no questions.

I understand why.

 

[bhsmte]

I understand why.

So do I and I find it highly entertaining.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't understand why you consistently can't answer yes/no questions.

I can. I just choose not to for the same reason prosecutors like restricting a witness to yes/no answers by asking those type of questions. They like to control the argument in their own favor. Since I'm not on trial, I'm not restricted to falling into that type of railroading.

 

[JustOneWay]

I can. I just choose not to for the same reason prosecutors like restricting a witness to yes/no answers by asking those type of questions. They like to control the argument in their own favor. Since I'm not on trial, I'm not restricted to falling into that type of railroading.

You know who else can't answer yes and no questions? That's right....politicians.

You tap dance around questions without ever answering them.

Here is the answer. NO, pedophiles are not able to obtain legal consent from the people they harm. They harm children....children too young to consent.

 

[Aldebaran]

You know who else can't answer yes and no questions? That's right....politicians.

You tap dance around questions without ever answering them.

You mean questions like, “How often do you beat your wife”? Obviously, questions can be asked in order to make an accusation. Oftentimes, dignifying the question with an answer is not even advised.

 

[JustOneWay]

You mean questions like, “How often do you beat your wife”? Obviously, questions can be asked in order to make an accusation. Oftentimes, dignifying the question with an answer is not even advised.

His question was nothing like the 'wife beating' comment. No wonder you don't answer questions. You don't understand them.

 

[bhsmte]

You know who else can't answer yes and no questions? That's right....politicians.

You tap dance around questions without ever answering them.

Here is the answer. NO, pedophiles are not able to obtain legal consent from the people they harm. They harm children....children too young to consent.

See how easy that was.

 

[bhsmte]

His question was nothing like the 'wife beating' comment. No wonder you don't answer questions. You don't understand them.

simple evasion.

 

[Green Sun]

I can. I just choose not to for the same reason prosecutors like restricting a witness to yes/no answers by asking those type of questions. They like to control the argument in their own favor. Since I'm not on trial, I'm not restricted to falling into that type of railroading.

You do sort of railroad discussions as well, Alderbaran. You are very selective in the questions you respond to, and usually tend to derail topics onto other, related topics. And occasionally, you ignore the question entirely with a snarky answer, such as here:

That's been tried many times, but you keep turning left.
Yes or no. There, I gave both. Both is better than one!

And I can see why you didn't want to answer this question now, after thinking about it some more:

Are pedophiles able to obtain legal consent from the people they harm? Yes or no?

Obviously I don't think anyone would try and claim yes to this question, but if you say no, you'd end up sorta backfiring on your argument against marriage equality.

 

[Aldebaran]

See how easy that was.

I guess it's easy for you as long as I give exactly the answer that you expect. Anything else, including honesty, is frowned upon. In the future, just ask a question and then tell me the expected answer. If I can't honestly answer the question with what you're expecting, I'll let you know.

 

[Aldebaran]

You do sort of railroad discussions as well, Alderbaran. You are very selective in the questions you respond to, and usually tend to derail topics onto other, related topics. And occasionally, you ignore the question entirely with a snarky answer, such as here:

Sometimes something related needs to be used to help someone understand my point of view. That's why I use related things. It broadens the perspective.

And I can see why you don't want to answer this question now, after thinking about it some more:

I didn’t answer that question because he was trying to shift the focus on present law instead of what is being sought after. It would be the same as asking a year ago, “Are gay marriages currently legal in all 50 states?”. If I would answer No to that, it would have been true, but wouldn’t address the change that was being pursued. That change was the topic being discussed at the time. Focusing on current conditions ignores the topic.

Obviously I don't think anyone would try and claim yes to this question, but if you say no, you'd end up sorta backfiring on your argument against marriage equality.

See my answer above.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess it's easy for you as long as I give exactly the answer that you expect. Anything else, including honesty, is frowned upon. In the future, just ask a question and then tell me the expected answer. If I can't honestly answer the question with what you're expecting, I'll let you know.

Yes, honesty is tough, when you have something to protect.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Well, if I can paraphrase a Democrat, "The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, if I can paraphrase a Democrat, "The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."

A valid point -- those who are bent on denying equal rights are seldom dissuaded by the law.

 

[Pink Spider]

___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been permanently closed by CF-Staff
because it has veered OFF TOPIC and Controversial
Topics have been discussed, which is a violation
of CF-Rules.

Please remember CF-Rules:

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic

Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

AND

● Please check each forum's Statement of Purpose thread for any additional guidelines related to controversial topics.


MOD HAT OFF

___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________​