What does pedophilia have to do with homosexuality?
That's what I've been telling people, along with why.
I don't know what that was supposed to mean.
We do, though it continues to diminish in numbers and our public continues to move toward pro life positions, which is about all we can do with Roe for the moment.
You're too stupid to talk to any more.
When you break sentences apart, you tend to pervert the intended meaning. Try responding to that properly. :up:
Nope.
No, I just altered your attempt and noted a truth or two within it. That's usually the best a guy can do with America hating foreigners who rarely take much time to poke at their own planks.
See, that's both not an argument and it's objectively, factually deficient. Everything I wrote in that sentence, none of which you countered objectively, was true. You'll likely respond in similarly stunning fashion next.
The Court recognized the right of consenting adults to enter into a contract with the state we call marriage. Religion needn't and not infrequently doesn't enter into it.
Not if you read the majority opinion and you'd have been just as upset eventually if the minority opinion had prevailed and the question had been decided by popular vote, state to state.
Horrible decision, but one that's been made and won't be unmade easily. Most likely it will die as a result of Amendment at some point, at least most forms of it will. It's unlikely public sentiment would object to abortion in the case of rape or incest.
They're binding as a matter of secular law within the compact, violative or supportive of any other religious belief though they might be and sometimes are, as in this case.
Who hates the US?
I counted four votes against homo marriage and five for. That means had one of the judges been swayed otherwise, the outcome would have been the opposite of what it was. Thus when you say the only thing that can be done about Roe v Wade is wait for public opinion, I counter with the fact that a majority among nine opinions would be enough.
Pretending the regulations they write will have no impact on society is naive, bordering on the insane or dishonest.
Fortunately, I can count. And separating this discussion into 50 arguments does nothing to establish your view as the correct one.
There is no such thing as "secular" law. It's either a justified law, or it's not.
I stand happily corrected on the point.
I haven't altered what you said and no one with a brain in their head missed it. But in it was a truth or two that I wanted to point out.
I'm happy to note your formal education includes addition. And?
And if they'd had wings they could have flown from the bench.
Right, because you don't know how the Court works and precedent, etc. We could discuss it, if you like. But Roe hasn't gone anywhere and there's no reason for the Court to rehear it. You don't think people haven't been trying for almost as long as it has been in effect?
That's just your internal problems surfacing again. You seem to have a real need to be either the authority or speaking for it. No idea why but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
No idea what you think you're countering with that, but it doesn't appear to be anything I wrote so I can't help you.
Next up? Spelling. I'm kidding. But it was a funny place to make the slip.
Which view?
Good luck with that one in traffic court.
Rather, it's either a law or it isn't and the rest is beauty.
Good luck with that in court too.
Yes, you did. You took two complimentary statements that needed to be together to paint the entire picture. Separating them would make it look as if I claimed child rape was no issue to worry about.
:AMR: Are you saying they all had to decide as they did?
Of course there's a reason to discuss it. Abortion is murder. What good is a court if it cannot deliberate a murder case (or 100 million)?
It's no failing to want to be on the side of what is right.
Only to someone who couldn't read, given I literally set out every word you wrote and anyone reading it would have understood both your point and what I was doing with part of it.
No, but it isn't something to worry about in the sense of it becoming acceptable and legal.
It wasn't really much of a challenge. It was an attempt to paint a slippery slope founded on the wrong premise tying together unrelated issues.
No, that's not what they held.
I'm saying it was in keeping with my best understanding and application of the law and with the majority also.
It did deliberate the issue. It got it wrong. And now we're going to have to undo it by a more dramatic means.
That's not responsive to the point, but what else is new.
No, it isn't, to match the depth of that rebuttal.
No point. First, it makes sense as a progression of the law and secondly there's nothing remotely like the numbers to make the sort of challenge that would stand a chance legislatively.
That one is a different matter. That one could see an amendment at some point.
The numbers have been changing, moving toward pro life, if with caveat.
I don't agree with you, but I appreciate that you're serious about the subject. So am I. But this is one race that will be won by the steady and not the swift to outrage. Just the way it is. The Court got it wrong and isn't going to revisit. So it's about convincing people who bought into the worst case scenarios used to establish a rule that has become about other things.
And yet, the challenge remains.
Claiming I said the complete opposite of what is plainly written doesn't do much for your credibility.
:darwinsm:
Which has nothing to do with what I said.
And it could do so again. And you've spent so much time arguing nonsense that we are nowhere near where we started.
You didn't have a point. You made an unjustified accusation, another attempt to put me in a bad light.
It sure is. It's not OK to be gay.
I know you think that's true. No idea why you think you haven't been answered.
It depends on the intelligence of the person reading it. If they're stupid and don't get a sarcastic prod you're likely right. I don't think people who post around here are stupid though. Some of the second language types might struggle.
Yeah, it does. You'd written:
I answered: I'm saying it was in keeping with my best understanding and application of the law and with the majority also. That is, they answered as they felt they had to given their understanding of the law and that understanding was in accord with my own.
No, but another Court might have seen it differently. The close nature of the split makes that evident. Same with Roe. But the Courts that had the duty did their duty and we're left with the results and will be hard pressed to do much about it, absent enough groundswell support to call a convention.
In order: I did, I didn't and I'm weeping. Your methodology is so one sided in its sensitivity that I can't really say that bothers me. You don't like getting hit? Don't step into a ring and throw a jab.
