David Tyree is a moron

[infrared41]

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

I know we disagree. But you can't compare me to someone in the 50s who was burning crosses in front yards, burning down their houses, beating them on street corners, not allowing them to eat in their restaurants, not giving them fair trials, restricting their rights to jobs/ education, or use the same drinking fountains. I mean, I think you know that is crossing the line.

What I am saying is 2 different worlds.

Sure I can. In fact, I already did.

[Milo Meningocele]

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

I know we disagree. But you can't compare me to someone in the 50s who was burning crosses in front yards, burning down their houses, beating them on street corners, not allowing them to eat in their restaurants, not giving them fair trials, restricting their rights to jobs/ education, or use the same drinking fountains. I mean, I think you know that is crossing the line.

What I am saying is 2 different worlds.

He didn't say any of that. He said "arguing". Now, who's twisting words?

[ESTONES6]

Still waiting on that acknowledgement of the 14th Amendment's existence ESTONE.

I have recognized it. It protects the basic freedoms of people, regardless of race, gender, religion, or orientation. Again, marriage is not a basic freedom.

[infrared41]

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

I know we disagree. But you can't compare me to someone in the 50s who was burning crosses in front yards, burning down their houses, beating them on street corners, not allowing them to eat in their restaurants, not giving them fair trials, restricting their rights to jobs/ education, or use the same drinking fountains. I mean, I think you know that is crossing the line.

What I am saying is 2 different worlds.

He didn't say any of that. He said "arguing". Now, who's twisting words?

Ummm...I sort of admitted that I was doing just that. Sorry about that Milo. But your point remains. I'm not saying this guy is some klansmen. I'm just saying he sounds like one. I suppose there is a difference. It's all a matter of degree I guess.

[ESTONES6]

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

I know we disagree. But you can't compare me to someone in the 50s who was burning crosses in front yards, burning down their houses, beating them on street corners, not allowing them to eat in their restaurants, not giving them fair trials, restricting their rights to jobs/ education, or use the same drinking fountains. I mean, I think you know that is crossing the line.

What I am saying is 2 different worlds.

Sure I can. In fact, I already did.

Well... than that is pretty sad. Comparing my opinion on marriage to people who were actively beating and killing other people. I understand you want to make a point... but come on. Let's not get ridiculous.

[Milo Meningocele]

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

I know we disagree. But you can't compare me to someone in the 50s who was burning crosses in front yards, burning down their houses, beating them on street corners, not allowing them to eat in their restaurants, not giving them fair trials, restricting their rights to jobs/ education, or use the same drinking fountains. I mean, I think you know that is crossing the line.

What I am saying is 2 different worlds.

He didn't say any of that. He said "arguing". Now, who's twisting words?

Ummm...I sort of admitted that I was doing just that. Sorry about that Milo.

Yeah, I kind of cringed when I read your next post, LOL.

[infrared41]

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

I know we disagree. But you can't compare me to someone in the 50s who was burning crosses in front yards, burning down their houses, beating them on street corners, not allowing them to eat in their restaurants, not giving them fair trials, restricting their rights to jobs/ education, or use the same drinking fountains. I mean, I think you know that is crossing the line.

What I am saying is 2 different worlds.

Sure I can. In fact, I already did.

Well... than that is pretty said. Comparing my opinion on marriage to people were were actively beating and killing people. I understand you want to make a point... but come on. Let's not get ridiculous.

As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, I said you sound like like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement. There is a difference. It may be a minor difference, but it's a difference all the same.

[IceCap]

This reflects even more poorly on you. If you honestly believed that homosexuality was a choice that's one thing. Your conviction would be wrong, but at least you would standing by it. Here you admit that homosexuality is something one is born with, something they had no choice on in the matter, and you still want to deny them rights which your own Supreme Court has ruled are constitutionally protected. That's bigotry if I've ever heard it.

I agree... the majority of homosexuals are born homosexual. I have also read, watched, and talked to people who were at one time straight, and became homosexuals. Could those people be lying? Possibly, but I'm taking them at their word. I absolutely recognize people can be born homosexuals, but I also recognize the possibility of someone choosing to be homosexual.

1) You missed my point completely. If you accept that homosexuals are born that way, and thus have no choice in the matter, then how can you possibly justify barring them from a set of rights (which is what marriage is) that your own Supreme Court has said are constitutionally protected?

2) The VAST majority of "straight" people who "become" gay were born as homosexuals, but conformed to heterosexual expectations due to societal pressure. Given how loathed gays are (even from the supposedly tolerant who just want to deny them a constitutionally protected right) I have a hard time anyone would decide to become one if they weren't born one. Why would you willingly join a persecuted minority?

By not allowing them the basic right of marriage you are treating them like second class citizens.

But that's where we disagree. Marriage is not a basic right. It's not addressed in the Constitution, therefore, by definition, its not a basic right.

A little lesson in the workings of the US government, because it seems you sorely need it.

The job of the Supreme Court of the United States is to interpret the US Constitution. They are the final authority on what the US Constitution does and doesn't say, what it means and what it doesn't mean.

Now the Supreme Court has declared that marriage is the a right protected by the US Constitution. Therefore, as they are the highest authority on Constitutional interpretation, marriage is a basic right protected by the Constitution.

Therefore it should be open to EVERYONE.

Its left for the States to decide.

States rights was the argument used to try and keep blacks in slavery, and then used to try and keep them as second class citizens in post-Civil War America.

The Supreme Court is overstepping its bounds by ruling on the issue.

No, it is not. The Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional interpretation. What they say goes. And they've said that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.

According to our Constitution, it would be up to Congress to pass a law/amendment recognizing same-sex marriage, on the Federal level. The Supreme Court then would have to DEFEND the Constitution, thus ruling in favor of any same-sex couple who were prevented from marrying. If a State decided to legalize same-sex marriage, then thats the law under the State I live in. I respect that. I'm not going to burn down houses or halls that marry gay people. I'm not a bigot. Same goes with the Federal Government. If they decide that same-sex marriage is legal, then that is the law of the country I live in.

You have things twisted around. The US Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right. Therefore that's the law of the land. That's why you don't see anyone on the pro-same sex marriage side advocating for a Constitutional amendment to protect same sex marriage. It's not needed. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that matter.

That's why George W. Bush advocated for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a women. His side needed a Constitutional amendment to sidestep the ruling of the Supreme Court. As it is now the Supreme Court's own rulings have defined marriage as a Constitutionally protected right, and therefore should be available to anyone.

[infrared41]

2. You're completely missing my point. You sound exactly like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement.

I know we disagree. But you can't compare me to someone in the 50s who was burning crosses in front yards, burning down their houses, beating them on street corners, not allowing them to eat in their restaurants, not giving them fair trials, restricting their rights to jobs/ education, or use the same drinking fountains. I mean, I think you know that is crossing the line.

What I am saying is 2 different worlds.

He didn't say any of that. He said "arguing". Now, who's twisting words?

Ummm...I sort of admitted that I was doing just that. Sorry about that Milo.

Yeah, I kind of cringed when I read your next post, LOL.

I walked it back. The truth is that I meant it the way you interpreted it. My "admission" was meant as more of a middle finger to our friend ESTONES6.

I admit it was a pretty immature response on my part.

[IceCap]

Still waiting on that acknowledgement of the 14th Amendment's existence ESTONE.

I have recognized it. It protects the basic freedoms of people, regardless of race, gender, religion, or orientation. Again, marriage is not a basic freedom.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. Between you and a group of legal professionals whose job it is to interpret the Constitution I'll side the latter.

[rams80]

Still waiting on that acknowledgement of the 14th Amendment's existence ESTONE.

I have recognized it. It protects the basic freedoms of people, regardless of race, gender, religion, or orientation. Again, marriage is not a basic freedom.

When marriage gets recognized by legislation at any level of government, it becomes a civil right, and therefore a basic freedom. Either the government has to pretend that the entire institution does not exist (and therefore there is no contract, no special tax benefits, etc.) or it extends the same protection to all. Additionally, this is within jurisdiction because in civil rights cases, the federal government has jurisdiction, so there is no judicial overreach.

[ESTONES6]

As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, I said you sound like like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement. There is a difference. It may be a minor difference, but it's a difference all the same.

I dunno. I guess when I think of a "klansman" I think of someone who is cussing out a minority, spitting on them, stripping them of human decency, stripping them of innate human respect, preventing them from an education/work, preventing them from basic freedoms. I understand its a matter of view point... but I think when you use the term klansman and things of that nature, you are conveying sinister, evil people, carrying out the aforementioned acts.

As I said in my very first post, I wrestle with this issue on numerous points. I argued both sides, but people are only attacking me based on my opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think when you throw out names like klansman and bigot, its crossing the line. That's all.

[ESTONES6]

Still waiting on that acknowledgement of the 14th Amendment's existence ESTONE.

I have recognized it. It protects the basic freedoms of people, regardless of race, gender, religion, or orientation. Again, marriage is not a basic freedom.

When marriage gets recognized by legislation at any level of government, it becomes a civil right, and therefore a basic freedom. Either the government has to pretend that the entire institution does not exist (and therefore there is no contract, no special tax benefits, etc.) or it extends the same protection to all. Additionally, this is within jurisdiction because in civil rights cases, the federal government has jurisdiction, so there is no judicial overreach.

Then you are correct, and I was wrong. If that's true, then it is unconstitutional to prevent same-sex marriage. Thank you for presenting it that way... because I wasn't looking at it from that view point. I was strictly looking at it from the Constitutional stand point (which is what everyone has been debating me over). Again, thank you for making a point that I could learn from.

[IceCap]

I'm not calling you a bigot as a form of name calling. It honestly seems like the right word to describe you.

You want to deny a minority a right that your government, via the Supreme Court, has said is Constitutionally protected. You want to deny this minority this right because you just don't like how they choose to act.

How is that not bigotry? How is it any different from the post-Civil War south enacting Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from enjoying their full range of constitutional rights or Nazi Germany barring Jews from holding professional occupations?

[infrared41]

As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, I said you sound like like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement. There is a difference. It may be a minor difference, but it's a difference all the same.

I dunno. I guess when I think of a "klansman" I think of someone who is cussing out a minority, spitting on them, stripping them of human decency, stripping them of innate human respect, preventing them from an education/work, preventing them from basic freedoms. I understand its a matter of view point... but I think when you use the term klansman and things of that nature, you are conveying sinister, evil people, carrying out the aforementioned acts.

As I said in my very first post, I wrestle with this issue on numerous points. I argued both sides, but people are only attacking me based on my opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think when you throw out names like klansman and bigot, its crossing the line. That's all.

Let's be clear here. At no point did I ever say you were a klansmen. What I said was "I'm not saying this guy is some klansmen. I'm just saying he sounds like one. I suppose there is a difference. It's all a matter of degree I guess." And I never said you were a "bigot." That was someone else.

My point being that your argument, when "gay" is replaced by "black" sounds a little too familiar. That's all.

[ESTONES6]

I'm not calling you a bigot as a form of name calling. It honestly seems like the right word to describe you.

You want to deny a minority a right that your government, via the Supreme Court, has said is Constitutionally protected. You want to deny this minority this right because you just don't like how they choose to act.

How is that not bigotry? How is it any different from the post-Civil War south enacting Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from enjoying their full range of constitutional rights or Nazi Germany barring Jews from holding professional occupations?

That's fair. Again, I think bigot is NOT the right word to use and is a bit harsh, especially when comparing me to a klansman or the Jim Crow laws. It seems to me comparing the definition of marriage is a lot different than mass murder, genocide, slavery, and Jim Crow laws.

You can understand that right?

[ESTONES6]

As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, I said you sound like like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement. There is a difference. It may be a minor difference, but it's a difference all the same.

I dunno. I guess when I think of a "klansman" I think of someone who is cussing out a minority, spitting on them, stripping them of human decency, stripping them of innate human respect, preventing them from an education/work, preventing them from basic freedoms. I understand its a matter of view point... but I think when you use the term klansman and things of that nature, you are conveying sinister, evil people, carrying out the aforementioned acts.

As I said in my very first post, I wrestle with this issue on numerous points. I argued both sides, but people are only attacking me based on my opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think when you throw out names like klansman and bigot, its crossing the line. That's all.

Let's be clear here. At no point did I ever say you were a klansmen. What I said was "I'm not saying this guy is some klansmen. I'm just saying he sounds like one. I suppose there is a difference. It's all a matter of degree I guess." And I never said you were a "bigot." That was someone else.

My point being that your argument, when "gay" is replaced by "black" sounds a little too familiar. That's all.

Again, that's fair. But this is a forum, so inflection is hard to pick up on. But I think you also have to admit that just using my name in the same group with klansman is a bit much. You are talking slavery, genocide, and preventing people from getting a drink of water to the definition of marriage.

[IceCap]

I'm not calling you a bigot as a form of name calling. It honestly seems like the right word to describe you.

You want to deny a minority a right that your government, via the Supreme Court, has said is Constitutionally protected. You want to deny this minority this right because you just don't like how they choose to act.

How is that not bigotry? How is it any different from the post-Civil War south enacting Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from enjoying their full range of constitutional rights or Nazi Germany barring Jews from holding professional occupations?

That's fair. Again, I think bigot is NOT the right word to use and is a bit harsh, especially when comparing me to a klansman or the Jim Crow laws. It seems to me comparing the definition of marriage is a lot different than mass murder, genocide, slavery, and Jim Crow laws.

You can understand that right?

Are they on the same level? No.

Does that make barring gays from the institution of marriage any more acceptable? No.

[ESTONES6]

Are they on the same level? No.

Does that make barring gays from the institution of marriage any more acceptable? No.

I don't mean to make it sound more acceptable. Because its not. But when you make a comparison to that... its hard not to think that way.

[infrared41]

As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, I said you sound like like some redneck cracker from the 50's arguing against the civil rights movement. There is a difference. It may be a minor difference, but it's a difference all the same.

I dunno. I guess when I think of a "klansman" I think of someone who is cussing out a minority, spitting on them, stripping them of human decency, stripping them of innate human respect, preventing them from an education/work, preventing them from basic freedoms. I understand its a matter of view point... but I think when you use the term klansman and things of that nature, you are conveying sinister, evil people, carrying out the aforementioned acts.

As I said in my very first post, I wrestle with this issue on numerous points. I argued both sides, but people are only attacking me based on my opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think when you throw out names like klansman and bigot, its crossing the line. That's all.

Let's be clear here. At no point did I ever say you were a klansmen. What I said was "I'm not saying this guy is some klansmen. I'm just saying he sounds like one. I suppose there is a difference. It's all a matter of degree I guess." And I never said you were a "bigot." That was someone else.

My point being that your argument, when "gay" is replaced by "black" sounds a little too familiar. That's all.

Again, that's fair. But this is a forum, so inflection is hard to pick up on. But I think you also have to admit that just using my name in the same group with klansman is a bit much. You are talking slavery, genocide, and preventing people from getting a drink of water to the definition of marriage.

Fair enough. I apologize. Let me rephrase it; your argument has elements that are hauntingly similar to the argument that was used against the civil rights movement. Better?