Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Response to rorschach (Reply #13)Tue May 20, 2014, 04:23 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)23. Marriage is actually state run, not federal.That's why there are marriage licenses, that's why there is a license to CARRY guns (keep and bear is a right, carrying is not)."Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #23)Tue May 20, 2014, 04:30 PMrorschach (52 posts)31. But there are fundamental rights, guaranteed by the federal Constitution.That's why states can't pass anti-miscegenation laws.The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. Article IV requires that states give "Full Faith and Credit" to "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."Nothing REQUIRES states to issue marriage license. But IF they do, then equal protection applies. Either they issue marriage licenses to all couples, or to none. And that's why a state can't prohibit interracial couples from marrying because of their races. That's why, soon enough, a state won't be able to prohibit a couple from marrying because of their sexes.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #31)Tue May 20, 2014, 08:50 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)73. So you believe ALL marriage is a right?You will be opening a pandora's box soon, if you do. There are rights and there are privileges. You can't have a right to a privilege."Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #73)Tue May 20, 2014, 09:46 PMrorschach (52 posts)83. No. I believe equal protection of the law is a right.That means IF you have marriage, ALL couples are entitled to it.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #83)Tue May 20, 2014, 09:51 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)84. A privilege cannot be a rightAs I said, you have to have a license to get married. Only way to do that is to get rid of marriage licensing altogether."Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #84)Tue May 20, 2014, 10:57 PMrorschach (52 posts)88. Whether marriage is a Right or privilege, equal protection is a right.There is no requirement that states sanction marriage. But IF they do, then they have to allow all couples to be married. It's why states can't have anti-miscegenation laws.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #88)Tue May 20, 2014, 11:17 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)89. Virtually impossibleWould you give a gun carry license to a mentally ill patient? Or a driver's license to a narcoleptic?"Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #89)Tue May 20, 2014, 11:28 PMrorschach (52 posts)90. A mentally ill person would have to be adjudicated as incompetent, which requires due processand on an individual basis.People with narcolepsy do drive.Both scenarios are irrelevant to this discussion though. There is a compelling interest in not allowing a mentally ill person deemed incompetent and a threat to the safety of others to own a firearm. There is a compelling interest in not giving a driver's license to someone who cannot safely operate a vehicle. Both involve the greater public safety, which the government has a valid interest in protecting. And both require individualized judgements.Two people marrying does not pose any threat to public safety and the government has no interest in prohibiting it solely because the two people happen to be of the same sex and some people are uncomfortable with it. "It's tradition" or "That's the way it's always been" is not a valid reason to deny people equal rights.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #90)Wed May 21, 2014, 03:58 AMMoshMasterD (54 posts)91. so a man or woman have the right to marry an 11 year old?!?Remember, Rights For All"Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #91)Wed May 21, 2014, 11:21 AMCommipinko (501 posts)101. You're making a fool of yourself. Carry on!!"And so it goes"...Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to Commipinko (Reply #101)Wed May 21, 2014, 03:07 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)111. You have yet to make a logical argumentYour definition of equal protection means all. Therefore, you've concluded that "ALL" is absolute.^ only means you have no answer."Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #91)Wed May 21, 2014, 11:44 AMrorschach (52 posts)105. An 11-year-old cannot consent to a legal contract.You're being deliberately obtuse now.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #105)Wed May 21, 2014, 11:51 AMCommipinko (501 posts)106. Arguing with this futile.Ignore is a better move."And so it goes"...Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #105)Wed May 21, 2014, 03:01 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)110. Equal protection, remember?"Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #110)Wed May 21, 2014, 04:13 PMrorschach (52 posts)122. Yes, equal protection.You got a problem with it?What compelling interest does the government have in prohibiting same-sex marriages? We've had them in my state for several years now. Society hasn't collapsed but we have had millions of dollars pouring into the economy thanks to weddings and all the associated businesses that go along with them.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #122)Wed May 21, 2014, 04:33 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)130. If your state has it then cool.There must be limitations in equal protection in general. Otherwise, going by your definition, it should be made available to all. Rights for all, privilege for many."Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #105)Wed May 21, 2014, 03:12 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)112. Doesn't matterEqual protection is for EVERYONE. According to yours and others definition, equal protection knows no gender, age, species, religion, race, color, creed, or national origin.I see cracks of contradiction forming."Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #112)Wed May 21, 2014, 03:54 PMChula (49 posts)117. Marriage is a social CONTRACTA binding agreement between two consenting individuals who are competent to enter into such an agreement. Our society has deemed children below the age of consent to not have sufficient intellectual and psychological maturity to fully comprehend the ramifications of entering into ANY kind of contract -- which is why you also can't sell an 11 year old a car and then hope to have your contract stick in court when the child decides he/she wants to undo the deal.It's only a contradiction in your imagination.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to Chula (Reply #117)Wed May 21, 2014, 03:59 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)118. One saying equal protection is absolute, another is saying it should be limited.WHICH IS IT?!?!"Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #118)Wed May 21, 2014, 04:16 PMChula (49 posts)123. I don't know....................if you are being deliberately obtuse because you think you have found a magic loophole (you haven't) or if you sincerely lack the capacity to understand what has been reasonably explained to you by several people.Either way, enjoy your nonsense.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to Chula (Reply #123)Wed May 21, 2014, 04:26 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)129. Is it because you have no answer?"Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #129)Wed May 21, 2014, 05:19 PMChula (49 posts)132. No, I already gave you the correct answerInstead of discussing the topic, or submitting anything logical in support of your hairbrain notions, you responded with flippant bullshit. I'm not interested in supporting your troll for attention any further.As I said, enjoy your nonsense.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to Chula (Reply #132)Wed May 21, 2014, 05:31 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)133. Just defending my point of view."Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #112)Wed May 21, 2014, 04:09 PMrorschach (52 posts)120. I don't.What is the COMPELLING INTEREST in the government prohibiting a marriage between two consenting adults on the basis of sex? "Tradition" or "that's the way it's always been"? That would also have you defending anti-miscegenation laws.Equal protection of the laws. It's in the constitution. Read it some time.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #120)Wed May 21, 2014, 04:24 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)127. I am a states rights guyLaws can be changedIt seems most people here are interpreting equal protection as absolute. And few saying it is limited. I don't care if gay marriage is legal or not, but federal should keep its paws off of it. Licensing gives states control."Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete SeegerAdd to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to MoshMasterD (Reply #127)Wed May 21, 2014, 04:59 PMrorschach (52 posts)131. Federal government IS. They've only recognized itwhere it's relevant to federal law. Like for federal taxes and benefits for federal employees.I am a federalist and I believe there are many things that should be under local/state control, but that there are some things that should be consistent across the country. That's our system.Reply to this postBack to top Alert abuse Link here PermalinkResponse to rorschach (Reply #131)Wed May 21, 2014, 05:34 PMMoshMasterD (54 posts)134. Then marriage should no longer be licensed?"Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?" - Pete Seeger
It sounds like the DUmmies are arguing for reciprocity of conceal carry in all states. If you can carry in one state, every state should recognize your legal right to conceal carry.
Typical... the first topic DUmmies go for is queer marriage.Predictable.
One kiddie told me I eas obtuse. I gotta big laugh off of that. As I clearly stated, I don't mind gay marriage, but keep the feds off of it.
You may find this article helpful: http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178. It's long, but it explains why same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and answers the whole equal protection/equal treatment argument.
