• Racist Judge Disenfranchises Minorities
    183 replies, posted
[QUOTE=johncage;24059510]Great argument Neolk. I still believe the judge is a racist bigot, but now I'm interested in the new focus. If gays are allowed to marry, wouldn't that impinge on the rights of the Christian? If so, it really comes down to religion vs. gay people. I respect them both, so for me, the choice is simple. Let the majority decide. But wait, if that's the case, why were their votes trashed? There's definitely a problem here and rights have been violated. Mostly the rights of those racial minorities by that judge.[/QUOTE] Basic human rights are more important than religion, which is why it doesn't matter.
The right to marriage isn't a basic human right, marriage is a construct given meaning by a contract between the two parties and the state.
[QUOTE=johncage;24058282]The only reason you're supporting this gay-marriage thing is because you're part of the idiot majority who conform to whatever the prevaling trend is. You are incapable of independent thought, and the shallowness of your knowledge and understanding of politics, or anything for that matter, is reflected in your inability to argue your position.[/QUOTE] The only reason I support gay marriage is because honestly, I care in the sense that I want to see more people happy about marriage, while I don't care if they marry, it's their business. Even if they don't marry, it's not going to stop any o them from being gay and doing the dirty, so why bother? But if you want a personal opinion, I would ban your ass if I was a mod.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059577]The right to marriage isn't a basic human right, marriage is a construct given meaning by a contract between the two parties and the state.[/QUOTE] No it's a basic human right, there is no proof I should be giving to back this up, it's just common sense.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059510]Great argument Neolk. I still believe the judge is a racist bigot, but now I'm interested in the new focus. If gays are allowed to marry, wouldn't that impinge on the rights of the Christian? If so, it really comes down to religion vs. gay people. I respect them both, so for me, the choice is simple. Let the majority decide. But wait, if that's the case, why were their votes trashed? There's definitely a problem here and rights have been violated. Mostly the rights of those racial minorities by that judge.[/QUOTE] You can't just look to the 'majority' to decide the rights of people - people should be equal and have rights dude. No one should be afraid to 'come out of their own closet' out of fear of persecution. Also, it isn't a question of religion vs. gays. -Religions ARE a life-style choice. You are raised Christian or Muslim or whatever and you believe in it - you shouldn't be allowed to force this life style on everyone. Just because the Christian Bible is anti-gay does not mean we are allowed to discriminate against gays. Just 'cause the Torah says circumcision is a covenant with god, that doesn't mean everyone has to get their dick cut. Religion is a way for YOU to live YOUR life, not a way for you to dictate others. If I'm Muslin, you can be Christian, thats the beauty of the 1st amendment Yes, votes were ignored. If the majority of whites wanted to segregate schools (hmmmm) and these rights were 'ignored' by the minority on the supreme court, does that mean segregation is okay? NO! You gotta balance the evil dude and seriously ask yourself:. Should gays be granted the same rights as everyone else? If the answer is YES, then it doesn't matter if an anti-gay majority said no, take the poll somewhere else, make it national or something, its irrelevant. Gays should have rights/
[QUOTE=johncage;24059510]Great argument Neolk. I still believe the judge is a racist bigot, but now I'm interested in the new focus. If gays are allowed to marry, wouldn't that impinge on the rights of the Christian? If so, it really comes down to religion vs. gay people. I respect them both, so for me, the choice is simple. Let the majority decide. But wait, if that's the case, why were their votes trashed? There's definitely a problem here and rights have been violated. Mostly the rights of those racial minorities by that judge.[/QUOTE] How would gay marriage infringe on the rights of christians? Christians never had the right to push their religion on others through oppressive legislation. I also find it hilarious that you aren't a troll, just a monumentally stupid person.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059292]If it will dispel the homophobes accusations, I know several gay people and am on good terms with them.[/QUOTE] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8697486/6j13l4.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=johncage;24059577]The right to marriage isn't a basic human right, marriage is a construct given meaning by a contract between the two parties and the state.[/QUOTE] [quote=SCOTUS]Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia[/url]
[QUOTE=Dr. Freeman;24059580]The only reason I support gay marriage is because honestly, I care in the sense that I want to see more people happy about marriage, while I don't care if they marry, it's their business. Even if they don't marry, it's not going to stop any o them from being gay and doing the dirty, so why bother? But if you want a personal opinion, I would ban your ass if I was a mod.[/QUOTE] This is what you use to justify your support of it. But there is an underlying, possibly subconscious reason you aren't even aware of. And usually that reason has to do with an internal need to follow a trend or movement. And no, I never wanted your personal opinion on what you'd do if you were a mod.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059651]This is what you use to justify your support of it. But there is an underlying, possibly subconscious reason you aren't even aware of. And usually that reason has to do with an internal need to follow a trend or movement. And no, I never wanted your personal opinion on what you'd do if you were a mod.[/QUOTE] Yeah bro. Wanting civil rights for everyone is just some dumb trend. Actually I should probably make an edit here to clarify that I am just joking, since honestly you are probably a big enough retard to think I am agreeing with you.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059577]The right to marriage isn't a basic human right, marriage is a construct given meaning by a contract between the two parties and the state.[/QUOTE] Two parties and the state in no way includes any religious group, and by definition the state and church are separate, so therefore no religious group should be able to dictate who has the right to get married and who doesn't. Congratulations, you've been defeated by your own argument.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059651]This is what you use to justify your support of it. But there is an underlying, possibly subconscious reason you aren't even aware of. [B]And usually that reason has to do with an internal need to follow a trend or movement.[/B] And no, I never wanted your personal opinion on what you'd do if you were a mod.[/QUOTE] Oh hey can I use pseudo-intellectualism to try and keep my sinking boat afloat as well??????
[QUOTE=johncage;24059651]This is what you use to justify your support of it. But there is an underlying, possibly subconscious reason you aren't even aware of. And usually that reason has to do with an internal need to follow a trend or movement. [/QUOTE] Ahhh.... I get you now... The only way you are really trying to justify your crappy argument is by accusing us of bandwagoning, it is all clear to me now
[QUOTE=johncage;24059651]This is what you use to justify your support of it. But there is an underlying, possibly subconscious reason you aren't even aware of. And usually that reason has to do with an internal need to follow a trend or movement.[/QUOTE] Do people's motivations really matter when in the end their cause is on the right? Also your subconscious reason theory is incorrect and sounds more like you're projecting. [QUOTE=johncage;24059651]And no, I never wanted your personal opinion on what you'd do if you were a mod.[/QUOTE] Yeah that was a bit random :v:
[QUOTE=pyrofiliac;24059630]How would gay marriage infringe on the rights of christians? Christians never had the right to push their religion on others through oppressive legislation. I also find it hilarious that you aren't a troll, just a monumentally stupid person.[/QUOTE] I find it hilarious as well that you aren't capable of forming a coherent argument and need to resort to petty insults due to profound lacking of intelligence.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059687]I find it hilarious as well that you aren't capable of forming a coherent argument and need to resort to petty insults due to profound lacking of intelligence.[/QUOTE] Congrats on insulting yourself in your own arguement or is that not a description of yourself?
[QUOTE=johncage;24059687]I find it hilarious as well that you aren't capable of forming a coherent argument and need to resort to petty insults due to profound lacking of intelligence.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, coming from someone with such intelligent posts such as [QUOTE=johncage;19656867]shepherd > gas ass faggot nick. they based nick on john cusack, who is a closet homosexual idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Homophobia" - Benji))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=johncage;24059651]This is what you use to justify your support of it. But there is an underlying, possibly subconscious reason you aren't even aware of. And usually that reason has to do with an internal need to follow a trend or movement. And no, I never wanted your personal opinion on what you'd do if you were a mod.[/QUOTE] Nope, all we really want is for everyone to have the same rights. There's no ulterior motive. [editline]09:51AM[/editline] [QUOTE=johncage;24059687]I find it hilarious as well that you aren't capable of forming a coherent argument and need to resort to petty insults due to profound lacking of intelligence.[/QUOTE] I am perfectly capable of forming a completely coherent argument, however i feel one would be wasted on someone as unintelligent as yourself.
[QUOTE=pyrofiliac;24059663]Two parties and the state in no way includes any religious group, and by definition the state and church are separate, so therefore no religious group should be able to dictate who has the right to get married and who doesn't. Congratulations, you've been defeated by your own argument.[/QUOTE] By the two parties I am referring to the two individuals involved in the marriage, you dolt. And by the contract, I am referring specifically to their relation with the state. Religion is still very much involved. Please try to keep up.
[QUOTE=Taggart;24059695]Congrats on insulting yourself in your own arguement or is that not a description of yourself?[/QUOTE] oh snap :coolfish:
[QUOTE=johncage;24059687]I find it hilarious as well that you aren't capable of forming a coherent argument and need to resort to petty insults due to profound lacking of intelligence.[/QUOTE] No you find it irritating or else you would never have made this post so passive aggressive. And be fair, he made sure the argument came first and his opinion of you second. [editline]01:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=johncage;24059736]By the two parties I am referring to the two individuals involved in the marriage, you dolt. And by the contract, I am referring specifically to their relation with the state. Religion is still very much involved. Please try to keep up.[/QUOTE] But not every party includes religion, you're mixing up subjective views with objective facts.
[QUOTE=pyrofiliac;24059725]Nope, all we really want is for everyone to have the same rights. There's no ulterior motive. [editline]09:51AM[/editline] I am perfectly capable of forming a completely coherent argument, however i feel one would be wasted on someone as unintelligent as yourself.[/QUOTE] Either that, or you're just too feeble minded to do so. Based on your past few mumblings, I do not believe you are capable of intelligent thought. Prove me wrong, dimwit.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059777]Either that, or you're just too feeble minded to do so. Based on your past few mumblings, I do not believe you are capable of intelligent thought. Prove me wrong, dimwit.[/QUOTE] By not calling you a dimwit, he already has. Dig that grave son.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059777]Either that, or you're just too feeble minded to do so. Based on your past few mumblings, I do not believe you are capable of intelligent thought. Prove me wrong, dimwit.[/QUOTE] You do realize that you're going off on a tangent that is derailing the thread that [I]you[/I] made, right?
[QUOTE=johncage;24059736]By the two parties I am referring to the two individuals involved in the marriage[/quote] Well fucking duh. [quote]you dolt. [/quote] Really nice insult. Straight from the playground i see. [quote]And by the contract, I am referring specifically to their relation with the state. [/quote] Also obvious. [quote]Religion is still very much involved. [/quote] Nope. Church and state are supposed to be separate, unless you're not familiar with the [b]DOCUMENTS THIS COUNTRY WAS FUCKING FOUNDED ON[/b] [quote]Please try to keep up.[/QUOTE] Oh believe me, if i could keep up with whatever incredibly asinine thought process runs through your head i would probably kill myself, because then i would probably have the same level of inhibited cognitive faculties such as yourself.
Here's an analogy: if a law was proposed that said that you could not own guns, and a majority of people voted "yes", the law would be overturned. It violates a founding document of the country, regardless of the race of the voters. Same deal with this law; restricting access to marriage because of a slight genetic abnormality denies the Declaration of Independence's assertion that "all men [e.g. humans] are created equal". Second, how could letting two people marry hurt a Christian, who follows a religion based on the assumption that God loves you and always will? Is love only for non-gays? That's the bullshit that broke the bullshit-camel's back, causing said bullshit-camel to crush the last vestiges of hope for modern religion as a whole. Finally, what rebel independent news agency do you watch that doesn't have people agreeing with your view? CNN - nope. MSNBC - Ha- no. Fox - BAHAHAHA -no. BBC America - kinda I guess, but still not completely. No modern news service will report the news in a completely unbiased way. It's your job to extract the facts-ham from the bullshit sandwich.
[QUOTE=pyrofiliac;24059743]oh snap :coolfish:[/QUOTE] A pathetic, nonsensical, poorly spelled response. Yes, oh snap indeed.
[QUOTE=johncage;24059777]Either that, or you're just too feeble minded to do so. Based on your past few mumblings, I do not believe you are capable of intelligent thought. Prove me wrong, dimwit.[/QUOTE] Nice elementary school insults. Really shows how intelligent you are :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=johncage;24059777]Either that, or you're just too feeble minded to do so. Based on your past few mumblings, I do not believe you are capable of intelligent thought. Prove me wrong, dimwit.[/QUOTE] Here I'll try to make a comparison here. [QUOTE=pyrofiliac;24059725]Nope, all we really want is for everyone to have the same rights. There's no ulterior motive. [/QUOTE] Vs. [QUOTE=johncage;19656867]shepherd > gas ass faggot nick. they based nick on john cusack, who is a closet homosexual idiot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Homophobia" - Benji))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Taggart;24059695]Congrats on insulting yourself in your own arguement or is that not a description of yourself?[/QUOTE] Really dude? I don't give a shit who's right here but at least go to a little effort before you hit post.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.