[img]cool.gif[/img] , Lew agrees with me and so does Gae.
Greg looks up to see if giant meteor is heading tword earth. LOL!
Just kidding. [img]wink.gif[/img]
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ummm... Reason. Ignoring what we don't want or like is an American right. It's somewhere in the Constitution.Too bad the rest of Leviticus doesn't get the same attention. Funny people only pick out the stuff they like and ignore the things that are irrelevant to their daily lives.
And I DID NOT lure you here. I simply invited you to the gathering.
Note to all who will attend: All weapons will be safely locked away.
[img]cool.gif[/img] , Lew agrees with me and so does Gae.
Greg looks up to see if giant meteor is heading tword earth. LOL!
Just kidding. [img]wink.gif[/img]
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]
Well Reason let me say I for one would never consider you to be perverted or sinful. I do not oppose gay marriage. I do not look upon homosexuality as sinful or sick, simply different. As I said a long time ago I think it is a natural form of population control but won't get into that here. I think your (however infrequent) visits to the board are great. But what really, really offends me is your statement that I have ever annoyed anyone. How utterly and completely off base you were with that. [img]wink.gif[/img]
As to Lew, well much of his commentary is peppered with tongue in cheek sarcasm and humor. Something you are no stranger to yourself. Dude no one in this board looks down on you, I'm sure. If you were to get married I would be willing to bet Gae/Trav, Lew, Greg, Raven, most anyone on here would go to the ceremony if you invited them. So lighten up and don't get your panties in such a bunch. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! O I am laughing so hard I am crying.... hahahahaha.Originally posted by reason:
Besides, who are you to judge...you've done a pretty good job over the years at trying to be annoying.
Best Post Ever
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! O I am laughing so hard I am crying.... hahahahaha.Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by reason:
Besides, who are you to judge...you've done a pretty good job over the years at trying to be annoying.
Best Post Ever</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually I think I am naturally annoying most of the time to most of you without trying. So I can hardly be accused of doing it on purpose.
Wow! If my skin was as thin as Reason's, I'd have to resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks. Though I must confess, like Gae, I am disappointed and surprised; based on Reason's past posts, I never took him for one to take the low road. Constructive debate is one thing, name-calling is another.
That said, here's my response...
Yes, not to brag, but we all have our talents, and I would say that my qualifications, as respects what I posted, are just a wee-bit higher than Reason's. I am licensed to practice law in two states, I do practice law for a living, I studied constitutional law, and I have argued points of constitutional law in both state and federal courts. I also have an undergraduate degree in political science. I also once met Robert Byrd at a rest area in West Virginia.
Now, that doesn't make my 'opinion' better or worse than anyone else's. But, as respects facts, as respects law, if you can call me out where I'm wrong, by all means do so. Otherwise, you got served. And if you serve me back, then I guess it's on.
If you go back and read my post, my main thesis (which I thought was obvious) was one of separation of powers. I believe I said I did not have a problem with gay marriage per se; my problem is how it is being attempted. The Massachusetts Supreme Court and the Mayor of San Francisco were out of line politically, and it is important that we adhere to the rule of law.
You were insulted with my comparisons, but they were not offered as insults. My point was this- those who favor change (in many areas, not just gay marriage) always point to "Equal Protection" and the ideas expressed in "Brown v. Board of Education." In other words, if you grant it to one, you must grant it to all, and when you fail to do that, you've violated my rights.
And my point was, it doesn't exactly work that way. And I used those analogies to show why. All laws are not equally applied to all persons, and they aren't meant to.
I was not comparing gay marriage, as a status, to sibling marriage or children marrying each other or any of that. What I was saying was, if the basis of your argument is strictly grounded in equal protection, then the pro-sibbling marriage crowd (if there is such a thing) can piggyback that argument as well. And I'm saying there's more to it than that. I'm an adult, I have an adult brother, I should be able to marry him and live as a married couple because the 14th amendment tells me so.
Well, no it doesn't, and I'm sorry if that concept is beyond your comprehension.
In a way, your own posting sort of betrays this. You wrote "[M]arriage provides all sorts of legal and social advantages." Indeed, it does. Or it was thought to do so. And that's why the states, in the latter 19th century, began to formally recognize it. But, they believed (and by "they" I mean the legislatures) it was marriage between a man and a woman, of age, and not related.
And as I said all along, if the legislatures want to amend this, I am fine with it. What I am not fine with is some mayor believing that he can simply act outside the law. That was my point. That is my point. I thought it was clear. Evidently not.
"Get the fucking government out of our bedrooms. That's what this is about - what happens in the privacy of our bedrooms."
In all honesty, I wouldn't have a problem if the government got out of the marriage business altogether. There is an argument they should never have gotten into it in the first place. But, they did, and that's probably not going to change anytime soon. So, go out and change it.
And, of course, just because gays can't legally be married, that does NOT mean they can't share the same bedroom. But I'm sure you didn't mean to imply otherwise in your post.
"Personally I don't think fat, ugly people should marry...Let's add that to the Constitution and see how Lew likes THAT!"
That's a well-constructed, well-articulated argument. I'm surprised your not teaching constitutional law at UC. Indeed, I may be fat, and no, I may not be the best looking guy in the world, but I can tell you this- come October 2, I will be legally, lawfully and Constitutionally married to my beautiful bride. There's no way Congress can get your proposed amendment passed in time to stop me, and if they enact it after I'm married, Ex Post Facto (let me know if you need me to explan what that means) will kick in. So honestly, I hope y'all like it 'cause you sure can't stop it.
"Afterall, it's not a fundamental right and the reason for restriction similarly arbitrary, eh Lew?"
I would move for clarification of that statement. Sounds like something Kenny Smith might post.
Nevertheless, I was glad to see you back, and wish you wouldn't leave, Reason, but so be it if you must. Come on back sometime and take the high road, show us that you're still smart. Maybe not as smart as Big Daddy LewMan, but hey, most aren't.
Damn you Lew! How can I be expected to leave a professional message on the phone for a possible client when I am reading:
"I also once met Robert Byrd at a rest area in West Virginia".
And maintain any kind of credibility whatsoever?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks