---

Quote: from sykexl at 12:28 am on Nov. 18, 2008

---

Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true.

---

Please explain how the legalization was unconstitutional.

---

I suggest you read the constitution. I then suggest you look into how it was legalized. Then I suggest you apply some logic. It is so much better when you figure these things out for yourself.

---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:41 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Quote: from sykexl at 12:28 am on Nov. 18, 2008

---

Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true.

---

 

 Please explain how the legalization was unconstitutional.

---

No thanks.

I suggest you read the constitution. I then suggest you look into how it was legalized. Then I suggest you apply some logic. It is so much better when you figure these things out for yourself.

---

Im quite familiar with the constitution, thanks.  I was curious as to how you were going to argue that giving equal rights to all American citizens is unconstitutional.  Or how you were going to argue that seperation of church and state is unconstitutional.

Unless you want to take the "state's rights" angle, but that only is useful against the legal technicality of it, not the general idea.

---

Im quite familiar with the constitution, thanks

---

Apparently not. I'm not here to argue or to convince you I'm right, which is why I suggested you figure it out for yourself.

---

Unless you want to take the "state's rights" angle, but that only is useful against the legal technicality of it, not the general idea.

---

To quote myself since you apparently didn't read and/or comprehend it the first time:

Quote: from sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true.

---

I suppose it doesn't really need to be said, but to save my self further hassle, I am only talking about California.

Post edited at 11:26 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 by sykexl

---

Quote: from tell me again at 5:25 pm on Nov. 18, 2008

---

Quote: from gronk at 10:23 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:18 pm on Nov. 18, 2008

---

Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008

---

marriage needs to be taken more seriously

---

   

  Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this.  Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously.    

 

---

  thats a bit of a generalization

  I know statistically homos are more likely to be promiscuous.
  on average they have 4 times as many sexual partners as heteros

---

 

 They don't have to marry everyone they fuck.

---

no but marriage is meant to be about monogomy, people who are sexually promiscuous, shouldnt get married if they cant commit to one.  

I have no tolerance for adultery, nor should anyone else

---

---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Im quite familiar with the constitution, thanks

---

Apparently not. I'm not here to argue or to convince you I'm right, which is why I suggested you figure it out for yourself.

---

Unless you want to take the "state's rights" angle, but that only is useful against the legal technicality of it, not the general idea.

---

I do believe I made it perfectly clear I could care less one way or another and that I am indeed only interested in the legal aspect of it.

To quote myself since you apparently didn't read and/or comprehend it the first time:

Quote: from sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true.

---

I suppose it doesn't really need to be said, but to save my self further hassle, I am only talking about California.

---

Translation:  I don't know what to say so I'm going to repeat myself in hopes that you go away, and dodge all questions and arguments directed at me.

lollllll

---

Quote: from sykexl at 1:19 am on Nov. 18, 2008

---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 10:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Im quite familiar with the constitution, thanks  
 

---

 

 Apparently not. I'm not here to argue or to convince you I'm right, which is why I suggested you figure it out for yourself.  

 

---

Unless you want to take the "state's rights" angle, but that only is useful against the legal technicality of it, not the general idea.

---

I do believe I made it perfectly clear I could care less one way or another and that I am indeed only interested in the legal aspect of it.  

 To quote myself since you apparently didn't read and/or comprehend it the first time:  

 Quote: from sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true.

---

 

 I suppose it doesn't really need to be said, but to save my self further hassle, I am only talking about California.

---

Translation: I don't know what to say so I'm going to repeat myself in hopes that you go away, and dodge all questions and arguments directed at me.

lollllll

---

Actually an accurate translation would be: I think you are too ignorant to possibly understand me so I'll repeat myself in hopes that you go away. You were close though.

All you've said so far is "I'm not going to explain my point of view because you should figure it out for yourself."

It's almost funny.  And then I realize you're actually serious about this.

Quote: from sykexl at 10:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Ban gay marriage? Sorry buddy, the legalization of it in the first place was unconstitutional. I personally don't care one way or the other myself but that fact remains very much true.

---

How do you not understand something so simple as I don't personally care about gays being allowed to marry? Gay marriage wouldn't bother me in the slightest. What I care about is the way in which it was legalized in California. I don't know how I can possibly make that anymore clear.

....your lack of comprehension skills is truly a force to be reckoned with.

Post edited at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008 by sykexl

I just wanted to know what exactly you found unconstitutional about the legalization of gay marriage.  I really don't think that's too much to ask for.  Apparently so.

Why I am still replying to you?  rofl.
Maybe because I find your 'logic' funny.

---

I really don't think that's too much to ask for. Apparently so.

---

---

Why I am still replying to you? rofl.
Maybe because I find your 'logic' funny.

---

---

Quote: from gronk at 7:47 pm on Nov. 18, 2008

---

Quote: from tell me again at 5:25 pm on Nov. 18, 2008

---

Quote: from gronk at 10:23 pm on Nov. 17, 2008

---

Quote: from greatescape11 at 5:18 pm on Nov. 18, 2008

---

Quote: from gronk at 12:15 am on Nov. 18, 2008

---

marriage needs to be taken more seriously

---

   Limiting it to a man and a woman is clearly the way to accomplish this. Those homosexuals are far too giddy and irrational to take something like marriage seriously.

   

---

   

  thats a bit of a generalization    

  I know statistically homos are more likely to be promiscuous.    
  on average they have 4 times as many sexual partners as heteros

---

  They don't have to marry everyone they fuck.

---

 

 no but marriage is meant to be about  monogomy, people who are sexually promiscuous, shouldnt get married if they cant commit to one.

 I have no tolerance for adultery, nor should anyone else

---

yeah someone who is casually promiscuous certainly couldn't ever commit...  
say, i hear females in new zealand are the most promiscuous than any other female in
the world, ban marriage in NZ?????????

---

stop committing the straw person fallacy

-------
Goodbye LW! 2 things to leave you with- 1 the points dont matter
2. There should be able to have topics within groups