In response to:

Nine Justices or Fifty States? Who Should Decide Gay Marriage?

wiseone Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:45 PM
du2, You and Tsldr are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Neither one of you wants to exclude marriage for infertile heteros because they can't have their own children. You want to pick the one example out of 100 (or 1,000 or whatever) so you can paint the entire rest of the issue with that brush. The fact that many hetero couples are empty-nesters (for a variety of reasons) does NOT change the reasons civilizations throughout history have created, defined, and SANCTIONED the institution of marriage. Your argument on this is the same argument liberals always make when they are making ridiculous demands for social change; that the current system isn't perfect so you're entitled to wreck it completely. (cont'd as a Reply)
wiseone Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:45 PM
You've done it with welfare, immigration, education, and healthcare.

Now you want to do it to marriage.

What have you traitors ever changed for the better?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:59 PM
I didn't do it with welfare I am against the current welfare system

Further I want secure borders so your post is foolish

You are correct that many people without children can get married and they should be able to.

I don't want to wreck marriage I want more people to be free to enjoy the right of marriage to the consenting adult of their choice
wiseone Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 2:11 PM
"You" is being used in the second person plural sense. You and the rest of the left did it. Own up to it.

And you do want to wreck marriage. It's one of the last barriers to the total disintegration of our civilization. Whether you recognize that what you want will wreck it will have no bearing on the extent of the damage you and you fellow-travelers do.

If you personally did not support welfare or amnesty you also failed to learn the lessons that were there to be learned from what happened. This inability of yours to recognize these destructive patterns of liberalism disqualifies your opinion for intelligent, concerned people.

IOW, I don't want to hear your excuses. You are part of the problem.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 2:28 PM
No you are a part of the problem

Because you argue from ignorance and champion false causes

You are inconsistent when you say u want small limited gov so that is the problem.

We don't want gov telling us what weapons we can own, that is small gov

We don't want gov telling us what health insurance we can get

We don't want gov telling us how much soda we can drink etc that is all small gov

But when we say the gov should not tell people which consenting adults they should marry YOU say oh no we need GOV to deny individual freedom

That inconsistency is what makes Conservatives look like hypocrites
wiseone Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 3:53 PM
That's right Tnsldr. I want limited gov't. That means I don't want my state gov't or the federal gov't sanctioning more and more relationships as "marriages" and telling me I am required by law to respect these relationships as marriages.

It is a testament to your latent liberalism that you would interpret gov't ADDING its imprimatur to more and more relationships by issuing more marriage licenses, performing more legal marriages, and requiring citizens to accept more kinds of relationships as "marriages" and requiring us to accept a thoroughly bastardized definition of "marriage" as "smaller government."

Stop saying "We" when you discuss conservatives. You aren't one.

I would like to think that Supreme Court justices are smarter than I am.

At one level, they surely are. Their years of devotion to the practice and analysis of law involves countless pages of book-learning I will never undertake. Their brains must fairly bulge with minutiae I cannot grasp.

But there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. There are high school dropouts who have deep wells of astuteness about how to think, act and live in an enlightened way. And there are Ph.D.’s I would not let into my house.

In one stunning moment Tuesday from the Supreme Court...