Bush calls for ban on gay marriage

[Bitchslapper]

A Constitutional amendment is by definition, constitutional. Your example of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th (Prohibition) is to the point. If any previous provision is changed by an amendment, the first provision is null and void. Only another amendment could change it. (Actually there is one exception to this rule, but it is arcane and not relevant to this topic.)

What I meant was, an amendment that limits our existing rights is "unconstitutional" in that is against the spirit of the Constitution, rather than the letter. You know damned well that's what I meant, you just want to pick a fight.

What you said is obvious to anyone who has read the Constitution and goes without saying. You are merely nitpicking.

 

[sigh]

What I meant was, an amendment that limits our existing rights is "unconstitutional" in that is against the spirit of the Constitution, rather than the letter. You know damned well that's what I meant, you just want to pick a fight.

What you said is obvious to anyone who has read the Constitution and goes without saying. You are merely nitpicking.

No, I disagree. When I read what you said, I thought the same thing. Why would you say something that was so incorrect if the right thing to say were so obvious?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, by the way. I just don't think Q was trying to pick one either. Obviously Q is a more astute student of the Constitution than the average bear, so I think he was making an honest reply to what he recognized as a fallacy.

 

[sigh]

Well, I read in an article on MSN this afternoon that apparently 2/3 of the country disagrees with the idea of legalizing gay marriage, so if the ratio works for the US Senate and the House, then it would pass. I just get sadder and sadder each day.

Cheer up, hon. I don't think sadness is in order quite yet. There's a world of difference between disagreeing with something and trying to ban it altogether.

For instance, I could not choose to have an abortion, but I abhor the notion of passing an amendment to ban them. The freedom to choose is what's important to our country, whether we're talking about abortion or gay marriages. The choice itself is only important to the individual, and that's exactly why these decisions should be made by individuals and not the nation. I believe that enough people in our country understand and agree with this to stop the amendment from ever getting out of Washington to the state legislatures.

GWB, on the other hand, believes that he is so right that he can make choices for all of us. I understand that it takes an enormous ego to seek the presidency, but that's just ridiculous.

 

[sigh]

Here's an interesting quote that I read tonight. Unfortunately, I can't give a link that would work for anyone who doesn't either have AOL or subscribe to the Associated Press, so you'll just have to take my word that it's legit.

At a fund-raiser in Kentucky, he (Bush) said a Democrat in the White House would bring higher taxes while opposing ''every idea that gives Americans more authority and more choices and more control over our own lives.''

In light of our discussion, that's a rather odd thing for him to say, don't you think?

 

[DustyWolfe]

I had rather hoped this this decade would bring more rights to gays, but now I'm not sure that it will happen. It's not like we are threatening group of people. It's that they disagree with how we choose to love. it doesn't mean that we are right our wrong, but I don't believe that our government should choose who or how we love and how we show our comittment. It's rather sad really.

 

[DustyWolfe]

Here's an interesting quote that I read tonight. Unfortunately, I can't give a link that would work for anyone who doesn't either have AOL or subscribe to the Associated Press, so you'll just have to take my word that it's legit.

At a fund-raiser in Kentucky, he (Bush) said a Democrat in the White House would bring higher taxes while opposing ''every idea that gives Americans more authority and more choices and more control over our own lives.''

In light of our discussion, that's a rather odd thing for him to say, don't you think?

I would say that its a highly ironic thing for him to say...

 

[Bitchslapper]

No, I disagree. When I read what you said, I thought the same thing. Why would you say something that was so incorrect if the right thing to say were so obvious?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, by the way. I just don't think Q was trying to pick one either. Obviously Q is a more astute student of the Constitution than the average bear, so I think he was making an honest reply to what he recognized as a fallacy.

If you are not trying to pick a fight, then why you would post something so rude and condescending?

It's obvious what I meant, because lots of other people say exactly the same thing meaning eaxctly the same thing and no one has trouble interpreting what they say.

FYI, contrary to what he would like to believe, Queersetti does not know everything about everything.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I had rather hoped this this decade would bring more rights to gays, but now I'm not sure that it will happen. It's not like we are threatening group of people. It's that they disagree with how we choose to love. it doesn't mean that we are right our wrong, but I don't believe that our government should choose who or how we love and how we show our comittment. It's rather sad really.

I thought they disagreed with how you choose to have sex?

 

[DustyWolfe]

I thought they disagreed with how you choose to have sex?

Note: I said "but I don't believe that our government should choose who or how we love and how we show our comittment."
Sex comes under HOW WE LOVE does it not?

 

[Queersetti]

If you are not trying to pick a fight, then why you would post something so rude and condescending?

It's obvious what I meant, because lots of other people say exactly the same thing meaning eaxctly the same thing and no one has trouble interpreting what they say.

FYI, contrary to what he would like to believe, Queersetti does not know everything about everything.

Nothing in her reply to you was rude or condescending.


Grow the fuck up.

There, that was rude and condescending. See the difference?

 

[DustyWolfe]

I thought they disagreed with how you choose to have sex?

By the way, you accused Queersetti of nitpicking, aren't you doing the same to me?

(edit because my brain is broken)

 

[Bitchslapper]

By the way, you confused Queersetti of nitpicking, aren't you doing the same to me?

The difference is, I was making a joke. He was just flaming me.

 

[DustyWolfe]

The difference is, I was making a joke. He was just flaming me.

Errr obviously my mind is mush tonight... I had meant to say accused rather than confused lol

 

[sigh]

If you are not trying to pick a fight, then why you would post something so rude and condescending?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending. I just couldn't avoid it, I guess. When speaking to a child, it just comes naturally. I tried speaking as clearly as possible because it's obvious you haven't developed much talent for the language yet. Did I use words too big for you? My apologies.

As for rude, I took great pains to avoid that, but not to worry; I won't bother with trying to avoid it anymore.

What a fucking putz you are.

It's obvious what I meant, because lots of other people say exactly the same thing meaning eaxctly the same thing and no one has trouble interpreting what they say.

I've never heard anybody (let alone lots of people) say "exactly the same thing meaning eaxctly the same thing". Questioning the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment is an oxymoronic statement of such proportions that even the stupidest of my acquaintances have never made that blunder.

FYI, contrary to what he would like to believe, Queersetti does not know everything about everything.

Nope, he doesn't. But then again, he clearly knows more than some about nearly everything.

But here we go again. Another nice discussion blown all to hell by your manic need to get fussy. Q does know one thing for sure. You need to grow up.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Are you done yet? I love it when people insult me and accuse me of immaturity all in the same post. It kind of cancels out the whole thing. I also find it quite amusing that you say I'm nitpicking and yet you're doing the same thing right now.

Maybe you should watch the news once in a while. Maybe then you'd actually know what is going on and how people talk.

Yes, this was a perfectly nice discussion, but you changed that, not me.

 

[sigh]

*scanning all my above posts......

Nope, never used the word "nitpicking" myself. In fact, that was you. See, I didn't have to nitpick. Illuminating your insecurities didn't take nearly that much effort.

And yes, I'm done.

Bye.

 

[Bitchslapper]

You can't illuminate something that's not there.

And no, you didn't use that word specifically, but you were nitpicking and you just did it again.

 

[Queersetti]

You can't illuminate something that's not there.

And no, you didn't use that word specifically, but you were nitpicking and you just did it again.

You claimed that she said something she didn't say.

She pointed out that she didn't say it.

That's hardly nitpicking. That's setting the record straight.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Oh and of course you've never claimed that someone said something they never said...oh wait, yes you have. Never mind then...

And the fact remains she did nitpick.