In 65 posts in 3 threads on gay marriage, he's said remarkably little.
I don't know about "little," I think he's said a lot but nothing you want to hear. That of course is the MO of both sides of this and most arguments here in AO.
We've all said the same things in 3 threads now, just going around in circles, aren't we? So considering that we all know one another's positions by now, and no one plans to find find any common ground, listen, or bring anything new to the argument, do we want to continue on this merry-go-round or do we get off this ride at the point?
We've all said the same things in 3 threads now, just going around in circles, aren't we? So considering that we all know one another's positions by now, and no one plans to find find any common ground, listen, or bring anything new to the argument, do we want to continue on this merry-go-round or do we get off this ride at the point?
I've actually gotten nick to say some things he was either avoiding saying or I missed it and I think it narrows his argument down really well. The Mass. Court thinks it's unconstitutional to have different types of unions that aren't available to all people. Nick specifically wants that.
Now I'm trying to figure out how he can want that for a state when it's unconstitutional, and is probably unconstitutional at the Federal level for the same reasons as well.
I think it's quite a good argument really. Prior to this thread I couldn't get him to nail down his opinion so explicitly.
I don't know about "little," I think he's said a lot but nothing you want to hear. That of course is the MO of both sides of this and most arguments here in AO.
We've all said the same things in 3 threads now, just going around in circles, aren't we? So considering that we all know one another's positions by now, and no one plans to find find any common ground, listen, or bring anything new to the argument, do we want to continue on this merry-go-round or do we get off this ride at the point?
It's just that *some* here can't agree to disagree and just respect someone else's differing opinion.
Personally, I can't respect a position that is openly against the Constitution. That's just wrong. If there's a simple law, that's fine. But the Constitution? No way.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
In 65 posts in 3 threads on gay marriage, he's said remarkably little.
I don't know about "little," I think he's said a lot but nothing you want to hear. That of course is the MO of both sides of this and most arguments here in AO.
We've all said the same things in 3 threads now, just going around in circles, aren't we? So considering that we all know one another's positions by now, and no one plans to find find any common ground, listen, or bring anything new to the argument, do we want to continue on this merry-go-round or do we get off this ride at the point?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
We've all said the same things in 3 threads now, just going around in circles, aren't we? So considering that we all know one another's positions by now, and no one plans to find find any common ground, listen, or bring anything new to the argument, do we want to continue on this merry-go-round or do we get off this ride at the point?
I've actually gotten nick to say some things he was either avoiding saying or I missed it and I think it narrows his argument down really well. The Mass. Court thinks it's unconstitutional to have different types of unions that aren't available to all people. Nick specifically wants that.
Now I'm trying to figure out how he can want that for a state when it's unconstitutional, and is probably unconstitutional at the Federal level for the same reasons as well.
I think it's quite a good argument really. Prior to this thread I couldn't get him to nail down his opinion so explicitly.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I don't know about "little," I think he's said a lot but nothing you want to hear. That of course is the MO of both sides of this and most arguments here in AO.
We've all said the same things in 3 threads now, just going around in circles, aren't we? So considering that we all know one another's positions by now, and no one plans to find find any common ground, listen, or bring anything new to the argument, do we want to continue on this merry-go-round or do we get off this ride at the point?
"Everybody's wrong*
http://www.salon.com/opinion/fiore/2...da/index1.html
Originally posted by CosmoNut
It's just that *some* here can't agree to disagree and just respect someone else's differing opinion.
Personally, I can't respect a position that is openly against the Constitution. That's just wrong. If there's a simple law, that's fine. But the Constitution? No way.