Victory For the Rule of Law: California Court Annuls 4,000 Gay Marriages

Reality's Fringe said:
[quote name='David85']Quackzilla

They are terribly writen books and should be ban for just being some pointlessly detailed.
Click to expand...

Whazzat?[/quote]

The books are shit.

The point to the books are great, but the way he wrote the books is over the top, he is trying to make himself look like this great writer with all this popintless details that it takes away from the story.
 
[quote name='David85']
The books are shit.

The point to the books are great, but the way he wrote the books is over the top, he is trying to make himself look like this great writer with all this popintless details that it takes away from the story.[/quote]

1984 and F451 had different authors.

1984 was a great concept and was well written by the famous author George Orwell.

F451 was written by Ray Bradbury, a loser who took a good concept and wrote a poor story. To add insult to injury, his publisher was Playboy and the story first appeared in a magazine, not a book.

You don't dis George Orwell.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='David85']
The books are shit.

The point to the books are great, but the way he wrote the books is over the top, he is trying to make himself look like this great writer with all this popintless details that it takes away from the story.[/quote]

1984 and F451 had different authors.

1984 was a great concept and was well written by the famous author George Orwell.

F451 was written by Ray Bradbury, a loser who took a good concept and wrote a poor story. To add insult to injury, his publisher was Playboy and the story first appeared in a magazine, not a book.

You don't dis George Orwell.[/quote]


They are by different people? Damn, I'm losing it, still don't like 1984, it put me to sleep.

Ray Bradbury had great ideas but he can't right for anything. Three pages to say "His wife overdosed and was on the floor".
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Marriage isn't an issue for the courts to decide. If you're going to start messing with the fabric of civilization I'd rather have voters decide on the worth of the cause than a 3, 5, 7 or 9 panel of judges.

BTW, this to me isn't a religous thing but a legal matter. You can't arbitrarily decide to break the law and go against the wishes of the public that have passed marriage initiatives as ballot issues.[/quote]
I've never heard marriage referred to as being part of the "fabric of civilization." Equality is a more fundamental aspect of civilization than how we define one social institution.
 
PAD

Many we should let all the Southern and Western states vote on if they wanted equal rights for blacks and Asians?

We know what the outcome wouldn't have been, do you think that would make this country better?

If you do then you are more fucked up in the head then I could have ever thought.
 
[quote name='David85']PAD

Many we should let all the Southern and Western states vote on if they wanted equal rights for blacks and Asians?

We know what the outcome wouldn't have been, do you think that would make this country better?

If you do then you are more shaq-fued up in the head then I could have ever thought.[/quote]

You confuse a distinction made on race or ethnicity to a state sanctioned distinction made upon sexual orientation.

The two are not the same.

CTL
 
Yes they are.

Black, Asians and their white partners battled through the courts, just like gays are doing today. The only difference is that today gay haters say that they aren't the same when you compare the cases there certainly are.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
You confuse a distinction made on race or ethnicity to a state sanctioned distinction made upon sexual orientation.

The two are not the same.

CTL[/quote]
I don't really see the distinction. It would be convenient for us to say that it exists because the majority agrees that racial bigotry is wrong. Why don't you clarify this distinction for us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top