VaultNetwork.netVault Network Boards
Author Topic: Senator when you took your oath of office........... [Locked]
vn_nnanji  4 stars
Title: Outpost Music Expert
Posts: 1,964
Registered: 2001-6-30 17:22:56
Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice. I've answered your questions, provided the context and even the credentials of the man you are second guessing. You haven't answered my simple question, which you said you would answer, and now pull in other questions still attempting to avoid the main issue.

Take a walk son. I've spent more time than a clown like you is worth.

 

-----signature-----
Vydor  1 star
Posts: 248
Registered: 2001-12-24 21:14:09
vn_nnanji posted:

Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice.





-shrugs-

You don't know my stance. I am willing to admit I am wrong, and I gave you the criteria for it.

Can states forbid same sex marriage, yes or no?

Simple as that really.

 

-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
Tych2  4 stars
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts: 2,511
Registered: 2005-3-1 06:56:47
Vydor posted:

vn_nnanji posted:

Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice.





-shrugs-

You don't know my stance. I am willing to admit I am wrong, and I gave you the criteria for it.

He has asked you for your stance several times. I am unsure why you don't want to express it unless you are embarrassed by it. I can't think of another reason, but I am sure there must be one if its not embarrassment. Why be covert in it?

 

-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
Vydor  1 star
Posts: 248
Registered: 2001-12-24 21:14:09
vn_nnanji posted:

Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice. I've answered your questions, provided the context and even the credentials of the man you are second guessing. You haven't answered my simple question, which you said you would answer, and now pull in other questions still attempting to avoid the main issue.

Take a walk son. I've spent more time than a clown like you is worth.





Like I said, my stance is irrelevant, you've never explained why it is, when all we are talking about is the context of a conversation that was left up to interpretation.

 

-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
SoBaKi  2 stars
Posts: 487
Registered: 2002-2-26 09:31:13
Vydor posted:

vn_nnanji posted:

No context? Stop prancing around the issue. Grow a set and answer the question Dude.


We already know the answer but you really ought to just man up and say it out loud.



It's pretty simple the way I see it.


1. If states cannot forbid same sex marriage according the the constitution, then I was wrong.

2. If states can forbid same sex marriage and still be legal inside side the constitution, then I am right.


I am under the impression that the constitution isn't the means of defining marriage in this country. I could easily be wrong.



Actually, I believe my post was misinterpreted earlier in that what I meant was BECAUSE the Constitution doesn't define marriage, then no one can use any other document TO define it.


Basically, as far as I'm concerned, states cannot define marriage and using the bible to try and undermine what the Constitution "allows" is a no no.

 

-----signature-----
"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." - Teddy Roosevelt
Know god, know sin. No god, no sin.
Dogs are animals.
Scarne  4 stars
Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts: 1,087
Registered: 2001-7-23 15:24:34
Vydor posted:

Can states forbid same sex marriage, yes or no?

Simple as that really.


That question is currently in the court system. The answer will probably end up being no much like how it turned out with interracial marriage bans.

 

-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
Vydor  1 star
Posts: 248
Registered: 2001-12-24 21:14:09
Tych2 posted:

Vydor posted:

vn_nnanji posted:

Wow. You truly are a weasel. Utterly spineless.

I don't blame you. You should be ashamed. Both of your stance and of your blatant cowardice.





-shrugs-

You don't know my stance. I am willing to admit I am wrong, and I gave you the criteria for it.

He has asked you for your stance several times. I am unsure why you don't want to express it unless you are embarrassed by it. I can't think of another reason, but I am sure there must be one if its not embarrassment. Why be covert in it?



Because it has no relevance to the topic. All we are talking about is two phrases between two people and if the one comment was correct. My view was the guy responding, while it was a cutting remark, was off target. My stance or position on same sex marriage is so far out of place here that it doesn't matter.

 

-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
Vydor  1 star
Posts: 248
Registered: 2001-12-24 21:14:09
SoBaKi posted:

Vydor posted:

vn_nnanji posted:

No context? Stop prancing around the issue. Grow a set and answer the question Dude.

We already know the answer but you really ought to just man up and say it out loud.



It's pretty simple the way I see it.

1. If states cannot forbid same sex marriage according the the constitution, then I was wrong.
2. If states can forbid same sex marriage and still be legal inside side the constitution, then I am right.

I am under the impression that the constitution isn't the means of defining marriage in this country. I could easily be wrong.



Actually, I believe my post was misinterpreted earlier in that what I meant was BECAUSE the Constitution doesn't define marriage, then no one can use any other document TO define it.

Basically, as far as I'm concerned, states cannot define marriage and using the bible to try and undermine what the Constitution "allows" is a no no.



Then who defines it according to what the states recognizes as legal marriage?

 

-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
Tych2  4 stars
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts: 2,511
Registered: 2005-3-1 06:56:47
Vydor posted:

Because it has no relevance to the topic. All we are talking about is two phrases between two people and if the one comment was correct. My view was the guy responding, while it was a cutting remark, was off target. My stance or position on same sex marriage is so far out of place here that it doesn't matter.

Chalk it up to curiosity. I am curious what your stance is on it. What is your stance on gay marriage?

 

-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
SoBaKi  2 stars
Posts: 487
Registered: 2002-2-26 09:31:13
Vydor posted:

Because it has no relevance to the topic. All we are talking about is two phrases between two people and if the one comment was correct. My view was the guy responding, while it was a cutting remark, was off target. My stance or position on same sex marriage is so far out of place here that it doesn't matter.



Ok, fair enough that you believe your position has no relevance to the current discussion.


So, outside of this particular discussion, let's just cut to the chase. Do you support allowing same sex marriage?

 

-----signature-----
"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have." - Teddy Roosevelt
Know god, know sin. No god, no sin.
Dogs are animals.

VaultNetwork.net is an independently operated community forum and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or technically based on IGN, GameSpy, FilePlanet, GameStats, or the former IGN/GameSpy Vault Network.
References to VaultNetwork.net mean this site/domain. VNBoards-style presentation is a visual homage only. By using this site, you agree to the forum rules.