Et tu, Mark?
We're doing Buzzfeed headlines now? "Brutally destroy"?
As fun as it is to hear the same stupid arguments get taken down again I would like to hear someone offer an intelligent argument against same-sex marriage for a change.
Then again there may be a reason none of the opponents have ever been able to offer an intelligent argument.
Judge Posner for SCOTUS
relevant and entertaining accompanying video:
What's wrong with the doctrine of Adam and Steve?
What part of the Constitution is that in?
oh god, no. how about an actual liberal for a change.
It's right between the part where we're endowed by Jehovah with inalienable rights, and the part about love it or leave it.
I don't understand. Posner takes the Constitution seriously, as well as legal precedent. He respects logic and verifiable factual data. He has no patience with vague arguments from prejudice. In what sense is he conservative?
Because he self identifies as a conservative, and since he doesn't blindly adhere to his politics as a conservative; he certainly won't blindly adhere to the politics of the liberals - and thus his logic might come out in favour of the wrong "team" from time to time, thus he's "unpredictable". This is the result of modern thought where your politics defines your thoughts.
He is a leading proponent of the law and economics school of jurisprudence. So, while I wouldn't describe him as conservative, more of a neoliberal, who is determined to favor "efficiency" over principles of equity.
Even cooler would be if Richard Rosner would use his brainpower to get a seat at the bench.
So what you're saying is that you don't have an intelligent argument, or even an informed stupid one. Well, I guess I'll keep waiting, but I won't hold my breath.
Edit: I apologize if I'm missing the sarcasm. I've just heard so many stupid arguments offered seriously (some of them by people who should be smart enough to know better--for instance Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher) it's hard to know who's serious and who's kidding, even when dealing with a freshly minted account.
His brainpower and willingness to say things he believes in has long-since foreclosed him being nominated for a SCOTUS seat, as his public record has made him uncomfirmable in this post-Bork world.
It does no credit to anyone to pretend that the word for the political party you're opposed to is synonymous with "clueless moron."
As a general rule, if you make a political argument that one could easily imagine coming from a hardliner of the other party, word-for-word identical except for different names and swapping "liberal" and "conservative," you're doing it wrong.
The dictionary definition of the term. The current political definition seems to be "reactionary extremist", but that's not applicable here. Thankfully.
"Liberal" and "Conservative" aren't political parties (at least not in the U.S.)
But every other argument is, at its heart, either the doctrine of Adam and Steve, or the doctrine of "ew, gross!"
In the US, "liberal" and "conservative" are almost always used as synonyms for "Democrat" and "Republican," respectively, as I'm sure you know. But feel free to replace "party" with "faction," if you're feeling nitpicky.