Gay marriage ruling about to come down

[*bfine32*]

(06-27-2015, 09:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not going to read the bickering, but when I read Thomas' dissent, I assumed he said that line about dignity because he thought that dginity was something that no one can take away from someone, they can only take away from themselves.

Pretty sure he said that line up in response to the Majority Opinion as Kennedy used it a few times in his "fortune cookie" document.

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2015, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure he said that line up in response to the Majority Opinion as Kennedy used it a few times in his "fortune cookie" document.

In which Kennedy suggested that repeated actions of the government and society had diminished that dignity, hence what I said about Thomas using that line about dignity and slavery/internment as a way to express his belief that dignity remains in the face of hardships.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-27-2015, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You may be "right" about my looking silly. 

I fully admit that you got me on that one.  Good catch.  I usually reread posts before hitting submit and didn't that time.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2015, 07:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I suppose you can change the word used if you want; once you are shown that your argument using the actual word was ********.

The unfortunate thing for you is that Thomas never used the word dignify. You just decided to introduce it in an attempt to make your reasoning for considering him to be an Uncle Tom less ridiculous. 

Man I will be glad when I'm intelligent enough to know all those words.  

Dignify means "to give dignity" to something. If it is impossible to give dignity to anything why do we have a word for that very action?

You can't really be this dense.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

A classic definition argument. the reason I keep coming back to message boards.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 01:47 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Dignify means "to give dignity" to something.  If it is impossible to give dignity to anything why do we have a word for that very action?

You can't really be this dense.

Unfortunately for you; most people that frequent this board can read and they can comprehend what they read.

The whole debate hinges on your assertion that someone cannot have dignity unless it is given to them. I hope you do not share this message with your offspring; however, I fear you do. I know it is not a message I share with mine.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2015, 02:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The whole debate hinges on your assertion that someone cannot have dignity unless it is given to them. 

Wrong.  The debate hinges on the claim that the Supreme Court decision can not dignify same sex unions by elevating them to the same level as all other marriages, and this just is not true.  We have the term "dignify" to specifically describe the way that this Supreme Court decision gave dignity to same sex marriages.  The word "dignify" means "to give dignity", and people with an education over third grade realize that it does not apply only to god.  There are many ways that people and institutions like the Supreme Court can give dignity to other people or to same sex marriage.

Somehow Thomas tried to argue that god is the only thing that can give dignity to anything, and that just is not true.  He tried to support his position by claiming that dignity was endowed by the creator the same way as "liberty", but in fact liberty was given to the slaves by the federal government instead of god.  So his entire argument fails.

But of course you think that a crack head who died from an overdose had dignity just because she claimed she did.  I suspect you like this argument because it allows you to claim that you also have dignity.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2015, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Many Law experts referenced it to more of a love story than an actual Judicial Opinion. I think one of the Justices said it was actually like something you'd read on a fortune cookie and another said it had nothing to do with the Constitution. 

Surprised none of the Legal experts in this forum has weighed in on the opinion of the Kennedy's Opinion. Just trying to shoot holes in the dissents.

I agree with Kennedy's opinion, and it doesn't really matter what the losers say about it.  By definition the law means what a majority of the Supreme Court says it means.  And anyone who understands the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment knows that the majority got it right.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 03:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  The debate hinges on the claim that the Supreme Court decision can not dignify same sex unions by elevating them to the same level as all other marriages, and this just is not true.  We have the term "dignify" to specifically describe the way that this Supreme Court decision gave dignity to same sex marriages.  The word "dignify" means "to give dignity", and people with an education over third grade realize that it does not apply only to god.  There are many ways that people and institutions like the Supreme Court can give dignity to other people or to same sex marriage.

Somehow Thomas tried to argue that god is the only thing that can give dignity to anything, and that just is not true.  He tried to support his position by claiming that dignity was endowed by the creator the same way as "liberty", but in fact liberty was given to the slaves by the federal government instead of god.  So his entire argument fails.

But of course you think that a crack head who died from an overdose had dignity just because she claimed she did.  I suspect you like this argument because it allows you to claim that you also have dignity.

You keep using the word dignify (because you were given the definition of dignity when you asked for it, so the word had to change). Yet Thomas didn't use it in his dissent and I do not think Kennedy used it in the Majority Opinion.  Given I have not read all 28 pages.

You disagree with Thomas' dissent and suggest he is an Uncle Tom because he says dignity is something not given; it is something from within. As I have said I hope you do not share this defeatist attitude with your children.

"Daddy can we have dignity"

"Not yet, we gotta wait until somebody gives it to us".


I have dignity and has instilled a sense of dignity in my children. Let me know when somebody gives you yours. 

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2015, 03:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have dignity and has instilled a sense of dignity in my children. Let me know when somebody gives you yours. 

Just like Whitney Houston.

Congratulations.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2015, 03:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You keep using the word dignify (because you were given the definition of dignity when you asked for it, so the word had to change). Yet Thomas didn't use it in his dissent and I do not think Kennedy used it in the Majority Opinion.  Given I have not read all 28 pages.

You disagree with Thomas' dissent and suggest he is an Uncle Tom because he says dignity is something not given; it is something from within. As I have said I hope you do not share this defeatist attitude with your children.

"Daddy can we have dignity"

"Not yet, we gotta wait until somebody gives it to us".
 

So you teach your children that the word "dignify" does not even exist?

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 03:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So you teach your children that the word "dignify" does not even exist?

Why would I teach my children any such thing? The can dignify many "things" and treat people with dignity.

I'll just teach them that they do not have to wait for someone to give them dignity before they can have it.

I'll bet Clarence Thomas' grandfather did this as well. Little did he know that it would cause folks years later to call him an Uncle Tom. 

Unfortunately in the Toast household: no dignity until someone else gives it to us.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-28-2015, 03:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Unfortunately in the Toast household: no dignity until someone else gives it to us.

You mean until the federal government gives it to them. Like a warm blanket.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2015, 03:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would I teach my children any such thing? The can dignify many "things" and treat people with dignity.

Then why is it impossible for a Supreme Court decision to "dignify" same sex marriage?

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2015, 03:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Unfortunately in the Toast household: no dignity until someone else gives it to us.

I have never said anything like this anywhere in this thread.  This is just a strawman that you made up because you can not argue with the real point.

I teach my children that they can have dignity themselves, but that does not mean that I teach them that it is impossible to for them to give dignity to something else.

These are two different concepts that are not mutually exclusive.  And since you clearly don't understand the term "mutually exclusive" it means that they can both exist at the same time.

In other words just because I believe that a Supreme Court Decision can dignify same sex marriage, it does not mean that the only way for my children to gain dignity is for someone to give it to them. 

Your silly strawman argument is so illogical that I refused to dignify it with a response earlier in this thread.  But now I believe I have made myself clear.












Waits for Bfine to again claim I believe that the only way to obtain dignity oi to have someone else give it to me.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2015, 09:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not going to read the bickering, but when I read Thomas' dissent, I assumed he said that line about dignity because he thought that dginity was something that no one can take away from someone, they can only take away from themselves.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with that. You can complete dehumanize someone and destroy their dignity, but I think Thomas was trying to suggest that any person can always hold onto their self worth in the face of atrocities and hardships.

That is what Thomas' dissent seems to be stating, and like you I disagree with him. Yes, there are those that are made of stiffer stuff and can maintain their dignity through thick and thin, but that is not most people, and slavery was of course not a normal circumstance. The methods used by slave traders and owners were intended to break down those men and women, and more often than not they succeeded. Dignity doesn't have to be given away, it can be taken by force. And just like it can be taken it can be given back or at the very least elevated.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 03:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You mean until the federal government gives it to them.  Like a warm blanket.

No doubt. Because to suggest you can have dignity without someone giving it to you makes you a "White Apologist" AKA "Uncle Tom"'

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 08:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is what Thomas' dissent seems to be stating, and like you I disagree with him. Yes, there are those that are made of stiffer stuff and can maintain their dignity through thick and thin, but that is not most people, and slavery was of course not a normal circumstance. The methods used by slave traders and owners were intended to break down those men and women, and more often than not they succeeded. Dignity doesn't have to be given away, it can be taken by force. And just like it can be taken it can be given back or at the very least elevated.

I think the most simple fact that folks are missing is that Thomas did not bring the word Dignity into the issue; Kennedy did.

Thomas  just countered that no one has to give you dignity for you to have dignity. I thought it was quite profound. Others thought it made him an "Uncle Tom"

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 03:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why is it impossible for a Supreme Court decision to "dignify" same sex marriage?

This is going to go way over your head; but, SSM is a "thing", we can dignify that. We just cannot give the individual dignity. We can treat them with dignity, we can extend dignity to them; we just cannot give it to them. That must come from within.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2015, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the most simple fact that folks are missing is that Thomas did not bring the word Dignity into the issue; Kennedy did.

Thomas  just countered that no one has to give you dignity for you to have dignity. I thought it was quite profound. Others thought it made him an "Uncle Tom"

I fail to see how Kennedy bringing up dignity first makes any difference.

And Thomas said more than that. He said the government cannot strip you of your dignity and cannot give you dignity and used the institution of slavery to make that point. This is what made his statements controversial for many people.