22-11-2003 20:52									#121
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ramo,

Perhaps marriage has BECOME a legal concept, but I think we and Berzerker can all agree that it SHOULD NOT be one, except insofar that it is a state-RECOGNIZED (not approved) contract.

	23-11-2003 00:52									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Alot of Muslum would like to be able to marry up to four wife at the same time and the American ban on it go against the Constitution of the United States. The member of the Church of Latter Day Saint would also like to have their right to have more than one wife at the same time also.

	23-11-2003 00:53									#123
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I think the language is very clear that this is a proper construction of the second sentence. It also seems sensible given that the federal government has supremacy itself has no obligation to recognize the public acts of a state. Consistent with the commerce clause, the federal government has power to regulate relations between the states that the states themselves do not have. So while the states must recognize the public acts of other states, they are also subject to the power of the federal government to regulate the effect of those public acts. The bottom line is that The Defense of Marriage Act seems sufficient to defend both the United States and individual states that do not recognize gay marriages from being required to recognize such marriages. This being said, if a particular state wishes to authorize gay marriages, it clearly has the power to do so under the Constitution. But it does not have the right to impose its views on other states or the United States by virtue of the Defense of Marriage Act. I think this reflects a fair balance and acknowledges states rights. For this reason I personally would oppose a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states wanting to do so from authorizing gay marriages. I think the that the Defense of Marriage Act is sufficient. Once again, I think you are wrong. One, the commerce clause ONLY refers to commerce, not relations between the states. You cannot use the commerce clause for marriage. Therefore you cannot tell other states that they do not have to recognize marriages from Mass. Second, your reading makes it possible for a judicial penalty (ie, like the death penalty) to be avoided if the Federal government decides that a non-DP can 'protect' someone sentanced to death. That would be ridiculous.

Imran, my reference to the commerce clause was only by analogy. I was not saying that this was a source of power for the Defense of Marriage Act.

I don't see how you can leap from what I said concerning recognition by one state of another state's acts into the conclusion that the federal government could outlaw the death penalty in a particular state using the full faith and credit clause.

You have to have two states for this to make any sense. A first state must impose an act such as a gay marriage. The question is then presented does the second state have to recognize the first state's act. The full faith and credit clause says yes, but also says that Congress has the power to regulate the effect of the first state's acts in the second state. In this case Congress has said that the second state does not have to recognize gay marriages. Therefore a gay couple traveling from the first state to the second state would not to find that their marriage is recognize in the second state.

	23-11-2003 01:08									#124
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse I don't understand the latest argument here. If marriage is a religious term then why does the State involve itself in it at all? If one religion defines marriage as possibly being between a man and a woman then why should the State stop them from calling it that. If the State is in the marriage business then it cannot base its definition of marriage on religious grounds, or else the Church has taken over the State.

Krazyhorse, does your argument reduce to "Anything the Christian churche's favor I oppose otherwise the "church" would be taking over the state?"

Regardless, even you must know that marriage has existed from at least of the dawn of civilization and perhaps for far longer than that. Even in ancient Greece there was a distinction between marriage between a man and a woman in a gay relationship.

	23-11-2003 01:31									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Krazyhorse, does your argument reduce to "Anything the Christian churche's favor I oppose otherwise the "church" would be taking over the state?" Regardless, even you must know that marriage has existed from at least of the dawn of civilization and perhaps for far longer than that. Even in ancient Greece there was a distinction between marriage between a man and a woman in a gay relationship.

In anthropological terms, marriage (or exclusive pair bonding) is a relatively new thing and entirely a cultural innovation. It would only have come around after agrarianism took hold (ca. 10,000 years ago), which is a drop in the bucket considering we're a 200,000 year old species, with hunter-gatherer roots reaching as far back as 4 million years ago (some claim even farther). There's nothing biological about it (marriage), except for the urge for sexual interaction, which is equally present in homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

	23-11-2003 02:03									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

JCC, are you sure? I thought there was evidence that Cro Magnon man had "families" as opposed to Neanderthals. The women of Cro Magnon stayed home and raised the kids, for example. Would this happen if a man were not helping the women because he knew they were "his" kids?

	23-11-2003 05:55									#127
	Increase Your PM Length

So, how many of you anti-gay people eat shrimp? Note my sig, you god-daned shrimp eaters. You're all going to hell for your sins!

	23-11-2003 06:12									#128
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I guess me and most of the other gay Apolytoners have gotten tired of this pissing contest in this thread . . . . .

	23-11-2003 06:12									#129
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Shrimp-eater!

	23-11-2003 09:54									#130
	Suffering from ads?

I read somewhere India doesnot make than big deal about Homsexual relateship like we do in America. They have I believe no anti-sodney law as they religion is quite open about this. Homsexual are allow to have sex with conscent men or woman but it is illegal to have sex with children or rape than adult. Than they do enforce they laws compare to the harporard way we enforce our anti-sodney law where in New York State from the founding of the Federal Government to 1900 out of 1 million penony arrest only 27 cover the anti-sodney law than they where brough about as part of than divorved case that have than man and woman hetesexual and not homosexual.

What America need to do is rethink they old law's and learn from other culutures. I remember reading somewhere that rape and murder case against two homosexual man who rape and murder than 8 year old boy would have being fround not guielty untril two homosexual man on the jury said
what wrong with you straight people that these two man are
plainly guiely of murder and rape an we two say that they are guiely that turn the jury around. This happen in a State where homosexual are bar from jury duty .

	23-11-2003 10:00									#131
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned JCC, are you sure? I thought there was evidence that Cro Magnon man had "families" as opposed to Neanderthals. The women of Cro Magnon stayed home and raised the kids, for example. Would this happen if a man were not helping the women because he knew they were "his" kids?

They are going by so little evident to real say anything really valid. There are some evident that Neanderthal and cro magnon man intermarraige with each other. Neanderthal man wasnot really bowleg that they all suffer from arthia( painful joint sickness which make it painful to move that or use that joinst).

	23-11-2003 11:56									#132
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: but also says that Congress has the power to regulate the effect of the first state's acts in the second state.

If we read every Constitutional provision as broadly as you have read this one we inevitable would find a right to human sacrifices as a part of free exercise of religion.

Congress has the power to determine the effects of the prescription of state acts basically only if it has the power to pass a law on the issue. It can't just decide it will say one state's law just simply won't be recognized by others. Like my DP analogy (which completely went over your head, it seems), under your interpretation Congress could, if it wanted, allow states to keep prisoners who have been convicted of the DP in one state, instead of expediting them to the state they were convicted in. That would be utterly silly.

quote: Why the hell not? It's already been used in race discrimination cases. It's not like it's that much of a stretch.

The race discrimination cases did include some interstate commerce (ie, hotels engage in interstate commerce). And it hasn't been expanded much beyond that. Marriage has always been a state issue and isn't interstate commerce in any way, really (perhaps with the exception of Las Vegas ).

	23-11-2003 12:44									#133
	Got spare money?

quote: (ie, hotels engage in interstate commerce)

Umm...you mean like if I get dirt on my shoes in Kansas and drive to Nebraska and stay in a hotel and the dirt comes off in the hotel?

	23-11-2003 12:45									#134
	Remove this text

Forget the dirt, the mere fact that you are from Kansas and go over the border to Nebraska is interstate commerce. It is a commercial activity spaning two states.

	23-11-2003 13:14									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Marriage has become a legal concept, but I don't buy into the notion that power hungry politicians can change the definitions of words any more than special interest groups have that authority.

They can change the definition of legal words. That's why they're legal words.

quote: But here in the US, marriage excludes homosexual unions, so where does that leave your argument? You just said the state defines the term...

Yes, and the state can redefine it. Which it should. What's your point?

quote: That would be most of the world.

Damn straight. Gay rights in most of the world are crap. Usually, the state can put people in prison for being gay.

quote: Perhaps marriage has BECOME a legal concept, but I think we and Berzerker can all agree that it SHOULD NOT be one, except insofar that it is a state-RECOGNIZED (not approved) contract.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It shouldn't be a legal concept, but it should be state-recognized?

	23-11-2003 15:49									#136
	Suffering from ads?

All I can say, Imran, is that Congress thought it had to power under the FF&C clause to pass the act it did. I think you have the burden to demonstrate by citation to contolling authority that Congress was wrong. Otherwise, you lose the argument because Congress is presumed to be right and those who would declare the Act unconstitutional have a heavy burden of proof.

	23-11-2003 18:04									#137
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker "Marriage" has not changed to include homosexuals,

My point was that the institution of marriage has changed, in fact it has changed a great deal, so any arguments against gay marriage based on traditional "origins and practices" have no basis.

quote: (...)so why wouldn't homosexuals support re-legalising polygamy?

I think you have failed to appreciate a fundamental difference between gay marriage and polygamy. There is a very big difference between being allowed to exercise a right as much as you wish, and being allowed to exercise it at all. It is a matter of threshold.

In this respect marriage is like voting. The case of those barred from voting has little in common with that of someone arguing for the right to vote multiple times per election.

quote: Homosexuals would at least appear consistent if they supported polygamists when people like Rick Santorum pointed out that we'd have to allow polygamy under the rationale offered by homosexuals...

No inconsistancy if you understand the difference I just explained.

That being said, I do not at all object to a re-examination of the issue of polygamy. However, based on what I understand of its contemporary practice in the US, I have serious concerns over the welfare of the women involved. No problems with a fair hearing, though.

quote: Nope, and I'm indifferent to any alleged changes. Divorce, no matter what the practice and when, was and is the negation of a marriage contract.

I'm not surprised you are "indifferent" to the fundamental changes in divorce law, as they completely up-end your "origins and practices" argument.

	23-11-2003 19:37									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Imran -

quote: Forget the dirt, the mere fact that you are from Kansas and go over the border to Nebraska is interstate commerce. It is a commercial activity spaning two states.

I see the "interstate" part of that, but where's the commerce? The reason for the power to regulate interstate commerce was two-fold, to prevent the states from engaging in trade wars - a tax on money sent into the state to purchase goods, and to create an ostensibly neutral arbiter of disputes between people engaging in commerce across state borders so that individuals in different states would not have to seek justice regarding disputes in the other party's state.

It was not so Congress could regulate everything under the sun once a border is crossed. That's why some of the states want Congress to impose taxes on goods sold over the internet or thru the mail across state lines, because those transactions are exempt from state sales taxes ala the interstate commerce clause.

An example of interstate commerce - I send money to LL Bean for a shirt. Not an example of interstate commerce - I drive to a neighboring state and spend money. What's the difference? The exchange of money for goods in the first example crossed state borders, in the second example, the exchange of money for goods occured in the same state. If you want, take a look at the history of the ICC. It wasn't until about 50 years ago that Congress began using it for non-commercial activities, so we have to sincerely ask why it took that long. The anwser is obvious...

Ramo -

quote: They can change the definition of legal words. That's why they're legal words.

Marriage is more than just a legal term, it describes a contract that can be and has been made in the absence of any law. Your argument is no different than claiming the Nazis never stole because stealing is a "legal" term and those in power can define it any way they want. Try that with murder and you negate the holocaust...

quote: Yes, and the state can redefine it. Which it should. What's your point?

The point is, even using your argument, marriage doesn't include homosexual unions.

quote: Damn straight. Gay rights in most of the world are crap. Usually, the state can put people in prison for being gay.

That's a different issue that has nothing to do with re-defining a word that describes an act involving heterosexuals to include homosexuals. Why not re-define "heterosexual" to mean homosexual while we're at it?

Mindseye -

quote: My point was that the institution of marriage has changed, in fact it has changed a great deal, so any arguments against gay marriage based on traditional "origins and practices" have no basis.

The changes have been minor, not great.

quote: I think you have failed to appreciate a fundamental difference between gay marriage and polygamy. There is a very big difference between being allowed to exercise a right as much as you wish, and being allowed to exercise it at all. It is a matter of threshold.

You mean religious freedom means I can only choose one religion in my life and practice it once a day since there are legitimate limits on how often we can exercise a "right"? So people should only be allowed to marry once?

quote: In this respect marriage is like voting. The case of those barred from voting has little in common with that of someone arguing for the right to vote multiple times per election.

No mindseye, it isn't like voting.

quote: No inconsistancy if you understand the difference I just explained.

No, there is inconsistency and alot of dis-assembling to hide the inconsistency. You invented a limitation on how often a right may be exercised and there is no such limitation in the Constitution or in the definition of rights.

quote: I'm not surprised you are "indifferent" to the fundamental changes in divorce law, as they completely up-end your "origins and practices" argument.

How? Divorce is and always has been a negation of a marriage. Where have any of these little changes to divorce law "up-ended" origins and practices, i.e., the negation of a marriage?

	23-11-2003 21:04									#139
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The irony in this debate is that I support the political party - the Libertarian Party - that supports "gay marriage" and some on the other side supports a party - the Democrat Party - that doesn't. Look at the Democrats running for Prez, maybe only Kucinich supports it. Go figure...

	24-11-2003 00:56									#140
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: I'm not sure what you're getting at. It shouldn't be a legal concept, but it should be state-recognized?

Only insofar as the state recognizes any other contract, which is to say, they don't interfere.

	24-11-2003 01:06									#141
	Inflate your Upload Space

That being said, I do not at all object to a re-examination of the issue of polygamy. However, based on what I understand of its contemporary practice in the US, I have serious concerns over the welfare of the women involved. No problems with a fair hearing, thou [/QUOTE]

Alittle off topic I than sick and tirely of certain people say polygamy abuse woman. Than woman can be abuse more in a marraige to one man. So many Western get upset when they see than Muslum Woman wear the Hijab an they so round saying that Muslum man make then dress that way. First it the woman own choice to wear the Hijab make of they
own free will. Than Muslum are getting tire of nonmuslum saying we donot allow woman to give option on matter. The Muslum woman is than very important part of the Muslum comminuntry, they where the leader behind most of the Muslum Orgination form in America an they hold top leadership post. The only post than woman have than hard time getting is as Iman, Iman is the lower rank religious scholare in Islam there is one post which rank above Iman
I cannot remember it arabic name which is make up of 50 % woman. Islam DOESNOT support wife abuse or hitting than woman expect under very unusal case like your wife mother die and she try to use than knife to harm hershelf, there is no way to disarm than person with than knife expect by some type of phyical contact.

	24-11-2003 05:42									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Rufus:

quote: would be sex discrimination.

That's not my point. I agree this would be sex discrimination, but I say that men and women are not interchangeable parts. There are certain situations where it is in the interests of society to discriminate between men and women, and marriage is one of these situations.

quote: Once you commit to giving people rights, that takes absolute precedence over what makes people "comfortable."

Interesting. Where have I argued that upholding marriage will make people more comfortable? That is not my reason whatsoever. I believe that this is the right thing to do, and not politically expedient.

In fact, I see many of the democrats pandering to this issue because it is politically expedient for them to do so. Look at how many of them say, I agree with this, but... etc.

quote: but you rely on arguments that have no empirical basis and are more rooted in ideology than reason.

I argue, that on the whole marriage provides enormous benefits to society in terms of child-rearing and reproduction, more so than any other alternative arrangement. Why does this argument have no empirical basis?

quote: the issue is individual rights under contract law, just as in Loving, and on those terms the case for gay marriage is rock-solid.

Two tacks I will take. Assuming this is the correct interpretation of Loving, was this the intent of the judiciary in Loving and Virginia? If not, then there are clearly problems with the law, in that it allows what the lawmakers did not intend. Hence the need for the constitutional amendment affirming marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Secondly, taking your argument to it's logical consequence, why the requirement for consentual adults? Why not allow arranged marriages between children? Why not allow a man to marry as many women, and for a women to marry as many men as they want?

Would you support both of these consequences? If not, why not?

Finally, I take issue with your intepretation of the analogy between race and gender. Men and women are not interchangeable parts. Hence, the ruling of Loving and Virginia does not come into play.

	24-11-2003 05:46									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

David Floyd:

quote: And just what right does the state have to tell me who I can and can't contract with?

In marriage, you are making a contract with the state as well as with the other person. This is why the state has a role in marriage. You want to do away with civil marriages altogether, and leave it up to the churches? Go right ahead.

quote: but those justifications are just that.

Just what? Correct? I have given numerous non-religious arguments in this thread. Please continue to ignore them.

	24-11-2003 05:50									#144
	Got spare money?

quote: But how can you justify allowing individuals who are both 70 or older to marry given your justification?

Again, I argue for marriage on the whole sample, rather than just for this fringe example. What proportion of marriages happen at this age? Very few. Once again, on the average, marriage is enormously positive.

quote: I also fail to see why you don't have fertility requirement for marriage if the specific issue you previously mentioned is your primary concern.

If through no fault of their own, a couple finds themselves infertile, they should be allowed to marry. We don't see this in the example of gay unions, where perfectly fertile people deny their own fertility. So your requirement would fall under the charge of false analogy. The vast majority of married people who are infertile, cannot help their condition.

quote: While there are economic benefits for a population increase in the US, they are outweighed by the quality of life issues. If increasing the birth rate is your goal, giving huge tax breaks to those who have kids is much more efficient than you idea of restrictions on marriage.

I argue that an increase in population will provide an increase in both the total population and quality of life. So this is a false dichotomy. Given a proper system, an increase in population will not lower the quality of life.

Secondly, your argument from efficiency again assumes that we need to be either/or. Why can't I argue for marriage and for tax breaks for large families?

quote: You need a comprehensive study examining children who were raised in households with a man and a woman in comparision to those raised in households with two parents of the same sex. Without such as study, any assumptions in this area are merely guesses. For all you know, the study might conclude that kids are better off being raised in two parent homosexual households.

Fine. Would you accept the study if I gave you the evidence, or would you dismiss the methodology as 'biased, etc?'

If you would be willing to accept the evidence regardless of the conclusion, than I would be most happy to post the evidence. Otherwise I see no point.

	24-11-2003 05:58									#145
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I really don't believe that the Bible says anything particularly negative about homosexual relationships.

DD:

I'm not going to jack this thread. Lancer posted a thread asking for biblical quotations condemning homosexuality.

PM me, and I'll give you the thread, and my earlier post.

The bible is very clear, in condemning homosexual relationships as sin.

	24-11-2003 06:03									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You are all a bunch of God-damned shrimp eaters and you're going to hell. Hell I tell you. God hates shrimp eaters!

	24-11-2003 06:07									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: after looking at two different dictionaries into the definitions of marriage, matrimony, and spouse, not in a single one of them was it stated that two individual of different sexes were manditory

"When I use a word, It means just what I say it means, neither more nor less."

I'm sure I can find two that say that it does.

	24-11-2003 06:11									#148
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: In marriage, you are making a contract with the state as well as with the other person.

Huh? The state is not a person...

	24-11-2003 06:14									#149
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: think you have failed to appreciate a fundamental difference between gay marriage and polygamy. There is a very big difference between being allowed to exercise a right as much as you wish, and being allowed to exercise it at all. It is a matter of threshold. In this respect marriage is like voting. The case of those barred from voting has little in common with that of someone arguing for the right to vote multiple times per election.

Thanks for the very able analogy.

In this sense, a gay person would be someone who did not vote, yet wants to have his vote count. No gay man is prevented from marrying the woman of his choice, given her consent.

	24-11-2003 06:18									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The state recognises the marriage. Otherwise, what you have isn't a marriage according to the legal definition. In this sense, the state has to be part of the contract.