25-02-2004 16:22									#181
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MrFun You seem to be an idiot. The problem that we have, is not that we're denied getting married to someone of the opposite gender. Our problem is that we are not recognized when marrying someone of the same gender.

And I had especially treated the Question:
"Are Homosexuals discriminated?"

Which they arenīt if you take the traditional Standpoint of Christ fundamentalists that matrimony is something between a man and a woman (because matrimony is, from this standpoint, closely connected to the production of children).

So, gays arenīt prevented from getting married and therefore not discriminated for gender or sexual Orrientation.
They are just prevented from marry the person they love (whereby love, as I stated is no prerequisite for a marriage)

So, regardless of wether you call me an Idiot or not, there might be a lot of christian fundamentalists who might counter the arguments of Homosexual the same way I did.

(not myself, as I see no reason to prevent Homosexuals from marrying their and just tried to see thing with the eyes of an fundamentalist)

	25-02-2004 17:07									#182
	Tired of ads?

Isn't this just another gay pout? Did anyone bother to tell gay people that the world might have more important things to think about than them?

Isn't this just another fundamentalist pout? Did anyone bother to tell fundamentalists that the world might have more important things to think about than them?

If ever there was an issue that does not need to occupy the public energy this is it. If ever there was a time when the public will needed to be focused on substantive issues rather that social melodrama, now is that time.

On the other hand, if we can get an amendment on this issue, maybe we can get one to ban abortion. That is worth fighting for.

I would say just let the gay people do what they want if they would shut up. It's always whine, whine, whine. If they get this, they will just want something else later. Still, looking at it from the fundy POV, they are all going to hell when they die anyway, so why not let them have a little party now.

I do not understand why fundamentalist's can't let people do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone. It's always preach, preach, preach. If they get this amendment, they will just want to deny someone something else later. Also, looking at it from their POV, the fundamentalist's are all going to heaven when they die anyway, so why not let them wait until then to start running things.

On the other hand, if they want to get an amendment on this issue, maybe we can trade to get one to ban guns.

	25-02-2004 17:21									#183
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"The problem that we have, is not that we're denied getting married to someone of the opposite gender. Our problem is that we are not recognized when marrying someone of the same gender."

There's still no discrimination. Straight people can't marry someone of their own gender either.

	25-02-2004 18:23									#184
	Tired of ads?

quote: So much for any semblance of Bush believing in federalism and so-called states' rights.

Amending the Constitution, which does not require the President's approval, is not prohibited by federalism. And for a change, someone in the federal government wants to actually use the process written into the Constitution for changing it. Of course, he still supports all sorts of unconstitutional federal programs so his gesture is phony, not that his supporters care enough to stop supporting him.

quote: I would disagree that the courts should decide, it ought to be up to the legislature. Let the people have a say on the issue. Why is that such an offensive position?

Because Democrats like democracy only when they are in the majority.

quote: banning gays from receiving the legal benefits of marriage is against the 14th amendment...

So 8-year olds should be allowed to marry? How about polygamists?

quote: Is there a right to marry whomever you want just because you love them, che? Is it in the constitution, that the state cannot restrict marriage?

Does it matter? They are seeking an amendment so it doesn't matter if there is a right to marry. There is no power in the Constitution for the feds to be involved with deciding who can or cannot marry, but do the homosexuals care that polygamy was outlawed by Congress even though it is a religious practice for Mormons and therefore violates their religious freedom which is in the Constitution? Nah, in fact, as I've watched various "spokesmen" for homosexual marriage who've been asked if polygamists should be allowed to marry, NOT ONE has said yes. Nope, they just say that isn't the issue at hand... Well, tell that to polygamists who are in jail or had their marriages nullified or prevented. Be consistent... You can't argue discrimination if you are discriminating against others who want to marry...

	25-02-2004 18:26									#185
	Tired of ads?

Oops, I forgot the liberal response to libertarians:

If you don't like, LEAVE!

	25-02-2004 18:37									#186
	Got spare money?

Amendments are unconstitutional

	25-02-2004 19:19									#187
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Yeah, that was such a wonderful line from Giancarlo... much more worthy of sig, don't you think .

quote: But it was still removed.

Actually, it is STILL the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment repealed it. So, no, technically it isn't "removed".

	25-02-2004 19:27									#188
	Suffering from ads?

Again, I find myself in agreement with Berz, at least in principle (I must be a closet libertarian).

Take away the volatile gay issue and what do you have? A small minority of the countries population (SF municipal and 4 ( I think) Mass Judges) are railroading their beliefs over on the majority of the country since "full faith and credit" would require all other states to recognize those marriages as legal.

If the Utah government or a Utah court behaved the same way and began issuing marriage licenses to polygamists, would those against testing this question with a constitutional amendment have the same opinion? I doubt it.

This isnt a matter for the courts, its a matter for the people. If the amendment does not have overwhelming support from the people it will fail and gay marriage will become de facto legalized. On the other hand, if the amendment has enough support, then gays will unfortunately have to live with that fact.

	25-02-2004 19:41									#189
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: much more worthy of sig, don't you think .

I tire quickly of sigs though as you can see.

Well Spence, I don't want government involved with marriage at all beyond custody and inheritance, i.e., the possible results of marriage. It just isn't my business who you marry (consensually of course ), therefore I can't ask a politician to make it his business. But my relevant objection to this issue is that homosexuals are pushing this to be in the position of suing people who don't give them the same benefits afforded other married people. It's about money in the long run...

	25-02-2004 19:57									#190
	Suffering from ads?

quote: This isnt a matter for the courts, its a matter for the people. If the amendment does not have overwhelming support from the people it will fail and gay marriage will become de facto legalized. On the other hand, if the amendment has enough support, then gays will unfortunately have to live with that fact.

But its an AMENDMENT! I mean do we really want another Prohibition debacle? I mean, that amendment had enough support. It is silly to include these type of issues in the Constitution itself!

	25-02-2004 20:17									#191
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Does it matter? They are seeking an amendment so it doesn't matter if there is a right to marry. There is no power in the Constitution for the feds to be involved with deciding who can or cannot marry, but do the homosexuals care that polygamy was outlawed by Congress even though it is a religious practice for Mormons and therefore violates their religious freedom which is in the Constitution? Nah, in fact, as I've watched various "spokesmen" for homosexual marriage who've been asked if polygamists should be allowed to marry, NOT ONE has said yes. Nope, they just say that isn't the issue at hand... Well, tell that to polygamists who are in jail or had their marriages nullified or prevented. Be consistent... You can't argue discrimination if you are discriminating against others who want to marry...

Not true, the provision is Equality, Pologomy is not equal, there are subservient members of such a union directly implied. Which is descrimination itself.

	25-02-2004 20:28									#192
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Be consistent... You can't argue discrimination if you are discriminating against others who want to marry...

Yes you can. By your logic, if Ming banned you for being a libertarian (Or a public school did it if you're going to quibble over the fact this is a private site), you'd have to wholly accept it because you don't don't care if he discriminates against the most offensive idiots by banning them.

I know it's an "apples and oranges" comparison, but so is the comparion of homosexuality to polamory.

	25-02-2004 20:28									#193
	Remove this text

quote: Not true, the provision is Equality, Pologomy is not equal, there are subservient members of such a union directly implied. Which is descrimination itself.

Why can't Polygamy be equal? I mean you chastise people for stereotypical beliefs about homosexuality and then go off on stereotypical beliefs about polygamy! GAH!

	25-02-2004 20:42									#194
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Thorn Not true, the provision is Equality, Pologomy is not equal, there are subservient members of such a union directly implied. Which is descrimination itself.

no there aren't. and u have absolutely no business deciding what consenting adults wish to do or whom they wish to love.

head out ass.

	25-02-2004 20:49									#195
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui But its an AMENDMENT! I mean do we really want another Prohibition debacle? I mean, that amendment had enough support. It is silly to include these type of issues in the Constitution itself!

I agree that trivial matters should not be dealt with by an amendment to the constitution. There are two questions though, is this a trivial matter, and do you want the courts to write the laws? I would argue that for the USA at this time that gay rights is not a trivial matter and it is not one that should be decided by the courts. The activism of the SF govt and Mass courts has brought the issue to a head. The only question is how we will deal with it. A national referendum requiring a large majority would work I suppose, but it seems to me that the way to decide this issue already lies in the framework to amend the constitution.

	25-02-2004 20:58									#196
	Remove this text

quote: There are two questions though, is this a trivial matter, and do you want the courts to write the laws?

Yes, this matter is too trivial for a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution should be silent on marriage. Let the process work it out.

And I really don't mind the courts writing the laws a little. After all, it was the courts which desegregated schools. While I normally like legislatures to create all laws, I think once in a while the court can and SHOULD legislate.

quote: The activism of the SF govt and Mass courts has brought the issue to a head.

The question is IS IT activism? After all, any competant reading of an equal protection clause makes recognizing homosexual marriage almost a given.

quote: it seems to me that the way to decide this issue already lies in the framework to amend the constitution.

Bah! The way to decide this issue is how every other issue is decided. It should be how the issue with segregation of blacks was decided in the 50s.

	25-02-2004 21:22									#197
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yes, this matter is too trivial for a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution should be silent on marriage. Let the process work it out.

What 'process' would that be? Judging by your comments below I assume you mean that SCOTUS should decide and we end up with another Roe v Wade example of judicial legislation.

quote: And I really don't mind the courts writing the laws a little. After all, it was the courts which desegregated schools. While I normally like legislatures to create all laws, I think once in a while the court can and SHOULD legislate.

I'm stunned by the comment. The last thing the country needs are judicial 'lords' making laws. England was left behind a few hundred years ago, if memory serves.

quote: The question is IS IT activism? After all, any competant reading of an equal protection clause makes recognizing homosexual marriage almost a given.

Yes it is. Heres a definition for you:

'a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal'

quote: Bah! The way to decide this issue is how every other issue is decided. It should be how the issue with segregation of blacks was decided in the 50s.

So you support the 'defense of marriage act' ?

	25-02-2004 22:17									#198
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui While I normally like legislatures to create all laws, I think once in a while the court can and SHOULD legislate.

How is that within the scope of thier alloted powers?

	25-02-2004 22:22									#199
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yeah, that was such a wonderful line from Giancarlo... much more worthy of sig, don't you think . quote: But it was still removed. Actually, it is STILL the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment repealed it. So, no, technically it isn't "removed".

Yes, as everyone is aware, it is still present in our Constitution, but the legal force behind it has been "removed" so to speak by the 21st amendment.

	25-02-2004 22:24									#200
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick Isn't this just another gay pout? Did anyone bother to tell gay people that the world might have more important things to think about than them? Isn't this just another fundamentalist pout? Did anyone bother to tell fundamentalists that the world might have more important things to think about than them? If ever there was an issue that does not need to occupy the public energy this is it. If ever there was a time when the public will needed to be focused on substantive issues rather that social melodrama, now is that time. On the other hand, if we can get an amendment on this issue, maybe we can get one to ban abortion. That is worth fighting for. I would say just let the gay people do what they want if they would shut up. It's always whine, whine, whine. If they get this, they will just want something else later. Still, looking at it from the fundy POV, they are all going to hell when they die anyway, so why not let them have a little party now. I do not understand why fundamentalist's can't let people do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone. It's always preach, preach, preach. If they get this amendment, they will just want to deny someone something else later. Also, looking at it from their POV, the fundamentalist's are all going to heaven when they die anyway, so why not let them wait until then to start running things. On the other hand, if they want to get an amendment on this issue, maybe we can trade to get one to ban guns.

This is the similar rant that many segregationists used in opposing integration -- they saw it as whining, and wanted to believe that the majority of blacks were actually happy with the way things were, and that it was a rabid minority of whiners who were agitating and getting other blacks all uppity.

"Geez! Blacks want integration!? What will be the NEXT thing they will want!? Interracial marriage!?!?"

	25-02-2004 22:34									#201
	Remove this text

On ABC Evening News last night they said an ABC poll showed 46% of Americans support gay marriage. That's up from 32% just a few weeks ago. I think this San Francisco thing is working. It's changing opinions of people who didn't have deeply held opposition to it before. Give it a bit more time, and gay marriage will be a reality.

They also states that 55% of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Not that it matters. A minority of American can still force an amendment on us, even if Congress doesn't agree. There are two ways to amend the Constitution. Imran mentioned the prereqs for the first. The second is for two thirds of the states to call for a convention. While I should hope that the states aren't stupid enough to do this, we are talking about Fundies here. They are stupid and evil and might just do something like that.

	25-02-2004 23:13									#202
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui You are kidding right? Amendments can never be unconstitutional, since they are part of the Constitution. All they have to say is that they are repudiating earlier provisions of the Constitution (as was done with the 12th Amendment). Basically say we are striking those provisions and now are doing X. Since the amendment is later, it has precedence over earlier Constitutional provisions. Basically Article 5 has no real power to bind future governments.

Article 5 reads:

quote: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Presumably, without Art. 5 the constitution could not be amended, given that Art. 5 empowers the people to amend the constitution. If Art.5 creates the power, and put limits on the power, then the power is limited, right?

So even if you wanted to amend Art. 5 (say to make it easier to amend the constitution) no such amendment could dispose of the limitations (i.e. slave importation and unequal sufferage of states). Since changing Art. 5 by amendment would invoke the very power confered by Art. 5 amending Art. 5 could not exceed the limits set on Art. 5. That is, no amendment to Art. 5 could create greater power to amend than Art. 5 allows.

Hence there are two categories of constitutional amendments that are unconstitutional (even though one is now obsolete). So I would think if every other state decided to limit Texas to 1 senator and Texas disagreed, then the Supreme Court would (oddly, I'll admit) have to rule that amendment unconstitutional on the grounds that the people exceeded their power to amend.

	25-02-2004 23:19									#203
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Here's why the FMA is dumb even from a religious fundie wacko perspective:

(1) The FMA defines marriage between one man and one woman.

(2) The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under law.

(3) A liberal court could hold that equal protection is all or nothing - that no laws can be "more equal" than others. Thus one cannot exempt certain laws from equal protection.

(4) Therefore, the 14th Amendment + FMA = marriage is now illegal! Since gays cannot marry, and laws must protect equally, then no one can marry.

	25-02-2004 23:21									#204
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by yavoon no there aren't. and u have absolutely no business deciding what consenting adults wish to do or whom they wish to love. head out ass.

You have no business being a snob ass!

	25-02-2004 23:22									#205
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Thorn You have no business being a snob ass!

what is with the dodging in this thread. one question doesn't get answered and then I say this and u retort w/ "dont be a snob."

it seems like the left is seriously picking and choosing its fights here.

	25-02-2004 23:23									#206
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

You insulted me you ignorant ******* you don't deserve an answer.

	25-02-2004 23:24									#207
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Thorn You insulted me you ignorant ******* you don't deserve an answer.

what a contrite way to walk tail between legs out of an argument.

dont tell ur mom on me tho cuz she's really mean=[

	25-02-2004 23:26									#208
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

You didn't even ask a ****ing question, you insulted me.

	25-02-2004 23:29									#209
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Thorn You didn't even ask a ****ing question, you insulted me.

u r correct(tho unfortunately nowhere did I claim I asked u a question)

I presented u w/ a retort to ur obscenely misinformed and prejudiced statement.

	25-02-2004 23:33									#210
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You know I think you are the type of thing I scrape off my shoe.