29-04-2004 15:15									#91
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DanS "Allocation"... Hmmm... Does your question have any real meaning?

Sorry if my choice of words was confusing. I was when I posted that.

quote: It should be as it always has been. The final determination of rights is in the court's sphere, while the enumeration of those rights is in the legislators' sphere. The legislative is designed to be closest to the wishes of the people, it's where political debate takes place, and it's where a concensus and legitimacy is formed.

It seems to me that gays use of the courts is just exactly what they were intended for. The judicial branch of gov't was created, in part, to help thwart just such a "tyranny of the majority". If you are looking for a classic case of oppression by majority rule, you need not look farther than the issue we are discussing. Denying a minority of citizens the very right to marry seems like a pretty clear case of oppression to me. I think most would agree that the right to marry is more fundamental to our lives than even the right to vote.

In this light, taking the case to the courts (just as those who supported inter-racial marriage did) provides the minority with a way to get a fair hearing in a situation in which the majority is unreasonably oppressing a minority. This is not "short-circuiting" anything.

As Madison said (The Federalist, No. 51):

quote: It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of government."

And justice is precisely what gay people are asking for.

	29-04-2004 19:09									#92
	Tired of ads?

Where is the justice in theological laws that imposes dehumanizing stereotypical, degrading indenty on gays?

Where is the justice in dehumanizing gays by denying them the same basic human rights to conscience and intimate life?

Where is the justice in homophobes using their rhetoric of family values, when it is this very rhetoric that breaks up family when parents disown their gay or lesbian child?

Where is the justice in dehumanizing gays' concept of love to a reductionist, obsessive focus on the sex act of love, when heterosexual conception of love is not reduced to this same animalistic level?

	30-04-2004 02:39									#93
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT From the discussion, the real content of homosexual mariage is the fun and joy of a pleasant rite. This could be described as frivolous as well.

If marriage is so frivolous, why deny it?

	30-04-2004 02:52									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris to Belgium for no adoption rights.

True, but we can't have it all at the same time. Let people get used to gay couples married first, and then we can see if they can adopt kids.

	30-04-2004 02:57									#95
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT We have here a civil union (PACS) which answers that claim.

Except that children of homosexual couples don't get the same protection, and that there is no regroupement familial under PACS, as well as other problems, since the PACS don't grant the exact same rights as marriage.

	30-04-2004 05:45									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think the problem with marriage is that it confers special perks and that it isn't clearly defined. If the courts rule that marriage licenses cannot be denied to any two people - does that mean marriages within families are okay? Even if incest is forbidden those two people don't have to have children.

I think conferring perks upon any homestead with a child would be a nice solution. This is what the state has a vested interest in anyway. Eliminate marriage along with the perks and set up civil unions for any two people.

	30-04-2004 07:13									#97
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Err, Davout, you know... Homosexual marriages can be consumed

I believe the correct term is "consummated"

EDIT: beaten to it

	30-04-2004 23:48									#98
	Increase Your PM Length

Spiffor's right, PACS doesn't give the same rights as marriage. Since marriage is a civil union anyway, I miss the point of preventing homosexuals from enjoying it.

	01-05-2004 04:24									#99
	Got spare money?

You don't understand, the WORD marriage means a union between a man and a woman, and God forbid we change the definition of the word

	01-05-2004 06:25									#100
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Don't you have an organization specifically for that purpose?

	01-05-2004 08:23									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

I had to sift through some of the gay literature.

Basically flexuality is the complete openness to sexual encounters regardless of gender. It renders meaningless the concept of a fixed sexual orientation.

	01-05-2004 08:26									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

In the United States, the state of Oregon has stopped ALL marriages. Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that in granting these rights, the free exercise of everyone else will also follow.

quote: 5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

Understand that no one in France can be forced to provide gay marriages, nor can the state be forced to do so because such marriages are not provided by law.

That's the difference between marriage and sodomy restrictions. Sodomy restrictions fall under the former, the state cannot prevent these kinds of relationships. However, marriage forces recognition from the state, such that the state must act rather than declining to act.

	01-05-2004 08:28									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Tell me Ben Kenobi, do Catholic priests choose to be paedophiles, or paedophiles choose to be Catholic priests?

Prolly the latter.

	01-05-2004 13:02									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: You don't understand, the WORD marriage means a union between a man and a woman, and God forbid we change the definition of the word

Yes, but a marriage is until death parts the spouses, so can they f*k whoever they like in heaven after death or not?

	01-05-2004 17:07									#105
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Yes, but a marriage is until death parts the spouses, so can they f*k whoever they like in heaven after death or not?

This theological question is far above me




<--------- Unabated pro-gay-marriage