|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
WBAM, this applies to your response to my post, too. I say this calmly because I know I get VERY emotional where gay...and human rights are concerned. You two have not walked in my shoes and been treated like shit just for being who you are. I don't want pity. I want to be accepted as I am, not as a sinner. As a human being.
First off, you haven't walked in my shoes either, so teh shoes argument is weak. You have no idea where I've been, what I've experienced, so don;t try to trump my personal experience with yours. If personal experience won the day then I could probobly make moot anything you say, but that's not how I roll, but to say you seem to have as much hate in you as those you despise.
Second, marraige isn't a human right, there are many restrictions on marraige today. To argue that it's a human right is to argue against every restriction. No one is preventing you from doing what you want to do, live whith whome you choose, love who you want to love or have sex whith whoever you wish what they are preventing you from doing is redefining an ancient tradition. Even then they aren't preventing you from doing it, they're just forcing you to do it through legislation rather than through the courts.
As far as not wanting to be considered a sinner..... we're all sinners.
I will summarize my thoughts into two words:
Human Rights.
Fine then.. you have human rights. So what's left to talk about?
Seriously, you totally ignore my argument and try instead of making any form of cojent argument yourself rely on a cheeky platitude, well, I hate to break it to you, but government endorsement isn;t a human right. The government allready lets you live your life as you see fit, you can have sex with whoever you want, be contractually obligated to that person if you see fit, you can have a religious cerimony. in essence you can do anything a married couple can do, government just won't endorse it, how is that a denial of human rights? Marraige has alwayse been about bringing together the two uniquily seperate elements of humanity, you want that redefined and the fact that society doesn;t unquestionably capitulate and deny the unique differences of men and women to join in a union that ideally produces offsping you think that's a denial of some unspecified human right and you attemt to silence any opposition by labeling them biggots. You're wholy unwilling to even consider a position that doesn;t offer you complete affermation.
Just for the sake of pretending you acctually read anything I said, let me ask you to back up your two word summary, please tell me what human right you are being denied.
WBAM, I read your post. This is about the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and have the same legal rights as heterosexuals...For example : My partner of 17 years died intestate...without a will..he was going to have a new one written up, but died in a farm accident before he could do so.
His family came and to summarize that story up: They were EVIL to me. No details of that, just use your imagination.
YES - there ought to have been a will....but there was none.
Had George and I been able to legally marry, I would have had rights as his spouse that not even his family could have denied me.
When this sort of thing happens to heterosexuals, the wife or husband has legal rights as the surviving spouse.
I had no legal rights to anything when George died.
They were his family. It does not matter that he did not like or trust them. They were blood.
Without that right to marry, I was just the asshole that had lived with George for over 17 years.
I am just as human as you, and the next person. Don't I deserve the best that life has to offer, as you do and everyone else does?
It boils down to that, minus the rhetoric, without mentioning the Bible or quoting it or anything or anyone else.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
No one is preventing you from doing what you want to do, live whith whome you choose, love who you want to love or have sex whith whoever you wish what they are preventing you from doing is redefining an ancient tradition.
Marriage(at least, marriage in the western world) today is not the same as it was hundreds of years ago. It's not even the same as it was a few decades ago. It's been redefined and adjusted to fit the standards of an evolving society time and time again.
What is different now?
I think you're right-on the money Animalman. Marriage has evolved tremendously over time. Sealing a family alliance used to be the main purpose. Romantic love was hardly a consideration.
I think Hillary is trying to defuse the issue by dropping the 'M' word. Change the name to civil union and 2/3rds of the public favour it. No one has ever accused Hillary of being less than shrewed. Eight years of Republican administration has been a disaster and I'm sure that's what she wants to talk about.
WBAM - Come talk to me when you've walked a mile in 4" stiletos.
Pariah - Is there a test for Mad Cow disease? You should get one.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 345
Queen of the Geeks 300+ posts
|
|
Queen of the Geeks 300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 345 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
Welcome to the club, Pariah...please wait 4 to 6 weeks for your Gay membership card to arrive....It will instruct you on :
Musicals you must listen to.
Great online sites to meet a man..or a woman..or whatever it is you are seeking....
Terrific discounts on drinks at selected bars, sex clubs, and a $2.00 locker at the baths on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Congratulations, Pariah..You are one of us now....
Gabba gabba, one of us.
Dern it, I knew you were too pretty to be straight lol 
I don't do drugs, because I am drugs!-Salvador Dali
MST3K:
Master's Wife: The child is a female. She must not be destroyed. She will grow up to be a woman.
Joel: Oh, is that how that works!
Wednesday-I will make for you a brother. He will be Jason Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
That all depends on what perspective you're viewing it from. Are you describing it as a government institution or a particular tradition?
Both would fit my description, but if you're asking me how I view marriage, then the answer is definitely a government institution. I think it's fine that the religiously-inclined place a great deal of importance and ritualization in it, but the fact of the matter is: today, marriage is a legal contract. This is the age of prenuptial agreements(which, once upon a time, was also an unpopular idea because it "violated the sanctity of marriage"), divorce settlements and custodial battles. As I've said before, not everyone gets married in a church, temple, mosque, etc.
Really, to paint marriage now as a Judeo-Christian practice the way so many have is borderline offensive. If you view marriage as sacred...well, that's your prerogative, but I don't agree. Marriage is a law, and no law should be sacrosanct. Bar none, the thing I like most about this country is that we live in a society that constantly questions itself and its ideas so as to create the best possible environment for its people. That we are currently at war with a theocracy only further drives that point home for me.
Getting back on point...if you want to retain your own ideas and traditions when it comes to your marriage, that's OK by me. You just shouldn't have the right to expect everyone else to follow the same traditions. If your church thinks homosexuals shouldn't marry...don't marry them in your church. What is written in the Bible shouldn't extend to the courthouse.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
WBAM - Come talk to me when you've walked a mile in 4" stiletos.
I'm told that can be quite uncomfortable.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Which is like saying you can order anything off the menu as long as its chicken noodle soup.
Uh huh, and anyone can order off that "Chicken Soup Only" menu. Homosexuals and straights alike.
Quote:
1. infertile men and women marry all the time.
There's no way to police that. That's a legal finagle moreso than a flaw. You can't measure the success of how something works based on an uncharacteristic breakdown. Men and women naturally have the ability to procreate and so we operate on that average. Just because there's sterile individuals out there, that doesn't mean we should abandon the fact that our bodies normally work a certain way that's more convenient for our system.
Furthermore, while the taxcuts work immediately for the couple, the pre-child cuts aren't very comparable to the ones recieved after you have a kid--Which is what I meant by "potential and/or definite".
Quote:
2. if population growth is your aim then multiple partners, as shown in the bible, is the best way to go.
This has nothing to do with population growth all on its own. It's about making sure the growth is socially stable.
Also, the Bible doesn't say anywhere that it condones multiple marriages dumbass. Just because you see stories with people who have mutliple wives, that doesn't mean it was okay.
Quote:
and you can show me statistics on a generation of gay married couples held up against straight couples?
I don't need to because, once again, homosexual couples aren't going to have any unexpected pregnancies. Straights, however, are.
Quote:
????
Gay marriage would unecessarily cause higher tax increase.
Quote:
i think that's the dumbest point ever. blind people are more likely to get hit by a car than a sigthed person, should they be the only ones allowed to have medical insurance?
What the hell are you going on about? I just explained to you that homosexuals won't have unexpected pregnancy and you rant about blind people and cars. There is no "likelihood" involved in the gay reproduction matter, because the only way to reproduce is with a male and female or with a female and some purchased spermine. You're scenario is in no way analogous with situation of homosexuals.
Quote:
so you avoid the actual point and make a personal attack?
I already addressed your "point" previously. I was just pointing out your repetition through ad hominem.
Quote:
tradition isn't always a good thing.
Holy crap, you are so stupid. I'm the one talking about legal contracts. You're the one who's talking about tradition.
Quote:
Long tradition of women not being allowed to vote, of cheating spouses being stoned, of witch trials and iquisitions, of slavery, racism, sexism, crime, war, poverty, etc.
Wow, you really have a skewed definition of the word "tradition".
Quote:
If you want to deny someone a chance to be happy in life based on some potential, and baseless, tax reason then I will have to again point out that you are a pathetic human being.
They can get married. Just not with taxcuts.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Both would fit my description, but if you're asking me how I view marriage, then the answer is definitely a government institution. I think it's fine that the religiously-inclined place a great deal of importance and ritualization in it, but the fact of the matter is: today, marriage is a legal contract.
That's pretty much the point I've been trying to make here. Posters like r3x have been spending so much time ranting about how marriage isn't a religious tradition anymore that he hasn't taken into mind the fact that I've been talking about marriage as a government institution. Marriage hasn't technically changed over the years so much as its just started associating itself with government. One can still get married without legal obligations, but its current relation to government is exactly what I'm trying to cover.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
I'm going to the Noche Latina Show at the Frat house on Saturday night! Any of you girls wanna join me?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Massachusetts same-sex marriage pioneers split upThe lesbian couple whose landmark lawsuit helped Massachusetts become the only state in America where same-sex couples can marry legally have split up, a spokeswoman said on Friday.
Julie and Hillary Goodridge and six other gay and lesbian couples sued Massachusetts for the right to marry and won when the state's highest court ruled narrowly for them in 2003.
Their suit helped spark a nationwide debate on gay marriage.
They have not filed for divorce.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Shocking! Divorce....in modern America? Those two gals seem to have gotten the hang of marriage pretty quickly.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,291 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,291 Likes: 37 |
THE IMPERIAL JUDICIARY
by Patrick J. Buchanan
In November 2003, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, of the [Massaschusetts] State Judicial Court, gave the Masachussetts [state] legislature 6 months to enact a law granting homosexuals the right to marry.
In July [2004] the U.S. Supreme Court had prepared the ground for [Chief State Justice] Marshall's decision, when it struck down the laws of seventeen states and declared homosexual sodomy to be a constitutionally protected right.
Following that Lawrence decision, Justice Antonin Scalia fairly exploded:
Quote:
...state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity [are now] called into question...
The court has largely signed onto the homosexual agenda...
The court has taken sides in the culture war.
Indeed, it had.
Nevertheless, on May 17, 2004, [Massachusetts] Governor Mitt Romney bowed to the order of the court, and began handing out the marriage licenses, though he and the state legislature believed that nothing in the constitution of the commonwealth mandated gay marriages.
Few better examples exist of how unelected judges have usurped the law-making power, and how unelected individuals have abdicated.
When did this revolution begin?
Sixty years to the day before Romney's surrender, May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 9-0 decision, in Brown vs. the Board of Education.
In the name of equal rights, the Warren Court had effected an historic coup d'etat. It had usurped power over state schools never granted to courts, either in federal law, or in the Constitution.
That the 14th amendment did not outlaw segregation was obvious. That amendment was approved by a Congress that presided over the segregated schools of Washington D.C.
But the Warren Court, fed up with the [lethargic slow pace of] the democratic process, decided to desegregate America -- by court order.
The coup succeeded.
Though Eisenhower was stunned by [the court's Brown vs. Board] decision, he and the Republican Congress accepted the court ruling as federal law, to be enforced by federal troops, as it would be at Central High School in Little Rock in 1957.
And because we agreed with the goal --an end to segregation-- we accepted, without questioning the implications, the means adopted: judicial dictate.
Having written its views of segregation into the Constitution and imposed its will on the nation, a confident Warren Court now began to impose a social, cultural and moral revolution on America.
Under this secularist and egalitarian revolution, America's schools were as de-Christianized as the Soviet Union. Voluntary prayer and Bible readings were abolished. All replicas of the Ten Commandments were removed. Easter pageants and Christmas carols were forbidden. Teachers were ordered to stop wearing crosses and cricifixes to class.
This remoreseless campaign to de-Christianize public life of the nation was only the beginning.
In the half-century after Brown, the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts:
- Declared pornography and dancing in beer halls to be constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
.
- Created new rights for criminals.
.
- Inposed broad new restrictions on state and local prosecutors.
.
- Outlawed the death penalty across America for a generation.
.
- Declared abortion a Constitutional right, and ruled that states cannot protect babies from a grisly procedure that involves stabbing the child in the head with scissors when halfway out of the womb. [a k a, partial-birth abortions]
.
- Order both houses of all state legislatures reapportioned on the basis of population alone.
.
- Ordered VMI and the Citadel to end their 150-year old all-male cadet corps traditions, and to stop saying grace before meals.
.
- Abolished term limits on members of Congress, enacted in popular referenda.
.
- Forbade Arizona to make English the official language for state business.
.
- Ordered California --60 percent of whose people had voted to end welfare to illegal aliens-- to restore welfare benefits to all illegals.
.
- Approved of discrimination against white students to advance the "compelling state interest" of "diversity" in colleges.
.
- Declared homosexual sodomy a constitutional right.
.
- Declared that the First Amendment protects the right of adults to burn the American flag --but prohibits school children from reciting the Pledge of Allegience to that flag.
In each case, courts overthrew laws supported by majorities, to replace them with policies demanded by minorities.
"The Judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, is in the vanguard of the elite imposing non-majority values and policies on the country", write legal scholars William Quirk and R. Randall Bridwell, in Judicial Dictatorship.
"They are, as Jefferson said, the 'miners and sappers' of Democracy"
Today, America meekly awaits the Supreme Court's judgement on whether all 50 states must legalize gay marriage. Were [King] George III to return to life, he would erupt with laughter at what a flock of sheep the descendents of the American rebels have become.
No Congress, no president, could have survived the issuance of such radical dictates. Yet the Supreme Court has prospered to become the first branch of government. Why do we submit?
"Here, sir, the people rule!" was the proud boast of 19th-century Americans.
But the people no longer rule in America.
Though our society is democratic, our government is not. Like ancient Israel, the republic has fallen under the rule of judges. How serious is our situation?
Robert Bork answers:
Quote:
It is extremely serious... the court is steadily shrinking the area of self-government without any legitimate authority to do so, in the Constitution or elsewhere.
In the process it is revising the moral and cultural life of the nation. The constitutional law it is producing might as well be written by the ACLU.
How did it happen that a republic born of a rebellion against a king and parliament we did not elect has fallen under the tyranny of judges we did not elect? How did we come to live under what Jefferson warned us would be "the despotism of an oligarchy" ?
The latest gay rights rulings by the court are just yet another nail in the coffin of our democratic representative government.
These rulings are illegitimate without a House and Senate vote, or a national referendum.
Short of that, it's just tyranny of a elitist minority over the unrepresented majority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
wow, when you slant history, you really slant it. the "coup" the "revolution" and "grisly baby murder."
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,291 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,291 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
wow, when you slant history, you really slant it. the "coup" the "revolution" and "grisly baby murder."
That's a rather dismissive reply, Ray, that bypasses Buchanan's point:
That the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have usurped the authority of state and federal legislatures, and have passed into law many absurdities that bypass the will of a vast majority of Americans.
And I might add, on issues of illegal immigration, national defense, and ignoring the institutions this nation was founded on, and politically-correct/ultra-liberal rulings based on abstractions of convoluted principle, that obstruct common-sense laws of self-preservation (such as containing illegal immigration, and not giving illegals free health care), endanger our very existence.
School prayer, for example, removed from schools in two supreme court rulings in 1962-1963.
Polls at the time show 97% of Americans approved of prayer and the Bible in schools.
Only 3% wanted it excluded.
That demonstrates very clearly the absurdity, that 3% should determine repression of the other 97%.
I'm not the first to call it a "revolution". Conservatives and Hippies/leftists alike have called it a cultural revolution for 40 years.
"Grisly procedure" is not an innacurate description of the partial birth abortion act of stabbing a fully grown fetus in the head and then sucking its brains out with a surgical vaccuum machine, to make its skull collapse, to move its corpse out of the mother's womb.
I suppose you would call this a merciful and humanitarian procedure?
All this is done to prevent a perfectly healthy and fully formed baby from drawing air for a few seconds and legally being defined as a baby, a human being. While it is a human being regardless of legalistic semantics, not allowing it to leave the womb alive allows it to technically avoid being defined as a human being.
And thus technically avoid being legally termed the act of murder that it truly is.
It amazes me how liberals can bemoan the need for humanitarian compassion, and can rail on conservatives for not wanting to spend more to fight AIDS and other diseases, can at the very same time so freely rationalize such a brutal and cold-blooded mockery of surgical procedure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,882 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,882 Likes: 52 |
The courts provide us some checks & balances. (not a popular concept these days apparently) There was a reason they're more insulated from the electorate. In the long run it protects us from the tyrany that Buchanan is railing against.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Sort of like the clone army was supposed to bring peace to the Republic? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
The courts provide us some checks & balances. (not a popular concept these days apparently) There was a reason they're more insulated from the electorate. In the long run it protects us from the tyrany that Buchanan is railing against.
But then who provides checks and balances for the courts?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
The courts provide us some checks & balances. (not a popular concept these days apparently) There was a reason they're more insulated from the electorate. In the long run it protects us from the tyrany that Buchanan is railing against.
But then who provides checks and balances for the courts?
the legislative branch through laws. courts simply interpret the laws and make decisions based upon that. so gay marriage is ruled on based on the rights laid out in the constitution, then laws may be passed to ban or permit certain things which may be challenged in court to see if they contradict constitutional rights.
so ultimately the argument here is not "activist judges" but whether gay marriage is covered by rights of freedom and anti-discrimination laws. or whether those laws cover only specific forms of discrimination, not general forms of discrimination.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
so ultimately the argument here is not "activist judges" but whether gay marriage is covered by rights of freedom and anti-discrimination laws. or whether those laws cover only specific forms of discrimination, not general forms of discrimination.
The argument is about activist judges if the courts take action not specifically spelled out in the constitution.
For the record there is no blanket "anti-discrimination" clause in the constitution. Anti discrimination laws do only cover specific forms of discrimination. Here's an example you can go out and observe today if you'd like. It is illegal to have seperate bathrooms for whites and blacks however it it completely legal to discriminate between men and women and have seperate bathrooms for them. Before you right this off there are activists in teh transgender populace who do believe this is an unfair discrimination and seek to change it, but regardless of your feelings about seperate men's and women's bathrooms it is discrimination and it is legal.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
ShowbizData
The gay-oriented Houston Voice has "outed" CNN's Anderson Cooper and Fox News Channel's Shepard Smith, charging that they "choose to hide and deceive -- and to protect their incomes and images -- at the expense of contributing important weight and star power to the gay civil rights movement." Managing Editor Kevin Naff claims in an editorial appearing in the current edition of the Voice that Smith once tried to pick him up in a gay piano bar in New York City and that Cooper dodged a question about his sexual orientation in a recent New York magazine interview by saying, ""The whole thing about being a reporter is that you're supposed to be an observer and to be able to adapt with any group you're in ... and I don't want to do anything that threatens that." Commented Naff: "Does he believe that female and African-American reporters lack credibility to cover stories since their minority status is showing?"
Assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Are those homosexuals who, by trade, read minds in general, or rather, mind-readers of unspecified sexual orienatation whose particular area of expertise is in reading the minds of homosexuals?
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Why can't it be all three!?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Seriously though, it's the first one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
National Review
Looks like it's not only The Netherlands that's headed down the slippery slope to polygamy. A new study for Canada's federal justice department has just recommended that Canada legalize polygamy.
This would involve not only the abolition of anti-polygamy laws, but also the regulation of polygamy. That is, it is recommended that the law provide "clearer spousal support and inheritance rights" to polygamous families. Obviously, that would be a major step toward eventual full recognition of polygamous marriages.
The study in question was authored by a professor at Queens University named Martha Bailey. Bailey was a key author of "Beyond Conjugality," the report of the Law Commission of Canada I discussed in "Beyond Gay Marriage."
"Beyond Conjugality" directly suggested moving to a partnership system that would put multi-partner unions on a par with marriage.
The funny thing about this news story is that it refers to a second report that scoffs at the idea of a slippery slope from same-sex marriage to polygamy. Polygamy, this second report says, undermines equality for women. Yet the first report clearly contradicts this view. It says that polygamy per se is not the problem, and that abuses within polygamous marriage can be dealt with by other sorts of laws. And again, if the proposal is to tailor new laws of spousal support and inheritance rights to polygamous families, can calls for formal recognition be far behind?
Right now Canada's conservatives are on track to unseat the liberal government. If so, don't expect to see these reforms enacted into law right away. But the direction Canada's liberals want to move in is clear.
You might recall conservatives fretting that a recognition of gay marriage could soon lead to legalizing polygamy and incest. Those concerns were typically scoffed at by liberals.
The American Spectator reports that a group of "sexual pioneers" and gay rights advocates have released a statement admitting they want to move beyond homosexual marriage rights into what appears to be polygamy:Released last month, the statement specifically endorses "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner," among many other sexual alternatives. **** In their statement, they advocate a "new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." This new vision, they hope, will move the nation "beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics" as they exist today. Naturally, they want a "flexible set of economic benefits," regardless of the nature of the association, "conjugal" or otherwise. By focusing extensively on "economic benefits" and "social justice" in their statement, these advocates appear to be saying that their primary goal is not just sexual equality, but yet-another attempt at traditional socialism: ... their larger drive for social justice [attacks] "corporate greed, draconian tax cuts and breaks for the wealthy, and the increasing shift of public funds from human needs into militarism, policing, and prison construction." **** The "push to privatize Social Security and many other human needs benefits" also is "at the center of this attack," the statement asserts. This admission, assuming the public hears about it, could prove to be a roadblock to the gay rights movement. Many of the movement's gains have been made by appealing to "libertarian" streaks in the conservative movement, republicans and independents who may not agree with homosexuality but who try to avoid government intrusion into personal lives. Socialism and wealth redistribution, however, are direct intrusions into our lives, and reveal a certain hypocrisy in the gay rights movement. By advocating for these intrusions now, when many Americans are still undecided about the gay rights issues, the movement may have overreached and may find themselves coming up short.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Socialism from the liberal left? I can only express astonishment that borders on alarm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,882 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,882 Likes: 52 |
Wasn't polygamy legal when we had are strongest anti-gay laws? This linkage smacks more of politics & less about actual right or wrong. The article G-man presents is about a small group (about 20 according to the article) Such a small group isn't representative. Imagine if I had an article about 20 people who happened to be Republican & then tried to pass it off as something more than just 20 wacky Republicans?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
...his gay marriage bills ... shows bush as a man who is willing to piss on the founding fathers...
Which founding father was in favor of gay marriage?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Well played, Jerry. Well played.
Okay, I'll rephrase: which founding father spoke or wrote publicly in favor of gay marriage as a constitutional right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
...his gay marriage bills ... shows bush as a man who is willing to piss on the founding fathers...
Which founding father was in favor of gay marriage?
Quote:
what i said:
ast i read the wiretapping was found to be illegal. and as pointed out above habeas corpus is part of the foundation of american justice.
this along with his gay marriage bills and signing statements shows bush as a man who is willing to piss on the founding fathers and america's very essence.
you cut my quotes apart to make a joke but the fact is the gay marriage amendment is writing a ban on a right and a form of discrimination into the constitution. this pisses on the essence of the constitution's foundings.
and the signing statements go against the founding father's intent of balance in the government.
so you can cut up what i say to prove a non-existent point because you have no solid grounding other than being an asshole.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
You can't make arguments that assumes "facts" or principles of law that don't actually exist.
You want to argue that public policy favors gay marriage, that's fine. I think there are many legitimate arguments to be made in that vein.
But the only way your argument about "the founding fathers" works is if you assume the founders intended there to be a right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
The Constitution is a law.
It is a basic principle of legal analysis that you should consider the intent of the drafters of a law when you need to figure out what the law means or what it covers.
At the time the constitution was drafted, there is no evidence whatsoever that the drafters intended it to be a protection of the right to gay marriage.
In fact, when you consider American society in the late 1700s, it is highly unlikely that the founders would have considered the constitution to protect any right to homosexual conduct.
Again, this does not mean that people can't reasonably disagree about whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. It does, however, indicate that there's no evidence that opposing it is "pissing" on the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
You can't make arguments that assumes "facts" or principles of law that don't actually exist.
You want to argue that public policy favors gay marriage, that's fine. I think there are many legitimate arguments to be made in that vein.
But the only way your argument about "the founding fathers" works is if you assume the founders intended there to be a right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
The Constitution is a law.
It is a basic principle of legal analysis that you should consider the intent of the drafters of a law when you need to figure out what the law means or what it covers.
At the time the constitution was drafted, there is no evidence whatsoever that the drafters intended it to be a protection of the right to gay marriage.
You completely misinterperate every post you read, it seems like.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
the gay marriage amendment is writing a ban on a right and a form of discrimination into the constitution. this pisses on the essence of the constitution's foundings.
The founding of the constitution establishes rights and freedom from discrimination/oppression. While the FF ment mostly only white, land-owning males, as history progresses the ideals of our constitution have encompassed all humans, ergo making a form of oppression part of America pisses on the [living] constitution.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
As a supporter of gay marriage, I nonetheless have to say, based on reading G-Man's post, that I side with him.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Uschi said
The founding of the constitution establishes rights and freedom from discrimination/oppression. While the FF ment mostly only white, land-owning males, as history progresses the ideals of our constitution have encompassed all humans, ergo making a form of oppression part of America pisses on the [living] constitution.
But that's not the point.
If you want to argue that the constitution is an "evolving document", that's one thing. I disagree. But at least that argument involves eschewing the original intent of the founders in favor of perceived public policy.
However, if you invoke the founding fathers you are, by necessity, invoking THEIR original intent.
There's is nothing in history to indicate that supporting gay marriage was part of their original intent.
In fact, its more likely that the framers intended marriage to be a something that each state was wholly empowered to regulate as it saw fit.
Even today, in order to get married, you need a license.
The issuance of a state sponsored license tends to indicate that there is no right to marriage. You can't really license a right. Furthermore, the process of licensing, or regulation, by its very nature, involves some form of discrimination, in the sense that involves withholding the license from some, while granting it to others.
As I said, there are legitimate reasons to support gay marriage. But the U.S. constitution is actually one of the weaker ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
As a supporter of gay marriage, I nonetheless have to say, based on reading G-Man's post, that I side with him.
Thanks Jim.
This thread is long, but if Uschi (or Ray) were to read the entirety of it, they would see that, I actually have supported legislatively enacted gay marriage, just not judically enacted gay marriage.
My opposition is not to gay marriage, just to bad legal analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
the gay marriage amendment is writing a ban on a right and a form of discrimination into the constitution. this pisses on the essence of the constitution's foundings.
pisses on the ESSENCE of the constitution's foundings
Quote:
es‧sence  /ˈɛsəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[es-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features: Freedom is the very essence of our democracy.
2. a substance obtained from a plant, drug, or the like, by distillation, infusion, etc., and containing its characteristic properties in concentrated form.
3. an alcoholic solution of an essential oil; spirit.
4. a perfume; scent.
5. Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.
6. something that exists, esp. a spiritual or immaterial entity.
—Idioms
7. in essence, essentially; at bottom, often despite appearances: For all his bluster, he is in essence a shy person.
8. of the essence, absolutely essential; critical; crucial: In chess, cool nerves are of the essence.
i.e. understood as pissing on the base ideals contained in the [living] constitution, those facets which are immutable dispite the passage of time (and to be fair, these last two centuries have had a lot happen in the way of looking at things). pissing on the ESSENCE is not "pissing on the FF INTENT" as you seem to be reading.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
you cut my quotes apart to make a joke but the fact is the gay marriage amendment is writing a ban on a right and a form of discrimination into the constitution. this pisses on the essence of the constitution's foundings.
and the signing statements go against the founding father's intent of balance in the government.
so you can cut up what i say to prove a non-existent point because you have no solid grounding other than being an asshole.
The Gay Marriage issue has nothing to do with "political balance" and everything to do with social effectiveness. You know this because I hammered it into your skull only pages prior to the current line of palavor. However, it seems you're unable to survive more than three posts within these types of arguments without a whole bunch of ad hominem pot-shots that have nothing to do with anything. Your attempt at trying to use the Founding Fathers as a mouth piece is further proof of your idiocy. Gays aren't being "discriminated against," marriage simply does not work for its ratio. It was designed for straight couples; It's not some sort of private club. If you knew anything about the way it worked, you'd realize that it's a way for the government to insure a healthy population that grows steadily rather than extraneously.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Matt Kennedy said:
You're pathetic, Davey. You are a fucking joke. You remind me so much of the "street preachers" I used to see on Market Street in San Francisco that would stand on the sidewalks delivering their "message" to the masses--- wild-eyed and obviously just bugshit crazy to the bone--- while reeking of urine and shit.
Those poor misguided bastards couldn't really help themselves. I think you're capable of doing better--- you just won't.
Whatever happened to that guy?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Uschi said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
the gay marriage amendment is writing a ban on a right and a form of discrimination into the constitution. this pisses on the essence of the constitution's foundings.
pisses on the ESSENCE of the constitution's foundings
Quote:
es‧sence  /ˈɛsəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[es-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features: Freedom is the very essence of our democracy.
2. a substance obtained from a plant, drug, or the like, by distillation, infusion, etc., and containing its characteristic properties in concentrated form.
3. an alcoholic solution of an essential oil; spirit.
4. a perfume; scent.
5. Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.
6. something that exists, esp. a spiritual or immaterial entity.
—Idioms
7. in essence, essentially; at bottom, often despite appearances: For all his bluster, he is in essence a shy person.
8. of the essence, absolutely essential; critical; crucial: In chess, cool nerves are of the essence.
i.e. understood as pissing on the base ideals contained in the [living] constitution, those facets which are immutable dispite the passage of time (and to be fair, these last two centuries have had a lot happen in the way of looking at things). pissing on the ESSENCE is not "pissing on the FF INTENT" as you seem to be reading.
jesus christ maybe i used the wrong word. the point is that constitutional ammendments are historically for adding rights. this is the first, to my knowledge, to specifically deny something to one group of people.
the constitution has the great mechanism of allowing for change, of adding rights that were not considered at the time of its writing. such as the rights of women and the ban on slavery.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the point is that constitutional ammendments are historically for adding rights. this is the first, to my knowledge, to specifically deny something to one group of people.
Not true.
The 22d Amendment specifically denies someone the right to serve as President for more than two terms.
The 18th Amendment denied people the right to "manufacture, sale, or transport... intoxicating liquors."
The Eleventh Amendment limits the rights of people to sue states.
I suppose one could also argue that the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows the government to impose the income tax, also denies us the right to our own money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
" IMO, there is NOTHING in the constitution about gay rights. However,"Beardguy continued.
"It does violate the policy that the USA has had for many decades now of protecting human rights in other countries. Perhaps it is time for this country to start protecting it's own."
Beardguy felt satisfied with what he'd typed and posted his message.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
