|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2006 : 08:53:09 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: It is the basic foundation of this great nation.
What!? First of all, what does it mean for something to be the "basic foundation of a nation"? If someone asked me that, I'd probably reply with something about how the structure of government is set up.
So I guess maybe you mean that all nations are founded on certain social mores too, and that one of the big social mores in American society during its foundation was heterosexual, monogamous marriage?
If you mean it that way, it is still problematic. When our country was founded, marriages were still arranged and women were still second-rate citizens. Blacks were also enslaved. And all that stuff was an important part of the American economy and fabric of society in general. Those things changed, and our nation still stands. Are you saying that if gay marriage were legal our nation would fall apart? And if so, please explain that. Why are you identifying only straight, monogamous marriage as some special social more? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 08:57:41 [Permalink]
|
We like it just the way it was/is/and will always be.
Um, what are you talking about? Gay marriage already is legal in some parts of the USA. Also, the reason the Dems have caved is because they are going to try to get civil unions for gays instead (which is the same damn legal thing.) So it already isn't the way it has always been. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 09:01:02 [Permalink]
|
As of September 2005 in the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, while California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and Vermont grant persons in same-sex unions a similar legal status to those in a civil marriage by domestic partnership, civil union or reciprocal beneficiary laws.
Sixteen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Twenty-seven states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage
From Wikipedia |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 09:11:45 [Permalink]
|
| Why Bill cares for gays getting married is beyond me. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 10:01:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Not leftist judges. Ones that saw the problem with the 14th Amendment as it related to same sex couples.
(bill) These few "judges" don't see the same interpretation as, oh let's say, the federal gov. state gov., oh, and the will of the voting people. For 200+ years the bench recognized marriage as between a man and a women. Marriage is legally defined as between a man and a women. There are plenty of judges still on the bench who see this as totally legal and can come to the same conclusion that 200+ years of other judges have concluded. A few leftist loon judges in mass. or Vermont, or a crackpot mayor in San Fran are not going to force gay marriage on mainstream usa and get away with it. At least not for very long.
I assume you've heard of separation of powers, Bill? Look it up.
quote:
Yes, DOMA was passed, it has yet to be challenged in court. That day is coming. With successes in MA, the chance for a challenge to DOMA has increased. It also does not change the WORDING of the law.
(bill) The 2004 election should be an eye opener. Yes only 13 states voted it down, only 13 voted. If you can't get Oregon to jump on board then you are toast in the mild blue and red states who have yet had the chance to decide the matter.
What part of "the law is not a popularity contest" do you not understand?
quote:
Stipulated that DOMA says this. It does not change the 14th Amendment.
(bill) Right, and no one is denying any adult marriage. Follow fed. law, state law, and get married today.
Same sex couples need not apply. Clear 14th Amendment issue.
quote:
Source for your 40 state denying same sex marriages? None? Why should I believe you?
(bill) Because you know that it is true.
You've lied before, why should I believe you? No, I don't know that it's true. And this little statement here makes me doubt it even more strongly.
quote:
And secondly, this has anything to do with the 14th Amendment problems.... how?
(bill) What 14th problems?
Yes, Clinton said this. So fucking what.
(bill) I am simply pointing out that the issue transcends blue state and red state, dem or repub. to counter your assertion that a reason for this was a majority of the 13 states were red. If Bill Clinton and Oregon reject gay marriage then this is major blow to the cause as even one of the most lib prezz and one of the most lib blue states have rejected the notion.
Lessee, I point out that the sample you trot out is not representative. So you counter, not with polls, but with a single opinion. This does not approach being a mosquito bite on the ass of the cause. The polls do not bear your assertion out and the law is not a popularity contest.
quote:
The rule of law does not buckle under to mob rule. Check out Article VI of the Constitution.
(bill) Nor do federal and state law, as well as the will of the people, buckle under the weight of a few loony leftist judges trying to dictate law from the bench.
Gee, it's only in their job description. Again, read up on seperation of powers.
quote:
The 14th Amendment is not limited to just racial issues. No matter what the justification was for enacting it, the verbiage clearly states that no citizen shall be denied equal protection under the law. DOMA clearly violates that. The law is not a popularity contest.
(bill) Nope! Any adult who wants to participate in the civil contract know as marriage can do so. What they have been denied is the right to redefine the established institution of marriage and this not a violation of 14th.
Again, same sex couples need not apply. They have been denied equal protection under the law by being denied access to the 1,138 benefits of marriage which cannot be conferred onto domestic partnerships. It is unequal protection under the law no matter how you try to spin it.
quote:
And homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It's a sexual identity. Thug is a lifestyle. Biker is a lifestyle. And yet the 14th Amendment applies to these people as well. They all get equal treatment under the law.
(bill) I kill a heterosexual I will go to jail. If I kill a homosexual I will go to jail. They are protected.
What gay marriage seeks is special treatment to be able to redefine marriage. Of coarse the polygamy group wants to redefine it as well. As well as the bestiality group and whatever other alternative lifestyle should come down the pipe. The American people say no. We like it just the way it was/is/and will always be.
Again, the law is not a popularity contest.
I assume you've heard of separation of powers, Bill? Look it up.
(bill) Yes, it keeps fringe judges from imposing their own version of the law onto the masses.
Same sex couples need not apply. Clear 14th Amendment issue.
(bill) Of coarse they need not apply. Same sex is not the definition of marriage. If you choose to abide by state and fed law then apply today!
You've lied before, why should I believe you? No, I don't know that it's true. And this little statement here makes me doubt it even more strongly.
"Currently in the United States, only Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, Vermont and Connecticut offer civil unions, California, New Jersey, Maine , and the District of Columbia grant benefits through domestic partnerships, and Hawaii has reciprocal beneficiary laws. Seventeen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, twenty-seven states have legal statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act . (Regarding the name of the act, see below.) The Act is meant to prevent the courts from using the Constitution's Full F |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 11:03:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I assume you've heard of separation of powers, Bill? Look it up.
(bill) Yes, it keeps fringe judges from imposing their own version of the law onto the masses.
Since you refuse to read the Constitution, I will quote it.
Article III, Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Article VI, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Amendment 14, Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Under these provisions, judges have the duty to overturn law which goes counter to these sections of the Constitution. This is not legislating from the bench as they are not writing new laws but instead throwing out existing ones which do not conform to the supreme law of the land.
quote:
Lessee, I point out that the sample you trot out is not representative. So you counter, not with polls, but with a single opinion.
(bill) Single opinion? I said the state of Oregon. Which was converged on and campaigned heavily by same sex marriage advocates because of rich blue state history. Yet it failed in Oregon!
Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? The unrepresentative sample was Oregon. Instead of showing me a representative sample, you trotted out a single opinion. You have yet to address the point with a representative sample.
quote:
This does not approach being a mosquito bite on the ass of the cause. The polls do not bear your assertion out and the law is not a popularity contest.
(bill) Right, the law say marriage between man and women. If this is not popular with you then tough...
Whether it is popular with me or not is immaterial. It is against Constitutional law. And your assertion that popular opinion is against extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples is just plain wrong.
quote:
They have been denied equal protection under the law by being denied access to the 1,138 benefits of marriage which cannot be conferred onto domestic partnerships.
(bill) No they have not. If they want to get married then follow the state laws and apply today... If they choose to be with a lover of the same sex then this by definition is not marriage so of coarse the gov. won't marry you.
Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
quote:
Again, the law is not a popularity contest
(bill) Right, so if law says marriage is one man and one women and this is not popular with you well then that is irrelevant to the fact that it is.
You have to look at all the applicable laws, Bill. Not just the ones you agree with. And the law you hold so dearly to has serious Constitutional problems. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 11:31:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why Bill cares for gays getting married is beyond me.
Because if gays get married, it will ruin Bill's marriage! What part of that can't you understand?
/sarcasm off
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 11:32:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
(bill) That is because marriage is not between man and man. Marriage by definition is man and women. No one is being denied their right to marry, only their right to inject their personal definition of marriage and the ability to trump the legal definition of marriage. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 12:21:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
(bill) That is because marriage is not between man and man. Marriage by definition is man and women. No one is being denied their right to marry, only their right to inject their personal definition of marriage and the ability to trump the legal definition of marriage.
At this point, we have hit an impasse. You continually parrot the same argument. And when shown multiple times the 14th Amendment and explained how the marriage contract cannot hold in the face of equal protection if it is only extended to heterosexual couples, you merely regurgitate the same claim.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 12:37:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
It ain't no big deal. Like most -- indeed, one might state: all -- who come here to rant and/or troll, Bill is strictly a one-trick pony. Further, I suspect that, as old habits die hard, he has again used the writings of another without attribution. This doesn't look like his style:
You're right, filthy. There aren't enough misspellings and grammatical errors to be Bill's writing. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 12:38:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
(bill) That is because marriage is not between man and man. Marriage by definition is man and women. No one is being denied their right to marry, only their right to inject their personal definition of marriage and the ability to trump the legal definition of marriage.
At this point, we have hit an impasse. You continually parrot the same argument. And when shown multiple times the 14th Amendment and explained how the marriage contract cannot hold in the face of equal protection if it is only extended to heterosexual couples, you merely regurgitate the same claim.
At this point, we have hit an impasse. You continually parrot the same argument. And when shown multiple times the 14th Amendment and explained how the marriage contract cannot hold in the face of equal protection if it is only extended to heterosexual couples, you merely regurgitate the same claim.
(bill) Marriage is between a man and women so of coarse marriage is only offered to a man and a women. If any adult wants to get married then follow the law and apply today. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 12:45:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
Yes, they have. The state laws violate the Constitution. The civil contract is expressly not granted to same sex partnerships. 14th Amendment, Bill.
(bill) That is because marriage is not between man and man. Marriage by definition is man and women. No one is being denied their right to marry, only their right to inject their personal definition of marriage and the ability to trump the legal definition of marriage.
At this point, we have hit an impasse. You continually parrot the same argument. And when shown multiple times the 14th Amendment and explained how the marriage contract cannot hold in the face of equal protection if it is only extended to heterosexual couples, you merely regurgitate the same claim.
At this point, we have hit an impasse. You continually parrot the same argument. And when shown multiple times the 14th Amendment and explained how the marriage contract cannot hold in the face of equal protection if it is only extended to heterosexual couples, you merely regurgitate the same claim.
(bill) Marriage is between a man and women so of coarse marriage is only offered to a man and a women. If any adult wants to get married then follow the law and apply today.
And here we see that Bill is incapable of actually processing language. Note the completely cut and paste look and feel to the posting. Note how the response does not address the post.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 13:47:34 [Permalink]
|
For me its a matter of freedom of religion, if some religious sects allow gay unions then arent we obligated to comply? Many do allow it as far as I know.
More from Wikipedia
quote:
Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish religious tradition, permits rabbis to bless same-sex unions within their synagogues, though it does not use the words "wedding" or "marriage" in this context.
On July 4, 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ approved a resolution affirming equal marriage rights regardless of gender. The leadership of this denomination made claims like "the 1.3 million member UCC became the largest Christian denomination to approve marriage equality", despite the Synod's lack of authority to speak for the denomination's largely autonomous congregations. The specifics of the resolution did not change any church's religious marriage policies, but urged UCC congregations to advocate for civil marriage equality. In keeping with the polity of that denomination, doctrinal matters like wedding policies remain under the authority of each local congregation.
Religious same-sex wedding ceremonies are already performed in Unitarian Universalist churches, some Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish synagogues, some Quaker congregations (mostly associated with unprogrammed meetings; see the main article), and by the Metropolitan Community Church.
Jodo Shinshu, the dominant form of Buddhism in Japan (with a significant presence in the United States), states "there is no basic difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality" [5]. In accordance with that principle it offers religious rites for same-sex couples. This tradition of accepting same-sex relationships dates back to ancient Japan with only a brief discontinuance during the early 1900s (when Western nations suggested a proscription).
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 14:16:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) That is because marriage is not between man and man. Marriage by definition is man and women. No one is being denied their right to marry, only their right to inject their personal definition of marriage and the ability to trump the legal definition of marriage.
And I used to just scoff at the notion that 1/5 of adults in the US are functionally illiterate.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 14:25:15 [Permalink]
|
| I guess Bill won't have a problem WHEN society eventually evolves to the point where same-sex unions are legal in all states in this country. Or he can move to another country, I reckin. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
