Gay marriage

[EyeMaster7]

Kerry AND Bush are against gay marriage. But Kerry defends the gays right to marry because it does not hurt other's right. In fact the marriage base, love, is the same for the gay marriage and the "heterosexual" marriage (In theory).

If gay marriage is allowed are you going to marry another guy? Nope. I'm not going to marry another guy too because gay marriage is allowed. Its not going to change your sexual orientation. Let's say that two guys are married. This is going to hurt any right do you have? No.

If gay marriage is prohibited it is not going to change the sexual orientation of gays couples. But its going to make then feel better since its a fundamental right in our society. And that's going to integrate gays couples in the society.

The argument used by Bush against the gay marriage is the biblical one. There isn't another reason to prohibit that.

 

[Sander]

And here's a refreshing look on gays and the bible(By a real priest):
http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/thebibleandhomosexuality.html

Read it. Refreshing...

Anyway, why are you against allowing gays to marry, CCR?
Because it will be bad for gays? Fuck that, I think you should allow the gays themselves to decide that.

EDIT: What misspelling?

 

[Gus]

(Buy a real priest)

I hope that is a misspelling.

 

[Executioner]

-Human equality has just been violated, because according to every modern western teaching, everyone is equal, including males and females. This makes it immoral for the law to differentiate between males and females, and therefore, there should be no distiinction between gay and straight marriages for the law.(Note that this says nothing about churches).

Its funny how people have suddenly forgotten what "all men are created equal" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" stand for in this country. There's also that little thing about the separation of church and state...

But then again, Americans don't actually pick their leader do we?

Didn't you get the memo? We let the Supreme Court do that for us now.

 

[Sander]

And now it's Oregon as well....

A word on judges:
Judges are there to do two things:
A) To punish people.
B) To test laws to the constitution.

THey judged that the anti-gay-marriage laws were unconstitutional, and thus they allowed the gay marriages. There is nothing wrong with that.

Oh, and I heard someone say "It's clear that the people who designed the constitution never thought of marriage as anything but a commitment between man and a woman."
But whoever thinks this is missing the point., It's not about how the constitution is meant, but what it says in the constitution.

PS: D66, a Dutch ultra-Democratic party, wants Dutch mayors to write support letters to the mayor of SF. Hehe.

 

[Brother None]

PS: D66, a Dutch ultra-Democratic party, wants Dutch mayors to write support letters to the mayor of SF. Hehe.

Didn't Job Cohen start that?

 

[Sander]

Didn't Job Cohen start that?

I'm not sure. According to Brabants Dagblad the Tilburg loco-mayor(since the previous mayor died, and there still isn't permanent replacement) started it. But I can't remember the name of the guy, and the paper's gone again...

 

[John Uskglass]

I am a bit of a homophobe, but I am a repentant, feel-bad-about-it-homophobe, so take that however you want.

But I honestly think this is bad for the gay cause. No statistic anywhere in the US among any group other then gays shows a majority support for gay marrige. Nowhere. And, as Portland, San Francisco and wherever else proves, this is not just a local thing...this is nation wide, due to the full faith and credit clause. Lets fact it- a bunch of pretentious liberal judges thought they should make a descision without any kind of popular backing, from within thier own government or outside, and now everyone is calling them heroes because they backstabbed democracy.

But my favorite guy is this San Francisco mayor, what a pretentious , pompus ass. "We are better then you, cause we are more tolerant, and DIVERSITY IS ALL IMPORTANT!" is such bullshit as to be funny.

 

[Sander]

Well, as I said, I think that whether it is bad for the gay cause or not, the gay cause is exactly that: the GAY cause. So let the gays decide it.
Plus, it's possible that you would've thought the same about equal rights for blacks. Maybe you would've thought "It'll be bad for them to give them equal rights." But that does not change the fact taht if you keep adhering to that, equal rights will never (ever) happen.

Then you say that the judges acted without popular backing, and that that is bad.
This is not true. The judges did act without popular backing, but you live in a consitutional republic. This means that whatever the public wants, it cannot violate the constitution. They must amend the constitution. To amend the constitution, you need to go through some painful processes.
Now, because the constitution forbids discrimination(equality before the law), a law saying that gays CANNOT marry, is unconstitutional. Since the constitution is the most important thing, judges MUST allow gays to marry.
PS: I'm interested. What does your sig say?

 

[John Uskglass]

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

I am trying to find something from the Bible, might go to another Altaic language. Turkish is actually a fairly attractive language in it's own weird way, once you get used to it. Not like Arabic which sounds like a housecat choaking on a tennis ball.

Maybe you would've thought "It'll be bad for them to give them equal rights." But that does not change the fact taht if you keep adhering to that, equal rights will never (ever) happen.

There was a full century between movements foward for minority rights, as opposed to 10 years for gays. Sander, Ill tell ye what I told Brando-it aint gonna happen.

 

[John Uskglass]

Back in a second.

 

[MrMarcus]

Then we get back to the sticky issue of state's rights vs. federal statutes. California passed an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as "union between one man and one woman" and, by the 10th Amendment, cannot be challenged in a federal court.
The issue gets more clouded by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which states:

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.

Not the 15th, which explicitly applies to race. The question lies in does marriage have the status of a constitutionally protected privilege or not?

 

[Sander]

There was a full century between movements foward for minority rights, as opposed to 10 years for gays. Sander, Ill tell ye what I told Brando-it aint gonna happen.

Well, times go a lot faster these days than then. Information spreads much much quicker, travel is faster, it is easier and cheaper to access information, and to travel, technology has advanced at a gigantic pace. The world simply moves faster.

Besides that, it will happen for the following reasons:
A) Laws that deny homosexuals the right to marry, are unconstitutional. Every person is equal in the eyes of the law.
B) So you'll need a constitutional amendment. It is extremely unlikely that that will ever be pushed through. Because that consitutional amendment would be in conflict with amendment 14 of the US constitution.
C) So gay marriages will be legal(Or rather, they cannot be denied).
D) European countries are setting the standard for freedom for future generations and other countries(IMHO). Since both the Netherlands and Belgium and the Scandinavian countries have been at the front of liberalization movements for several decades it is probable that with this issue, other countries will adapt the way that has been chosen by those countries. Although it may take a relatively long time.

Note that D is purely speculation.

 

[Brother None]

CC, I'm getting tired of you calling those judges bad because they "acted undemocratically"

As has been pointed out many times by several people, the judges should in no case be influenced by democratic motives. That's not what they're there for, they answer only to the law (which is why I think the jury-system sucks).

Now if the part of the system that does answer to the people (like the government) amends the constitution to whatever the people call for, that's fine. But at the moment, with the constitution being what it is, those judges did the right thing.

And you bloody reactionaries can't do a thing about it

 

[John Uskglass]

As has been pointed out many times by several people, the judges should in no case be influenced by democratic motives. That's not what they're there for, they answer only to the law (which is why I think the jury-system sucks).

I disagree. The government has no right to exsist when it does not follow the will of the people. Maybe this is the old school libertarian in me, but governments that do not follow such easily percived wills as that of the American people in this case are clearly, if not tyrranical, then plutocratic.

Now if the part of the system that does answer to the people (like the government) amends the constitution to whatever the people call for, that's fine. But at the moment, with the constitution being what it is, those judges did the right thing.

You have a point there. But I promise, that in 6-7 years polygamy will be an issue here, as it will be deemd "unconstitutional". The constitution sets limits- for instance, a law allowing a Korean shemale to fuck a triple amputee horse with a 8 inch chocolate dildo should not be constitutional.

And you bloody reactionaries can't do a thing about it

And because we cannot do anything, we will become bitter towards gays, therefore setting back 10 years of progress.


New sig is Cuman, an older Turkish language that is the father of the modern Gugaz dialect of Turkish in Moldova and Romania. It's the lords prayer.

 

[Sander]

I disagree. The government has no right to exsist when it does not follow the will of the people. Maybe this is the old school libertarian in me, but governments that do not follow such easily percived wills as that of the American people in this case are clearly, if not tyrranical, then plutocratic.

Yes, but now you're saying that the constitution is worth nothing. Yes, the people may want to forbid gay marriages. So? At some point the people wanted the blacks to have less rights.
Again, a constiution is there for a reason. That reason being that a nation should have a certain basis that can only be altered when a really vast majority wants it.
Moreover, you're saying that Hitler was right to do what he wanted, since the majority of the people in Germany wanted him to do it.

You have a point there. But I promise, that in 6-7 years polygamy will be an issue here, as it will be deemd "unconstitutional". The constitution sets limits- for instance, a law allowing a Korean shemale to fuck a triple amputee horse with a 8 inch chocolate dildo should not be constitutional.

Are you saying polygamy will be unconstitutional, or forbidding it?
Anyway, the consitution DOES set limits. But gay marrage is not limited by it.

 

[Brother None]

As has been pointed out many times by several people, the judges should in no case be influenced by democratic motives. That's not what they're there for, they answer only to the law (which is why I think the jury-system sucks).

I disagree. The government has no right to exsist when it does not follow the will of the people. Maybe this is the old school libertarian in me, but governments that do not follow such easily percived wills as that of the American people in this case are clearly, if not tyrranical, then plutocratic.

Yes, the *government*

Despite the judges being appointed by the president (another retarded bit of the American system), the judges should be completely detached from the democratic bits of the people that run the country...

It's not that hard a concept. Judges and democracy don't mix.

You have a point there. But I promise, that in 6-7 years polygamy will be an issue here, as it will be deemd "unconstitutional". The constitution sets limits- for instance, a law allowing a Korean shemale to fuck a triple amputee horse with a 8 inch chocolate dildo should not be constitutional.

You're wrong

If we set a constitution now that will stop all progress, it'll just get torn down a couple of years later. Try telling people a couple of hundred years ago about our modern standards of living, see how they react

I'm sorry, CC, but human standards change. You may not like it, but they do. In a hundred years humanity will have morals that nobody living now would like much. I would personally be apalled at them, but I can't do anything about it, and I'm not so high-and-mighty that I somehow think my morals are superior to any others.

However, do not mix up things here. Again, if judges were to deem polygamy unconstitutional, and it is, they'd be in the right place, being judges

The job of the government to follow the way human standards move, yeah. But if you argue that the government should outlaw gay marriages just because the people want it, then why shouldn't the government allow animalistic polygamie, if the people want it?

(note, however, how the above is all idle speculation. I'm not a moral relativist, and the reality of how human morals work won't change that)

And because we cannot do anything, we will become bitter towards gays, therefore setting back 10 years of progress.

Oh, right, what a good excuse to hate gays

New sig is Cuman, an older Turkish language that is the father of the modern Gugaz dialect of Turkish in Moldova and Romania. It's the lords prayer.

It sucks. Please remove

Seriously, it's kinda ugly and big, and nobody'll get it anyway

 

[MrMarcus]

B) So you'll need a constitutional amendment. It is extremely unlikely that that will ever be pushed through. Because that consitutional amendment would be in conflict with amendment 14 of the US constitution.

Actually, that is irrelevant Sander. Take into account the 18th (Prohibition begins) and 21st (Prohibition ends). If an anti-gay marriage amendment manages to make it into the Constitution, it cannot be challenged, nor does the 14th contradict it in the eys of the law. Later amendments supersede previous ones.

Hell, if they thought they could get away with it they could repeal the 13th and bring back slavery.

 

[bob_the_rambler]

gay people can get hitched when i can own automatic assault weapons..........an extreme for an extreme..... a right for a right

 

[Sander]

gay people can get hitched when i can own automatic assault weapons..........an extreme for an extreme..... a right for a right

Ehh.....WHAT????

Right, so the right to own extremely dangerous and completely useless(since you don't need assault weapons for self-denfense), equals the right to allow gays to have the same legal protection as a heterosexual couple? Wow...you're really making sense here.
Tsch.

Actually, that is irrelevant Sander. Take into account the 18th (Prohibition begins) and 21st (Prohibition ends). If an anti-gay marriage amendment manages to make it into the Constitution, it cannot be challenged, nor does the 14th contradict it in the eys of the law. Later amendments supersede previous ones.

Wow. Then your system sucks.