quote:

Originally posted by zig Well why are they introduceing new laws against this particular group of people if the powers that be feel they are not being descriminated against allready...why do they feel the need for new laws to stop these people marrying.....and who are these people to define what marraige is in the first place....and on what moral grounds can they make such judgements...is it to support the idea that marraige is strictly a hetrosexual institution.

I think Opus has a link in one of his articles (good luck finding it in the vast of postage though!)
Basically to paraphrase the headline of it was that a California Judge has decided that the old norm/consensus (by norm/consensus I mean it wasn't written down, but it was as obvious as saying stealing means you can't take other peoples stuff), so anyway norm/consensus whereby it was understood that marriage is an institution only for a man and a women. Well the judge rule that even though such a norm agaist it is no longer applicable for some reason or another.

Therefore the people in Alabama and their legislatures decided to make the norm/conensus clear by making it a law. In case you are wondering what authorithy legislatures have, well they have the authorithy to make any law for the State that does not violate it's or the USA's constitution. They recieve this authorithy by being elected from the people as a repersentative of their voice and will.

quote:

And yes i know polygmists hetrosexuals and homosexuals are not allowed to marry if allready married....that part of your arguement is irrelevant...nobody is argueing for that to be allowed. And yes if people cant pass the driving test...they shouldnt be allowed to drive...but it doesnt make them stupid or discriminated against...because that test applies to everyone gay or straight....unlike the right to marraige which only applies to the 90% of people that consider themselves hetrosexual.

No, I am saying there are some people (think retards, blind people, handicapped etc) that will never ever be able to drive because they will never ever be able to pass the driving test. Whether the person is born handicap, natrually blind from birth, or retarded because of the environment he grew up in, the end result is the same - they can not pass the test and will never be able to drive. You can say all these people would amount to at least 10% of the population...

In the same way you must meet certain criteria to get married, Alabama has decided one of these criteria is that you must be a man marrying a women or a women marrying a man. Now if this conflicts with gay-people's lifestyles, I'm sorry, but a blindman will never get his driver's license either.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

pssst Opus, take note how me and Zig here are having a fair, civilized debate, where none of us post-whore the other

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I think Opus has a link in one of his articles (good luck finding it in the vast of postage though!) Basically to paraphrase the headline of it was that a California Judge has decided that the old norm/consensus (by norm/consensus I mean it wasn't written down, but it was as obvious as saying stealing means you can't take other peoples stuff), so anyway norm/consensus whereby it was understood that marriage is an institution only for a man and a women. Well the judge rule that even though such a norm agaist it is no longer applicable for some reason or another. Therefore the people in Alabama and their legislatures decided to make the norm/conensus clear by making it a law. In case you are wondering what authorithy legislatures have, well they have the authorithy to make any law for the State that does not violate it's or the USA's constitution. They recieve this authorithy by being elected from the people as a repersentative of their voice and will. No, I am saying there are some people (think retards, blind people, handicapped etc) that will never ever be able to drive because they will never ever be able to pass the driving test. Whether the person is born handicap, natrually blind from birth, or retarded because of the environment he grew up in, the end result is the same - they can not pass the test and will never be able to drive. You can say all these people would amount to at least 10% of the population... In the same way you must meet certain criteria to get married, Alabama has decided one of these criteria is that you must be a man marrying a women or a women marrying a man. Now if this conflicts with gay-people's lifestyles, I'm sorry, but a blindman will never get his driver's license either.

I understand all of this.....but does it seem fair that this group of people,because of their sexual orientation are denied the right to marry?...even though they have all the other civil and legal rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus pssst Opus, take note how me and Zig here are having a fair, civilized debate, where none of us post-whore the other

Im sure he would dismiss my arguements as not post whoreing enough!!!.................

quote:

Originally posted by zig I understand all of this.....but does it seem fair that this group of people,because of their sexual orientation are denied the right to marry?...even though they have all the other civil and legal rights.

Yea, thats where the whole issue stems from.

Legally, its 100% for the State to say, yes you can have a gay marraige (be redefining marraige) or not you can't have a gay marriage (again by defining marriage).

I for instance think its fair while you think its unfair. Right now its not consistant in the USA as there is no federal law. This is because the US constitution prevents the USA (federally) to define marriage.

Now because of a "loop-hole" in the constitution if one State say's California or Massachuttes allows people to have gay marriages, Alabama which forbids people to have gay marriage in the state has to recongize these people as married. Therefore any gays can simply get married by going to a different state for the marriage and returning.

To prevent such a thing from happening, you'd have to ammend the constitution to give the US government the right to define marriage.

I am still ambigious however how the process is today - I think Massachutes voted in their state for gay-marriage, but I do not know how those same homosexuals are then treated by the federal government for purposes of taxes and legal. .. you know say I'm gay and I marry a guy from I dunno, China, is that Chinese guy then granted the same greencard process as if I would marry a chinese women?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

OMFG GAY MARRIAGE?!?! EWWWW!!!! WHAT KIND OF INSANITY IS NEXT? BLACKS AND WHITES DRINKING FROM THE SAME FOUNTAIN?!?!?!





excuse all caps... making a point.

___________________
//..

quote:

Originally posted by Matt OMFG GAY MARRIAGE?!?! EWWWW!!!! WHAT KIND OF INSANITY IS NEXT? BLACKS AND WHITES DRINKING FROM THE SAME FOUNTAIN?!?!?! excuse all caps... making a point.

You need to be more tolerant of the intolerant.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus No, I am saying there are some people (think retards, blind people, handicapped etc) that will never ever be able to drive because they will never ever be able to pass the driving test. Whether the person is born handicap, natrually blind from birth, or retarded because of the environment he grew up in, the end result is the same - they can not pass the test and will never be able to drive. You can say all these people would amount to at least 10% of the population...

There is a big difference here tho, these people that fail the test, ARE A DANGER TO THE REST OF THE POPULATION, gays getting married, are not!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Geez Opus your crazy. I'm not gonna reply to all that. If your strategy is to win an debate by typing so much your opponent gives up, then by-God (yes big-G himself), you are winning! Really try and keep your posts to say, 2, 3 pages max and just several topics. That way I can reply in turn and we might actually get somwhere I mean you already got 2 others helping you out. Then you write 3 times as much as both of them combined. Despite the fact that I support religion, I am merely a mere mortal.

Oh, you are such a chicken!

You too, Shakka!

This habit of counter-pointing everything written is an unfortunate carryover from debating creationists/IDers in other forums and email correspondence. If I ever left out a sentence or point of theirs to refute, often times they’d consider this as a weakness in my rebuttal and turn around with “You didn’t mention anything about my point X – so I’m right!!!”, often times not mentioning the 30 other points I rebutted.

So I apologize if I give long posts – I just try to see the courtesy of being as intellectually honest as possible. But I do sometimes forget that I’m not up for tenure here, so I’ll try to be a bit more concise in the future.

One thing I did catch about my post, however, that I need to correct. I had mistakenly stated that both the 14th Amendment (i.e. Equal Protection and Due Process) and the Civil Rights Act were being invoked to press the case for homosexual marriage by these recent court cases. I was completely in error to state the Civil Rights Act was being used – this Act does not apply in any way to sexual preference. What I should have said, however, is that advocates for homosexual marriage are trying to have this included in this Act, but so far have been using Due Process and Equal Protection only.

Anyways, we’re having some serious Exchange Server issues today, so I’m in the fucking weeds pretty badly right now. I’ll try to answer your points as soon as I can.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew There is a big difference here tho, these people that fail the test, ARE A DANGER TO THE REST OF THE POPULATION, gays getting married, are not!

Are you trying to tell me that people who can't pass the drive test are a danger to society? Well I know quiet a few, very stupid, but very competent drivers who failed the drive test (the written) yet wouldn't have run over anyone...

But thats beside the point.

The argument I'm making is who says gays getting marriage isn't a danger to society, i.e. the rest of the population?

I think that this, in addition to many other events in our current culture will destory the family unit and will create a population crisis much like we see in Europe if it is allowed to go to far...

I'm not against trying to preserve the family unit, I grew up in a family, you grew up in a family, my kids will grow up in a family when I'll have some kids. The norm today however, and many of my peers are no longer interest in having kids, they see life as only the enjoyment for themselves - the individual. I think gay marriage celebrates that, not marriage and the sacrafise one makes from the individual to give to others and society.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh, you are such a chicken!

Hey! Don't think just because I have a big yellow jar of mustard in my signature I'm yellow!

You hear me calling you a pussy because you have a pussycat in your signature do you?! (well you do now!)

quote:

You too, Shakka! [quote] OHHH he be dissed you! [quote] This habit of counter-pointing everything written is an unfortunate carryover from debating creationists/IDers in other forums and email correspondence. If I ever left out a sentence or point of theirs to refute, often times they’d consider this as a weakness in my rebuttal and turn around with “You didn’t mention anything about my point X – so I’m right!!!”, often times not mentioning the 30 other points I rebutted.

I feel your pain. Debating 6 year olds if no fun.

quote:

So I apologize if I give long posts – I just try to see the courtesy of being as intellectually honest as possible. But I do sometimes forget that I’m not up for tenure here, so I’ll try to be a bit more concise in the future.

Considering this was a fairly well sized post (try to make post like this size your goal. Its about as much as us short-attention span, internet-reading PDDs can take these days), apology accepted.

quote:

One thing I did catch about my post, however, that I need to correct. I had mistakenly stated that both the 14th Amendment (i.e. Equal Protection and Due Process) and the Civil Rights Act were being invoked to press the case for homosexual marriage by these recent court cases. I was completely in error to state the Civil Rights Act was being used – this Act does not apply in any way to sexual preference. What I should have said, however, is that advocates for homosexual marriage are trying to have this included in this Act, but so far have been using Due Process and Equal Protection only.

What is this?? A Newspapper? A fucking magazine?? We don't issue correction here on TA!!! You pussy!

quote:

Anyways, we’re having some serious Exchange Server issues today, so I’m in the fucking weeds pretty badly right now. I’ll try to answer your points as soon as I can.

http://www.novell.com/linux/windows.../publicservice/

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.