This had better not pass

Let's all please say "asshole" a little less.  And Brihard, I would take it as a personal favor if you changed your sig.

Thank you.

You must be looking at different polls than me, Linus...   The ones I see say that a majority of Americans are opposed to **edited** marriage, but are also opposed to the constitutional amendment.

oldsoldier wrote: ... the vote in November and in 08 will give the true picture of what America wants based on the positions that our polititians project.

I think you meant to say "the vote will give the true picture of which hairstyle Americans prefer."

Well, unsurprisingly, it failed.  Too bad, so sad.

If something is the purpose of something else then there has to have the same outcome everything.

Eating might be nessisary to sustain life but everytime something is eaten, nurishment is absorbed by the body. Also the purpose of breathing is to supply oxegen to the body and it happens with every breath.
Pregnancy does not occur every time sex is committed nor in some cases will it ever occur. Therefore the purpose of sex is not always reproduction, and just because not everyone has an orgasm everytime they have sex doesnt mean it still isnt pleasureful for them.

Gatyr wrote: Savage93fvss wrote: Linus wrote: People bring up "People were for slavery at one time" arguement.. but think about it like this. Slavery was wrong because it forced people to hard labor for nothing but a minimum amount of food and harsh physical punishment for petty things. Allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that). Only "bad" thing is.....nothing So why do you care so much that they not be allowed to do it?

I dont care, I'm all for **edited** marriage. I ment to put fixed.

guess your  wasn't funny..

The ACLU represents the christian right on a regular basis.

And assuming that those are public schools, OS, then you have described several constitutional violations.  I encourage you to call the ACLU.

 

brihard wrote: Linus: How dare you, of all people on this forum, call me a 'bigoted asshole'?

Wow...

You initial post that I commented on said:

Brihard wrote: You can be against homosexual marraige becuase you choose to be, but you cannot claim that you can justify it or ratioanlize it by any moral standards notdependent on a religious blind faith. Morality must have some tangible foundation in the good and harm that it does people, and your views cannot in any way be justified. You simply hold them for whatever ignorant reason you do.

Lets break down my response, most notably "Bigoted asshole"

Bigoted = One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


You called me and my views ignorant, meaning you're intolerant of my political views that are different then yours.

Hence bigot. If that isn't bigoted, then they need to redfine it.


Asshole because you called me and my views ignorant.


Hence, bigoted asshole.

Brihard wrote: I have never once argued for anything but utter equality of rights and freedoms here,

Never denied that.

while you are the one attempting to deny a fundamental human right to an entire significant portion of the population for no rational reason you've yet articulated.

Now, there you go.

"Significant" Since when is 5% significant? 5% is being very LIBERAL too.

YOU want to deny OTHER peoples right to VOTE on this, are you not? Dont say no because you are.

I say let the people of the country vote on this. Majority of the US is against **edited** marriage. Get that through your head.

We are not Canada, YOU are. You guys are much more liberal on this matter, which is why you passed the **edited** marriage law allowing it.


Let the Senate pass the admendment, and send it to the people for ratification. If the people vote to uphold it, OBEY THEM and uphold it. If not, then DONT.

You have attempted and thoroughly failed to shoot down our arguments as to why it should be allowed, yet you have no better reason than you think itshould be so.

I've given a valid counter point to EVERY SINGLE point you have given.

I say it's a choice, so YOU say it's biological, so I say if it IS biological, it isnt meant to be. It's a mental problem, illness if you will.

To attempt to cry bigotry becasue I have the gall to shoot down such an arrogant and ignorant opinion as the one you hold is pathetic.

How is that not bigotry right there?

"Social norms" is merely a catchall phrase used to describe thigns the way theya re, without making any effort to quantify the benefit of those norms. You keep trying to dismiss the relevance of it, but the inferiority of women, blacks, natives, and other groups were once 'social norms' as well.

Not once in any of my post did I mention ANYTHING about social norms.

You claim that because homosexuality has biological causes, that it must be a mental deficiency

You're wrong yet again. I gave a counterpoint to your sides point saying it's biological.

It was a hypothetical response. I still say that it's a choice, but on the off chance that they are born like that, something in the brain is screwed up, and to deny that is to be naiive.

- again you're showing your startling ignorance,

Again youre being an asshole insulting my intelligence. You absolutly refuse to admit that I make good counter-points to all your arguements

By your logic people with red hair or hemophilia should not be allowed to marry either.

Wow.. you just insulted my intelligence in the field of biology, and yet you come out as a complete idiot on that statement.

Red hair and hemophilia are RECESSIVE genes. NOT mental imbalances, but RECESSIVE genes.

If I have little intelligence in the field of biology, then I feel REAL bad for your biology teachers for wasting their time trying to teach you.

Recessive genes are genes, but are not dominate when compared to other genes. Brown hair is dominate to blonde and red. Get yours facts straight before you insult me.


There has not been any conclusive proof that homosexuality is a naturally occuring gene.

Withholding rights of marriage to homosexuals simply becuase of who they are is twisted and backwards,

Marriage =/= right.

You have not and CANNOT gien any reason whatsoever - never mind one that can hold up to moral scrutiny - about why homosexuals should be denied any right any other person has.

NOT A GUANTEED RIGHT, get that through your head!

Your side ask "What harm does it do to you"

I rebuke, what harm does it do to you if they aren't married? NONE.

You may choose to argue with me, but I will NOT tolerate attacks on my character

So, you can insult me and my intelligence, but I can't you? Hypocrit.

I, at leas,t am able to be morally and ethically consistent, and am willing to admit when I'm simply wrong.

There is really no right or wrong on this. This is an opinion ONLY matter. Your opinion wants marriage, mine doesnt.

The only right or wrong there can be is if it's nature vs nurture.

You have repeatedly advocated oppression, unjustified suspension of civil adn human rights, and outright abuse across this and a variety of other debated topics. I think the majority of the forum will agree on this.

Tomato's.

But I disagree with the "majority" comment. A few "popular", albeit very out spoken, members yes, but not the majority. Not like it affects me anyhow.

Get over your twisted notions of right and wrong, and apply some consequentialist analysis to the idiotic convictions yous eem to hold in such high regard.

To me, the world is black and white, with only a FEW shades of gray.

There's right, wrong, morally reprehensible, illness, etc etc.



In closing I say this---- You're making such a big fuss about the privelges of a VERY SMALL amount of people, but youre denying the RIGHT, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of the people to vote on the matter.

Yet I'm the bad guy....

HV wrote: os, if all laws followed the rules set forth by the constitution, we would not have a need for the supreme court now would we? i say even if this passes, it will not last long at all.

You REALLY need to research Constitutional Law.


If the Senate passes the admendment and passes it on the the states for ratification to be a constitutional admendment, the courts cannot even THINK about touching it in any way shape or form. AT ALL.


There can be NO judicial review. Thats why they aren't making it a law, but an admendment instead.


Edited by Linus - 07 June 2006 at 6:05pm