|
Debate
Feb 10, 2005 9:41:55 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 10, 2005 9:41:55 GMT -5
Sorry Hussar, but you trying to say that I'm a gay hater/basher; your DEAD WRONG!!! I may not agree as to what they do or practice, but i still treat them as human beings with respect and kindness that they deserve. NOW, if they try to force thier lifestyle on me, I draw the line right there. And yes I make it a point as to how I fee if asked. Im not scared of my views and feelings. Im not scared to step on a some toes or feet for that matter.So Hussar, dont even IMPLY that i hate gays. Remember,I do have a gay friend myself. That may not mean much to yo but it does to me.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 10, 2005 9:59:08 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 10, 2005 9:59:08 GMT -5
That is a left myth that they are trying to and will continue to fail at. The Constitution is NOT a living document as some left lender like calling it. It can be amended by the contitutional process. You might be surprize Hussar, but the Supreme court is not the final say in this country. On the subject of Homosexuals. I have know plenty and still know both male and female. I had plenty of arguements with them and guess what, there just regular people. gasp . There are some of the homosexual lending who don't want gay marriage and think the one's who do it should just grow up and get a life. Their words not mine but I agree with them. And no I'm not going to doing any research for you Hussar.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 10, 2005 10:02:13 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 10, 2005 10:02:13 GMT -5
The federal government does not recognize "marriages" of same-sex couples either for receipt of federal benefits or for tax purposes. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) provides that the federal government will honor only marriages between one man and one woman. It also stipulates that no state, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe can be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in any other jurisdiction.
The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are numerous. Marriage can affect a person's eligibility for federal benefits such as Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions--ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners' eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)--in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving "benefits, rights, and privileges."(1) In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO's usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 11, 2005 5:18:05 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 11, 2005 5:18:05 GMT -5
Couple of points. Elros: I'm not the one dragging up research showing that gays are more likely to molest children then proclaiming to not hate gays. Your position puts you in the same place as the KKK held with respects to mixed marriage. If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad. There are too many similarities to be ignored. Both use scriptural and dogmatic reasons to justify their position. Both are attempting to enforce a specific brand of morality upon a minority. Both are withholding rights from a minority through their power as the majority. THe language is the same and the rhetoric is the same. The differences are cosmetic. Galadon: The fact that the Constitution can be ammended proves that it's a living document. It is being interpreted and re-interpreted with every judgement rendered. And, yes, the Supreme Court DOES have final say in Constitutional issues. I know most people know how this works, but let's go over it again shall we? The Legislature crafts a law. It goes back and forth and then is passed up to the Executive. The Executive enacts the law and begins using it. If the law is challenged on Constitutional grounds, it is passed to the Supreme Court for judgement. If the SC decides that the law is not supported by the Constitution, the law is struck down and made invalid. The Legislature can then try to craft a new law which is more in keeping with the Constitution, but, it cannot use the same law again. So, yes, the SC has final say in all Constitutional matters. That's pretty much the main reason of being for the SC. If the SC says that a law is unConstitutional, then there's not a whole lot either of the two other branches of govey can do about it. The law goes poofy. Just like the miscengenation laws. Oh, and I know straight people who agree with gay marriage. Does that cancel out your gay people who don't? I'll see your gay friends and raise you three straights.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 11, 2005 10:27:38 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 11, 2005 10:27:38 GMT -5
The whole issue of Gay marriage is voided, because it doesn't matter. It's just another issue which doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 11, 2005 14:28:40 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 11, 2005 14:28:40 GMT -5
Yes Hussar it does make me uncomfortable when you accuse me of such things when you dont know me. It shows how shallow your way of thinking is. Im not going to back down for what i feel is right. And by you putting me in with the KKK is something that is TOTALLY out of line! That shows you have NO respect what so ever. You will do/say anything to win an aurgument.
NOT!! read again! IT IS THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY THAT MAKE THEM. The Supreme Court interprets its meaning. We can amend or repeal ANY law at ANY time without the Courts say whatsoever.
*********************************************
Excuse you!!! Thier is alot of differences. Again, since you dont know me, you dont see them, so Ill spell it out for ya: Im in Ann Arbor , Mi. I know you have heard of it, home of the University of Michigan. Here WE practice diversity, as long as no one FORCES ones view on another, we get along. I have asian, mexican, latino, BLACK, white, old, young, people as friends. They come from ALL walks of life. And another thing that is different from me and YOUR KKK sabre rattling is this: I dont use violence, i talk my way out of bad situations. Thats why Im a volunteer councilor at the HOMELESS shelter. I have a diverse field of friends because we can AGREE to DISAGREE. You honestly can not. Whether disagreeing is about the economy with my Univerity buddies, or disagreeing on discrimination issues with my black friends, or disagreeing about gay issues with my gay friends(yes i have more then one). The bottum line is this; we RESPECT each other regardless what our views are. Like I said, you dont know me.
Last point: From this point onward, I will not acknowledge Hussar. I feel that his remarks about me and the KKK went to far. As with Challenger, he asked me to not mention anything about the Bible. I complied. I see Hussar is bent on getting his way at all cost. So be it.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 11, 2005 20:16:46 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 11, 2005 20:16:46 GMT -5
Article 3 of the US Constitution. Note Clause 1. 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, Note, that's ALL CASES. Not some, not a few. Not not the ones we don't like. ALL CASES.
I'm sorry if the KKK comment offended you. I do appologise for causing offence. However, the stand of the anti-gay marriage groups is far too similar to anti-miscengenation groups to be ignored. The rhetoric is the same and the tactics are the same. And, it took the Supreme Court to knock down those laws. Those laws were the will of the majority. The majority of people in those states supported miscengenation laws. Yet the SC is considered to be perfectly justified in overturning those laws. It will likely be the exact same situation this time around too.
Before anyone brings up the rules of the Den, I would like to point out that, at no time, did I actually say that Elros was a member of the KKK. I did compare his position on gays to the position white supremecist groups take with regards to mixed marriage. While the comparison may be offensive, there are enough similarities for a comparison to be made. Again, Elros, I am sorry that you are offended by that, but, instead of ignoring me, show me how your position is different than the one take by those who support miscengenation laws. So far, the only difference that I can see is that the victim of both points of view is different. One is a minority of color and the other sexual orientation. Beyond that, I fail to see the difference.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 12, 2005 12:53:52 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 12, 2005 12:53:52 GMT -5
Im glad you apoligized. Accepted. Like i said before, the main difference is:
1) I dont condone violence to reinforce my opinions
2) I DO give ALL people respect, regaurdless of thier beliefs
3) I can and HAVE lived in the same ROOM with a gay person, a black, an asian, the list goes on.
A "TRUE" KKK follower would not even THINK to do those things!!!
I think what your confusing Hussar is my passion verses the KKK's hate. I do get VERY passionate about it, Ask Challenger.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 12, 2005 23:14:05 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 12, 2005 23:14:05 GMT -5
But, again, despite your protestations, you have completely avoided answering any questions. So, I'll put it straight out.
1) If marriage is a union for the purpose of having children, how can infertile people be justified in being married while gays are not?
2) Miscengenation laws were faith based and supported by religious institutions. They argued that allowing mixed marriages would constitute a breakdown in public morality and a sin before God. How are these arguements different than the arguements against gay marriage?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 13, 2005 13:18:09 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 13, 2005 13:18:09 GMT -5
But, again, despite your protestations, you have completely avoided answering any questions. So, I'll put it straight out. Easy, let me put it to ya this way, do you want to sleep with another man? NO? Why? Thats your answer. Almost none. If you have not read my countries history as to WHY we came over in the first place, it was because of religious persicution. that being said, back in those days religion was a part of everyones daily life. And as such, through the centuries, laws/morals were built on that foundation. What about YOUR aurgument? Why do you want gays to have the same rights as heteros? Why is it when the morals of this country are threatened, and we try to protect them, gays scream" My rights are violated!!" Remember, even though thier is a seperation of church and state, the MORALS were written into the Constitution of this country over 200 years ago.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 13, 2005 15:35:56 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 13, 2005 15:35:56 GMT -5
I could have told you Challenger wasn't a liberal. As for CBT finding a better server, , not in this life time.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 14, 2005 7:09:13 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 14, 2005 7:09:13 GMT -5
Huh? Sorry, didn't understand that.
Pardon?? Umm, I don't want to sleep with another man because I'm not gay. How is that an answer? Please answer the question. If marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then how can infertile people be married?
Well... how about this:
Note, it's all men (and presumably women now since that was added later as were blacks, hispanics, natives, Asians, and pretty much everyone that wasn't a white male). Not some men. Not just these men and not those. ALL MEN. Regardless of sex, creed or race and now sexual orientation.
I'm sorry, the question still stands, how is your position different than that of those supporting miscengenation laws of the 1950's and 60's?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 14, 2005 11:07:10 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 14, 2005 11:07:10 GMT -5
Almost none. If you have not read my countries history as to WHY we came over in the first place, it was because of religious persicution. that being said, back in those days religion was a part of everyones daily life. And as such, through the centuries, laws/morals were built on that foundation. Thats a fairly romantisied view. Not entirely wrong but alot of American settlers were forced to relocate for generaly being criminals (for example France transported ALOT of theives and prostitues) or because they were starving (The Irish) or in search of their fortunes. (ie gold) Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 14, 2005 11:38:36 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 14, 2005 11:38:36 GMT -5
Thats a fairly romantisied view. Not entirely wrong but alot of American settlers were forced to relocate for generaly being criminals (for example France transported ALOT of theives and prostitues) or because they were starving (The Irish) or in search of their fortunes. (ie gold) Challenger Sorry, but that is FAR from true. Starting in the late 16th century, the English began to colonize North America. The first attempts, notably the Colony of Roanoke, resulted in failure, but successful colonies were soon established. The colonists who came to the New World were by no means a homogeneous mix, but rather a variety of different social and religious groups which settled in different locations on the seaboard. The Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of New England, the gold-hungry settlers of Jamestown, and the convicts of Georgia each came to the new continent for vastly different reasons, and they created colonies with very different social, religious, political, and economic structures. To summarize the areas of development in colonial America, historians typically recognize four regions in the lands that later became the eastern United States. Listed from north to south, they are: New England, the Middle Colonies, the Chesapeake Bay and the Southern Colonies. Some historians add a fifth region – the frontier had certain unifying features no matter what sort of colony it sprang from. By the late 18th century, these different colonies found themselves more closely united than ever before, at odds with the British government on issues of taxation and representation.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 14, 2005 11:42:02 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 14, 2005 11:42:02 GMT -5
What you just said didn't exactly conflict with what I said.
Challenger
|
|