ExiledInIllinois Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Wait, I thought you wanted all the heteros to give up their preferential treatment: So now you're saying that we need to create all new laws so you and the other bigots can keep possession of a word? I'd be OK with it if you and the rest of the bigots paid a special tax to cover all of the expense of it. Buck up for the suds, zealot. And the expense to pick up "gay marriage" is okay with you. You are being hypocritical again Darin. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 No. Everybody will still have equal protection and we will all be a lot more peaceful with our disagreements. My bad anyway and I apologize... There are SOME statutes that can be overturned (like joint filing on taxes by heteros) and others that can be converted from "marriage" to civil union. What happens when a couple of illegal immigrants want to get married? Left to their own devices, the church will grab the money. Doing all this doesn't fix the economy or help security. There really is no purpose in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 What happens when a couple of illegal immigrants want to get married? Left to their own devices, the church will grab the money. Doing all this doesn't fix the economy or help security. There really is no purpose in it. Why are you fixed on this power and religion thing? If they want to get married they go to a church. If they want legal recognition as a couple, they fill out the paper work for civil union with the gov't. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Why are you fixed on this power and religion thing? If they want to get married they go to a church. If they want legal recognition as a couple, they fill out the paper work for civil union with the gov't. What's the problem? So you are for lowering national security so religous groups can be happy. If illegals try to get married they should be turned over to homeland security immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 No it is not clear. So are you saying Utah couldn't become a state if they didn't give up the practice of plural marriage because people in plural marriages "use them to rape children." I said nothing about Utah or their entrance into statehood, something which has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is another one of your vain attempts to change the argument like the "Societal Norms", "Worried About my Kids", and "Civil Unions are OK but using the word marriage offends my delicate zealot psyche". Not buying your garage sale tactic this time either. You are accusing me of painting with a homophobic brush (which is totally not true with me)... But it okay for you to paint with a "plural marriagephobic" brush... Once again, you are the worst offender. Pull up your pants, your desperation is showing. You're wrong again, because I don't care about polygamy either. I simply stated a sordid fact about the past (and present in countries that allow it). Nothing is without a downside and that particular downside is one of the major reasons it's not legal in the United States. I'd ask you if you're really trying to deny that fact but if I do you'll spend the rest of the thread in full on Riddler and you've already barfed enough to kill every rock and roll drummer ever. I don't have time to systematically debunk yours and other's nonsense... I have a life. You expect anyone to believe that crap? Really? The fact is you known you're paddling upstream and you're simply not bright enough to bow out gracefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 So you are for lowering national security so religous groups can be happy. If illegals try to get married they should be turned over to homeland security immediately. Stop asking him questions. He doesn't have time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 And the expense to pick up "gay marriage" is okay with you. You are being hypocritical again Darin. You can't have it both ways. What expense is that exactly? Be specific. I'm not surprised you didn't "belly up to the bar" and instead tried something completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 They can turned over to "civil union." What is the problem? So marriage has no place in secular government (your words), and shouldn't be recognized by the government, but civil unions should...as legally equivalent to marriage? Seriously? You think a semantic redefinition is the solution to everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 DC v Heller wasn't quite as clear-cut on quite a few grounds - mostly relating to the wonderfully vague "militia" reference in the Second Amendment, which means DC's status is doubly vague (since the District is not a state, thus has no militia, can the 2nd Amendment reasonably be applied to DC?) I mean, I agree with you...but the dissenters in Heller were arguing the law; they weren't without valid points. (Or at least three of them weren't. Breyer's dissent equating the regulation of black powder storage to restricting gun ownership was just retarded). It just so happens that the Second Amendment does, in fact, allow quite a bit of space for interpretation. What is it about "THE PEOPLE" you are unsure about? [, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 What is it about "THE PEOPLE" you are unsure about? Who said I didn't agree with it? I just recognize that "A well-regulated militia..." clouds the legal interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Who said I didn't agree with it? I just recognize that "A well-regulated militia..." clouds the legal interpretation. It is absurd to believe the bill of rights was written to protect a government military entity. The "people" was included in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 It is absurd to believe the bill of rights was written to protect a government military entity. The "people" was included in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments for a reason. Yeah, but if the first ammendment can apply to a business, why not a military entity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Yeah, but if the first ammendment can apply to a business, why not a military entity? That makes no sense. A miltary entity IS the goverment. Why would they need a bill of rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 That makes no sense. A miltary entity IS the goverment. Why would they need a bill of rights? I was being sarcastic. The bill of rights should be for individuals unless otherwise specified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 I was being sarcastic. The bill of rights should be for individuals unless otherwise specified. I believe"the people" is very clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 It is absurd to believe the bill of rights was written to protect a government military entity. The "people" was included in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments for a reason. But the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Again, ambiguous. If you want to apply the 10th Amendment to the 2nd...then you have to ask, is it granting the states the right to regulate gun ownership (as granted by the 10th, implied in the "well regulated militia" statement in the 2nd), or the people the right to bear arms unfettered (as granted by the 10th, and implied by the 2nd as well). Because don't forget, too...the Constitution was in effect a charter between the federal government and states, defining the limitations on the federal government. It was not a document granting rights to the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 I believe"the people" is very clear. We live in a country where everybody wants everything right now and doesn't want to work with it. All it takes is a bunch of lawyers to make it unclear. I agree that it SHOULD be clear though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 But the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Again, ambiguous. If you want to apply the 10th Amendment to the 2nd...then you have to ask, is it granting the states the right to regulate gun ownership (as granted by the 10th, implied in the "well regulated militia" statement in the 2nd), or the people the right to bear arms unfettered (as granted by the 10th, and implied by the 2nd as well). Because don't forget, too...the Constitution was in effect a charter between the federal government and states, defining the limitations on the federal government. It was not a document granting rights to the people. Key. It sure sounds to me the states are prohibited from overturning the bill of Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Key. It sure sounds to me the states are prohibited from overturning the bill of Rights. Except - again - the 2nd implicitly grants states the right to regulate the militia (militia being a state organization). So is gun regulation a right vested in the states? Again - I think gun ownership is a personal right. I'm just playing devil's advocate for the opposite view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Who said I didn't agree with it? I just recognize that "A well-regulated militia..." clouds the legal interpretation. Seems the people who wrote it had no such confusion. But they were not nearly as well versed as todays legal scholars framers thoughts on the 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts