Conquer Club

Marriage Amendments....

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:37 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.


The people cannot vote into law something that is unconstitutional. It is not judicial activism to overthrow an unconstitutional law. That principle has been on the books since 1803.


which is why it has been upheld as Constitutional. If these marriage amendments are unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court should weigh in. So that's a bullshit response


Actually, eight federal courts have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court may very well rule on that soon.

But besides that, use your common sense. In what way could the Equal Protection Clause possibly be construed as permitting a law that allows marriage for some citizens and not for others?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:40 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?


because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty


You could basically be asking "why does the person who gets the most votes for President win? Isn't that tyranny of the majority?"
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Funkyterrance on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:44 pm

It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:47 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.


The people cannot vote into law something that is unconstitutional. It is not judicial activism to overthrow an unconstitutional law. That principle has been on the books since 1803.


which is why it has been upheld as Constitutional. If these marriage amendments are unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court should weigh in. So that's a bullshit response


Actually, eight federal courts have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court may very well rule on that soon.

But besides that, use your common sense. In what way could the Equal Protection Clause possibly be construed as permitting a law that allows marriage for some citizens and not for others?


The reasoning here is quite simple.

(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.

No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.

End of discussion.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:47 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?


and overall that the government should not be involved, which defacto permits me to okay gay marriage, as I have said from the start, but not at the barrel of a gun or force by government.

I also believe in separation of Church and State. If government makes people accept gay marriage and everything that comes with that in the future, they are going to interfere in the Church constantly...for example, religious orphanages will be forced to go against their beliefs and give children to couples without making sure they have a mother and a father
Last edited by Phatscotty on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:49 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?


because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty


You seem to be implying that the gays are the source of tyranny...

and if the majority rule supports an amendment which oppresses the gays, then that's "not tyranny, it's Liberty."
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:50 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?


because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty


You could basically be asking "why does the person who gets the most votes for President win? Isn't that tyranny of the majority?"


We're talking about referendums/amendments, but yeah, I don't view majority rule over such a wide political arena to be ideal.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Woodruff on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:53 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?


because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty


In Minnesota, IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL, so why is an amendment to your state constitution necessary? Why are Minnesotans so afraid of homosexuals gaining equality that they have to put something in their amendment that will DO NOTHING out of the fear that someday, the homosexuals might get equality?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:53 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?


Your breasts are offensive!

PS is opposed to gay marriage per say, yet he is in favor of regulating people's lives through the state by upholding majority rule.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Woodruff on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:55 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?


and overall that the government should not be involved, which defacto permits me to okay gay marriage, as I have said from the start, but not at the barrel of a gun or force by government.

I also believe in separation of Church and State. If government makes people accept gay marriage and everything that comes with that in the future, they are going to interfere in the Church constantly...for example, religious orphanages will be forced to go against their beliefs and give children to couples without making sure they have a mother and a father


If a religious orphanage makes decisions based on that, then they should be driven out of that work with immediacy, for they clearly don't give a shit about children.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:55 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?


Your breasts are offensive!

PS is opposed to gay marriage per say, yet he is in favor of regulating people's lives through the state by upholding majority rule.


It's majority rule that will prevent the government from expanding their involvement with the institution of marriage
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Woodruff on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:57 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?


Your breasts are offensive!

PS is opposed to gay marriage per say, yet he is in favor of regulating people's lives through the state by upholding majority rule.


It's majority rule that will prevent the government from expanding their involvement with the institution of marriage in a way that turns all of history on it's head


Except that it doesn't. You keep saying that it does, but it does not.

(Nice try at ninja-editing.)
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:59 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:It seems that a lot of people are attacking Phatscotty for being homophobic. Until this is readily apparent I don't understand why it's being thrown into this argument? I should hope we are less inclined to witch-huntery than that.
From what I understand Scotty is arguing that while an amendment may be technically "fair" it's not going to be cost effective for each state and he therefore opposes it. Is this such an offensive position?


Your breasts are offensive!

PS is opposed to gay marriage per say, yet he is in favor of regulating people's lives through the state by upholding majority rule.


It's majority rule that will prevent the government from expanding their involvement with the institution of marriage


In other words,

PS believes that the gays are the source of tyranny (of the minority). Those dastardly gays!


If the majority rule supports an amendment which oppresses the gays, then that's "not tyranny, it's Liberty"--according to PS. Because Liberty is oppression, didn't you guys get the memo?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:06 pm

Phatscotty wrote:No, we just understand the issue, the process, and probably the history, differently......

the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.


I know how you understand the issue. Ignoring the equal protection clause (which you do at your own peril... ask Alabama), people like you think that passing an amendment makes this an issue other than a statist issue. I understand that. I don't agree with it. It's still a statist solution to a non-issue.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:07 pm

I wish you guys would take my points seriously, if they need anything it's a serious debate. I'm open to changing my mind when something new is revealed or old information is mythbusted.

Go for it:
fair game topics....Government growth and benefit growth, gender identification, religious peoples simple belief in the Torrah/Bible,Koran/Vedas/every major religion in the world (that's choosing the easy on tho!), the slippery slope that then more than 2 people can be married or a person and an animal can be married or a family member can marry a family member (hey, they are people too ya know!), the topic of nature and natural law, how this will impact a country which is having it's credit rating reduced repeatedly and often, impact of benefits on private business and government spending/future debt, marriage as an ecclesiastical issue and NOT a government controlled one....
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:11 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:the amendment is by the people and for the people. It is a response to radical government and their actions in places like California, where an unelected judge overturned the votes of 10's of millions of people and "created" new rights which account for hundreds of billions of dollars of state spending. This is about the people taking control, and rejecting the government in their power grab into yet another institution.


The people cannot vote into law something that is unconstitutional. It is not judicial activism to overthrow an unconstitutional law. That principle has been on the books since 1803.


which is why it has been upheld as Constitutional. If these marriage amendments are unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court should weigh in. So that's a bullshit response


Actually, eight federal courts have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court may very well rule on that soon.

But besides that, use your common sense. In what way could the Equal Protection Clause possibly be construed as permitting a law that allows marriage for some citizens and not for others?


The reasoning here is quite simple.

(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.

No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.

End of discussion.


Still waiting to hear whether it's (2) or (3) that confuses you.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:13 pm

Phatscotty wrote:I wish you guys would take my points seriously, if they need anything it's a serious debate. I'm open to changing my mind when something new is revealed or old information is mythbusted.

Go for it:
fair game topics....Government growth and benefit growth, gender identification, religious peoples simple belief in the Torrah/Bible,Koran/Vedas/every major religion in the world (that's choosing the easy on tho!), the slippery slope that then more than 2 people can be married or a person and an animal can be married or a family member can marry a family member (hey, they are people too ya know!), the topic of nature and natural law, how this will impact a country which is having it's credit rating reduced repeatedly and often, impact of benefits on private business and government spending/future debt, marriage as an ecclesiastical issue and NOT a government controlled one....


I'm taking your points seriously (obviously). I'm trying to convince you that this is a non-issue. For the fiftieth time:

- Marriage as an institution is not one that should be (or was) supported by the government.
- At some point in the past, marriage became an institution regulated and supported by the government.
- Gays (and anyone else) would like to have equal protection under the laws (see the second bullet) and have their marriages recognized, regulated, and supported by the government.

If your argument is that marriage, as regulated and supported by the government, needs to be defined as man and woman, then your violating the equal protection clause and making a statist argument.

If your argument is that marriage, as a non-government institution (how I view marriage), needs to be defined as man and woman, it probably already is in your particular religion (as it is in mine) and you don't need, want, or care how the government defines marriage.

Simply put, if gay marriages are recognized, regulated, and supported by the government, it does not lessen my marriage, except that now the government recognizes marriages between people who are of the same sex.

You have yet to demonstrate why you care about this issue or how this issue affects you without referring to the government regulation and support of marriage, which is counterintuitive to a non-statist.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Woodruff on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:17 pm

Phatscotty wrote:I wish you guys would take my points seriously, if they need anything it's a serious debate. I'm open to changing my mind when something new is revealed or old information is mythbusted.


The law is already on the books. Why does Minnesota need to add it to their state constitution?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Funkyterrance on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:18 pm

At this point I'm more interested in how much the amendment would hurt/help each state's budget, etc.. I think it's obvious what the "right" outcome is.
I realize that Scotty doesn't really have much ground to stand on but I'm not going to make assumptions other than what he has stated here. Seems like he believes that those that are going to vote in favor of gay marriage are the source of tyranny, they don't necessarily have to be gay themselves. Again, what we have heard so far may be illogical but it's not exactly targeting gays.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Woodruff on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:19 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:At this point I'm more interested in how much the amendment would hurt/help each state's budget, etc.. I think it's obvious what the "right" outcome is.
I realize that Scotty doesn't really have much ground to stand on but I'm not going to make assumptions other than what he has stated here. Seems like he believes that those that are going to vote in favor of gay marriage are the source of tyranny, they don't necessarily have to be gay themselves. Again, what we have heard so far may be illogical but it's not exactly targeting gays.


Who exactly do you believe he is targeting if NOT homosexuals?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:22 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?


because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty


It isn't liberty to those that you are discriminating against.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8448
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:23 pm

Evil Semp wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty, why do you support the tyranny of majority rule?


because I hate the tyranny of the minority more. We are just making our own laws as a people. It's not tyranny, it's Liberty


It isn't liberty to those that you are discriminating against.


No, ur wrong cuz Liberty.

Liberty, Evil Semp. Liberty.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Funkyterrance on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:24 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:At this point I'm more interested in how much the amendment would hurt/help each state's budget, etc.. I think it's obvious what the "right" outcome is.
I realize that Scotty doesn't really have much ground to stand on but I'm not going to make assumptions other than what he has stated here. Seems like he believes that those that are going to vote in favor of gay marriage are the source of tyranny, they don't necessarily have to be gay themselves. Again, what we have heard so far may be illogical but it's not exactly targeting gays.


Who exactly do you believe he is targeting if NOT homosexuals?


I think he is targeting a group that could potentially cause further harm to the economy of each state. I haven't seen evidence showing anything more than this. I think the fact that this involves gays is more or less circumstantial.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:25 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:lmao! the question is not "can we get married", the question is "can we do something that has never been done before (until the extremely recent past in the most flammy areas) and therefore change the definition of marriage?"


The answer to your question is YES. It is the right thing to do.


It's for the people and by the people because the people are the only ones, in my state, that can do amendments. If it weren't by the people, then the legislation would have just passed it, and there would be no vote....

gay people are people, but child rapists are people too, not sure what that means

Why is your answer "yes"?[/quote]

Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it is wrong to change it. In my opinion it was wrong in the first place and should be changed.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8448
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Marriage Amendments....

Postby Woodruff on Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:26 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:At this point I'm more interested in how much the amendment would hurt/help each state's budget, etc.. I think it's obvious what the "right" outcome is.
I realize that Scotty doesn't really have much ground to stand on but I'm not going to make assumptions other than what he has stated here. Seems like he believes that those that are going to vote in favor of gay marriage are the source of tyranny, they don't necessarily have to be gay themselves. Again, what we have heard so far may be illogical but it's not exactly targeting gays.


Who exactly do you believe he is targeting if NOT homosexuals?


I think he is targeting a group that could potentially cause further harm to the economy of each state. I haven't seen evidence showing anything more than this. I think the fact that this involves gays is more or less circumstantial.


You're going to have to be a little more specific than this. Who is this shadowy group that could potentially cause further harm to the economy of a state (particularly a state that already has this law on the books), and how exactly does a marriage amendment tie into this potential?

Good heavens, he's comparing homosexuals to child rapists, incest and beastiality in this thread.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users