Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Spookie -- in response to your polygamy and the 14th amendment question, no, it doesn't.

The government has the ability to justify discrimination against, in your example, polygamists because they have the ability to show a compelling interest why polygamy is bad for society. That compelling interest, although not a written provision, was read into the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court shortly after it was added in order to justify discriminatory policies after the end of slavery and the passage of the 15th Amendment, which is in and of itself discriminatory (15th Amendment). But that is another issue.

I hate to say it but it's pretty black and white here. Gay people should be able to get married, it doesn't affect anyone. If it conflicts with your beliefs, let them go to hell, it's they're choice to get married. If its because you don't like the thought of gay sex, get a clue, they're going to have sex no matter what. get used to it, its none of your business.

I say it goes to the states. The Fedral Government has no right to regulate this.

At 8/11/04 11:14 PM, CrackaPlease wrote: I say it goes to the states. The Fedral Government has no right to regulate this.

Actually the Federal Government must regulate this because of the way our country works. When a heterosexual couple get married in say New York, they can move to any other state in the US and still be married. So if even just one state allows gay marriages then all states must respect the newly formed marriage license. Now all they have to do is go to that one state, get married and they are set. It is for this reason that it has become a federal issue. I don't know if you noticed, but this has been in the news in the past couple months because massachusets was trying to legalize gay marriages and the other states were protesting.

At 8/12/04 04:09 AM, jmaster306 wrote: When a heterosexual couple get married in say New York, they can move to any other state in the US and still be married.

Actually most states have laws against this.

At 8/1/04 12:54 AM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: 2) I need to know -- is there anybody who thinks that the Bible (or any religious text) has a place in deciding social policy?

I think it does, but only a loose one. If people read the bible/koran/whatever and follow the general teachings of it, especially the peacceful ones, then I think that that is a good thing. However, if they read it and interperet it as telling them to hate someone or a group of people, that's a bad thing.

For instance. The bible tells us that Homosexuality is wrong, in a pretty obscure passage from Leviticus, and it also tells us to Love our Neighbours, and to Forgive Peoples Sins. Interpret it how you like, but there is no right way, therefore I dont think religion should have a major role in deciding social policy. A minor role, maybe, but not a major one.

At 8/12/04 04:36 AM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 8/12/04 04:09 AM, jmaster306 wrote: When a heterosexual couple get married in say New York, they can move to any other state in the US and still be married.

Actually most states have laws against this.

There is also a federal law against this, but it will be taken to the spureme courts. And hopefully another horrible decision by the court will not be made.

At 8/12/04 01:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/12/04 04:36 AM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 8/12/04 04:09 AM, jmaster306 wrote: When a heterosexual couple get married in say New York, they can move to any other state in the US and still be married.

Actually most states have laws against this.

There is also a federal law against this, but it will be taken to the spureme courts. And hopefully another horrible decision by the court will not be made.

No, SOME states have laws against banning same-sex couples. HETEROSEXUAL (male-female) marriages are still respected in all 50 states. As for the defense of marriage act, they made it and they can get rid of it.

Calif. Court Voids Gay Nuptial Licenses

Hooray!

At 8/12/04 03:35 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: Calif. Court Voids Gay Nuptial Licenses

Hooray!

The justices also decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages peformed before the court halted the weddings on March 11.

Is it right that 7 people get to decide if 4,000 can marry? </rhetorical>

At 8/12/04 03:40 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: The justices also decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages peformed before the court halted the weddings on March 11.

Is it right that 7 people get to decide if 4,000 can marry? </rhetorical>

Well, the decision isn't about whther these popel can marry. It was about whether the city had the legal right to grant them marriage. There was a specific law saying that they couldn't marry, so the courts said that the mayor had overstepped his boundaries. Now if this same decision was made by the Oregon supreme court, there would be a problem. Because Multnomah county never violated any laws in its issue of marriages to homosexuals.

Thus my quote to this topic.

"God said Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

At 8/12/04 03:45 PM, _Aleks_ wrote: Thus my quote to this topic.

"God said Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

We've heard that way too many times on this topic. I don't ever want to hear it again on a BBS topic.

At 8/12/04 03:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't ever want to hear it again on a BBS topic.

It's a good thing you're not in charge.

At 8/12/04 03:58 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 8/12/04 03:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't ever want to hear it again on a BBS topic.

It's a good thing you're not in charge.

That's not the first time I've heard that.

But please people, if something has already been said on the topic, please don't just repeat it. You can refer back to it if the situation reders it germane, but other than that, dont't waste space.

At 8/8/04 12:03 AM, cam_kitsune wrote: No, i think the point is that you have NO vote, because it dosent affect you at all

i'm not disabled, so should i then not be allowed to vote for a political representative who has a view on disability benefits?

ah, but the point you made is flawed: the relationships you speak of are not of mutual concent, because lord knows the refrigerator dosent want to have to clean the human's underware!

you're just a bigot who refuses to accept that animals and children are people, and should have the same rights as everyone else.</lol>

but seriously, if we're going to change legislation in order to accomodate one miority then why not another?
children, animals, and potentially innanimate objects can have consent provided on their behalf, so why shouldn't people who wish to marry them have the same rights as everyone else?

as you can see, there is no real reason (that you have posted) for you to have a problem with gay marrige. just because you let people YOU DONT EVEN know have same sex marrigas dosent mean that satin is after YUOR soul! let go... it has absolutely nothing to do with you.

a soft material is after my soul now?

we can go about this one of two ways:
either; you are correct that people shouldn't be able to vote on anything that doesn't affect them, in which case nobody would be able to choose a political representative without the government being altered to make each representative specific to one area of policy,
or you realise that everyone pays taxes, and therefore has a vested interest in everything that their government does.

At 8/9/04 02:57 AM, Vergessener_Held wrote: ALSO: I'd like to tell all of you saying, "The Bible says gay marriage is wrong!"

most of the western world, if not all of it (guess it depends on what one considers western) is made up of secular democracies/republics.

as such the bible should not determine government policy unless a christian political party is voted into power.
as such the bible arguments are irrelevant, i'd advise you to ignore them, and the "adam and steve" crap.(you'd think the trolls could at least try to be original)

the only thing the bible argument should influence is the personal opinions of an individual, who has a single vote when it comes to election time, making such arguments pointless in any serious debate.

but if you're interested, it's in leviticus, romans and i think there is one other mention somewhere in paul or something.(google is your friend)

At 8/12/04 06:51 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 8/1/04 12:54 AM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: 2) I need to know -- is there anybody who thinks that the Bible (or any religious text) has a place in deciding social policy?

I think it does, but only a loose one. If people read the bible/koran/whatever and follow the general teachings of it, especially the peacceful ones, then I think that that is a good thing. However, if they read it and interperet it as telling them to hate someone or a group of people, that's a bad thing.

For instance. The bible tells us that Homosexuality is wrong, in a pretty obscure passage from Leviticus, and it also tells us to Love our Neighbours, and to Forgive Peoples Sins. Interpret it how you like, but there is no right way, therefore I dont think religion should have a major role in deciding social policy. A minor role, maybe, but not a major one.

in leviticus God also sets two kids on fire for burning incense and tells you to kill innocent animals when your wife gives birth. the bible has no place in the government, period. it's idiotic, poorly translated, and largely misinterpreted. religion has no place in government. the world of religious practices is not confined to christianity/judaism/islam either, so no, it isn't all the same, and we don't all worship the same god.

Is there acctually a politician in the federal government who acctually supports gay marriage?

At 8/12/04 03:35 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: Calif. Court Voids Gay Nuptial Licenses

Hooray!

Should you really care Mr. Social Darwin? If it's a decision of two males or two females to marry, and let them face any consequences, as your philosophy decrees...

At 8/12/04 05:32 PM, spanishfli wrote:

At 8/12/04 03:35 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: Calif. Court Voids Gay Nuptial Licenses

Hooray!

Should you really care Mr. Social Darwin? If it's a decision of two males or two females to marry, and let them face any consequences, as your philosophy decrees...

The decision by the court is not saying the homosexual marriage is bad. It is saying that because the law forbid him, the mayor's actions of allowing homosexuals to marry was illegal, and therefore all liscense made by him then were illegitmate.

I think you should worry more if the same decision was made in Oregon.

My whole philosiphy on the same sex marrage topic is that the whole thing is rediculous. It is obvious that you are gay by choice not by gene or any of that fluff. Think about it...... If homosexuals cannot reproduce, than the gene would eventually die out. Don't you think that it would be wierd having two dads pick you up from school and be holding hands and kissing with you in the car you being strait? The last thing that I want to do is insult the homosexuals or make them feel bad, but hey, I'm just telling what I think about the subject. I am against same sex marrage because I am a christian and the bible says that a marrage is supposed to be between a man and a woman period.

At 8/12/04 05:46 PM, IraquiHunter357 wrote: I am against same sex marrage because I am a christian and the bible says that a marrage is supposed to be between a man and a woman period.

Choosing a religion is also a choice too.

At 8/12/04 05:03 PM, Izuamoto wrote: the bible has no place in the government, period. it's idiotic, poorly translated, and largely misinterpreted.

Interviews with God

why is atheism and christian bashing so trendy nowadays?
it's like the new sarcasm.

At 8/12/04 07:44 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: why is atheism and christian bashing so trendy nowadays?

probably because of people like this
http://www.godhatesfags.com

nah, i doubt half the people i have seen bashing christianity have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the minutest fraction of those passages.
the other half maybe.

it's always christianity, i never see people attacking islam or anything else.

At 8/11/04 11:03 PM, SomeRandomLiberal wrote: Spookie -- in response to your polygamy and the 14th amendment question, no, it doesn't.

I think someone could construe it as that.

stuff

I think one day there will be a similar movement though...

what i dont understand is why we call ourselves a christian nation if we allow gay marrige. the bible has been around much longer than our constitution or any of our other laws yet being a christian nation we seem to go around the bible. besides doesnt the bible cover all of this, like the reason why it should only be a man and a woman is becuase thats the way it was meant to be, so they could have children. and another reason why it says a man and a woman is so no one gets a desiese like aids. tch some christian nation we are.

We're not a Christian nation, and if we are, we shouldn't be. You know "Seperation of Church and State" and all. I suggest reading the constitution it's a good read, really opens up your eyes.