[Kazan]

Reez and StratComm - the classic examples of denialists


Hey Thunder - please split the tobacco debate and LOCK it - the idiots are coming out of the woodword and i'm not going to waste my breath correcting that massive of misinformation.

StratComm: You're ignoring reality of your own volition, how pathetic.

[Ulala]

On the gay marriage issue, I thought they had the same right as heterosexuals? The right to marry, the union between a man and a woman, or something along those lines, right? So they've got their right to marry, but apparently not someone of the same sex, so they claim they want to exercise their right to pursue happiness as stated in the Constitution or DoP or something, I don't even remember now (I'm a horrible history student), "...and the pursuit of happiness..." for all men or something. Ok, that's cool.. but what if walking into a bank vault and walking out with all that money is my way of pursuing happiness? That argument doesn't seem to go with me.

DISCLAIMER: This is what I have come to understand, I'm probably the most politically inexperienced/challenged person you know, so correct me. Without all caps if possible. I don't feel like being called IGNORANT today...

[Falcon X]

Oh yes... lock the thread cause obviously Kazan is right.


This whole thing is just backlash from Congress about some of the judiciary legislating from the bench.

Now I just have one question?  How is it legal for a state to allow Gay marriage when the Federal government has specified that marriage is stricly between a man and a woman?  (Defence of Marriage Act passed under Clinton too)

Now don't give me the whole 10th amendment argument cause if you go down that road say goodbye to about half the federal government.

[StratComm]

No Kazan, you're ignoring evidence that disputes your claim.  I'm not denying it, I don't like to have smoke breathed in my face any more than the next person.  But I'm also not saying that every man, woman and child in the continental United States is being slowly killed by breathing in one part per trillion of a tobacco-caused carcinogen, and so apparently I'm arguing against everything you're saying.  I'm not denying anything.  But I am saying back down your intensity about 4 orders of magnitude, you're overzealous.  The health risks that would be eliminated with smoking are nothing next to the infringment on personal choice that a universal ban would bring about.  So back the **** down and save your argument for someone who is legitimately trying to argue against you.

EDIT: oh, yeah, just because someone interprets data just a tad bit differently than you, contrary to popular belief, does not make them an idiot.  I don't ignore anything.  But I also don't buy everything that's fed to me by someone with an agenda, especially when they present the "facts" in the form of stats and numbers without properly explaining them.  I prefer to look at things and make my own analysis when I can, and I am quite capable of doing so when all the data is presented before me.  I just don't see the significance of the evidence that has been presented thus far.  There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.  They can show anything you want them to show, so pay some attention to the motive behind a study and its credibility before you believe it.

[Reez]

Falcon X: In the constitution, it says that a marriage is the union between two persons. However, they have not defined by what they mean. What the conservatives (and many of the democrats too) argue is that it means man and woman. Bush is trying to amend it to actually say that in the constitution as we speak.

Now, the fact is that in the US, you have a lot more rights as a married couple than you do as two single people living together (hospital vist rights, family insurance, etc.). It's why when two people get engaged, they've usually already signed the marriage papers and just waiting for the ceremony stuff to get through.

So of gay people are not fighting the right to marry in church, per say. They're fighting for marriage licenses, so they can be granted the same rights and freedoms as married couples. Of course, they don't realize the whole fun of divorce (infidelity is so much better without paper work).

[Falcon X]

In the constitution, it says that a marriage is the union between two persons. However, they have not defined by what they mean. What the conservatives (and many of the democrats too) argue is that it means man and woman. Bush is trying to amend it to actually say that in the constitution as we speak.

True... but I was talking about a specific law passed in 1996.  It is called the Defense of Marriage Act.  It specifically defines what marriage is... between a man and a woman.  It may not be in the constitution but is federal law and the states are not supposed to contradict federal law.

[Kazan]

StratComm: I'm well aware of the "disputes" - arguing with me on tobacco is like arguing with me on religion - if you forward and origional argument It would be the end of the world.  

They're topics I've dabated so many people right into the ground that it has become old debating the same old misconceptions

having people forward the same old "evidences" which are anything but evidence.

[Reez]

who's misconceptions? yours or theirs?

[Kazan]

considering i have medical fact on my side, figure it out yourself

[Goober5000]

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2
the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This seems to be Constitutionally sound.

Keep in mind the doctrine of judicial review is not actually in the Constitution.  It was invented out of whole cloth (by the Supreme Court itself) in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

[Kazan]

goober5000: it [HR 3920] isn't constitutionally sound however

[Bobboau]

present data/evedence that a lit cigarett in concentrations consistant with it being an average of 25 feet away causes any signifigant health threat. you are the one trying to take rights away from people, therefore the burden of proof is upon you to convince us that this activeity represents a signifigant, consistant, and unavoidable health threat to the population at large.

also if you'd like to speed things up why not show all the evedence people normaly show to refute you'r claims and explain why it's bull.

[ionia23]

Smoking is extremely harmful to one's health at worst, and annoying to others at best.  There are many behaviors that can be filled in place of "smoking" in the previous sentence.

[Ghostavo]

Like supporting B ush

[Kazan]

bobboau: cite your source, considering i can smell it from well over 300 feet easily i'm going to call BS because enough to smell is enough to be harmful.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Falcon X

Now I just have one question?  How is it legal for a state to allow Gay marriage when the Federal government has specified that marriage is stricly between a man and a woman?  (Defence of Marriage Act passed under Clinton too)

I've been wondering that myself.  As I understood it (probably wrong), only Congress can make the determination for what defines "marriage", the principle being that a marriage legal in one state would be legal in all states.

Which brings up the other side.  If a state, say, Massachussetts (sp?) makes same-sex marriages legal, the couple could get a state tax credit assuming such a thing exists.  But what about at the federal level?

[Flipside]

Ok, I want to get this really really straight in my head, if you'll pardon the pun....

What is the problem with allowing Gay Marraige over there? If it is a travesty in the 'eyes of God' then, that shouldn't be a problem, they've been that (according to Christians) long before they got married.
Who said Marriage was a purely Christian tradition anyway? As the US found out to it's detriment, Moslims have them too
So, we are talking about people who obviously don't believe in God (if only for the fact that 'God' doesn't believe in them) or have chosen their own personal path. Since, like all marriages, it most certainly doesn't matter what religion the people in the street outside believe in.

And in fact, in that respect Gay's have got it right, look at the Lord's Prayer in the Bible, when his disciples ask Jesus how to pray, he replies...

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
 
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
knoweth Matt 6:32, Luke 12:30, Phil 4:19
 
In other words, sitting in Church and droning out the 'Lords Prayer' like the Borg is the incorrect way to worship the Christian God Your prayers should be your own, and no Priest should be leading people in prayer.

Anyway, if religion is not an obstacle, which it isn't, what scares people so much about it? It's not as if they are going to start shagging in your front garden once they are married, believe me, marraige, if anything, reduces the nookie count

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, I want to get this really really straight in my head, if you'll pardon the pun....

What is the problem with allowing Gay Marraige over there? If it is a travesty in the 'eyes of God' then, that shouldn't be a problem, they've been that (according to Christians) long before they got married.
Who said Marriage was a purely Christian tradition anyway? As the US found out to it's detriment, Moslims have them too
So, we are talking about people who obviously don't believe in God (if only for the fact that 'God' doesn't believe in them) or have chosen their own personal path. Since, like all marriages, it most certainly doesn't matter what religion the people in the street outside believe in.

And in fact, in that respect Gay's have got it right, look at the Lord's Prayer in the Bible, when his disciples ask Jesus how to pray, he replies...

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
 
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
knoweth Matt 6:32, Luke 12:30, Phil 4:19
 
In other words, sitting in Church and droning out the 'Lords Prayer' like the Borg is the incorrect way to worship the Christian God Your prayers should be your own, and no Priest should be leading people in prayer.

Anyway, if religion is not an obstacle, which it isn't, what scares people so much about it? It's not as if they are going to start shagging in your front garden once they are married, believe me, marraige, if anything, reduces the nookie count

The last line in your post was brilliant

The problem is simple: A great many of the laws we live under today were written by old people with old ideals.  It's the 'imposition of will'.

You'll find plenty of people who have no issue with gay marriage.  You'll find plenty of supporters.  You'll also find a whole bunch of people who are convinced this is The Devil At Work.  

We just haven't worked it out yet, but we're starting to.

[mrduckman]

Well, I've just read this thread and have to say this:

On the original subject, the Congress may overrule a decision of the Supreme Court,
I've to say that it is an inherent strike against democracy and the division of powers. I cannot even begin to guess the impact that would have (even in the next elections or even in the days after that's approved) on a country that has forgotten how and why a democracy works like it works.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't the two-thirds of the congress of the Bush's side? (Sorry, forgot the difference of democratic and republican. Both are the same to me)
Do the people of the USA really leave all decisions be made by a real autocratic state?
Go back to the kingdom you came from, I would say. But now the UK is a constitutional monarchy. So, why bother, right? I'll make one here, one will say. And so it seems to be happening.

And about the ETS, I have no background to talk about that. I would recommend that if you don't know something, ask someone who knows.

[Gank]

Originally posted by ionia23
The problem is simple: A great many of the laws we live under today were written by old people with old ideals.  It's the 'imposition of will'.

Add religion beside law and you've covered the causes of most of the worlds problems.