- Sale items. Buy now - stock going fast. Specials
- You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
Forums > Social Chat > My favorite line from tonight:
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." -George W. Bush
Um. Excuse me? I think I got a defective President. Can I have a new one?
"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." -George W. Bush
Um. Excuse me? I think I got a defective President. Can I have a new one?
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
hehehe, I forget the bafoon was makeing his speech tonight.
hehehe, I forget the bafoon was makeing his speech tonight.
SILVER Member
Scientist!
578 posts
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Scientist!
578 posts
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posted:
heh,
my favorite line ever was
"There should be limits to freedom"
heh...
heh,
my favorite line ever was
"There should be limits to freedom"
heh...
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> STAY SAFE! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hug.gif" alt="" />
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
i quite thankfully avoided that speech
i quite thankfully avoided that speech
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
PLATINUM Member
Hyperloops suck
595 posts
Location: USA
Hyperloops suck
595 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
Erm, here's where I start the controversy:
Although I agree with your opinion that marriage should be between any two individuals that want to spend their life together, man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or whatever, I can also respect the opinion of people (specifically religious people) that want to keep marriage as only between a man and a woman.
I will have absolutely no problem if an amendment is passed making marriage between only a man and woman, as long as gay and lesbian partners have a means to be granted the same rights as a heterosexual married couples.
If he gives heterosexual couples more rights than that of gay couples, I'll be just as outraged as any other sane person, but the title of "husband and wife" doesn't mean as much to me as the fact that everyone, no matter their sexual preference, has the same priveleges (sp?).
Erm, here's where I start the controversy:
Although I agree with your opinion that marriage should be between any two individuals that want to spend their life together, man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or whatever, I can also respect the opinion of people (specifically religious people) that want to keep marriage as only between a man and a woman.
I will have absolutely no problem if an amendment is passed making marriage between only a man and woman, as long as gay and lesbian partners have a means to be granted the same rights as a heterosexual married couples.
If he gives heterosexual couples more rights than that of gay couples, I'll be just as outraged as any other sane person, but the title of "husband and wife" doesn't mean as much to me as the fact that everyone, no matter their sexual preference, has the same priveleges (sp?).
SILVER Member
Scientist!
578 posts
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Scientist!
578 posts
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posted:
While I respect your opinions, I think you are dead wrong...
Organized religion has been the root of all major problems in the history. Not because of the religion part, but more so towards the organized. I have studied numerous religions (just so you don't think I am ignorant towards religion), and I think the entire thing is stupid. (start flaming now...)
Although I do agree with you on the homosexuals having more rights and how it would be unfair, if that ammendment is passed, it would grant them less rights, which also isn't fair. I don't see how it would give them any more rights than anyone else if they wanted to have a gay or lesbian marriage. If anything, it would equal things out rather than tip the scales, if they were allowed to.
While I respect your opinions, I think you are dead wrong...
Organized religion has been the root of all major problems in the history. Not because of the religion part, but more so towards the organized. I have studied numerous religions (just so you don't think I am ignorant towards religion), and I think the entire thing is stupid. (start flaming now...)
Although I do agree with you on the homosexuals having more rights and how it would be unfair, if that ammendment is passed, it would grant them less rights, which also isn't fair. I don't see how it would give them any more rights than anyone else if they wanted to have a gay or lesbian marriage. If anything, it would equal things out rather than tip the scales, if they were allowed to.
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> STAY SAFE! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hug.gif" alt="" />
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
uh the issue is, theres very specific mention in the constitution about separation of church from state. It is not the role of the government to apply religious values to their policy. The fact is, there are people all kinds of people who's religious beliefs are not in conflict to same sex marriage. Why is it that a methodist christian can get up and deny someone the right of equality based on his religious beliefs.
Im not sure what the polls are saying on same sex marriage. The only way I figure "constitutional process" even is at all relevant is if he thinks that democracy isn't served because the majority of the country doesn't want same sex marriage. I don't see what other way you can use the constitution to oppose same sex marriage.
Ofcourse, there is a problem with using the constitution to oppose same sex marriage because it's unconstitutional to oppose same sex marriage.
Even if I were agaisnt same sex marriage I would ne outraged by the poor tact and outright stupidity of what he said, because the most powerful man in the country who is supporting my cause has just seriously undermined it by saying something so outrageously flawed.
I would say there are reasonable limits to freedome, such as you don't have the freedome to shout fire in a crowded movie theater. But obviously bush is talking in the context of the patriot act 1&2 and homeland security, so yeah that's funny if your not a supported of it. 50% of the country is though.
uh the issue is, theres very specific mention in the constitution about separation of church from state. It is not the role of the government to apply religious values to their policy. The fact is, there are people all kinds of people who's religious beliefs are not in conflict to same sex marriage. Why is it that a methodist christian can get up and deny someone the right of equality based on his religious beliefs.
Im not sure what the polls are saying on same sex marriage. The only way I figure "constitutional process" even is at all relevant is if he thinks that democracy isn't served because the majority of the country doesn't want same sex marriage. I don't see what other way you can use the constitution to oppose same sex marriage.
Ofcourse, there is a problem with using the constitution to oppose same sex marriage because it's unconstitutional to oppose same sex marriage.
Even if I were agaisnt same sex marriage I would ne outraged by the poor tact and outright stupidity of what he said, because the most powerful man in the country who is supporting my cause has just seriously undermined it by saying something so outrageously flawed.
I would say there are reasonable limits to freedome, such as you don't have the freedome to shout fire in a crowded movie theater. But obviously bush is talking in the context of the patriot act 1&2 and homeland security, so yeah that's funny if your not a supported of it. 50% of the country is though.
SILVER Member
Scientist!
578 posts
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Scientist!
578 posts
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Astar, for a Canadian, you know your American laws/acts fairly well...
And I agree with you about the
Issue, like I stated earlier.
Astar, for a Canadian, you know your American laws/acts fairly well...
And I agree with you about the
Quote:
Ofcourse, there is a problem with using the constitution to oppose same sex marriage because it's unconstitutional to oppose same sex marriage.
Issue, like I stated earlier.
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> STAY SAFE! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hug.gif" alt="" />
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
I started typing that post before you posted.
I started typing that post before you posted.
SILVER Member
Scientist!
578 posts
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Scientist!
578 posts
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Yeah I know, which is why I agreed with you.
This kind of thing happens alot with me...cause I like to post in peak times on popular threads...
Yeah I know, which is why I agreed with you.
This kind of thing happens alot with me...cause I like to post in peak times on popular threads...
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> STAY SAFE! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hug.gif" alt="" />
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Im actually pretty sure if bush used the constitution to violate the constitution it would actually burst into flames. Like when you divide by zero and your calculator spontaneously combusts.
Im actually pretty sure if bush used the constitution to violate the constitution it would actually burst into flames. Like when you divide by zero and your calculator spontaneously combusts.
PLATINUM Member
Hyperloops suck
595 posts
Location: USA
Hyperloops suck
595 posts
Location: USA
Posted:
I think you read my statement a bit backwards: I was not stating that gay and lesbians having extra rights is an issue, I was stating that I'd have a problem if they had less rights.
Don't get me wrong: If I had the law-writing powers, I'd absolutely, 100% give gay and lesbian couples the right to marriage in a heartbeat. It's the right thing to do in my opinion, and it will end a lot of sillyness.
But I also sympathize with the vast majority of America (And yes, it *IS* a vast majority) that believe their title as a married couple is somehow made less due to an "unpure" (ha) relationship is given the same title. Six months ago, I was arguing your exact same case. I have come to realize recently, though, that just because I believe my opinion is the morally correct solution, doesn't make it best for America.
Here's the beset analogy I can think of, but bare with me, it's a bit swanky: I can't run around telling everyone that I'm a police officer, does that mean I have less rights than someone who's been certified as a police officer? No, it just means that they've met their requirements to protect the public. In a similar way, many (read: most) Americans believe that part of meeting the requirements for marriage is for the relationship to be between a man in the woman. If you can't uphold the law, you can't be an officer, if you can't fulfill the requirements to be married, you shouldn't be allowed to. If everyone and their mother could walk around in a police uniform, it would tarnish the reputation and the validity of real police officers, much the same way as most believe that gay and lesbian marriages would tarnish the validity of heterosexual couples.
Quote:
Although I do agree with you on the homosexuals having more rights and how it would be unfair, if that ammendment is passed, it would grant them less rights, which also isn't fair. I don't see how it would give them any more rights than anyone else if they wanted to have a gay or lesbian marriage. If anything, it would equal things out rather than tip the scales, if they were allowed to.
I think you read my statement a bit backwards: I was not stating that gay and lesbians having extra rights is an issue, I was stating that I'd have a problem if they had less rights.
Don't get me wrong: If I had the law-writing powers, I'd absolutely, 100% give gay and lesbian couples the right to marriage in a heartbeat. It's the right thing to do in my opinion, and it will end a lot of sillyness.
But I also sympathize with the vast majority of America (And yes, it *IS* a vast majority) that believe their title as a married couple is somehow made less due to an "unpure" (ha) relationship is given the same title. Six months ago, I was arguing your exact same case. I have come to realize recently, though, that just because I believe my opinion is the morally correct solution, doesn't make it best for America.
Here's the beset analogy I can think of, but bare with me, it's a bit swanky: I can't run around telling everyone that I'm a police officer, does that mean I have less rights than someone who's been certified as a police officer? No, it just means that they've met their requirements to protect the public. In a similar way, many (read: most) Americans believe that part of meeting the requirements for marriage is for the relationship to be between a man in the woman. If you can't uphold the law, you can't be an officer, if you can't fulfill the requirements to be married, you shouldn't be allowed to. If everyone and their mother could walk around in a police uniform, it would tarnish the reputation and the validity of real police officers, much the same way as most believe that gay and lesbian marriages would tarnish the validity of heterosexual couples.
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Here is a hypothetical situation. There is a race of people from another land that another hypothetical country actually goes to and buys their POW's and criminals, and they go further and buys kidnapped people FROM criminals. They bring them back to their country and force them to work like animals and deny them every right the constitution says they should have. Most of the people on this hypothetical country don't want them to have any of these rights, so for many many years they are not granted any of the rights, slowly the people are freed from slavery but they still don't get the rights. Finally, only a few decades from our present date they start to realize the dream of being equal with the native people of the land. But largely only because the native people finally decided maybe it was a bad thing, because it was unconstitutional and after all, they are just like you and me with funny skin colour.
Was what happened in that hypothetical situation right? Or should the constitution be followed to the T?
I figure it doesn't [censored] matter what the majority of the country wants if the minority isn't doing anything to hurt the majority. You see the cop analogy doesn't quite work. It would be more like if I went around calling myself a buddhist, and you a christian said I couldn't do it because you don't believe in it and I don't fullfill some silly rules you have.
Well [censored] you buddy, because you can't do that because I have the constitution in my back pocket.
Here is a hypothetical situation. There is a race of people from another land that another hypothetical country actually goes to and buys their POW's and criminals, and they go further and buys kidnapped people FROM criminals. They bring them back to their country and force them to work like animals and deny them every right the constitution says they should have. Most of the people on this hypothetical country don't want them to have any of these rights, so for many many years they are not granted any of the rights, slowly the people are freed from slavery but they still don't get the rights. Finally, only a few decades from our present date they start to realize the dream of being equal with the native people of the land. But largely only because the native people finally decided maybe it was a bad thing, because it was unconstitutional and after all, they are just like you and me with funny skin colour.
Was what happened in that hypothetical situation right? Or should the constitution be followed to the T?
I figure it doesn't [censored] matter what the majority of the country wants if the minority isn't doing anything to hurt the majority. You see the cop analogy doesn't quite work. It would be more like if I went around calling myself a buddhist, and you a christian said I couldn't do it because you don't believe in it and I don't fullfill some silly rules you have.
Well [censored] you buddy, because you can't do that because I have the constitution in my back pocket.
member
64 posts
Location: Cardiffy, Londony places
64 posts
Location: Cardiffy, Londony places
Posted:
Zowee! should have brought my marshmallows with me!
How many of you does your Mr President's (How I love the dichotomy in that the intentions of that title!!) statement actully allude to?
Zowee! should have brought my marshmallows with me!
How many of you does your Mr President's (How I love the dichotomy in that the intentions of that title!!) statement actully allude to?
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
If you ask me, the constitution of the USA is for the protection of rights, not the limitation of them. The only amendment ever passed that restricted what Americans could do (prohibition) was thankfully repealed.
The behaviour of the American population should not be dictated by its constitution. the constitution is there to organize the government and protect the people. passing amendments that say people can't burn the american flag or marry someone they love is absolutely wrong within the context and spirit of that document.
the only amendment that should be passed over this issue is one protecting the rights of people to get married or at least have spousal rights regardless of sex and sexual orientation. If an amendment is passed forbidding this, the american people will look on it with shame within 15 years.
Keep the American consitution something America can be proud of even in the face of less than ideal government. Do not let the mediocrity and narrow-mindedness of the present adminstration sully the reputation of a fine document which has stood for the protection of human rights for over 200 years.
If you ask me, the constitution of the USA is for the protection of rights, not the limitation of them. The only amendment ever passed that restricted what Americans could do (prohibition) was thankfully repealed.
The behaviour of the American population should not be dictated by its constitution. the constitution is there to organize the government and protect the people. passing amendments that say people can't burn the american flag or marry someone they love is absolutely wrong within the context and spirit of that document.
the only amendment that should be passed over this issue is one protecting the rights of people to get married or at least have spousal rights regardless of sex and sexual orientation. If an amendment is passed forbidding this, the american people will look on it with shame within 15 years.
Keep the American consitution something America can be proud of even in the face of less than ideal government. Do not let the mediocrity and narrow-mindedness of the present adminstration sully the reputation of a fine document which has stood for the protection of human rights for over 200 years.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
not with cactus
2,052 posts
Location: bristol/ southern eastern devon, United Kingdom
not with cactus
2,052 posts
Location: bristol/ southern eastern devon, United Kingdom
Posted:
Me train running low on soul coal
They push+pull tactics are driving me loco
They shouldn't do that no no no
Lemon-Aware Devilstick-wielding Operative
605 posts
Location: East London Wilds
605 posts
Location: East London Wilds
Posted:
I haven't yet read the full speech (it being at 2:30 in the morning for us, on a school-night), but the quote in this morning's paper:
"Our aim is a democratic peace, a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."
In light of recent events, and especially in contrast to the paragraph that Lightning quoted, it would make me laugh out loud if this guy wasn't the one with his finger on that Big Red Button.
I also read this article this morning which I like in relation to the above. Similarly, yet another appeal for the Camp Delta prisoners, this time by the families of the illegally imprisoned.
It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
I haven't yet read the full speech (it being at 2:30 in the morning for us, on a school-night), but the quote in this morning's paper:
"Our aim is a democratic peace, a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."
In light of recent events, and especially in contrast to the paragraph that Lightning quoted, it would make me laugh out loud if this guy wasn't the one with his finger on that Big Red Button.
I also read this article this morning which I like in relation to the above. Similarly, yet another appeal for the Camp Delta prisoners, this time by the families of the illegally imprisoned.
It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
Luv 'n' Lemons
purity :: clarity :: balance
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
It makes me soooo glad to not live in the US, it seems that GWB is doin his utmost to piss of the American public, but then again...he is a puppet being controlled by his father! I guess this is why he's starting his election campaign so early. Lets just hope the public vote the right way and he doesn't get the chance to fix the results again.
It makes me soooo glad to not live in the US, it seems that GWB is doin his utmost to piss of the American public, but then again...he is a puppet being controlled by his father! I guess this is why he's starting his election campaign so early. Lets just hope the public vote the right way and he doesn't get the chance to fix the results again.
Let's relight this forum 
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
You know what? I'd be fine with that. Except it can't actually happen. It brings back recollections of "separate but equal."
While marriage, per se, is not necessary, it is the only institution that is transferrable from state to state that confers the same rights (hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.). If we are given a civil union with all the same rights, that would be fine, but that would essentially end marriage as a government institution (which, I believe is the right way to go, but that's another issue entirely).
So while I agree with you in theory, in practice, it won't work.
Quote:
I will have absolutely no problem if an amendment is passed making marriage between only a man and woman, as long as gay and lesbian partners have a means to be granted the same rights as a heterosexual married couples.
You know what? I'd be fine with that. Except it can't actually happen. It brings back recollections of "separate but equal."
While marriage, per se, is not necessary, it is the only institution that is transferrable from state to state that confers the same rights (hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.). If we are given a civil union with all the same rights, that would be fine, but that would essentially end marriage as a government institution (which, I believe is the right way to go, but that's another issue entirely).
So while I agree with you in theory, in practice, it won't work.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Actually, a Constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional, by definition. It would be perfectly legal to amend the Constitution thus.
Quote:
Ofcourse, there is a problem with using the constitution to oppose same sex marriage because it's unconstitutional to oppose same sex marriage.
Actually, a Constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional, by definition. It would be perfectly legal to amend the Constitution thus.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I don't. First, it isn't an overwhelming majority. Second, it doesn't affect them in any way.
Quote:
But I also sympathize with the vast majority of America (And yes, it *IS* a vast majority) that believe their title as a married couple is somehow made less due to an "unpure" (ha) relationship is given the same title. Six months ago, I was arguing your exact same case. I have come to realize recently, though, that just because I believe my opinion is the morally correct solution, doesn't make it best for America.
I don't. First, it isn't an overwhelming majority. Second, it doesn't affect them in any way.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
Got your pedantic nit picking head on today Lightning?! I think it was pretty obvious what Astar meant by "it's unconstitutional" Life isn't a dictionary definition you know.
It's isn't technically unconstitutional to illegally take prisoners and POW's from ages 12 upward and put them in a prison camp in the desert in a different country (Guantanamo) to find a loop hole in the Geneva convention everyone is "supposed" to abide by but it doesn't make it constitutional or right does it!
And if I understand what you mean Astar, you're exactly right. The legal representation of a couple in marriage, be they male & female or any combination should be fair for all. That's true equality and death of opression of gender roles from what basically comes from Christian based outdated law. The sooner laws change to concentrate on reducing harm to members of the community (thats town, country or planet) and not trying to impose personal or religous views on things that don't actually bother anyone else directly the better.
And the sooner equality for all is spread all over the world then people like me can live a life without fear of prejudice and abuse because of our personal lifestyle choices, and that's abuse from both the Gay and Straight communities!!
Quote:
Actually, a Constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional, by definition. It would be perfectly legal to amend the Constitution thus.
Got your pedantic nit picking head on today Lightning?! I think it was pretty obvious what Astar meant by "it's unconstitutional" Life isn't a dictionary definition you know.
It's isn't technically unconstitutional to illegally take prisoners and POW's from ages 12 upward and put them in a prison camp in the desert in a different country (Guantanamo) to find a loop hole in the Geneva convention everyone is "supposed" to abide by but it doesn't make it constitutional or right does it!
And if I understand what you mean Astar, you're exactly right. The legal representation of a couple in marriage, be they male & female or any combination should be fair for all. That's true equality and death of opression of gender roles from what basically comes from Christian based outdated law. The sooner laws change to concentrate on reducing harm to members of the community (thats town, country or planet) and not trying to impose personal or religous views on things that don't actually bother anyone else directly the better.
And the sooner equality for all is spread all over the world then people like me can live a life without fear of prejudice and abuse because of our personal lifestyle choices, and that's abuse from both the Gay and Straight communities!!
Let's relight this forum
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
It is unconstitutional to not keep church and state separate.
It is unconstitutional to be discrimatory.
Yes, I suppose if you add an ammendment that is completly contradictory to the ammendments before it, it would "technically" be constitutional, although the act of putting it there would be unconstitutional, and once it was there the constitution it's self would be unconstitutional by the very terms laid out within it. Which is why I joked about it bursting into flames.. The point was plainly made and is fairly simple to understand.
BTW mike that's the sort of sementical nonsense that the conservatives are using to justify blocking gay marriage.
It is unconstitutional to not keep church and state separate.
It is unconstitutional to be discrimatory.
Yes, I suppose if you add an ammendment that is completly contradictory to the ammendments before it, it would "technically" be constitutional, although the act of putting it there would be unconstitutional, and once it was there the constitution it's self would be unconstitutional by the very terms laid out within it. Which is why I joked about it bursting into flames.. The point was plainly made and is fairly simple to understand.
BTW mike that's the sort of sementical nonsense that the conservatives are using to justify blocking gay marriage.
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
I think some of bush is beginning to rub off on the australian government shrubs...
A politician this week suggested that our public schools have become too politically correct
and are values neutral (in other words, why aren't we still saluting the queen each morning and saying prayers before lunch)
And today, another's just come out and suggested that public shools teach too many deep green values, and don't put the farmer's perspective enough (in other words we are teaching too much about sustainable resources and not enough about the use of resources)
I think some of bush is beginning to rub off on the australian government shrubs...
A politician this week suggested that our public schools have become too politically correct
and are values neutral (in other words, why aren't we still saluting the queen each morning and saying prayers before lunch)And today, another's just come out and suggested that public shools teach too many deep green values, and don't put the farmer's perspective enough (in other words we are teaching too much about sustainable resources and not enough about the use of resources)
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
I was just thinking it's totally insane that christians make such a stink over homosexuality in the first place. There is one passage in the bible saying homosexuality is bad, theres 400+ saying heterosexual sex is bad. Maybe heterosexual marriages should be illegal if we are going to let the bible dictate ammendments to the constitution. Because it's obviously more immoral then homosexual marriage.
I was just thinking it's totally insane that christians make such a stink over homosexuality in the first place. There is one passage in the bible saying homosexuality is bad, theres 400+ saying heterosexual sex is bad. Maybe heterosexual marriages should be illegal if we are going to let the bible dictate ammendments to the constitution. Because it's obviously more immoral then homosexual marriage.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [favorite line tonight] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > My favorite line from tonight: [24 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com