cjcj
New member
The "Anus" is an Exit! not an entrance [see biology 101] One man packing another mans fudge, Well it just ain`t right!
Rosie gets married
- Thread starter Delw
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
Paws,Originally posted by pawclaws:
"There was a time where segregated schools, bans on interacial marriage, woman lacking the vote, etc, were all considered "normal". ... and each and every aspect Toonces was written into "law"!I really like your statement about "the law" being a tradeoff between individual rights and the common good. There may be a "quill" in your future yet!
Elkgunner; got any idea what the profile of "the typical or most representative AOL user" would look like. I would guess there would be a multipolar spectrum of stratum driven by unencumbered computer terminal access within educational facilities, corporate users, high end professionals, and a very small number of private users. I'm thinking that age distribution would also be driven by these strata. How do you think the opportunity of freedom to complete the survey would bias the results?
All those things (Segregation, bans on interracial marriages, etc...) may have been written into Law, but they were not "Normal" to anybody but the the Racist Bigots who put the laws into place. Those laws were oppressive to the people who were impacted by them. Don't ever mistake Opression by the Majority as "Normal".
That is why when the were challenged in the Courts, they were overturned. Very rarely do you have a Legislature that has the courage to step forward and change a law that Oppresses one group, and gives them new rights. Usually it takes a Judge to get the ball moving.
And as for you lesson in Surveys, I am guessing you have limited ability to read/and or comprehend. My guess is that you have such a need for condescension, that you are blind to what other's have for opinions. If you care to read my post on the AOL survey, I acknowledge all the "disclaimers" and limits to the data. Why you chose to "edcuate" me on something I already know and stated is beyond me. Perhaps it is to somehow allow you to puff your little chest out in front of others.
One thing I have learned on this Forum is that no matter the subject, there is ALWAYS somebody smarter than you, or me, on the subject. You just have to deal with it, and stay within your knowledge base and or opinions.
GLW
New member
What about a guy packing a woman? Is that alright?
P
pawclaws
Guest
"And as for you lesson in Surveys, I am guessing you have limited ability to read/and or comprehend. My guess is that you have such a need for condescension, that you are blind to what other's have for opinions. If you care to read my post on the AOL survey, I acknowledge all the "disclaimers" and limits to the data. Why you chose to "edcuate" me on something I already know and stated is beyond me. Perhaps it is to somehow allow you to puff your little chest out in front of others.
One thing I have learned on this Forum is that no matter the subject, there is ALWAYS somebody smarter than you, or me, on the subject. You just have to deal with it, and stay within your knowledge base and or opinions. "
Thank you for your sarcastic rhetoric. I was being totally sincere. For your information smart ass I am a practiced, accomplished, and competent statistician. I will not make the mistake of attempting to engage you in friendly, constructive, conversation again. I guess I should have left you with my first impression; JERK! I do stand corrected on you being full of shit though. You are much too full of yourself to "also" be full of shit.
p.s. I read 3,000 words per minute with 95 percent comprehension and my chest measures 48 and 1/2 inches, JFYI
One thing I have learned on this Forum is that no matter the subject, there is ALWAYS somebody smarter than you, or me, on the subject. You just have to deal with it, and stay within your knowledge base and or opinions. "
Thank you for your sarcastic rhetoric. I was being totally sincere. For your information smart ass I am a practiced, accomplished, and competent statistician. I will not make the mistake of attempting to engage you in friendly, constructive, conversation again. I guess I should have left you with my first impression; JERK!
I do stand corrected on you being full of shit though. You are much too full of yourself to "also" be full of shit. p.s. I read 3,000 words per minute with 95 percent comprehension and my chest measures 48 and 1/2 inches, JFYI
JoseCuervo
New member
About the only thing you got correct, was calling me a "smart ass", although I think the word looks better with a hyphen, so I prefer to use "smart-ass". And I am more than happy to go thru life as a "smart-ass". I'll leave the alternative, being a "dumb-ass" to others.
But again, you failed to explain why you "needed" to educate me on something I already knew, and acknowledged. My guess is so that you could impress others, and puff your little chest out, by being able to work in the "I am a practiced, accomplished, and competent statistician" line.
That is funnier than Hell to see someone so full of themself, that they would be putting that in a post. And then even funnier, you give me the score off your 4th grade reading test. Am I to be impressed that you did well in 4th grade?
You know what would really impress me? If you did the "right thing", and rebuked "Bill" for his Hate post. Others have. If you go back and read the earlier posts in this thread, there has been at least one post bragging about violence toward gays that has been removed, presumably by the author. Perhaps by less tolerance of "Freedom of Hate Speech", people will change their minds,and perhaps actions, and we can move this discussion, and country, out of the dark ages, and toward ever more enlightened thinking and behaviours.
[ 03-03-2004, 09:10: Message edited by: ElkGunner ]
But again, you failed to explain why you "needed" to educate me on something I already knew, and acknowledged. My guess is so that you could impress others, and puff your little chest out, by being able to work in the "I am a practiced, accomplished, and competent statistician" line.
That is funnier than Hell to see someone so full of themself, that they would be putting that in a post. And then even funnier, you give me the score off your 4th grade reading test. Am I to be impressed that you did well in 4th grade?
You know what would really impress me? If you did the "right thing", and rebuked "Bill" for his Hate post. Others have. If you go back and read the earlier posts in this thread, there has been at least one post bragging about violence toward gays that has been removed, presumably by the author. Perhaps by less tolerance of "Freedom of Hate Speech", people will change their minds,and perhaps actions, and we can move this discussion, and country, out of the dark ages, and toward ever more enlightened thinking and behaviours.
[ 03-03-2004, 09:10: Message edited by: ElkGunner ]
P
pawclaws
Guest
I was not trying to educate anyone; merely asked you your opinion of the possibilities. I see now that your opinion is meaningless. I don't know why the abilities or strengths of others seem to intimidate you Elkgunner; but, it really isn't worth my effort to concern myself over it. You have acknowledged that you wish to continue to be a "smart-ass". So be it. You know when I first communicated with you I told you that originally I believed you to be a "Jerk". You have far exceeded my expectations. Real shame, you know; normally such eloquence denotes high intelligence. Why anyone would endeavor to become a fool is beyond my comprehension. Goodbye.
Goodbye.BHR
New member
Elkgunner,
Do you believe this "injustice" (not allowing same sex marriage) is important enough to anger a large percent of this country? If so proceed. But if it comes back in spades, don't whine. You have been warned. Just like reporations for slavery for black Americans today. Pushing this agenda will hurt them more than help them. There will be a lot of anger and hostility, and it will not be just from the usual suspects. Smart people get this. Do you?
Paul
Do you believe this "injustice" (not allowing same sex marriage) is important enough to anger a large percent of this country? If so proceed. But if it comes back in spades, don't whine. You have been warned. Just like reporations for slavery for black Americans today. Pushing this agenda will hurt them more than help them. There will be a lot of anger and hostility, and it will not be just from the usual suspects. Smart people get this. Do you?
Paul
BHR,
What your insinuating is frightening.
People who are fighting to protect personal rights should not be subject to thinly veiled threats from a majority who they disagree with. That is the very definition of tyranny.
Why do you think Bush suggested the amendment to begin with? It is because he knows that laws forbidding same sex marriages violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
Otherwise Constitutional amendment would be unnecessary and federal legislation could be proposed which is far easier than the amendment process.
What your insinuating is frightening.
People who are fighting to protect personal rights should not be subject to thinly veiled threats from a majority who they disagree with. That is the very definition of tyranny.
Why do you think Bush suggested the amendment to begin with? It is because he knows that laws forbidding same sex marriages violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
Otherwise Constitutional amendment would be unnecessary and federal legislation could be proposed which is far easier than the amendment process.
Whiskers
New member
Isn't the basis of Democracy MAJORITY RULES! Thats how we elect our politicians, and politicians are supposed to do the bidding of the voters.
BHR
New member
Toonces,
No threat here, just reality. If reality frightens you, then stay in the dark. Did you catch the exit poll yesterday in one of the states elections in reguards to opinion on same sex marraige? 30 some percent no acknowledgement to same sex unions. 20 some percent favor civil unions. 10 some percent favor gay marraige. You can put me in the 20 some percent.
You can get lawyers to twist the laws and the Constitution one eighty if you like. They can make black white, and white black if you like. This is wrong, and you know it. This issue is not worth dividing our country over. That a small minority want to push an agenda, just to prove they can, is a bad idea, and should be reevaluted. Whether this particular issue is the final straw, remains to be seen, but I sense that we are rapidly approaching it.
If marraige is defined as a union between man and woman, it does not infringe on personal rights. If there are laws that outlaw use of drugs, does this infringe on your personal right? If you use this line of thinking, every law on the books infringes on someones rights. Do we now need a Constitutional Amendment for every law on the books?
Whiskers,
Majority does not rule. Judges, lawyers, and politicians rule. And issues like this one keep them all employed and in charge. Us people don't have a clue.
Paul
No threat here, just reality. If reality frightens you, then stay in the dark. Did you catch the exit poll yesterday in one of the states elections in reguards to opinion on same sex marraige? 30 some percent no acknowledgement to same sex unions. 20 some percent favor civil unions. 10 some percent favor gay marraige. You can put me in the 20 some percent.
You can get lawyers to twist the laws and the Constitution one eighty if you like. They can make black white, and white black if you like. This is wrong, and you know it. This issue is not worth dividing our country over. That a small minority want to push an agenda, just to prove they can, is a bad idea, and should be reevaluted. Whether this particular issue is the final straw, remains to be seen, but I sense that we are rapidly approaching it.
If marraige is defined as a union between man and woman, it does not infringe on personal rights. If there are laws that outlaw use of drugs, does this infringe on your personal right? If you use this line of thinking, every law on the books infringes on someones rights. Do we now need a Constitutional Amendment for every law on the books?
Whiskers,
Majority does not rule. Judges, lawyers, and politicians rule. And issues like this one keep them all employed and in charge. Us people don't have a clue.
Paul
BHR
New member
E. G.,
You like to preach tollerance on this thread, and then advocate vandalism on a law abiding ATV user on another. I'm not sure if you are here to stir the pot or actually promote your message.
That a small minority cannot understand why this issue bothers a large majority is sad, sad indeed.
Paul
You like to preach tollerance on this thread, and then advocate vandalism on a law abiding ATV user on another. I'm not sure if you are here to stir the pot or actually promote your message.
That a small minority cannot understand why this issue bothers a large majority is sad, sad indeed.
Paul
JoseCuervo
New member
Paul,
Actually, if you read my signature, I promote vandalism against many law abiding activities.... I don't just specify against ATVs...
And yes, I generally am here to "stir the pot"..., as I really don't have a position on the "marriage" aspect of this whole issue. As I have said from the beginning, it is a State's rights issue, not a Constititutional issue that Dubya wants to make it.
I also don't feel violence toward people with differing skin color, religions, sexual orientations, etc... is to be tolerated. If you do, then that is truly "sad, sad indeed."
Actually, if you read my signature, I promote vandalism against many law abiding activities.... I don't just specify against ATVs...
And yes, I generally am here to "stir the pot"..., as I really don't have a position on the "marriage" aspect of this whole issue. As I have said from the beginning, it is a State's rights issue, not a Constititutional issue that Dubya wants to make it.
I also don't feel violence toward people with differing skin color, religions, sexual orientations, etc... is to be tolerated. If you do, then that is truly "sad, sad indeed."
GLW
New member
Hey Skip! The trouble with majority is they only count the people that bother to vote! It could be a very low majority in that scenerio!
People like to bitch but when it comes to actually taking a stand they sit back and assume the "majority" will take care of it for them! Sad but true!
I thought this was how it goes anyway....
Congress=Majority
People like to bitch but when it comes to actually taking a stand they sit back and assume the "majority" will take care of it for them! Sad but true!
I thought this was how it goes anyway....
Congress=Majority
Whiskers
New member
BHR, I realize that JUDGES, LAWYERS, and POLITICIANS run this country to further their agendas. That agenda is their pocketbook. Most politicians are lawyers.....HMMMM. It would be nice if they could do something for the betterment of this country, rather than line their pockets. How many congressional people went to Washington with average incomes, and come out millionaires.
Whiskers,
I could be argued the basis for democracy in general is that the majority rules. However we have a Constitution and the basis of that Constitution is decidedly not majority rule. The Constitution and Bill of Rights in particular is meant to prevent the majority from ruling, by limiting the power the majority has to rule.
I am not sure how I personally feel about same sex marriage, but I do know how I personally feel about the Constitution. Sometimes living under a Constitution means the majority will not be happy with outcome. The first instinct of the majority should not necessarily be to change the Consitution to suit their whims.
I am willing to live with this, because I want the same protections for my civil rights when I find myself in the minority.
I could be argued the basis for democracy in general is that the majority rules. However we have a Constitution and the basis of that Constitution is decidedly not majority rule. The Constitution and Bill of Rights in particular is meant to prevent the majority from ruling, by limiting the power the majority has to rule.
I am not sure how I personally feel about same sex marriage, but I do know how I personally feel about the Constitution. Sometimes living under a Constitution means the majority will not be happy with outcome. The first instinct of the majority should not necessarily be to change the Consitution to suit their whims.
I am willing to live with this, because I want the same protections for my civil rights when I find myself in the minority.
P
pawclaws
Guest
"It is because he knows that laws forbidding same sex marriages violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution" Confused here Toonces. Can you elaborate? Emphasis on the "Equal Protection Clause" please. Thanks in advance!
You may have caught me in a technicality Paws.
The 14th amendment states "...nor shall any State...deny any to any person with in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The technicality is that the 14th amendment restricts the action of States and technically not the federal government. I believe there is long established judicial precedent which applies the EPL of the 14th amendment to the federal government via a concept called "substantive due process" via the 5th amendment, but I am really reaching back into the archives now.
EPL has been interpreted that States cannot discrimate based on gender without meeting some kind of exceedingly high standard of review. If a State were to ban same sex marriages, it could be considered gender discrimination. I am not up to date on my con law, but it is also possible that by now there is a heightened level of scrutiny with regard laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, although I am not sure what the status of the law is.
What causes me to think that a ban on same sex marriages would not survive constitutional scrutiny is as much a result of the Constitional precedence as it is a result of Bush's strategy here.
If Bush truly wanted to ban same sex marriages and he thought the Constitution would support such a law he could have easily proposed federal legislation. This would be a much easier way to get the job done than would a Constitutional Amendment.
The fact that he chose to support a Constitutional amendment instead of federal legislation says to me that Bush and his advisors believe that despite a conservative Supreme Court, such legislation would be found to be by that Court to be unconstitutional. I can think of no other reason why Bush would propose an amendment instead of legislation.
Bush is much smarter than me, as are his advisors. If they think that banning same sex legislation is unconstitutional as the Constitution is currently written, the only way to get the law to stick is to change the Constitution. I am not about to second guess Bush's legal advisors on this, so I have to believe that such legislation would in fact be unconstitutional.
The 14th amendment states "...nor shall any State...deny any to any person with in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The technicality is that the 14th amendment restricts the action of States and technically not the federal government. I believe there is long established judicial precedent which applies the EPL of the 14th amendment to the federal government via a concept called "substantive due process" via the 5th amendment, but I am really reaching back into the archives now.
EPL has been interpreted that States cannot discrimate based on gender without meeting some kind of exceedingly high standard of review. If a State were to ban same sex marriages, it could be considered gender discrimination. I am not up to date on my con law, but it is also possible that by now there is a heightened level of scrutiny with regard laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, although I am not sure what the status of the law is.
What causes me to think that a ban on same sex marriages would not survive constitutional scrutiny is as much a result of the Constitional precedence as it is a result of Bush's strategy here.
If Bush truly wanted to ban same sex marriages and he thought the Constitution would support such a law he could have easily proposed federal legislation. This would be a much easier way to get the job done than would a Constitutional Amendment.
The fact that he chose to support a Constitutional amendment instead of federal legislation says to me that Bush and his advisors believe that despite a conservative Supreme Court, such legislation would be found to be by that Court to be unconstitutional. I can think of no other reason why Bush would propose an amendment instead of legislation.
Bush is much smarter than me, as are his advisors. If they think that banning same sex legislation is unconstitutional as the Constitution is currently written, the only way to get the law to stick is to change the Constitution. I am not about to second guess Bush's legal advisors on this, so I have to believe that such legislation would in fact be unconstitutional.
P
pawclaws
Guest
Thank you sir! I see where you are coming from; although, I don't think that "Sexual orientation" will ever be construed as discrimination based on gender. Looks to me as though under EPL gays have the same rights to enter a marriage as do hetrosexuals. I think Bush's strategy is "let the states handle it!" The states will eventually get around to banning same sex unions and incorporating amendments into the individual state constitutions which will be raised to the US Supreme court which will refuse to hear it. I think his strategy is twofold; "not on my watch" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." His verbal comments are all you will hear relevant to the issue for the time being.
dgibson
New member
Toonces, I have't labored through this entire thread yet; has anyone tried to use the "separation of church and state" argument yet? I'd LOVE to see that one.
