Amendment - Page 10 - Nubblies.net Forums

Beebs · 03-01-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dirty Harry:
Excellent rebuttal Beebs...oh wait...

The argument had run its course, and I agree, it was getting off the topic so I erased my post dumbfuck.

VOL · 03-01-2004, 11:59 AM

So you realized you were beat? It's good to see you lose every argument.

silver and cold · 03-01-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VOL:

2)Shows like Will and Grace should be taken off the air. If a show is going to be solely based on gays, then it should be on late at night or early in the morning so few people waste their time. Shows like this just make television worse.

Vol, those shows are just showing the reality of homosexuals in america. Your kids are more likely to see it out in town than they are on tv, nowdays anyway.

Vol, quit trying to act like such a hardass to the newbies, you still suck too!

[ March 01, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: silver and cold ]

VOL · 03-01-2004, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by silver and cold:

Vol, quit trying to act like such a hardass to the newbies, you still suck too!

I don't think I'm doing that. I'm making my points, and you can't acccept that because you have a completely opposite view. People like you preach understanding and respect for each other, yet you still refuse to approach a topic, such as this, with dignity and understanding.

Back to the point. Showing the realities of homosexuals in America. Ok I understand that, but shouldn't they show the negative aspects to the homosexuals too. They only show teh good, happy, and positives.

silver and cold · 03-01-2004, 02:19 PM

VOl, you alwyas act like an ass to the newbies, not just in this thread.
I have dignity and understanding...
I also understand, that they do deserve the same amount of rights for them, as you have. They have done nothing to deserve different. You cant say its because they are gay either.
How would you like it, if you were in love with some person of a different race,religon, or what-not and the law said it caused to much contriversy(sp?) and that it opened "floodgates" to what could happen in the future.
I don't know about you, put I would be really upset, and offended.
Every one deserves equal rights!!!

VOL · 03-01-2004, 02:45 PM

I would be too. And they did have the debate about mixed race marriages. My point is on gay marriages. They can have all the rights they want, but gay marriage violates more than just rights, it violates American society and the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

No matter if it caused a "trickle down effect" or not, I still can't get behind the legalizing of gay marriages.

Beebs · 03-01-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VOL:
So you realized you were beat? It's good to see you lose every argument.

No, I realized that his mind wasn't going to be changed, regardless of him being wrong, and decided to not hijack the thread and make it a personal argument (like you appear to be doing).

If you've got some problem with me hop down I-69 and do something about it mother fucker.

[ March 01, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Beebs ]

VOL · 03-01-2004, 04:04 PM

Is that some sort of a threat? [img]graemlins/shifty.gif[/img]

I'm not going all the way down there for someone who takes this way to personal. Mello out Beebs.

A lot has been comparing this to Prohibition. How long did that actually work and what was the result of the President who pushed the Amendment? Anyone have an idea?

Fruitacious B · 03-01-2004, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VOL:
A lot has been comparing this to Prohibition. How long did that actually work and what was the result of the President who pushed the Amendment? Anyone have an idea?

Thanks for helping state our point. Prohibition was a proven failure and it was removed. It started out because it was determined that alchohol ruined the moral decency of the country. What a novel argument. Sound familiar anyone?

Quote:

Originally posted by VOL:
So you realized you were beat? It's good to see you lose every argument.

That was funny. Seeing as though it came from you.

BarryJive · 03-01-2004, 05:17 PM

The argument will be won when the amendment is not passed and in 20 years you will realize that america hasn't changed because of gay marriage. Until then it's all a matter of values that cannot be changed in a thread where nobody bothers to think about anything anyone else has to say. Instead people are much too interested in getting their own uninformed opinions out which just perpetuates the bullshit.

Beebs · 03-01-2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VOL:
Is that some sort of a threat? [img]graemlins/shifty.gif[/img]

I'm not going all the way down there for someone who takes this way to personal. Mello out Beebs.

Pussy bitch, I'll be comin through FW anyway on friday if you wanna keep acting like a hardass.

Pliedes · 03-01-2004, 05:57 PM

Am I the only one that realizes that this amendment being defeated doesn't actually mean gay marriage is going to happen? It's a state issue. Most states (like our own) already have laws in place banning gay marriage, this amendment which defintes marriage is just a federal measures which goes above and beyond whats already necessary. Just because this bill won't pass (and it won't) does not mean homosexual marriage is an immediate reality.

I mean, it better pass though, otherwise those gays will attack our homes in the night, stealing away little boys to turn them into fairies, turning little girls into dykes. They'll shoot laser beams out of their eyes and burn cities to the ground, marching with their huge rainbow flags and redecorating houses all along their path of destruction!

Seriously people.

Saint DH · 03-01-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pliedes:
I mean, it better pass though, otherwise those gays will attack our homes in the night, stealing away little boys to turn them into fairies, turning little girls into dykes. They'll shoot laser beams out of their eyes and burn cities to the ground, marching with their huge rainbow flags and redecorating houses all along their path of destruction!

Very good point.

AcTivE · 03-01-2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pliedes:
I mean, it better pass though, otherwise those gays will attack our homes in the night, stealing away little boys to turn them into fairies, turning little girls into dykes. They'll shoot laser beams out of their eyes and burn cities to the ground, marching with their huge rainbow flags and redecorating houses all along their path of destruction!

Seriously people.

That's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

And a dick up an ass is just gay.

Jake · 03-01-2004, 07:58 PM

Pliedes I agree. I believe this is something that should be decided by the states. Federalism is one of the cornerstones of our government. However, the reality of that coming true is somewhat more complicated. I cant specifically remember the article but there is something in the constitution that refers to full equity act in marriage, basically states have to recognize other states marriages as legal. I know that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act so that states would not have to recognize other states marriage if gay marriage ever came about, which i think is understandable. However, the Defense of Marraige act is simply legislation, and utlimately the constitution wins out. If gay marriage was ever raised to the supreme court i doubt that the legislation would hold up against the constitution. Therefore, i personally see gay marriage eventually becoming legal through out the U.S. unless some amendment to the constitution, either banning gay marriage, or making it so that states do not
"necessarily" have to recognize other states marriage, suceceeds (sp.. i hate that word). Anyways, i would hope that something along the lines of the latter would come about. Otherwise i see states rights being muted, while gay marriage comes into effect throughout the U.S.

Jake · 03-01-2004, 07:59 PM

PS. Pliedes i like the analogy of what is to come if gay marriage comes about lol

Saint DH · 03-01-2004, 08:21 PM

I will be fine with gay marriage if we also allow gay slavery.

Percipere'Chan · 03-01-2004, 08:30 PM

The truth comes out about Dirty. Very Dirty.

Saint DH · 03-01-2004, 08:34 PM

And of course by gay slavery I mean we enslave the homosexual population and force them to do our non-sexual bidding.

Percipere'Chan · 03-01-2004, 09:06 PM

Of course. I don't think anyone doubts that's what you meant.

Pliedes · 03-01-2004, 10:26 PM

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Homosexual marriage won't become an issue like the Dred Scott case did, and it won't cause a civil war; leave it to the states like it's supposed to be.

[ March 01, 2004, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Pliedes ]

AcTivE · 03-01-2004, 10:43 PM

Same with homosexual slavery.

VOL · 03-02-2004, 12:03 AM

Finally the voice of reason. I agree with Pliedes. Even if it does fail though it will be a state issue; however if it passes, it will be federal. Weird how that works. Why not just leave it up to the states anyway. That way it's easier to stay away from that state rather than the whole country.

Jake · 03-02-2004, 12:52 AM

I feel that i need to elaborate further on my former post. First however, let me remind everyone that i do believe in states rights and would like to see the issue decided by states.
Anyways, I did a little more reseearch and the law that i was talking about is the Full faith and credit clause.
So in a future scenario.... Gay marriage comes about in Mass. in May, then therotically some of the married same sex couples will go to another state... say like Indiana. They will then proceed to tell the Indiana Govt. that it must recognize their marriage. However, Indiana has laws banning such a marriage and will not grant the couples request. Thereafter, the couple will sue the state of Indiana, and since the matter would cross state borders would end up at the supereme court, whereby the couple will use the full faith and credit clause against the state of Indiana. Just to emphize this more.. The full faith and credit clause has never failed in court. The problem is that the constitution never defined marriage therefore the supreme ct most likely would side with the couples.. and hence establish gay marriage throughout the U.S. This is the reason Bush is getting so busy trying to amend the constitution because he realizes this scenario could come about relatively soon, and he must act quick to circumvent it.
I recognize Amendent X, however, because of full faith and credit, this is a power that has already been delegated, and states must follow.

Mr. Blonde · 03-02-2004, 01:01 AM

So what you're saying is is that gay people bitch too much to get what they want.

03-01-2004, 11:59 AM	#227 (permalink)
VOL Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: there Posts: 2,305 Internets: -205	So you realized you were beat? It's good to see you lose every argument.
	~ductor ab grandis divinitus~ CDXXVII

03-01-2004, 02:19 PM	#230 (permalink)
silver and cold Ish... Join Date: May 2003 Location: this nowhere Posts: 1,680 Internets: 10	VOl, you alwyas act like an ass to the newbies, not just in this thread. I have dignity and understanding... I also understand, that they do deserve the same amount of rights for them, as you have. They have done nothing to deserve different. You cant say its because they are gay either. How would you like it, if you were in love with some person of a different race,religon, or what-not and the law said it caused to much contriversy(sp?) and that it opened "floodgates" to what could happen in the future. I don't know about you, put I would be really upset, and offended. Every one deserves equal rights!!!
	the killer in me is the killer in you.

03-01-2004, 02:45 PM	#231 (permalink)
VOL Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: there Posts: 2,305 Internets: -205	I would be too. And they did have the debate about mixed race marriages. My point is on gay marriages. They can have all the rights they want, but gay marriage violates more than just rights, it violates American society and the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter if it caused a "trickle down effect" or not, I still can't get behind the legalizing of gay marriages.
	~ductor ab grandis divinitus~ CDXXVII

03-01-2004, 04:04 PM	#233 (permalink)
VOL Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: there Posts: 2,305 Internets: -205	Is that some sort of a threat? [img]graemlins/shifty.gif[/img] I'm not going all the way down there for someone who takes this way to personal. Mello out Beebs. A lot has been comparing this to Prohibition. How long did that actually work and what was the result of the President who pushed the Amendment? Anyone have an idea?
	~ductor ab grandis divinitus~ CDXXVII

03-01-2004, 05:17 PM	#235 (permalink)
BarryJive Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bloomington Posts: 358 Internets: 44	The argument will be won when the amendment is not passed and in 20 years you will realize that america hasn't changed because of gay marriage. Until then it's all a matter of values that cannot be changed in a thread where nobody bothers to think about anything anyone else has to say. Instead people are much too interested in getting their own uninformed opinions out which just perpetuates the bullshit.
	I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast, but I'm intercontinental when I eat french toast.

03-01-2004, 05:57 PM	#237 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Am I the only one that realizes that this amendment being defeated doesn't actually mean gay marriage is going to happen? It's a state issue. Most states (like our own) already have laws in place banning gay marriage, this amendment which defintes marriage is just a federal measures which goes above and beyond whats already necessary. Just because this bill won't pass (and it won't) does not mean homosexual marriage is an immediate reality. I mean, it better pass though, otherwise those gays will attack our homes in the night, stealing away little boys to turn them into fairies, turning little girls into dykes. They'll shoot laser beams out of their eyes and burn cities to the ground, marching with their huge rainbow flags and redecorating houses all along their path of destruction! Seriously people.

03-01-2004, 07:58 PM	#240 (permalink)
Jake Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 148 Internets: 10	Pliedes I agree. I believe this is something that should be decided by the states. Federalism is one of the cornerstones of our government. However, the reality of that coming true is somewhat more complicated. I cant specifically remember the article but there is something in the constitution that refers to full equity act in marriage, basically states have to recognize other states marriages as legal. I know that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act so that states would not have to recognize other states marriage if gay marriage ever came about, which i think is understandable. However, the Defense of Marraige act is simply legislation, and utlimately the constitution wins out. If gay marriage was ever raised to the supreme court i doubt that the legislation would hold up against the constitution. Therefore, i personally see gay marriage eventually becoming legal through out the U.S. unless some amendment to the constitution, either banning gay marriage, or making it so that states do not "necessarily" have to recognize other states marriage, suceceeds (sp.. i hate that word). Anyways, i would hope that something along the lines of the latter would come about. Otherwise i see states rights being muted, while gay marriage comes into effect throughout the U.S.

03-01-2004, 07:59 PM	#241 (permalink)
Jake Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 148 Internets: 10	PS. Pliedes i like the analogy of what is to come if gay marriage comes about lol

03-01-2004, 08:21 PM	#242 (permalink)
Saint DH Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,148 Internets: 284753	I will be fine with gay marriage if we also allow gay slavery.

03-01-2004, 08:30 PM	#243 (permalink)
Percipere'Chan Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: My Machine Posts: 460 Internets: -238	The truth comes out about Dirty. Very Dirty.
	Dead, death, grim on a pale horse, empty, hollow, inanimate, fataled, black curtained, annihilated.

03-01-2004, 08:34 PM	#244 (permalink)
Saint DH Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,148 Internets: 284753	And of course by gay slavery I mean we enslave the homosexual population and force them to do our non-sexual bidding.

03-01-2004, 09:06 PM	#245 (permalink)
Percipere'Chan Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: My Machine Posts: 460 Internets: -238	Of course. I don't think anyone doubts that's what you meant.
	Dead, death, grim on a pale horse, empty, hollow, inanimate, fataled, black curtained, annihilated.

03-01-2004, 10:26 PM	#246 (permalink)
Pliedes Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 4,594 Internets: 1608	Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Homosexual marriage won't become an issue like the Dred Scott case did, and it won't cause a civil war; leave it to the states like it's supposed to be. [ March 01, 2004, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Pliedes ]

03-01-2004, 10:43 PM	#247 (permalink)
AcTivE 1 thing leads to another. Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,012 Internets: -2654	Same with homosexual slavery.
	___________________ 3:o) horned creatures...wat wat ___________________

03-02-2004, 12:03 AM	#248 (permalink)
VOL Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: there Posts: 2,305 Internets: -205	Finally the voice of reason. I agree with Pliedes. Even if it does fail though it will be a state issue; however if it passes, it will be federal. Weird how that works. Why not just leave it up to the states anyway. That way it's easier to stay away from that state rather than the whole country.
	~ductor ab grandis divinitus~ CDXXVII

03-02-2004, 12:52 AM	#249 (permalink)
Jake Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 148 Internets: 10	I feel that i need to elaborate further on my former post. First however, let me remind everyone that i do believe in states rights and would like to see the issue decided by states. Anyways, I did a little more reseearch and the law that i was talking about is the Full faith and credit clause. So in a future scenario.... Gay marriage comes about in Mass. in May, then therotically some of the married same sex couples will go to another state... say like Indiana. They will then proceed to tell the Indiana Govt. that it must recognize their marriage. However, Indiana has laws banning such a marriage and will not grant the couples request. Thereafter, the couple will sue the state of Indiana, and since the matter would cross state borders would end up at the supereme court, whereby the couple will use the full faith and credit clause against the state of Indiana. Just to emphize this more.. The full faith and credit clause has never failed in court. The problem is that the constitution never defined marriage therefore the supreme ct most likely would side with the couples.. and hence establish gay marriage throughout the U.S. This is the reason Bush is getting so busy trying to amend the constitution because he realizes this scenario could come about relatively soon, and he must act quick to circumvent it. I recognize Amendent X, however, because of full faith and credit, this is a power that has already been delegated, and states must follow.

03-02-2004, 01:01 AM	#250 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	So what you're saying is is that gay people bitch too much to get what they want.
	Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. ― Terence McKenna