Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

mac said:
Remember that part in the constitution that says anything not covered is the right of the states or people to decide? I paraphrased of course.

It doesn't say ANYTHING: "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."
It says the powers. The people are not here to legislate others, nor are the states. There's a reason a branch of congress was established to accomplish absolutely nothing - indeed, to prevent things from happening.

Both of you are stretching the original meaning of the tenth amendment.

As for what you said Jerry

The people didn't have it in the first place for it to be taken from them.

As opposed to the government, which did have that power?

It was never given to the people or the fed, that's why it was given to the state.

Rights are not given to the people by the government. Our laws do not work so that any rights not given to the people expressly, or powers given to the feds, are given to the state by default.

The fed govt. has express powers. The states do not. That does not mean states can now decide everything.

mac · Mar 21, 2011

iamitter said:
Both of you are stretching the original meaning of the tenth amendment.

No, you're changing the meaning.

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

mac said:
No, you're changing the meaning.

No, I am not. You guys are the ones who are saying this is one of the things that should be given to the states, with no reasoning behind it.

You "paraphrased" the tenth amendment to "Well, gee, that's easy.

Marriage is only legal between a man and a woman, silly."

That's not a paraphrasing, that's not even close to what it says.

You quoted DOMA, which regardless of whether this is a state or personal power, is unconstitutional as it is federal intrusion on an establishment it does not have the right to regulate.

mac · Mar 21, 2011

iamitter said:
No, I am not. You guys are the ones who are saying this is one of the things that should be given to the states, with no reasoning behind it.

Do the States have the right to create and enforce their own laws?

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

mac said:
Do the States have the right to create and enforce their own laws?

They do, but not when it infringes upon the populace.
They cannot legislate everything.

Jerry · Mar 21, 2011

iamitter said:
The fed govt. has express powers. The states do not. That does not mean states can now decide everything.

Not everything, but what few things the state can decide on, marriage is one of them.

You need to find a better argument, because marriage is handled at the state level throughout the US, and there's no movement to federalize it. You're argument doesn't work.

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

Jerry said:
Not everything, but what few things the state can decide on, marriage is one of them.

You need to find a better argument, because marriage is handled at the state level throughout the US, and there's no movement to federalize it. You're argument doesn't work.

I don't want to federalize it. I'm asking how you rationalize [bolded].
I frankly don't give two ****s about how something is handled now. That doesn't make it right.

mac · Mar 21, 2011

iamitter said:
They do, but not when it infringes upon the populace.
They cannot legislate everything.

Are the states allowed to pass laws designed to make the state a safe and pleasant place to live?

Jerry · Mar 21, 2011

iamitter said:
I don't want to federalize it. I'm asking how you rationalize [bolded].

You quoted my rational already, though, so what do you want me to do other than copy-paste what's already said?

iamitter said:
I frankly don't give two ****s about how something is handled now. That doesn't make it right.

SSM itself is wrong, because either way homosexuality is either a sex related stress disorder or a neurological birth defect. At it's base it's invalid, so if you want it accepted you need to pony up some substantial benefits to the society at large.

I can do that with gay adoption. I can do that with gays in the military. However, gays aren't particularly interested in what marriage is about, so there's little if any reason at all to even look at a news clip of their cute lil protests let alone actively support them with time and money.

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

mac said:
Are the states allowed to pass laws designed to make the state a safe and pleasant place to live?

Again, not if benefits one group in favor of another. I'm not sure what safe and pleasant have to do with SSM.

Jerry · Mar 21, 2011

iamitter said:
Again, not if benefits one group in favor of another. I'm not sure what safe and pleasant have to do with SSM.

There's a lot of groups left out of marriage. You're arguing that we have to include all of them. **** that.

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

Jerry said:
You quoted my rational already, though, so what do you want me to do other than copy-paste what's already said?

Your rationale was flawed, as I showed.

SSM itself is wrong, because either way homosexuality is either a sex related stress disorder or a neurological birth defect. At it's base it's invalid, so if you want it accepted you need to pony up some substantial benefits to the society at large.

I choked a bit there. Your proof for that is where?

I can do that with gay adoption. I can do that with gays in the military. However, gays aren't particularly interested in what marriage is about, so there's little if any reason at all to even look at a news clip of their cute lil protests let alone actively support them with time and money.

OK, so I see you're just trolling now. I'm not interested in this kind of debate.

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

Jerry said:
There's a lot of groups left out of marriage. You're arguing that we have to include all of them. **** that.

Yes, I think all should be included. Your brilliant reasoning for opposing it boils down to "Because I feel like it".

Jerry · Mar 21, 2011

iamitter said:
Your rationale was flawed, as I showed.

Well, no you didn't, but I'm not going to pull teeth to get you to illustrate either.

iamitter said:
I choked a bit there. Your proof for that is where?

I have links in hand, so when you show yourself to be someone who will get into the down n dirty and stop going in circles I will absolutely share.

iamitter said:
Yes, I think all should be included. Your brilliant reasoning for opposing it boils down to "Because I feel like it".

Adults marrying children.

Siblings, first cousins, and parents marrying adult children.

Contagious diseases.

Taking advantage of the mentally handicapped.

You just said you're fine with these.

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

Jerry said:
Well, no you didn't, but I'm not going to pull teeth to get you to illustrate either.

I have links in hand, so when you show yourself to be someone who will get into the down n dirty and stop going in circles I will absolutely share.

Adults marrying children.

Siblings, first cousins, and parents marrying adult children.

Contagious diseases.

Taking advantage of the mentally handicapped.

You just said you're fine with these.

There is no scientific consensus on what causes homosexuality, most believe it is a mix of things.

You're right, I should clarify what I said. As long as someone agrees, is in their right mind, and can think for themselves, I think they should be allowed to get married.
Mentally handicapped, that is clearly out. Children under a certain age can't think completely clearly. Small children can't for example imagine a world other than their own - they are to an extent sociopaths.
If siblings are consenting adults, then I think they should have the right to get married.

Now, I don't like most of these. However, that does not let me infringe upon their freedoms.

mac · Mar 21, 2011

iamitter said:
Again, not if benefits one group in favor of another.

Laws benefit the law-abiding at the detriment of the law evader all the time. One group over another.

I'm not sure what safe and pleasant have to do with SSM.

Irrelevant. The state has the right to regulate itself to promote an environment it's citizens want to live in.

Singularity · Mar 21, 2011

Hey guys, is there any way we can stop calling homosexuality a birth defect or disorder? It is neither of these. Let's discuss the issue, not debase the minority.

Thanks!

Jerry · Mar 21, 2011

Singularity said:
Hey guys, is there any way we can stop calling homosexuality a birth defect or disorder?

No, but I could certainly get more creative when I do it.

Singularity · Mar 21, 2011

Jerry said:
No, but I could certainly get more creative when I do it.

No. Please stop. It's debasing to call homosexuality a birth defect or a disorder. We have plenty of homosexuals that post here, and all of them are perfectly well-adjusted, normal, everyday individuals. Again, feel free to disagree with the issue. Let's just avoid debasing the minority.

Thanks again.

Jerry · Mar 21, 2011

Singularity said:
No. Please stop. It's debasing to call homosexuality a birth defect or a disorder.

That's the point.

Singularity said:
We have plenty of homosexuals that post here, and all of them are perfectly well-adjusted, normal, everyday individuals.

Mhmm, and? I don't read the unwritten sub-text, so if you have a message you need to say it.

Singularity said:
Again, feel free to disagree with the issue. Let's just avoid debasing the minority.

Thanks again.

Oh....how rich...now I'm going to redouble my efforts

eace

disneydude · Mar 21, 2011

Jerry said:
If we can't do it now either, gays can't say we can do something they can not, hence there is no discrimination.

Absolutely there is.....you are simply engaging in circular reasoning. Yes....neither gays/straights can marry a person of the same sex...but straight people can marry the person that they are in love with. Gay people are not able to do that.....HENCE....there IS discrimination.

Hence....gays can only marry the person that the government says that they are allowed to....

Hence....big government involvement....

Hence.....so much for your claims of love for small government.

iamitter · Mar 21, 2011

mac said:
Laws benefit the law-abiding at the detriment of the law evader all the time. One group over another.

But in this case, gay couples are not law evaders. You're playing semantics here, if you want to have a serious debate fine, if you're going to dissolve into ridiculous comparisons I'm not going to bother.

Irrelevant. The state has the right to regulate itself to promote an environment it's citizens want to live in.

Exactly. What you said was irrelevant. I still don't see what that has to do with SSM.
Also, it only has that right so long as it doesn't step on other peoples' rights.

Zyphlin · Mar 21, 2011

Mac and Jerry, when did the 10th amendment suddenly not apply to amendments 11 onward?

Because apparently based on what you're saying here, in whatever imaginary world you all are talking about states can freely break the EPC clause unless its discriminating in a way that is specifically word for word listed in the constitution, AND apparently a constitution exists that didn't establish a Supreme Court whose job is to interpret constitutional law.

Jerry · Mar 21, 2011

disneydude said:
Absolutely there is.....you are simply engaging in circular reasoning. Yes....neither gays/straights can marry a person of the same sex...but straight people can marry the person that they are in love with. Gay people are not able to do that.....HENCE....there IS discrimination.

Siblings can't "marry the person that they are in love with" either. Golly.

disneydude said:
Hence....gays can only marry the person that the government says that they are allowed to....

Just like everyone else.

disneydude said:
Hence....big government involvement....

You mean lack-of involvement.

disneydude said:
Hence.....so much for your claims of love for small government.

A list of groupings the government won't honor is hardly involvement. Now if the government were actively banning gays from being together, arresting them for holding hands, then that would be involvement.

Jerry · Mar 21, 2011

Zyphlin said:
Mac and Jerry, when did the 10th amendment suddenly not apply to amendments 11 onward?

Because apparently based on what you're saying here, in whatever imaginary world you all are talking about states can freely break the EPC clause unless its discriminating in a way that is specifically word for word listed in the constitution, AND apparently a constitution exists that didn't establish a Supreme Court whose job is to interpret constitutional law.

Oh, do tell, where's this marriage amendment you're citing? Link please.

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

mac

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

mac

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

Jerry

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

mac

Jerry

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

Jerry

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

Jerry

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

mac

Singularity

Hung like Einstein

Jerry

Singularity

Hung like Einstein

Jerry

disneydude

iamitter

Sleeper Agent

Zyphlin

Jerry

Jerry