quote:

---

Originally written by Safey:

Things were no better when Clinton was in power or democrats held the house or the senate. If it wasn't for internet, TV, Newspaper ect. I wouldn't have know about that change. 2 I have received more help from conservative churches that I ever have from a liberal or government organization.
Either the liberals are impotent or hypocrites

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Safey:

Helping poor people over come poverty instead of merely surviving it. Something to help alleviate the working poor who receive little if any help.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich. Judging from high schools few poor high schools have gay people. You might be able to find one or two but it be difficult. However knew friends from the wealthy high schools who often complained about. Even your examples out of history come from times when that particular civilization was prosperous. Wealthy people can afford to indulge in habits that aren't natural. Gay marrage is simply a tool used by those in ivory towers to gain political clout. The only ones who seem to care are those who have alot of money. A poor person is less concerned who visits them in the hospital and more concern that the hospital treats them, less concerned who inherit their wealth and more concern who inherits their bills. That and other left wing issues aren't affordable by poor people. Environmentally friendly cars, to expensive. It angers me that liberals claim to have the poor mans best interest in yet they are more concerned with idiot nitpicking laws then the real issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Fernication:

Individuals have races. School districts do not, so you can't discriminate between school districts based on the race of the school district. Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law giving millions of dollars in educational spending only to school districts that are predominantly white.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

I’m not playing Devil’s advocate (by the way Thuryl, what are you trying to imply?)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Airborne Stages:

And I'm with Kel on equality and identicalness. No one is arguing that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are identical; they're obviously not. Therefore, they're not equal in a mathematical sense. The question is how the differences make any difference to marriage, which is not about sex or children.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by novaalpha:

So you're current maintainer of this treasure? I was hoping that Spiderweb Software is interested in opensource version of it's best game ever... Now I see that chances are slim.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Excalibur:

Even I have over one hundred dollars in my bank account.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Thuryl , you should check the prices in the states. I think one of the most expensive ranges I've seen was still only $2,500. More than I need for sure, more suited to a household that entertains frequently. Whereas I am entertaining very infrequently.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Locmaar:

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

The question about sexual classification is one I’ve thought a lot about since I do agree with the anti-gay marriage camp that practicing homosexuality is bad.

---

Why? This might shed some light on what you've been saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lucheiah:

Really?? Like, seriously, whenever I've looked in catalogues (dreaming of the day when I have my own home and enough money to renovate it lol!) a decent (not top-of-the-range, but average) oven, stove and rangehood set has been around the $3000 mark. Okay, that's Australian dollars, but it wouldn't be THAT much difference. About $2500 US or thereabouts.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nioca:

Well, reading between the lines, I'd say the incredible stupidity of the resolution is a guise to sneak through religious superiority of Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Redstart:

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

That's easy to say when you're rich enough to buy an oven and keep it in working order. If you can't spare several thousand dollars for that[...]

---

God, I hope you're exaggerating.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

Unless you have a hire assistant, it is extremely inconvenient to purchase food on a daily basis. Unless you are genetically predisposed, obesity is mostly a matter of willpower, not when your paycheck arrives...

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

So they “prejudge” all blacks before meeting them, right? That is the definition of prejudice. Saying that all blacks are of African descent would not be prejudice because they are by definition (I think).

---

quote:

---

All opposite-sex marriage is male-female. That is the pairing that is perceived to be ideal.

---

quote:

---

Synergy, it has no meaning to you but that does not apply to everyone. And your opinions on the figures are just that. I don’t know why everyone keeps focusing on the children. The most compelling stats to me were for the adults. They specifically compared the married to the unmarried.

---

quote:

---

Alo, I think your understanding of “merit” is problematic in distinguishing between what is discrimination and what is not. And even if traditional marriage is “discrimination” in the same sense that handicapped spots or development zones are, it certainly isn’t in the way that racism and sexism – illegal discrimination – are. The latter have sweeping generalizations that are either not true or only sometimes true.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Prejudice implies coming to a conclusion before determining merit (i.e. pre-judging). Giving male-female pairing special status over all other relationships is not prejudice because marriage has a stabilizing effect, produces children, provides an ideal environment for raising them, etc., so it has a known, age-old, unique benefit to society. Not recognizing other groupings in the same way is not like refusing to hire homosexuals. The later is a non-merit based pre-judging, whereas we know that the male-female union has merit. It is a logical flaw to equate them.

---

quote:

---

If I say I am going to hire a random handicapped person because the disabled have mental strength, that is discrimination – the dumb kind in the definition above. It’s not a reasonable consideration of the actual person’s merit, but a sweeping, illogical, pre-judgment of people based a group. There are mentally unstable disabled people, so it may be true in some cases, but certainly not all.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Condition:

Actually, my interpretation is that domestic violence leads to divorce, not vice versa. In this case preserving marriage is a terrible idea. It's preserving an abusive relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Indeed. It would seem that a broken marriage may in some ways be worse than none at all. All the more reason for you to write your representative and demand that he pass legislation to preserve marriage. Great point. Thanks! I think “Thuryl Act” has a nice ring to it.

---

quote:

---

Dikiyoba, I don’t know if you are following, but we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

It’s been explained that discrimination is bad? That’s ridiculous. Handicapped parking spots are bad? Empowerment zones are bad? Me liking sweet potato pie more than pumpkin pie is bad?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

As for the tax benefits. It is much easier for an opposite-sex couple to produce children. The benefits they acquire are in order to encourage the increase in population, and hence strengthen the government on a global scale...

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lazarus.:

Clearly towns are incapable of respawning monsters-- there are no monsters to kill and thus need respawning. New monsters aren't spawned, old monsters that are dead are respawned. Otherwise if you entered a dungeon, killed nothing, left, and came back later it'd be overrun by new monsters.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Student of Trinity:

In general there may be much room for debate on what respects are relevant. On whether or not sexual attraction is relevant to marriage, though, I think there is not so much room.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

He's equating discrimination against same-sex marriage with discrimination in distribution of housing development dollars. Why not throw the disabled in there? It's actually a tighter analogy, though I in no way am positing that homosexual people are disabled.

---