Omaha Mall Shooting

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Sunday, December 23 2007 12:36 Profile Homepage #456 Yes, but it's pretty clear that Synergy rejects original sin. I have to say I agree. Now this is religion, so there's really no way to know that God is not arbitrary and vindictive, but both Synergy and I prefer to believe otherwise. —Alorael, who should point out that it is discrimination to prevent something that only some people want to do. As long as religion is coming up, how about an example about religion: banning Judaism would affect a small minority of the population, but it is illegal because it is discriminatory, and it is discriminatory because there is no good justification for doing so and it negatively impacts a group. Banning same-sex marriage affects only homosexuals, but it's still unconstitutional until an overwhelming reason to do it can be shown. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Monday, December 24 2007 12:55 Profile #457 To the extent that religion is man-made, any discussion involving it is like getting into an argument over interpreting the rules of Dungeons and Dragons. I agree that man casts God in man's own image. After all, we do the same thing to everything else in the world; why should the unfathomable divine be excluded? Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Monday, December 24 2007 17:37 Profile #458 Wiz, sorry for implying you misquoted me. I didn’t think I had made that statement. I agree with you on some level. I think it’s possible that some people may have some genetic disposition towards homosexuality. To a large extent I believe that these feelings are a result of nurture over nature, though. Whatever the case humans are not subject to whatever feelings pop into our heads so that these would excuse wrong actions. So it’s not homosexuality itself that I think is a sin, but giving in to those desires. A person may have some disposition to criminal behavior and may have been raised to steal through no fault of their own (I had a friend growing up whose mother taught him to steal as she and her sister did and he grew up to be a thief). But, that does not excuse theft. ----- Thuryl, what is your religious belief on whether or not banning gay marriage is discrimination in the same sense that Jim Crow laws are? Why is your religious belief leading you to illogical conclusions? Recognizing gender differences is not necessarily discrimination. For example: Some states require that strip searches be done by someone of the same sex. This is not discrimination for reasons related to gender. (In fact, one could make a case that not making a distinction is discriminatory.) It’s only discrimination when gender has nothing to do with a matter. Since gender does have something to do with sex and sex is related to marriage it is not wrong to make a distinction on the basis of sex. For the same reasons, you can marry my sister, but I can’t. That’s not discriminatory. Again, you may think it should be allowed and make a case for it, but this doesn’t make it unconstitutional. quote: Originally written by Thuryl: Why does the government need to fit every person into the categories of "male" or "female" anyway? What compelling interest does it have in knowing what sex every single citizen is, by some arbitrarily-chosen definition of sex that varies with each person? I think “varies with each person” is stretching things a bit. You’re talking about abnormalities. I think there is definitely call for some reevaluation of gender evaluation and categorization. But, in most of the “inter-sexed” there is still a definite sex even if at birth this is not easily discernable. Chromosomal or inspection of internal organs would reveal it. For the .018% that can’t be classified I don’t know that any relationship they have could be classified as homo or heterosexual by nature so as to have any real bearing on this discussion. Let’s not confuse these issues. ----- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: I had already connected not allowing same-sex marriage to prejudice. Prejudice is not illegal. And making distinctions between sexes is not necessarily discrimination. What you need to prove is that sex has nothing to do with marriage. The very designation of what you’re pushing for – homosexual marriage – belies any such claim. You all can’t say it should be allowed because some are sexually attracted to their own gender out one side of your mouth and then say it’s not a sexual issue out the other. ----- quote: Originally written by Domiciles Wholesale: ...banning Judaism ... Judaism is not a recognized secular entity, nor are it’s rites and titles. If the Jews received a "message from God" that rabbis were now to bear the title “policeman” they would not be able to pull you over and write traffic tickets. You all seem to consistently confuse banning actions and banning official recognition of those actions. I know you’re sick of me saying “equivocation” because I’m sick of repeating it. You keep doing it though. Banning of Judaism would be analogous to making sodomy illegal again. Then you would have a valid legal argument. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Monday, December 24 2007 20:41 Profile #459 "Prejudice is not illegal" is a straw man, Stillness. What is of concern is that legislating based on a prejudice that violates one of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution is unconstitutional. "What you need to prove is that sex has nothing to do with marriage." Once again, you're setting up a straw man. What we need to prove (and have, I think) is that sex has nothing to do with marriage for purposes of government recognition and regulation. I think we've pretty much covered the bases for the reasons why the government has regulated marriage the way it has historically, and we've determined that it hasn't had anything to do with a couple's respective sexes. It has only been since relatively recently that the general population (and in particular, the reactionary Right) have become aware that gay couples want legal recognition. It isn't listed in the law books as "heterosexual marriage"; it's just "marriage." Why do you think there've been all the recent knee-jerk passages of various and sundry "marriage is between one man and one woman" laws and amendments in the several states? It's because the definition was ambiguous, and homophobes were frightened that a "lifestyle" that they loath would be further validated if they didn't act. What this demonstrates is that there is not a settled precedent in law, but that there is a genuine constitutional question here, and that it will be a question of first impression before the court, i.e. carte blanche. Ultimately, none of those laws or amendments will matter in the US if they don't pass constitutional muster. Hopefully the Justices other than Scalia (whose mind seems pretty made up, given his dissent in Lawrence) will do the right and brave thing, should the question rise to the Supreme Court. It's probable though that they'll simply say it's an issue for the states, because even the Supreme Court is touched by politics. And we aren't speaking out of both sides of our mouth, dude. What we are saying is that irrespective of whether someone fancies the opposite sex or no, this should be of no consequence when it comes to the government's regulation of the institution. [ Monday, December 24, 2007 20:59: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Monday, December 24 2007 21:17 Profile Homepage #460 quote: Thuryl, what is your religious belief on whether or not banning gay marriage is discrimination in the same sense that Jim Crow laws are? Why is your religious belief leading you to illogical conclusions? Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Stillness? quote: Recognizing gender differences is not necessarily discrimination. For example: Some states require that strip searches be done by someone of the same sex. This is not discrimination for reasons related to gender. Actually, it is discrimination, of exactly the same kind as Jim Crow laws -- there are no different "kinds" of discrimination. It's just that one case has a good reason behind it and the other doesn't. In an ideal world, neither case of discrimination would have to exist. quote: I think “varies with each person” is stretching things a bit. You’re talking about abnormalities. I think there is definitely call for some reevaluation of gender evaluation and categorization. But, in most of the “inter-sexed” there is still a definite sex even if at birth this is not easily discernable. Chromosomal or inspection of internal organs would reveal it. For the .018% that can’t be classified I don’t know that any relationship they have could be classified as homo or heterosexual by nature so as to have any real bearing on this discussion. Let’s not confuse these issues. It ain't me confusing these issues: it's nature. You just want the issues to be clear-cut and not as confusing as they really are because that's the only way your position makes any sense. quote: You all can’t say it should be allowed because some are sexually attracted to their own gender out one side of your mouth and then say it’s not a sexual issue out the other. It's not our fault that the government can't make up its mind on what marriage is. Frankly, what I would like is for the government to keep its hands off all marriage, whether heterosexual, homosexual or asexual, and leave it to individuals to make contracts on terms they mutually agree upon. If those individuals want to call those contracts "marriages", so be it. But if the government recognises one kind of "marriage", it's plainly discriminatory for it to not recognise every other kind. [ Monday, December 24, 2007 21:25: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, December 24 2007 22:17 Profile Homepage #461 quote: Originally written by Stillness: Prejudice is not illegal. No, but laws enacted on the basis of prejudice are unconstitutional. You cannot argue this point, unless you really want to go out on a limb. quote: And making distinctions between sexes is not necessarily discrimination. Well, literally it is, but you might say that it's not prejudicial discrimination. In general, it may not be. quote: What you need to prove is that sex has nothing to do with marriage. The very designation of what you’re pushing for – homosexual marriage – belies any such claim. You all can’t say it should be allowed because some are sexually attracted to their own gender out one side of your mouth and then say it’s not a sexual issue out the other. Why on earth would I need to show that? As I keep telling you, same-sex partners can have sex, so the occurrence of intercourse is not a difference between same-sex partners and opposite-sex partners. The kind of sex is the difference. You then replied that the government is within its rights to try to promote opposite-sex intercourse. I then replied that, according to legal decisions from Griswold v. Connecticut out to Lawrence v. Texas, that is not true. The government cannot legislate on the nature of the sex that takes place. A constitutional right to privacy, first articulated in Griswold and most recently extended to same-sex intercourse in Lawrence, prevents that. You have yet to respond. (When you did respond, you went with the "They think it’s good for society" line, which doesn't address the fact that it's unconstitutional for them to legislate on this issue, whatever their beliefs are.) -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Monday, December 24 2007 23:14 Profile #462 quote: Originally written by Drew: "Prejudice is not illegal" is a straw man, Stillness. Not when Kel makes the comment, “prejudice and prejudicial discrimination are unconstitutional.” quote: What we need to prove (and have, I think) is that sex has nothing to do with marriage for purposes of government recognition and regulation. …Only in your mind. Why can’t close relatives marry? Why is concealment of impotence, failure to consummate, concealment of STD’s, and sterility legal grounds for annulment? Why is adultery considered grounds for divorce? I think the religious right fears homosexuals far less than it fears the mentality espoused repeatedly on your side that marriage doesn’t mean what has for as long as we know of the institution existing. quote: And we aren't speaking out of both sides of our mouth, dude. What we are saying is that irrespective of whether someone fancies the opposite sex or no, this should be of no consequence when it comes to the government's regulation of the institution. And you are entitled to that opinion as much as the next guy is entitled to his. But if you are saying that marriage is not sexual *and* that homosexual marriage should be allowed because of sexual orientation then you have distorted reasoning. quote: Why do you think there've been all the recent knee-jerk passages of various and sundry "marriage is between one man and one woman" laws and amendments in the several states? Because they want marriage to be between one woman and one man just like you want otherwise. If and when you get the numbers to swing your way, you’ll strike those laws. This says nothing of constitutionality. ----- quote: Originally written by Thuryl: Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Stillness? Good. Now you can help your companions pick out logical fallacies. quote: Actually, it is discrimination, of exactly the same kind as Jim Crow laws -- there are no different "kinds" of discrimination. It's just that one case has a good reason behind it and the other doesn't. You’re wrong because you don’t understand the meaning of discrimination, but let’s go with your logic anyway: Why do you say it’s the same kind of discrimination as Jim Crow and then say there are no different kinds? Who decides whether or not a case for discrimination is wrong? quote: It ain't me confusing these issues: it's nature. You just want the issues to be clear-cut and not as confusing as they really are because that's the only way your position makes any sense. I’m addressing the issue as it is. How do you feel nature invalidates my position, which (just for sake of clarification) is that the government recognizing only 1 man-1 woman marriage is not the same as Jim Crow segregation or sexism? This seems to be an attempt to muddy the waters. ----- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: quote: Originally written by Stillness: What you need to prove is that sex has nothing to do with marriage. Why on earth would I need to show that? quote: Originally written by Stillness: It’s only discrimination when gender has nothing to do with a matter. Since gender does have something to do with sex and sex is related to marriage it is not wrong to make a distinction on the basis of sex. For the same reasons, you can marry my sister, but I can’t. That’s not discriminatory. Again, you may think it should be allowed and make a case for it, but this doesn’t make it unconstitutional. ----- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: You then replied that the government is within its rights to try to promote opposite-sex intercourse. I then replied that, according to legal decisions from Griswold v. Connecticut out to Lawrence v. Texas, that is not true. The government cannot legislate on the nature of the sex that takes place. A constitutional right to privacy, first articulated in Griswold and most recently extended to same-sex intercourse in Lawrence, prevents that. You have yet to respond. quote: Originally written by Stillness: The government can’t interfere, but is it obligated to recognize religious status. I’m not an expert on the Constitution, but if I made a religion that had the rank “Chief of Police” would the government recognize me as the Chief secularly? I think they’d say, “Call yourself whatever you want, but we ain’t buyin’ it.” If my religion is polygamous I can have all the “wives” I want, but if I try to legalize the marriages I get locked up right? quote: Originally written by Stillness: I don’t think the government’s treatment of marriage makes for inequality or takes away liberty. You can have a union with 2 men and 2 women so that each bisexual will have a way to fully express themselves, have a ceremony, a reception, live in a house together or whatever you want. The government not recognizing you doesn’t stop any of that. Does the Constitution say the government has to recognize every decision that a person makes? quote: Originally written by Stillness: Does it really? I don’t think so. I think it says the government can’t interfere in the bedroom, not that sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, it would seem you have the law in your favor quote: Originally written by Stillness: You all will have to explain how you think Lawrence v. Texas relates to this issue, because I’m not seeing the connection. It struck the law criminalizing homosexuality, right? We aren’t talking about action against, but inaction in not recognizing. I object every time you bring this up, but I’m the one not getting a response. And by “interfere in the bedroom” I mean illegalize private sexual behavior. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Monday, December 24 2007 23:57 Profile Homepage #463 quote: Originally written by Stillness: You’re wrong because you don’t understand the meaning of discrimination To discriminate is to treat two people, groups or things differently from each other. From where I'm standing, you're the one who doesn't understand what it means. quote: Why do you say it’s the same kind of discrimination as Jim Crow and then say there are no different kinds? Um, the latter implies the former. "No different kinds" means "all the same kind". You fail at basic English and basic set theory. quote: Who decides whether or not a case for discrimination is wrong? Well, since I'm the one making the argument here, I decide. I suppose you'd rather I let you decide. quote: I’m addressing the issue as it is. How do you feel nature invalidates my position, which (just for sake of clarification) is that the government recognizing only 1 man-1 woman marriage is not the same as Jim Crow segregation or sexism? Because as a way of categorising people, sex is every bit as narrow and arbitrary as race. I'm not going to address all the stuff about US constitutional law because I'm not a lawyer (although Drew is). Hell, I don't even live in the US. [ Monday, December 24, 2007 23:58: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 01:05 Profile #464 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: To discriminate is to treat two people, groups or things differently from each other. Your definition is too broad. Earlier when we were kicking around the definitions of “discriminate,” someone suggested that we just use the one with the negative and legal implications since this discussion involves law. quote: Because as a way of categorising people, sex is every bit as narrow and arbitrary as race. Not when it relates to a sexual institution such as marriage. And not when reproduction is based on sex. It’s natural categorization. If I’m born with one hand, it doesn’t mean that our species is one-handed. It means that I’m abnormal. If we’re talking about scissors, then the designations “left-handed” and ”right-handed” have meaning. I can’t say they’re bad because I only have one hand. Of course hands vary from person to person, but we are two-handed, nonetheless. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 02:46 Profile Homepage #465 quote: Originally written by Stillness: Not when it relates to a sexual institution such as marriage. And not when reproduction is based on sex. It’s natural categorization. You still haven't told us why you think the government should support marriage in the first place. "Because the government thinks it's for the good of society" isn't good enough, and "because it encourages people to reproduce" has already been debunked. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 06:27 Profile Homepage #466 This topic reminds me of the battle against Neptune in Final Fantasy IIIj. Although the battle is pleasant enough, and you can freely run away, Neptune has 65534 HP. If you do finally knock out all his hit points, though, you are pushed back a square just as if you had run away: and if you try to pass through the channel, you have to fight him again. Now, if only we had a spell to shrink ourselves so we could walk into Stillness's left eye socket. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central "Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said. Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 08:26 Profile #467 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: You still haven't told us why you think the government should support marriage in the first place. I don’t really have an opinion. Kel’s response about marriage existing to facilitate family law was enlightening. As far as the tax breaks that couples with disparate incomes get, I think Salmon’s guess on politicians wanting to appear to support family and the common man is as good a guess as any. Although, I wouldn’t imagine the decision to be as calculating as he does. I think marriage is seen by many as a stabilizing, civilizing, and society-sustaining arrangement. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 15:38 Profile Homepage #468 quote: Originally written by Stillness: I think marriage is seen by many as a stabilizing, civilizing, and society-sustaining arrangement. And do you really think that government recognition of marriage makes it any more society-sustaining than it'd be if it were a purely private arrangement? If anything, government recognition of marriage leads to more people getting married just for the benefits without caring about whether their own marriage would be one that's likely to help sustain society. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 15:47 Profile #469 (1) I am not Kelandon. Though I think he's a swell guy and I largely agree with him, it's a bit unsportsmanlike to me to his assertions; (2) It is disingenuous of you to conveniently omit parts of my argument that don't fit nicely with your points of contention; the work stands as a whole; (3) As far as I'm aware, "regardless" has never equaled "because"; (4) When those lawmakers were writing those bigoty laws, it was because they fear gay people being gay. Furthermore, if the institution they cherish is so strong, why does or should it need legal protection? If anything, that belittles the institution, much like any other sort of legal "propping up" of any institution, be it a farming industry or other religious handout (like exempting churches from paying property taxes). (5) Laws can be enacted that aren't constitutional. Laws are created by elected officials, who care far more about what their (often times mouthbreathing) electorate think of them than the Constitution under which our nation was founded. There is no constitutional test required before laws are passed. (6) At the end of the day, it's the Constitution that matters most, because it is the "core rules" of our system, so to speak. Believe in God (or not)all you want, but the Constitution is the standard against which all laws in our nation are measured. Whatever either side on this issue believes or asserts, it will be by this standard, and no other, that this issue is decided. So tell me: why do you think the Constitution allows for the government to discriminate in favor of heterosexual couples for purposes of regulating marriage? Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 19:57 Profile #470 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: And do you really think that government recognition of marriage makes it any more society-sustaining than it'd be if it were a purely private arrangement? That’s a good question – one I don’t have the answer to. Sorry. ----- Drew, 1) You were commenting on my response to Kelandon and I told you what Kelandon said that I was responding to for context. 2) I try to cover the main points, but all you have to do is tell me what you think I missed. What is it? 3) Huh? 4) I can’t read lawmaker’s minds, so no comment here. 5) Makes sense. 6) It’s not discrimination. That’s the whole point…Unless you mean the neutral kind of discrimination that Thuryl mentioned a few posts up. I don’t think the Constitution has anything to say about that. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 22:56 Profile #471 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: [QUOTE]Originally written by Stillness: [qb]The two points are (1) prejudice against homosexual people and (2) denying gay marriage. Homosexuals are entitled by law to equal protection. That does not mean they are entitled to do something that no one is entitled to do, namely, marry someone of the same sex. Fun fact: the case I cited - Loving v. Virginia, a landmark of civil rights law and the domain of high-school textbooks actually directly dismantled a precedent stating just that. As you would have found out last week if you were actually here to think instead of screaming at people you've been taught are evil, in Loving the jurisprudential precedent was that as long as miscegenation laws weren't unduly punishing the man or the woman, there was no foul involved. Considering the court's substantial resistance to changing the status quo, it says a lot that Loving overturned this. In short, this makes about as much sense as making the equivalent argument about Jews - namely, that Jews are entitled by law to equal protection, but are not entitled to do something no one else can do, e.g. interfaith marriage. The result would be unduly restrictive, just as it is to homosexuals, and would be discriminatory by its very nature. This is a stupid argument and you're making it in the face of direct citations against it. Congratulations; somehow you've outdone even your own stunning idiocy on this thread. I bet your mother is proud. quote: For the .018% that can’t be classified I don’t know that any relationship they have could be classified as homo or heterosexual by nature so as to have any real bearing on this discussion. Let’s not confuse these issues. OK, so let's hear it for you: even if you've got this one right (which you don't; outside of the very narrow definition you're using, the actual intersexed population is far larger; you could credibly stretch it to 10% or more, and the smallest number you could reasonably use is %.5) you're positing that, under your ruthlessly discriminatory gender schematization, that roughly 54,000 American adults are born without any right whatsoever to marriage, partnership, parenthood, or any of the other myriad things you wish to restrict by gender. And because you seem to believe that one remains whatever sex one is 'born as' no matter what, there's no legal or physical remedy for that. And that's taking your own numbers at face value. I suppose it'd be some consolation to the people who seem to believe they were bereaved by every war and terrorist action since 1945 - and Pearl Harbor, incidentally - that technically groups smaller than 100,000 don't count towards anything. Hooray! [ Tuesday, December 25, 2007 23:05: Message edited by: Najosz Thjsza Kjras ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Tuesday, December 25 2007 23:41 Profile Homepage #472 quote: Originally written by Stillness: quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Why on earth would I need to show that? quote: Originally written by Stillness: It’s only discrimination when gender has nothing to do with a matter. Since gender does have something to do with sex and sex is related to marriage it is not wrong to make a distinction on the basis of sex. For the same reasons, you can marry my sister, but I can’t. That’s not discriminatory. Again, you may think it should be allowed and make a case for it, but this doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Ah, I think there was a misunderstanding regarding the word "sex." It can mean either the act ("sexual intercourse") or the physical trait ("biological sex"). In any possible case of confusion, it would be good to specify. I took you to mean sexual intercourse, but from your reply, I suspect you meant biological sex. In that case, you're mistaking my argument for Thuryl's. I think that Thuryl's argument probably has merit, but I haven't made it myself. Just to remind you, my argument was that same-sex unions are equivalent in all important respects to opposite-sex unions, and the only reason to allow one and not the other is prejudice (or some other form of unconstitutional interference). quote: The government can’t interfere, but is it obligated to recognize religious status. I’m not an expert on the Constitution, but if I made a religion that had the rank “Chief of Police” would the government recognize me as the Chief secularly? I think they’d say, “Call yourself whatever you want, but we ain’t buyin’ it.” If my religion is polygamous I can have all the “wives” I want, but if I try to legalize the marriages I get locked up right? This preceded the posts to which I was referring. I'm also not sure how it's relevant: we're talking about the government choosing to favor certain people over other people ("You here get the benefit of family law applying to you; you over there don't") without any good reason. quote: I don’t think the government’s treatment of marriage makes for inequality or takes away liberty. You can have a union with 2 men and 2 women so that each bisexual will have a way to fully express themselves, have a ceremony, a reception, live in a house together or whatever you want. The government not recognizing you doesn’t stop any of that. Does the Constitution say the government has to recognize every decision that a person makes? This also doesn't address my argument. quote: Does it really? I don’t think so. I think it says the government can’t interfere in the bedroom, not that sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, it would seem you have the law in your favor This does relate, but it supports my point. I'm not sure what you mean by doubting that it means that "sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex," but it doesn't matter. "The government can't interfere in the bedroom" will do: the government is not allowed to promote some kind of sexual intercourse over some other kind of sexual intercourse. (And yes, the stuff that gay people do counts as "sexual intercourse," by Lawrence v. Texas, among others.) As for your definition of "interfere" down below: use the normal definition of the word, and the statement remains true. quote: You all will have to explain how you think Lawrence v. Texas relates to this issue, because I’m not seeing the connection. It struck the law criminalizing homosexuality, right? We aren’t talking about action against, but inaction in not recognizing. I object every time you bring this up, but I’m the one not getting a response. And by “interfere in the bedroom” I mean illegalize private sexual behavior. Uh, not getting a response? If UBB wasn't refusing to show me pages 17 and 18, I'd quote my reply to this very statement. I think it was the thing that you quoted above, though. Anyway, the reason that I'm bringing up Lawrence v. Texas is as proof that the Griswold decision — the government has no business legislating one kind of sex over another — applies to same-sex intercourse as well. No more, no less. I could also cite the Brown v. Board decision as showing that prejudicial laws are unconstitutional. In case you're unclear: the decision said more than just, "Sodomy laws are no longer allowed." There was a whole decision explaining the legal reasoning behind that. It's that reasoning that I'm citing, not the actual result itself. You keep referring to the result as if that's all there is, but there's much more to any Supreme Court decision than that. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00