The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Agathon
Isn't it ironic that a notorious sex-pest and pervert is standing up for family vales against the "deviants".
Someone has to defend state law. If not the governor, then who?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Or perhaps I could go with a more statistical base that shows children do better with their mother and father than they do with anyone else.
either can be either good or bad, depending on the character of the individuals involved?
Just as it is unfair to gage all marriages by the ones that are abusive, it is also unfair to only look at those gay relationships that are good.
That's a fallacy of testimony, which can be circumvented by looking at either the average, or the ideal.
I don't see why it's unfair. I would counter that by your own logic it's wrong to look at only the ideal for marriages, or the average. Since they both have the potential to be either good or bad, even if the distribution is a bit different, why not allow both?
To the participants, I would also argue, they are harmed. They would have much higher incidence rates of disease, and infections. Their life expectancy would be substantially shortened.
You know if you were caught in a fire, Ben would be one of the few Apolytoners who might try to get you out. There's a flipside to this "bigotry".
No doubt the majority of everyone else would be standing around appreciating the warmth as you slowly toasted.
Oh please. Being a bigot doesn't have to entail wanting to see other people dead--indeed, that would be a pretty high threshold for it. And I also resent the above implied insult to the majority of Apolyton. Most people here good, decent people, and your implying they'd want to see anyone dead is rather sickening.
As for Ben, I don't have a problem with his disagreement with homosexuality because of his faith, which I've never said was insincere. The problem comes when he tries to justify his argument by throwing out some of the most vicious anti-gay stereotypes, although he gussies them up in non-offensive terms. In all these arguments, he has consistently done the same thing, and the implication--whether religiously based or not--that homosexuals are akin to drug addicts is indeed bigotry. Even religious belief doesn't give one a free pass in this regard, sorry.
I'm well aware that BK doesn't bandy about the typical hate speech, but just because people can say insulting things in a nice way doesn't make them non-insulting.
What San Francisco is doing is at least two degrees from optimal. Not only are they going through the courts without majority backing, but also a subordinate government is failing to uphold a state law that was voted fair-and-square.
Majority backing for gay marriage seems possible over the long run, so why is the issue being forced right now in this manner? It doesn't make any sense to me. Even though I am rather undecided about gay marriage (leaning negative), it really sticks in my craw that the minority is subverting majority rule. It sets a bad precedent, and it feels like something is taken away from me (i.e., my opinion and vote), when the real issue should be the merits of gay marriage.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
60% of Bay Area people support it, so why shouldn' t the city be allowed to follow the will of its people and perform the marriages? It seems to me that people are all for enforcing the will of some majority but not another.
I think the point SF is trying to make is that it is wrong for the state to be telling a municipality who it can and can't marry. Isn't this the same argument the states have vis-a-vis the Federal government?
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Isn't this the same argument the states have vis-a-vis the Federal government?
I seem to remember the Federal government contemplating invading South Carolina over such a thing before they backed down.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I argue that children are one of the benefits that society derives from marriage. Do you deny this statement?
I deny it. Children result from sexual intercourse, which can occur outside marriage and being married is no guarantee of sexual intercourse.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
60% of Bay Area people support it, so why shouldn' t the city be allowed to follow the will of its people and perform the marriages? It seems to me that people are all for enforcing the will of some majority but not another.
Well, the majority of the superior government has always set the law in the past, not the subordinate government. That's how we ended Jim Crow. Jim Crow had a much higher level of support in the South than San Francisco's mayor does on this issue.
I think the point SF is trying to make is that it is wrong for the state to be telling a municipality who it can and can't marry. Isn't this the same argument the states have vis-a-vis the Federal government?
That's a stupid point. The state has told them who can and can't be married. The issue was voted on directly. The majority will has been expressed. Slightly changing the wording on the marriage certificate and calling it all good is too cute by half and directly challenges the majority will.
And no, this isn't the same thing as a federal v. state issue (the state is more of a king over its domain than the federal government is), but even if it were the same thing, the notion would still hold that a subordinate government upholds the laws made by the superior government.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Re: SF and Judge Moore. What does the exact California statute say? Moore broke the law, but as far as I can tell, San Francisco, isn't breaking the law, they simply aren't upholding the law. I agree that that is not something we want governments to do, deciding which laws they will or will not uphold, however, in this case, it's failure to uphold is meaningless. Marriages are made valid by state recognition only, and if California refuses to recognize these marriages, they aren't legally married.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Originally posted by DanS
Well, the majority of the superior government has always set the law in the past, not the subordinate government. That's how we ended Jim Crow. Jim Crow had a much higher level of support in the South than San Francisco's mayor does on this issue.
Jim Crow isn't comparable, as it was a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection.
That's a stupid point. The state has told them who can and can't be married. The issue was voted on directly.
No, it's not a stupid point, because SF feels the law voted on was unconstitutional by the CA state constitution. It doesn't matter if a law was approved by all the voters of the state if it's unconstitutional.
And no, this isn't the same thing as a federal v. state issue (the state is more of a king over its domain than the federal government is), but even if it were, the notion would still hold that a subordinate government upholds the laws made by the superior government.
In broad principle it is the same. Conservatives pushed through DoMA under the argument that the locality (states) shouldn't have to recognize gay marriage if they didnt want to, even if a majority of Americans favored it and wanted a federal law allowing it. Likewise, SF is saying that their locality municipality should be allowed to recognize gay marriage, even if a majority of the state population doesn't want to.
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The government invaded SC over marriage issues? Don't recall that happening.
They were thinking of invading because the subordinate government had taken it upon itself to decide which laws it would and would not uphold.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Jim Crow isn't comparable, as it was a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection.
The courts enforced the majority will on Jim Crow. There's no getting around the fact that currently gay marriage has nothing near majority support.
because SF feels the law voted on was unconstitutional by the CA state constitution
I have no problem with them suing the state, as they have done (not a good way of going about it, but still no problem if that's what they want to do). But issuing the licenses is failing to uphold state law.
Conservatives pushed through DoMA
I think you mean it was voted on fair-and-square, not "pushed through by conservatives". It passed 85-14-1 in the Senate and 342-67-2 in the House.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Originally posted by DinoDoc
They were thinking of invading because the subordinate government had taken it upon itself to decide which laws it would and would not uphold.
Um, that's a bizarre statement. SC seceded from the Union and fired upon federal property. It didn't just decide to not uphold certain laws. The Federal Government took action because it was fired upon.
Tweet
How???
Comment