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 notyoueither
Solomon might cleave the issue in two by seperating religious marriage from unions subject to government recognition.
Actually, that's my preferred solution. I really see no reason to have the government involved in marriages, hetero or homo.
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Actually, that's my preferred solution. I really see no reason to have the government involved in marriages, hetero or homo.
Knowing Canada, that'll probably be the end solution.
It doesn't end the problem though. There are Christian churches who want to wed same sex couples. There are Christian churches who are dead set against it in any way shape or form.
That's why I say bigot. People are attempting to impose their beliefs or dogma on both civil and other religious societies.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Yeah, but once the government doesn't have to recognise the marriages of anybody they get to wash their hands of the whole thing and go back to Trudeau's "government out of the bedroom".
If some church in Ont. wants to do gay weddings then let them. If some church in Alta. doesn't, then they don't have to. If some church in BC will only do gay weddings....well, that would be pretty funny.
Sexual orientation is a basic human right in Canada.
Discrimination based on basic human characteristics is unconstitutional in Canada.
Yall missing the link.
Yall assume, that restricting gay marriage is discrimination against a person's orientation.
My rebuttal would be that society permits what it does not necessarily promote.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Are you being deliberately dense? They didn't rule that not having gay marriage was unconstitutional because they didn't have to. They'd rather let the politicians draft a new law. If the federal government forces their hand, however, you will see how quickly they rule it unconstitutional.
Sure, the judges in the SCoC are going to overrule a bill preserving traditional marriage.
I say bring it!
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
In other words, the Catholics and Anglicans are upset with the neighbours, again.
Um pardon me?
I've just become Catholic. I don't think my position on this issue changed one bit.
I think that the majority of Canadians cannot be pigeonholed as Catholics and Anglicans.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Yes, they will. The issue will arise rather quickly. You have 7 provincial courts who have already ruled on the issue, and you have no indication that the SCoC is feeling any different.
If Harper attempts to pass a bill (he'll never be able to get it through, first off) which he knows will be ruled unconstitutional then he's going to look like a right fool. If he then uses the notwithstanding clause or attempts to make a constitutional issue of it he'll destroy the future electoral chances of the Cons. It's a nice issue to stir up the rabble (like you) with, but the chances of it happening are slim to nil.
I really do pity you. It must be hard to be so out of touch.
Yall assume, that restricting gay marriage is discrimination against a person's orientation.
My rebuttal would be that society permits what it does not necessarily promote.
And 'yall' be free to rebut in front of SCoC if the feds ever pass a bill restricting marriage.
Don't hold 'yall' breath. They already ruled sexual orientation to be part of Section 15, and government sanctioned 'goodies' for marriage are what is being fought for so hard.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Harper lost his bid to torch the bill with an amendment so that it protected traditional marriage.
He lost by 30 votes.
Parliament, and this is something the Supremes ruled on, has the authority to set marriage regulations across the country.
Go read the decision, it's in there KH.
"There is no question that uniformity of the law
is essential."
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Yes, and section 15 specifically rejects the inclusion of ameliorative benefits.
I would argue marriage falls under this category, and as such, is not bound under the equality provisions.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
I read the decision the day it came out. The supreme court of canada at no point gave the federal government a carte blanche to draft whatever marriage law they wanted to. They retain the power to rule on the constitutionality of any marriage law passed by the federal government, as for any other law.
Quit your snivelling and admit that social conservatism is dead.
Tweet
Comment