Nationwide protest against Proposition 8 tomorrow.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Nothing? the bills of rights can be changes by the same amendment process that created it, and indeed, the 14th amendment took a big chunk out of the 10th (but in the direction of increasing individual rights against states' rights). The same amendment process took away individuals rights to drink alcohol, and then gave it back again. Wash rinse repeat.

Correct. The Constitution itself would have to be changed to eliminate basic human rights.

(BTW: Before the 14th Amendment, several states permitted women to vote. The 14th Amendment, while giving the vote to former male slaves, took the vote away from women. )

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I wasn't referring to people I viewed as attractive, but rather as indisputably heterosexual.

Are there any indisputable heterosexuals on Apolyton? Or are we all a bunch of gayz deep down?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Are there any indisputable heterosexuals on Apolyton? Or are we all a bunch of gayz deep down?

Tiamat and Allinestra come immediately to mind as being beyond dispute.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
(BTW: Before the 14th Amendment, several states permitted women to vote. The 14th Amendment, while giving the vote to former male slaves, took the vote away from women. )

WTF? No it didn't. It just said that apportionment was based on the percentage of male citizens over 21 were allowed to vote. Nothing precluded women from voting. The 14th Amendment did not explicitly guarantee women the right to vote, but it did not, either, bar states from allowing it.

After all, Wyoming allowed women to vote when it was a territory and that continued when it became a state in 1890. Under your reading, they couldn't do that under the 14th Amendment.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Are there any indisputable heterosexuals on Apolyton? Or are we all a bunch of gayz deep down?

Haaayyyyyy!!!!

[Pekka]

Look at his face. I like how proud he is about the shirt

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


WTF? No it didn't. It just said that apportionment was based on the percentage of male citizens over 21 were allowed to vote. Nothing precluded women from voting. The 14th Amendment did not explicitly guarantee women the right to vote, but it did not, either, bar states from allowing it.

Crap, you're right. I got that tidbit from a law professor years ago, and never checked his statement for accuracy. Let this be a lesson to you Apolykids out there. Do not listen to your professors!

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Tiamat and Allinestra come immediately to mind as being beyond dispute.

But all the men are suspect?

I assume this isn't wishful thinking, because you definitely could do far better than a 'polytubbie.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow.

Gay people condoning attacks on old ladies.

I thought the folks on Apolyton were better then that, but I see I was wrong.

[MrFun]

Geez, you are so thick in the skull. WHO here has actually CONDONED an attack on the lady in the protest?

Drose provided an article that provided more information about this not-so-innocent lady's activities. Providing more information to discuss this more accurately does not equate with condoning the attack on her.

DUH

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Wow.

Gay people condoning attacks on old ladies.

I thought the folks on Apolyton were better then that, but I see I was wrong.

Who could have predicted that the first post of BK's in this thread that I actually DID read, and it's so full of sh*t even scat enthusiasts would be turned off?

Nice to see you condoning her assault on a disabled person, f*ckwad.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who could have predicted that the first post of BK's in this thread that I actually DID read, and it's so full of sh*t even scat enthusiasts would be turned off?

Nice to see you condoning her assault on a disabled person, f*ckwad.

You are angry at me for pointing out the obvious?

It doesn't matter what she has done in the past, and digging up dirt to obfuscate the issue is just downright dirty. I find it hilarious that whenever someone makes the news, the very next articles try to dig up dirt on that person to say, hey they are evil, so she deserved what she got.

The point, and this is what wasn't addressed, is that the gay folks here haven't stepped up to say, this is not right. We all have sinned in the past, but that doesn't justify us hurting another person.

She was wrong to hurt a disabled person. Now, let's see y'all step up and call out the haters at the prop 8 rally.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I find it hilarious . . .

Actually, what's REALLY hilarious is that you think those who disagree with you in this thread on the issue, condone the attack against her.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by MrFun
Geez, you are so thick in the skull. WHO here has actually CONDONED an attack on the lady in the protest?

Drose provided an article that provided more information about this not-so-innocent lady's activities. Providing more information to discuss this more accurately does not equate with condoning the attack on her.

DUH

Imran was condoning it earlier.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Yours has to be the stupidest post I've read all week.

Why is it stupid to say that a gay website might not be impartial when it comes to issues regarding those who are against gay marriage?