Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Lorizael]

Was there a referendum conducted?

There are no national referendums in the United States, obiwan18, you know that. But what you're saying is that there should be, right? Whenever we go to war we should hold a national referendum to see if the people should support it, right? Because you're in favor of direct democracy, right?

There is no direct election of the president. You are assuming that Bush still would have lost had there been a direct election of the president.

Look at it this way, if republicans in California know that their votes are just as important as say the folks in Nebraska, then they will vote differently.

Bush won according to the rules of the game. If Al Gore could have convinced his home state to vote for him, he would have won, and you'd not have had 8 years to bash Bush.

Aaaaand the Democrats in Texas, would they not have voted differently in a direct election?

[Felch]

Cool, I needed more sig material.

You took out my "torture = couscous" line. You bastard. Put it back.

[Asher]

You really are a piece of work Asher.

I hope QCubed understands what you are saying here.

Look, there's only one big guy in the sky that I have to answer to when I'm all done here, and it ain't QCubed.

You'll have to answer to him too. All I know is what he's said and he's very clear that marriage is explicitly for men and women only.

It doesn't matter if I'm the only one who believes that and all those who call themselves Christians believe otherwise.

If it's God that does the judging, let him do it. Don't pretend to know what he says when many religious scholars actually disagree with you.

Not to mention all of the other thing God says that you disobey. I take it you eat shellfish and masturbate...

Why don't we castrate any men found masturbating and stone adulterers while we're at it?

[MrFun]

Why was there a need to declare there was no reason to prohibit interracial marriage if the freedom for two loving people to marry one another is not a civil right?

[Felch]

Because mixed race girls (e.g. Beyonce) are super hot.

[Elok]

Doesn't matter. If only the bigoted Christians make their voices heard, but hte rest of Christianity is silent, it's as good as silent acceptance.

*ahem*

<----Still Christian

[Asher]

I thought of you when I made the post, but you're an exception and not the rule.

[Elok]

Because mixed race girls (e.g. Beyonce) are super hot.

I understand that's hotly debated on Poly. But I bet Halle Berry's got some white in her.

[DinoDoc]

I argue that any legal suit that seeks to deny a group of people their civil rights has no merit.

Based on what legal theory?

The Supreme Court pretty much declared that the freedom for two loving people to choose to marry one another is a civil right when they said that prohibition on interracial marriage is unconstitutional.

The people of CA acted to change the constitution of thier state in response to that ruling. I ask again can you give me a real reason why Starr's defense of the CA constitution is without merrit.

[Elok]

I thought of you when I made the post, but you're an exception and not the rule.

...online. The internet brings out everyone's inner bully, you should know that. IRL, there are plenty of liberal Xians (aren't the Episcopalians still on the way to civil war over lesbian bishops or something?), but they tend to get drowned out by the loudmouth bigots in much the same way that, until Obama came along, the Democrats were continually outmaneuvered by the GOP.

See also Doc Strangelove, Slowwhand (not super-intellectual, but hardly a gay-basher or a moron), MrFun, I think Japher...note that all of these people tend to only bring up their faith when it's somehow germane to the discussion (dunno about them, but I just dislike wearing Jesus on my sleeve all the time, trying to push Him on people like an Amway rep). You naturally notice us less.

[Kuciwalker]

I argue that any legal suit that seeks to deny a group of people their civil rights has no merit.

....

THE SUIT IS ARGUING THAT THE THING IS NOT THEIR RIGHT.

Additionally, demonstrating that the thing you believe is a civil right is also "warm and fuzzy" HAS NO BEARING ON THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS.

You're almost as bad as Ben.

[Kuciwalker]

Does it have any merits?

I have no idea. Warm fuzzies about gay people don't mean anything, though.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are no national referendums in the United States, obiwan18, you know that. But what you're saying is that there should be, right? Whenever we go to war we should hold a national referendum to see if the people should support it, right? Because you're in favor of direct democracy, right?

I am in favour of direct democracy. I also believe that the people who are elected have a duty to represent their constituents.

I would not have been opposed to having a referendum on the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan (which I notice you don't mention).

For the presidency? I understand why the electoral college is in place, and the role of the states within the union. For the most part the system works, but about once every hundred years or so, you have an election that is very closely divided. I don't feel that the election of 2000 is sufficient grounds to go to a direct election of the president. I feel there is a need for regional representation.

Aaaaand the Democrats in Texas, would they not have voted differently in a direct election?

Sure, which is why changing the rules changes the way in which people vote. You cannot assume that they will stay exactly the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

If it's God that does the judging, let him do it. Don't pretend to know what he says when many religious scholars actually disagree with you.

There will always be disagreement. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean that there isn't a right and a wrong. All that means is that just as Christ says, the day will come and two women working beside one another, one will go and one will be left behind.

Not to mention all of the other thing God says that you disobey. I take it you eat shellfish and masturbate...

First off, Christ says that it is what comes out of a man that makes him pure, not what goes in. Shellfish is ok.

Secondly, we all sin. It doesn't change what sin is, when we are all in rebellion.

Why don't we castrate any men found masturbating and stone adulterers while we're at it?

Because Christ died for our sins. He was the perfect sacrifice. All we have to do is believe in him, and ask for forgiveness and we will be saved.

[Lorizael]

I also believe that the people who are elected have a duty to represent their constituents.

... so when the population was massively against the war, shouldn't Bush have pulled out...?

...the war in Afghanistan (which I notice you don't mention).

There are a lot of wars I didn't mention, because none of them have anything to do with the fact that you're an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

For the presidency? I understand why the electoral college is in place, and the role of the states within the union. For the most part the system works, but about once every hundred years or so, you have an election that is very closely divided. I don't feel that the election of 2000 is sufficient grounds to go to a direct election of the president. I feel there is a need for regional representation.

Which means that you're not in favor of direct election or referendums for everything, which means that opposing other people's arguments with the question, "Was there a national referendum?" is stupid.