Ok, I have to tip my hat at TMW - his trolling was *almost* sufficient for me to chime in and dissect his stupidity. You're getting *much* better at this!

Yeah, running up the deficit does not fall under the category of "necessary and proper"

Also, at least we're dealing with gays the RIGHT way, by amending the Constitution, versus being a lazy lib but disregarding the Constitution and just making an Unconstitutional law.

"Yeah, running up the deficit does not fall under the category of "necessary and proper""

Appropriating money is the very core of necessary and proper. A deficit in itself isn't too terrible, not good but Keynesian economics aren't complete nonsense. What's a disaster is deficits in the trillions of dollars.

"Also, at least we're dealing with gays the RIGHT way, by amending the Constitution, versus being a lazy lib but disregarding the Constitution and just making an Unconstitutional law."

What's "dealing with gays?" I assume your talk about amending the Constitution is in reference to some No Gay Marriage Amendment. You say that changing the Constitution to ban gay marriage is what separates you from the "lazy libs" who just make unconstitutional laws, but if gay marriage were already unconstitutional then why do you need an amendment to ban it?

@Invictus - I was about to ask the same thing re: his weird out of left field comment on "the gays." That didn't make a lick of sense to me.

Regardless, of your odd comment on deficits and the necessary and proper clause, I think regulating health insurance and health care falls pretty squarely under the interstate commerce clause. So I'm still not clear how it's a violation of the 10th amendment.

Heath insurance is regulated by states right now, and the overwhelming majority of healthcare is funded locally.

Yes, but just because it's regulated by the states right now doesn't mean it can't be regulated by the federal government, especially as from what I understand part of this bill is to make it easier for health insurance companies to offer services across state lines.

Title should read *unprepared.

Just thought I'd fix the typo.

"interstate commerce clause. So I'm still not clear how it's a violation of the 10th amendment."

Wrong. The Baucus bill would affect all U.S. charges, which DOES NOT fall into the category of "interstate commerce"

"but if gay marriage were already unconstitutional then why do you need an amendment to ban it?"

A) It's not unconstitutional. It's technically the states' call.
B) Ratifying an amendment will finally shut up the gay community.

I would think the exact opposite would happen.

Support for such a ridiculous amendment would be marginal to say the least, and I think that enough states have gay marriage or domestic partnerships to make its passage all but impossible practically. You'd need a really nutty Congress who doesn't care about being reelected or a new Constitutional Convention. You know your idea is ludicrous when a Constitutional Convention is the most likely way for it to happen.

You know, the real irony is in the names Diplomat1824 and The_Master_Gamer because Diplofool is neither of those. His records speak for themselves as to his game skills. And his ability ot diplome, well just look to his forum posts and how he offends so many with his inane rhetoric.

Diplofool, you just recognized that gays and lesbians are a community, so why can't you recognize their rights to share a life together and all the benfits that entails? They aren't a threat to the traditional "mom and dad and 2.5 kids plus a dog" lifestyle you love. They just want an equal chance at happiness.

Now if you want to argue they shouldn't get married in a church, well that is each congregations or denominations decision to make. I'm sure yours won't allow them to marry. Mine officially would (Evangelical Lutheran), although a homosexual can't be a minister within the ELCA.

"Diplofool, you just recognized that gays and lesbians are a community, so why can't you recognize their rights to share a life together and all the benfits that entails? They aren't a threat to the traditional "mom and dad and 2.5 kids plus a dog" lifestyle you love. They just want an equal chance at happiness."

Under normal circumstances, I would not sacrifice my lack of hypocrisy to respond to an irrational post (Diplofool). But I feel that I need to respond to this.

First of all, marriage is a religious institution, and gay marriage is against most major world religions, aside from a few heretic liberal offshoots. So why do they need to get married? They have no problem ignoring religion, so why do they want a RELIGIOUS confirmation of their unity?

Second, why should we give them the benefits of marriage when they cannot procreate?

Marriage is as much a legal institution as it is a religious one. And the Episcopal and Lutheran churches are hardly "liberal offshoots".

While the Catholic church may be the single largest denomination, it keeps it's size as it has for years, by keeping it's congregation ignorant and afraid. Why do you think mass is still help in Latin? It isn't like the old or new testaments were written in it. They were written in Hebrew and Greek respectively.

As far as the other protestant denominations, they have Lutheranism to thank for starting the protestant movement. We have over 75 million members worldwide. We are the largest protestant denomination in the world and the 4th largest in the US. We recognize gay marriage. We are NOT a liberal offshoot, but a people called to serve Christ through serving others.

"While the Catholic church may be the single largest denomination, it keeps it's size as it has for years, by keeping it's congregation ignorant and afraid. Why do you think mass is still help in Latin? It isn't like the old or new testaments were written in it. They were written in Hebrew and Greek respectively."

Are you drunk? Usually you write such coherent posts. Catholicism has its size because people keep on believing in it, not because Catholics are ignorant and afraid. They go because they believe that they need to, just like any religion.

Mass isn't in Latin and hasn't been for 40 years. If anything I think use of the vernacular hurts the Church. A Latin Mass is beautiful, and one of the most religiously moving things I've ever been to. The Bible was written in Latin because the Romans translated the texts from the Greek and Hebrew for use throughout the empire, particularly the West. It stuck that way partly to prevent heresies and partly because there just weren't resources for handwritten Bibles to be made for every language. Translating is very tough, and it just wouldn't be practical to spend the resources on a Welsh or Flemish translation AND make sure it's accurate AND distribute it to local churches. Plus those Catholics kinda have a penchant for tradition for tradition's sake.

To my knowledge, the only mainline Protestant church to allow gay marriage is the Church of Sweden. Since there's no Protestant Pope deciding whether it's OK for gays to marry then decisions in Uppsala have no effect on how US synods, or however you heretics run things, think about homosexual marriage.

Oh, and Professor The_Master_Warrior,

"Second, why should we give them the benefits of marriage when they cannot procreate?"

I know what you mean, but that's nonsense. Should childless straight couples be denied marriage befits if the woman or man is physically unable to create a child? Of course not. Marriage isn't just about children, it's about love, and while I too think gay marriage is wrong I don't think the justification for not allowing it is that gays can't pop out a baby.

Actually, I AM drunk.

Anyway I think nationalism is a disease that will destroy America, ironically enough. So you need to get rid of your ultranationalist ideas pronto before they bring us all down, man.

Marriage is not a religious institution, if it was, nobody would have to go to the STATE to get a marriage liscence. Marriage can be made into a religious ceremony through a wedding ceremony, but the fact that two people can become legally married without ever setting foot in a church is testament to the fact that marriage is not a religious institution.

Fuck bigoted homophobic assholes, but also fuck mainstream gays for their push for assimilation. Why is it a good thing for gay s to get married (yay white christian value structure =[ ) or join the military (yay imperialism)?

Thank you vamos. And Invictus, the Lutheran faith is a mainline religion. It is the founding protestant faith. And it allows gay marriage. You want me to check my statements about the catholic faith? You can't ask for respect where you aren't willing to give it.

So, how many "catholics" are lapsed catholics? How many schismatics? How many outright heretics? The catholic church counts lapsed catholics as still being amongst there number, despite the fact that many leave because they no longer believe in the way of the catholic faith.

I'm sorry, but any religion which thinks that a celibate single man or woman can possibly relate to the issues of a family (something they haven't experienced) is full of it.

Oh, and a heretic, by definition, must have been a catholic once. I'm never was catholic therefore I can't be a heretic. You should check your definitions with your padre before proving yourself the fool.

Homophobic...people afraid of similar things? :confused:

@Sic - the advantages of legal marriage are many fold. I believe for most gay couples, it is about having equal protection and entitlement under the law, not the religious aspects that come with the word's origins. It's only the backwards religious fanatics who think that having the word "marriage" attached to a legal union between two people of the same sex is somehow sacriligious and doesn't see that it is just a fucking word. It's english, not greek or hebrew, and therefore not a religious word from the old or new testament. So why the fanatics are stuck on a fucking word, I'll never know.

Draugnar, your statements about Lutheran churches accepting gay marriage is not entirely correct. Maybe *yours* does, but LCMS does not, and I don't think WELS does either.

True, it is the ELCA that has accepted gays. But at more than 4.5 million members, the ELCA is the largest of all the Lutheran denominations in the United States.

Whoa DipperDon!

Sicarius, no one is saying they have to do those things, but should they be restricted from doing things, even if they didn't want to?

Are you still drunk, Draugnar? This is bizarre coming from you.

Do you even know what "mainline" means? It's a term for the largest Protestant churches which are considered mainstream. Lutherans aren't unified the way Catholics are, they have different synods and other regulatory bodies, and the churches are somewhat autonomous. The Church of Sweden is one of those separate bodies. The Missouri Synod still rejects gay marriage and the fact that the Church of Sweden has allowed gay marriage has no real bearing on that. There is no Lutheran Pope who sets uniform doctrine for Lutheran churches.


"So, how many "catholics" are lapsed catholics? How many schismatics? How many outright heretics? The catholic church counts lapsed catholics as still being amongst there number, despite the fact that many leave because they no longer believe in the way of the catholic faith."

I don't know what you're trying to say there. You could make the same argument for any religion since church attendance is declining everywhere.

"I'm sorry, but any religion which thinks that a celibate single man or woman can possibly relate to the issues of a family (something they haven't experienced) is full of it."

Well, it's just men. You don't go to a nun when you have marriage problems, you go to a nun to learn cursive. At any rate, priests counsel married people about getting along together and about living the sort of life God wants. Priests don't really provide marriage counseling, they provide spiritual counseling, something that they are certainly qualified for.

"Oh, and a heretic, by definition, must have been a catholic once. I'm never was catholic therefore I can't be a heretic. You should check your definitions with your padre before proving yourself the fool."

Not true. A heretic, according to Dictionary.com, is "a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church." It's used often to refer to movements contrary to Catholicism because Catholicism was the dominant religion in the Western world for over a thousand years. You can easily have Muslim or Jewish or other Christian or Buddhist or whatever heretics. I also have hard time believing you didn't see that my calling you a heretic was rather lighthearted. I throw the word around quite a bit because I think it's funny, not because I genuinely tried to offend you.

Dragnar, there are approximately 66 million Lutherans in the world. First you claimed that they were all supporting gay marriage. Now you can claim only 4 million. ELCA is a liberal splinter group, when it is compared with Lutheran churches around the world.

You definition says "his or her church" The catholic church is not nor ever has been my church. Your own definition PROVES I am not a heretic. Try again. Epic fucking fail.

As far as the Lutheran church goes. True, we are separated by Synods (although, we also use that term to help provide a governing body within things like the ELCA), but we also recognize and accept all of the various Synonds as part of one body called the Lutheran Church which is over 60 million strong worldwide. So the fact that over 10% of that group accept gays in their midst is NOT insignificant.

ELCA is nearly 5 million strong (updated numbers show 4.8 million ELCA and 9.5 million total Lutherans in the US) and is over half the Lutheran population in the US, DipperDon. Hardly a liberal splinter group. I would argue the splinter groups are the other 48%, the largest of which is the LCMS at only 2.5 million people.

And, as I mentioned above, we are hardly that splintered. We all recognize, respect, and consider all of the other Synods and churches to be one part of the big Lutheran Church family.

Is there not a number of different catholic churches as well? Roman Catholic, American Catholic, etc.?