A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[Artevelde]

More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.

The rest of the world is more enlightened, i.e., they don't see what the big deal is. Gays are people. I know it's such a radical concept, you're having trouble wrapping your brain around it. But they are. They fall in love, and they want to get married.

In every state where gay marriage was put to a vote of the people, the people voted against gay marriage. This happened in about 30 states.

Gay marriage has only been legalized in states where courts or legislators acted. Sometimes against the will of the popular vote.

Luckily we do not live in a true democracy where mob rule can vote against a minority.

You are advocating rule by flash mob.

 

[BDBoop]

In every state where gay marriage was put to a vote of the people. The people voted against gay marriage. This happened in about 30 states.

Gay marriage has only been legalized in states where courts or legislators acted. Sometimes against the will of the popular vote.

So maybe we should put to a vote anti discrimination laws as well.

The rights of minorities should not be put to a popular vote. A republic is not supposed to be subject to mob rule.

Indeed a state should not be ruled by mob rule. That's precisely why I oppose the introduction of gay marriage to appease a flash mob of so-called "enlightened" people.

There is no 'flash mob'. There are gays and lesbians, and friends, family & loved ones of gays and lesbians.

 

[Artevelde]

Dude. Your record is stuck.

I can't help your cowardice. That's your problem.

I already asked and answered - and you're seeing things.

You might want to get that looked into. Brain tumor may be involved.

Just sayin.

You really are an intellectual lightweight.

 

[BDBoop]

In every state where gay marriage was put to a vote of the people, the people voted against gay marriage. This happened in about 30 states.

Gay marriage has only been legalized in states where courts or legislators acted. Sometimes against the will of the popular vote.

Luckily we do not live in a true democracy where mob rule can vote against a minority.

You are advocating rule by flash mob.

Really? You call our House and Senate "flash mobs?"

 

[Artevelde]

So maybe we should put to a vote anti discrimination laws as well.

The rights of minorities should not be put to a popular vote. A republic is not supposed to be subject to mob rule.

Indeed a state should not be ruled by mob rule. That's precisely why I oppose the introduction of gay marriage to appease a flash mob of so-called "enlightened" people.

There is no 'flash mob'. There are gays and lesbians, and friends, family & loved ones of gays and lesbians.

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

 

[BDBoop]

I can't help your cowardice. That's your problem.

I already asked and answered - and you're seeing things.

You might want to get that looked into. Brain tumor may be involved.

Just sayin.

You really are an intellectual lightweight.

Okay, Naomi.

 

[WinterBorn]

I note that you admit that you are not consistent with yourself. Pretty weak.

You note that? lol And from what did you draw that conclusion?

So you feel brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry as long as they are adults?

You know, I see that I am snwering questions and you are not. It must be nice for you.

Did I say anything like what you claimed?

The dangers of birth defects are increased dramatically. But is the chance of birth defects enough to outlaw it? Probably not. As long as the two people in question are consenting adults, it would not harm anyone.



Now, time for you to answer a question.

What gives you, or society, the right to say one relationship between consenting adults is good and should be rewarded, while also saying another relationship between consenting adults is bad and should be banned???

 

[Artevelde]

I already asked and answered - and you're seeing things.

You might want to get that looked into. Brain tumor may be involved.

Just sayin.

You really are an intellectual lightweight.

Okay, Naomi.

Thanks for illustrating it again, but there really is no need.

 

[BDBoop]

Indeed a state should not be ruled by mob rule. That's precisely why I oppose the introduction of gay marriage to appease a flash mob of so-called "enlightened" people.

There is no 'flash mob'. There are gays and lesbians, and friends, family & loved ones of gays and lesbians.

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

And in their name? That's MY name. I AM friends, family and loved ones of gays and lesbians. And I've felt this way for most of my adult life so no. No flash mobs here.

I personally know and regularly socialize with gay couples who have been together a grand total of 100 years.

Your argument is invalid.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In every state where gay marriage was put to a vote of the people. The people voted against gay marriage. This happened in about 30 states.

Gay marriage has only been legalized in states where courts or legislators acted. Sometimes against the will of the popular vote.

So maybe we should put to a vote anti discrimination laws as well.

The rights of minorities should not be put to a popular vote. A republic is not supposed to be subject to mob rule.

Indeed a state should not be ruled by mob rule. That's precisely why I oppose the introduction of gay marriage to appease a flash mob of so-called "enlightened" people.

So you want the majority to suppress the rights of a minority yet you say you're against mob rule.

It must not be easy to be so deliberately obtuse.

 

[BDBoop]

You note that? lol And from what did you draw that conclusion?

So you feel brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry as long as they are adults?

You know, I see that I am snwering questions and you are not. It must be nice for you.

Did I say anything like what you claimed?

The dangers of birth defects are increased dramatically. But is the chance of birth defects enough to outlaw it? Probably not. As long as the two people in question are consenting adults, it would not harm anyone.



Now, time for you to answer a question.

What gives you, or society, the right to say one relationship between consenting adults is good and should be rewarded, while also saying another relationship between consenting adults is bad and should be banned???

He's come undone. I think it's because he's Belgian.

 

[WinterBorn]

I can't help your cowardice. That's your problem.

I already asked and answered - and you're seeing things.

You might want to get that looked into. Brain tumor may be involved.

Just sayin.

You really are an intellectual lightweight.

LMAO!! That is rich. This coming from someone who has to have the same question answered 3 or 4 times, and worries about gay marriage making everyone "turn gay". lol

Too funny.

 

[Artevelde]

You note that? lol And from what did you draw that conclusion?

So you feel brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry as long as they are adults?

You know, I see that I am snwering questions and you are not. It must be nice for you.

Did I say anything like what you claimed?

The dangers of birth defects are increased dramatically. But is the chance of birth defects enough to outlaw it? Probably not. As long as the two people in question are consenting adults, it would not harm anyone.



Now, time for you to answer a question.

What gives you, or society, the right to say one relationship between consenting adults is good and should be rewarded, while also saying another relationship between consenting adults is bad and should be banned???

Finally a good question. Well, contrary to you I believe that there is such a thing as Society. That we are more, as human beings, than just a loose collection of individuals without any relation to each other or without any mutual rights and obligations. Human beings achieve their full potential as human beings within the framework of a society. For this to function, every society needs norms which it agrees upon and imposes on everyone. Some of these norms do change over time, some remain constant, and some change very frequently (the usual legislative process in a democracy for example).

 

[BDBoop]

I already asked and answered - and you're seeing things.

You might want to get that looked into. Brain tumor may be involved.

Just sayin.

You really are an intellectual lightweight.

LMAO!! That is rich. This coming from someone who has to have the same question answered 3 or 4 times, and worries about gay marriage making everyone "turn gay". lol

Too funny.

The bit I gave him was based on an interview with Naomi Watts. She was working with David Lynch, and he went waaaay too deep while directing a rape scene. She was hysterical. Couldn't stop crying. Screaming "Fuck you, David! Fuck you!!"

Apparently Lynch has this nasally monotone - he was trying to calm her down. So he's going "Okay, Naomi ... "

My entire family does that now when somebody goes all drama llama.

 

[BluePhantom]

More people in America favor gay marriage than are against it. You've already lost.

The rest of the world is more enlightened, i.e., they don't see what the big deal is. Gays are people. I know it's such a radical concept, you're having trouble wrapping your brain around it. But they are. They fall in love, and they want to get married.

In every state where gay marriage was put to a vote of the people, the people voted against gay marriage. This happened in 28 states.

Gay marriage has only been legalized in states where courts or legislators acted. Sometimes against the will of the popular vote.

From wikipedia:

Out of 28 states where constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were put on the ballot in a voter referendum, voters in all 28 states voted to approve such amendments

This is true. Even in ultra-liberal Oregon and California the people voted to ban gay marriage (which proves pretty clearly that the anti-gay agenda is not exclusively a conservative institution). However, since those votes were taken society has apparently changed its mind according to the polls.

Regardless, you cannot violate the United States Constitution even if the people want to. The judges that have ruled in favor of gay marriage are not being activist in their opinions. Quite the contrary they are being very conservative in their interpretation of the constitution: whether the people want it or not, you can't deny equal access to the law and deny rights to a certain demographic and not others.

Now according to the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman) spelled out by the SCOTUS a law must meet three criteria:

1) It must have a secular purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It may not cause excessive entanglement between government and religion

Now if someone can provide me with a secular argument that neither advances nor inhibits religion and does not cause excessive entanglement between government and religion that explains why homosexuals should not receive equal access to the law and should not receive the same rights as any other United States citizen, I am certainly willing to hear it. And good luck finding one because even the lawyers for the anti-gay establishment haven't been able to find one.

 

[Artevelde]

I already asked and answered - and you're seeing things.

You might want to get that looked into. Brain tumor may be involved.

Just sayin.

You really are an intellectual lightweight.

LMAO!! That is rich. This coming from someone who has to have the same question answered 3 or 4 times, and worries about gay marriage making everyone "turn gay". lol

Too funny.

Apparently you can't even read. Where exactly did I write anything about everyone turning gay? Too bad you are too stupid to follow a fairly simple discussion.

 

[Artevelde]

You really are an intellectual lightweight.

LMAO!! That is rich. This coming from someone who has to have the same question answered 3 or 4 times, and worries about gay marriage making everyone "turn gay". lol

Too funny.

The bit I gave him was based on an interview with Naomi Watts. She was working with David Lynch, and he went waaaay too deep while directing a rape scene. She was hysterical. Couldn't stop crying. Screaming "Fuck you, David! Fuck you!!"

Apparently Lynch has this nasally monotone - he was trying to calm her down. So he's going "Okay, Naomi ... "

My entire family does that now when somebody goes all drama llama.

That sounds like your intellectual level, yes.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you feel brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry as long as they are adults?

You know, I see that I am snwering questions and you are not. It must be nice for you.

Did I say anything like what you claimed?

The dangers of birth defects are increased dramatically. But is the chance of birth defects enough to outlaw it? Probably not. As long as the two people in question are consenting adults, it would not harm anyone.



Now, time for you to answer a question.

What gives you, or society, the right to say one relationship between consenting adults is good and should be rewarded, while also saying another relationship between consenting adults is bad and should be banned???

Finally a good question. Well, contrary to you I believe that there is such a thing as Society. That we are more, as human beings, than just a loose collection of individuals without any relation to each other or without any mutual rights and obligations. Human beings achieve their full potential as human beings within the framework of a society. For this to function, every society needs norms which it agrees upon and imposes on everyone. Some of these norms do change over time, some remain constant, and some change very frequently (the usual legislative process in a democracy for example).

And you have arbitrarily decided that this particular norm should not change?

I understand that we achieve much as a society. But the freedoms of the individual are paramount, and should never be dissolved for the "good of society". It is also paramount that the individual not be forced to fit a preconceived notion of what is normal, simply to satisfy society. If it harms no one, there should be no restrictions against it.

And my other questions were good questions as well. That you have no good answer does not change that.

Have you come up with any details or examples of how gay marriage "undermines society"? Because that was a very valid question that was asked of you.

 

[KevinWestern]

Indeed a state should not be ruled by mob rule. That's precisely why I oppose the introduction of gay marriage to appease a flash mob of so-called "enlightened" people.

There is no 'flash mob'. There are gays and lesbians, and friends, family & loved ones of gays and lesbians.

And in their name you would want to overturn basic social norms.

I think a better question is: why do you want to use the government to as a tool force upon the population what you happen to think is normal?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to just step back, and allow people the right to choose who they would like to spend the rest of their lives with? I’m done with the authoritarian nanny-state regulations that you appear to support (what are you, some kind of commie?), I want a government that puts the power of choice in the hands of the individual.

The role of the Federal Government is to protect our rights and our property. It’s NOT to nanny-sit us and restrict our freedoms unnecessarily.

.
.
.

 

[BDBoop]

LMAO!! That is rich. This coming from someone who has to have the same question answered 3 or 4 times, and worries about gay marriage making everyone "turn gay". lol

Too funny.

The bit I gave him was based on an interview with Naomi Watts. She was working with David Lynch, and he went waaaay too deep while directing a rape scene. She was hysterical. Couldn't stop crying. Screaming "Fuck you, David! Fuck you!!"

Apparently Lynch has this nasally monotone - he was trying to calm her down. So he's going "Okay, Naomi ... "

My entire family does that now when somebody goes all drama llama.

That sounds like your intellectual level, yes.

Okay, now you're just sulking.