Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[WhiteLion]

Good response Glockmail

I feel the same way.

Homosexuality has the potential to destroy our society and morals, trash our culture, and ruin our children and families.

Societal Indentity Robbery-SIR

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe that marriage is a sociological and anthropological institution, not a religious, emotional, or legal one. It is a fundamental aspect of human society, arising out of the necessity of reproducing and perpetuating the species and the inherent necessities of the type of animal humans happen to be.

What I mean by this:

First of all, obviously, humans reproduce sexually, by means of a male human impregnating a female human. So the basic production of a child is going to require one of each.

Second, humans are social animals. By that, I mean that we live banded together in groups and operate collectively in some regards, as opposed to animals that are solitary in nature, and only interact with others of their kind for the purpose of mating. Because nature gives all animals the instinct to protect and nurture their offspring to some extent in order to ensure the survival of the species, this is with humans as with other species one of the primary purposes of the "packs" that we form.

Third, we are relatively weak physically compared to other animals. Where nature gave them strength, stamina, speed, vicious fighting skills and weapons, etc. to survive, nature gave us intelligence. We use this intelligence, coupled with the fact of our individual physical weakness and vulnerability, to team up and work together for the mutual benefit of all concerned, particularly the helpless offspring who, as I mentioned earlier, we have the instinct to protect and nurture. We do this on multiple levels, being intelligent and complex creatures. The smallest and most basic "team" that we form is a family, consisting ideally and most logically of the helpless offspring needing care and the two people who created that offspring and now feel the natural instinct of protection toward that child.

Therefore, I do not view marriage as a romantic relationship based on sexual interest, emotional fulfillment, infatuation, love, any of the quaint and poetic notions that have grown up around it. I view it much more as a business partnership with very specific goals and purposes, the primary one of which is . . . you get the idea.

Okay, this being said, I obviously then do not view marriage as a set of benefits bestowed by society, but as a set of obligations and restrictions recognized by society, and legal sanction as an acknowledgement that society as a whole benefits from a man and a woman entering into the commitment of marriage, and should therefore encourage and facilitate it.

Now, obviously, some of you are saying, "But Cecilie, not all married couples have children, either because they are unable to or because they choose not to. Are they not as married, and should society not recognize their marriages?" No, and for a couple of reasons.

First, laws by definition are fairly broad and generalized. A barren or elderly or disabled couple made up of a man and a woman is still of the same type and makeup that produces children, and it is that essential type of relationship that society sanctions. It is also possible that a couple not expecting to have children can get a little surprise (says the 40-year-old woman who's 8 months pregnant ). They could also choose at some point to offer care and nurture for a child not biologically their own who does not have parents.

Second, while society admittedly has much less benefit to itself at stake in a marriage that does not involve the production of its future citizens, it still does receive overall benefits from encouraging and facilitating these relationships. A married man is much less likely to be out impregnating other women to whom he has no commitment and producing children who will then be raised in less than optimal conditions, just as an example.

If anyone needs me to explain in more detail WHY I believe that a heterosexual marriage is the optimal and ideal situation in which to raise children, please let me know.

To move on, I do not believe that society derives or will derive any of the same benefits from same-sex "marriage" as it does from heterosexual marriage. Therefore, I do not believe that society has any compelling reason to recognize or sanction same-sex relationships, because I do not believe that it does so for the benefit of the individuals involved, but for itself (society, that is).

I believe that rights belong to individuals, not couples or groups. Many people say, "I have the right to marry whomever I want" or "I have the right to marry the person I love". You don't, because the law does not consider it that way. Emotions and motivations are not relevant to the law. Every individual is legally free to marry a person of the opposite sex who is old enough to give consent, is not a blood relative, is not already married, etc. WHY you are doing so is a matter of no interest to the law, nor should it be, because the concept of "marriage for love" is relatively quite new in human history, and still not the norm among many cultures.

This is also why I say that the law is not being applied unequally. EVERYONE has that exact same legal right, spelled out exactly the same way.

I also consider the analogy to interracial marriage to be invalid because the race of the people involved in no way changes the fundamental nature and definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

I feel that changing the definition of marriage in our society would change the perception and understanding of marriage, something that has already begun and progressed to a dangerous degree. We already have entirely too many broken homes, births-out-of-wedlock, etc. In fact, many people will point out - in a very snarky tone - that "heterosexuals have already lost respect for the sanctity of marriage", as though that somehow either means that homosexuals might do better at it, or that we should just give up entirely and throw it open to all comers, because who cares anymore? As it happens, though, I consider this to be a compelling argument against redefining marriage, because I believe it is necessary on ALL fronts to return to an earlier understanding of and respect for the institution of marriage.

For more in-depth analysis of how marriage benefits society, what its purpose is, how redefining marriage to include homosexuals would harm the institution of marriage and society, or any other issue I've raised here, please ask. I feel that this particular post has already become long enough.

I hope everyone will notice that not once have I mentioned religion, morality, or "yuckiness" to explain my opposition to same-sex "marriage".

 

[Macintosh]

I believe that marriage is a sociological and anthropological institution, not a religious, emotional, or legal one. It is a fundamental aspect of human society, arising out of the necessity of reproducing and perpetuating the species and the inherent necessities of the type of animal humans happen to be.

What I mean by this:

First of all, obviously, humans reproduce sexually, by means of a male human impregnating a female human. So the basic production of a child is going to require one of each.

Second, humans are social animals. By that, I mean that we live banded together in groups and operate collectively in some regards, as opposed to animals that are solitary in nature, and only interact with others of their kind for the purpose of mating. Because nature gives all animals the instinct to protect and nurture their offspring to some extent in order to ensure the survival of the species, this is with humans as with other species one of the primary purposes of the "packs" that we form.

Third, we are relatively weak physically compared to other animals. Where nature gave them strength, stamina, speed, vicious fighting skills and weapons, etc. to survive, nature gave us intelligence. We use this intelligence, coupled with the fact of our individual physical weakness and vulnerability, to team up and work together for the mutual benefit of all concerned, particularly the helpless offspring who, as I mentioned earlier, we have the instinct to protect and nurture. We do this on multiple levels, being intelligent and complex creatures. The smallest and most basic "team" that we form is a family, consisting ideally and most logically of the helpless offspring needing care and the two people who created that offspring and now feel the natural instinct of protection toward that child.

Therefore, I do not view marriage as a romantic relationship based on sexual interest, emotional fulfillment, infatuation, love, any of the quaint and poetic notions that have grown up around it. I view it much more as a business partnership with very specific goals and purposes, the primary one of which is . . . you get the idea.

Okay, this being said, I obviously then do not view marriage as a set of benefits bestowed by society, but as a set of obligations and restrictions recognized by society, and legal sanction as an acknowledgement that society as a whole benefits from a man and a woman entering into the commitment of marriage, and should therefore encourage and facilitate it.

Now, obviously, some of you are saying, "But Cecilie, not all married couples have children, either because they are unable to or because they choose not to. Are they not as married, and should society not recognize their marriages?" No, and for a couple of reasons.

First, laws by definition are fairly broad and generalized. A barren or elderly or disabled couple made up of a man and a woman is still of the same type and makeup that produces children, and it is that essential type of relationship that society sanctions. It is also possible that a couple not expecting to have children can get a little surprise (says the 40-year-old woman who's 8 months pregnant ). They could also choose at some point to offer care and nurture for a child not biologically their own who does not have parents.

Second, while society admittedly has much less benefit to itself at stake in a marriage that does not involve the production of its future citizens, it still does receive overall benefits from encouraging and facilitating these relationships. A married man is much less likely to be out impregnating other women to whom he has no commitment and producing children who will then be raised in less than optimal conditions, just as an example.

If anyone needs me to explain in more detail WHY I believe that a heterosexual marriage is the optimal and ideal situation in which to raise children, please let me know.

To move on, I do not believe that society derives or will derive any of the same benefits from same-sex "marriage" as it does from heterosexual marriage. Therefore, I do not believe that society has any compelling reason to recognize or sanction same-sex relationships, because I do not believe that it does so for the benefit of the individuals involved, but for itself (society, that is).

I believe that rights belong to individuals, not couples or groups. Many people say, "I have the right to marry whomever I want" or "I have the right to marry the person I love". You don't, because the law does not consider it that way. Emotions and motivations are not relevant to the law. Every individual is legally free to marry a person of the opposite sex who is old enough to give consent, is not a blood relative, is not already married, etc. WHY you are doing so is a matter of no interest to the law, nor should it be, because the concept of "marriage for love" is relatively quite new in human history, and still not the norm among many cultures.

This is also why I say that the law is not being applied unequally. EVERYONE has that exact same legal right, spelled out exactly the same way.

I also consider the analogy to interracial marriage to be invalid because the race of the people involved in no way changes the fundamental nature and definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

I feel that changing the definition of marriage in our society would change the perception and understanding of marriage, something that has already begun and progressed to a dangerous degree. We already have entirely too many broken homes, births-out-of-wedlock, etc. In fact, many people will point out - in a very snarky tone - that "heterosexuals have already lost respect for the sanctity of marriage", as though that somehow either means that homosexuals might do better at it, or that we should just give up entirely and throw it open to all comers, because who cares anymore? As it happens, though, I consider this to be a compelling argument against redefining marriage, because I believe it is necessary on ALL fronts to return to an earlier understanding of and respect for the institution of marriage.

For more in-depth analysis of how marriage benefits society, what its purpose is, how redefining marriage to include homosexuals would harm the institution of marriage and society, or any other issue I've raised here, please ask. I feel that this particular post has already become long enough.

I hope everyone will notice that not once have I mentioned religion, morality, or "yuckiness" to explain my opposition to same-sex "marriage".

I disagree with quite a lot of it, but it is indeed compelling. And no, you didn't mention religion, bash homosexuals or mention morality.

 

[Macintosh]

Why chance it?

Good one.

 

[Father Time]

Sorry, but "most people find it immoral" IS a good reason. "Most people find it immoral enough to make the effort to pass a law to that effect" is a really good reason.

No it never has been.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202904864073
"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct,"
this coming from an appeals court judge.

Quite frankly, if you can find a better reason that society should be set up in a certain way than the fact that the people who live in that society WANT it to be that way, I'd like to know what it is.

What I've been talking about this whole damn time.

The rules in my house are set up the way they are for one reason, and one reason only: I want them that way. That's how I like it to be. Are the rules in your house the same? Probably not. Why? Because YOU don't like things the same way I do. Should I come to your house and make you do things my way? No. Does it matter if I argue six different reasons why my way is better? No, because the fact that you don't want to live the way I do trumps my opinion on the subject.

Right and if the entire neighborhood didn't like what you did you'd still have the right to do it.

No, because it's neither oppression nor tyranny. It's just being outvoted.

When you have your rights taken away that's being oppressed.

Yes, but that isn't what you're recommending. You're recommending that ANYTHING anyone wants to do should be a protected right, and that there should be NO circumstances in which that can be changed

Were you not listening to a damn word I said or are you just thick? I'm not an anarchist, I believe we have certain rights the majority can't take away I do not believe those rights are unlimited. The fact that you keep pretending I'm an anarchist just screams either ignorance or desperation on your part.

and that the protected rights that currently exist should only apply to SOME people, and that those rights should be taken from most of the people in order to give rights not currently in existence to a minority.

Hooray for telling others what they believe, how sad. I've argued they've always had that right and there was no reason why they ever should've lost that right. Once again knock off the straw men.

In other words, you're recommending tyranny.

tyranny n)
1.arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

I'm arguing that the majority should not arbitrarily take away whatever they want, you're arguing that they can because they're the majority (again sounds a lot like ad populum). You're definition is a lot closer to tyranny than mine.

That is EXACTLY what you are arguing when you try to claim that it's "tyranny" for the majority vote to carry the day. That's all losing a vote is: You didn't get your way this time around.

I've made it crystal clear that it's not tyranny of the majority every time the majority votes for something. Knock off the straw men.

That's a very cute and facile and nice-sounding argument. Too bad it's empty, meaningless, and without any real substance.

That's an empty meaningless shallow argument without any real substance.

I can baselessly insult arguments too. You really should explain why it's baseless in meaningless. The founding fathers took the time to make sure king George III knew they thought that way why do you dismiss it so quickly.

Actually, no. Usually, if a law is being proposed that REALLY violates Constitutional rights, as opposed to bullshit spin-doctoring attempts to claim that, it's not being proposed by the people. It's being proposed by a government entity that has lost touch with the will of the people and is serving a small special interest group to the detriment of the people at large. Thus, the Bill of Rights - and the rest of the Constitution - protects the majority from the minority.

And vice versa. Is it really that hard to get it through your thick skull. Although you say the government is run by the people,. unless they rule something unconstitutional in which case it was temporarily over run by special interests groups how convenient.

I can give you scads of examples of laws that have been proposed - and sometimes even fraudulently passed - that have violated Constitutional rights and were done so at the behest of a minority. I challenge you to show me one instance where the majority of people pressured the government into passing a law that violated Constitutional rights.

Sodomy I think, but even if the courts have always said these laws guarantee the rights of majorities.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,” the court wrote, “it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

This taken from the supreme court's decision on flag burning.

So so far I've quoted supreme court justices, the declaration of independence, and the constitution. You've got your own personal assurances that I'm wrong and secretly long for tyranny.

And the Tenth Amendment - not to mention the entire system of government - leaves the power over those rights and their delineation in the hands of lower governments. In other words, the state and local governments.

Sometimes the court rules that 9th amendment covers laws that people thought were covered by the 10th amendment.

Um, that source would be the laws they wrote down and left us. Hello?! Look at the governments they set up, federal and otherwise. How are things decided? Some things are put in the hands of representatives, some things are done by appointment, and many things are done by . . . say it with me now: popular vote.

What many things? Federal law is made through representatives and gosh darnit those things get overturned. But tell me where does it say democratically elected laws can't get overturned eh? We have one here in CA called prop 9 that's likely to be overturned.

One of the God-given rights they thought people should be accorded was the right of self-determination. What do you have trouble understanding about that?

self-determination
1. determination by oneself or itself, without outside influence.
2) freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting another or others.

It means freedom to decide for yourself not have it be decided by others.

Actually, that isn't what it means at all, because OBVIOUSLY, you can take them away. Go tell the people who lived under the former Soviet Union how their rights were God-given and couldn't be taken away.

Ok fine shouldn't be taken away.

A lot of people misunderstand the word "inalienable" and what it actually means. It is a legal term referring to a right which is fundamentally inherent in a person, as opposed to a right which can be sold or transferred to someone else, as in the rights to certain property. Obviously, the right to personal judgement, for example, would be inalienable, since it is inherent to the person and he cannot very well give it away or sell it.

The Founding Fathers believed - as did the philosophers who influenced them - that there were certain natural rights that God intended all human beings to be able to exercise, and with which the government should not interfere in an ideal society. It is important to note that not all of the people who agree on the concept of natural rights agreed on what those rights were. That is because this is a philosophical theory, not an empirical fact.

In our case, the Founding Fathers wrote up the Bill of Rights to enshrine ten rights which the citizens of the new country were already accustomed to having and exercising, or which they felt were important to protect because they had experienced such disastrous results when they were denied. It is important to note HERE that if rights could truly be God-given and inalienable in the sense which you define it, there would have been no need to protect them at all.

They thought they had God given rights that the king had taken away and the wrote up the bill of rights to be certain they would not be taken away again.

The upshot is that there is one right which overarches all of this, and is not spelled out in any one specific Article or Amendment, but is outlined for us in each and every word of the government and laws that our Founding Fathers handed down: the right of the people to govern themselves and decide for themselves what kind of country they would have. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Founding Fathers had provided, he responded, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." So they clearly DID recognize the fact that they were giving the people the option to change the type of government on a fundamental level, if that was what they wished.

Yeah they also made it incredibly difficult to do. In a poll over 50% of the people wanted flag burning illegal but it got overturned and there's still attempts to overturn that ruling but it hasn't happened because of the difficulties in creating new amendments (as I've said eralier you'd need around 75%, not 51% and even then it's not everyone vote). A republic is different from a democracy though.

They're as objective as yours are. See, this is your problem. You assume that YOUR position is the real, hard, objective fact that everyone else secretly knows perfectly well, and everyone ELSE'S position is just silly, subjective, self-serving excuses. You're utterly incapable of accepting that your positions are just as opinion-based as anyone else's, and that other people might have concerns equally valid to yours.

You've never talked with Nambla then if you honestly think all their arguments are objective. I've given them the opinions of psychologists on underage sex and yet the refuse to listen to it. I've actually had first hand experience with them.

I'm not saying you have to consider all opinions and positions to be equally correct or good. I'm saying you should at least consider other opinions, period. I can tell you exactly why supporters of homosexual "marriage" hold the positions they do. Hell, I could probably argue the position better than you can. That's because I listened - really LISTENED - to what they had to say about it, and then I thought it through carefully before I came to the conclusion that I didn't agree with them. But in all the time you and I have been talking about this, you've never once even geniunely ASKED me why I hold my position. You've TOLD me multiple times why I think what I do, despite having been told that you're wrong and that I find it offensive, but you've never asked.

To be honest this entire conversation has drifted towards this pathetic back and forth we're having about absolute rule by majority (and it's pathetic because neither of us will let it die despite it being blatantly obvious neither of us will budge, I blame myself for this). I'd ask you what they were right now but you seemed to answer that later.

There you go again. "My opinions are the right ones, and anyone who disagrees is automatically a fringe nut job and illogical, and therefore I can simply dismiss their views without ever even hearing them." I'm not saying that many groups are NOT, in fact, fringe nut jobs, but your blanket assumption that any group who doesn't march in lockstep with you falls into that category is a very real problem you should address.

You were specifically mentioning NAMBLA right? I have talked to them, them specifically. I don't agree with socialists, commies or people who think we should have a truly free market with no safety standrads, licensing requirements or any of that, yet I don't automatically dismiss any of them as nuts. Nambla I do because I've heard their arguments.

The question in this particular segment of conversation is not "Should it be done?" but "Do the people have the legal right to do it?" And they do. Now, if you think they shouldn't EXERCISE that right in that way, then it is your job to convince them of it, not take their rights away from them on the grounds that you think they're not using them wisely enough. That is what happened with Prohibition: enough people were convinced to change their mind about what should be done, and they repealed it. Note that what DIDN'T happen was someone stepping in and saying, "Well, then, you're obviously just not bright enough to exercise this power, so I'll just take that and tell you how things should be."

My argument is there are certain thing, like the right to drink that the majority should never be allowed to take away. Anything that doesn't fall under that category should then be majority rules (I'm opposed to the death penalty but if 50.00000001% of the masses decided to ban it I wouldn't dream of arguing tyranny of the majority inalienable rights etc.)

Finally, a question that you didn't subsequently answer for yourself.

[deleted to save space]

Ok there are some who want to purge the idea of a traditional family, but if we give them one thing, marraige, we don't have to give them anything else. There are nuts in every movement and on every side even in the gay movement, that doesn't mean if we give them one thing we must give them everything. In California prop 2 passed demanding that preslaughtered animals be given enough room to stretch and turn around. Animal rights groups supported it and some of the more wacky ones (especially PETA, which is the largest animal rights group) are truly out there in terms of what they want (total animal liberation, banning rodeos, animal testing, pets etc.) and just because we gave them a concession doesn't mean we have to give them anything else they demand. It's possible that we can peel back the hate speech laws and still allow gay marriage without letting the wack the definition of traditional family.

Straw man. Topic-hopping will not work with me. If you can't dispute that our government is very much one made up of the people, and that this has been the accepted view throughout our history, then just say so. Don't try to dodge it by switching to another, unrelated topic.

More irrelevancy.

No it isn't. They made it hard to change for a reason. They specifically said you'd need 2/3 or 3/4 majority not a majority. Based on this I doubt very much that they intended for the rules to be changed by a 51% majority.

I have said nothing about your intentions that are not evident in your own posts and actions, unlike you and your obsessive need to tell me in every single post that I oppose homosexual "marriage" on religious grounds and because I think it's immoral and yucky, things I have myself never said or even indicated as my reasons. So if anyone is playing Miss Cleo here, it's you.

You misunderstand me, I take objections to your idea that if 51% decide something is immoral everyone else has to go along with it. I know you don't think homosexuality is immoral.

Dear, you don't even understand what the Founding Fathers believed, much less agree with them.

Yes, they talked quite a bit about liberty and whatnot. Jefferson was a fan of limited government and letting the government do anything as long as it gets the o.k. from 51% doesn't seem to fit the description in my opinion.

Instantly? What does "instantly" have to do with anything? Are you saying that as long as negative changes take a while to come about, they're okay and no blame should therefore accrue to those who instigated those changes?

Exaggeration mostly. I dob't believe that negative change will come gradually either.

Ask yourself why it is that you live where you do, instead of in a slum. If you're honest, you'll realize that it's because the very behaviors you claim you would like to legalize, among others, have led to circumstances that have made that area undesirable

I don't think the reasons why places become slums are ever that simple. I honestly believe everyone will be better off if weed was legalized.

As for the fact that criminals will pounce on any new opportunity to make money, that isn't the point. You don't lower crime rates by simply making certain actions legal so that you don't have to count them any more. That's like saying I'm going to count all the pieces of fruit in my refrigerator, and then lower the number by no longer classifying apples as fruit.

The street gangs kill each other over drugs because
a. they can and
b. there's no other way to settle disputes in the black market
If it was legalized they could settle disputes in court and if another drug agency attacked them they could go to the police without having to admit to doing something illegal.

Go read up on the positive changes brought about by Prohibition.

Like what? There were a lot of advocates for prohibition who thought it would lead to less crime and a better world and after a while they begrudgingly admitted it didn't work.

Yeah, or maybe you just blankly dismiss all of MY points as "straw men" so that you won't ever have to think about them, let alone respond to them.

You told me what my attitude was, and that wasn't my attitude hence the straw man accusation.

See, there you go. Just dismiss the rebuttal point as a straw man and pigheadedly restate your position as objective fact, because you cannot refute what I said.

I'm saying that what you think I believe is not what I actually believe. I should've been clearer that that was my opinion.

Actually, I came to that conclusion because that's exactly what you're advocating. You're saying that the only acceptable criteria for passing laws are the ones YOU have designated as "good enough",

Did I not give objective reasons for what qualifies as good enough? Never mind. The main point once again is of minority rights. I think there needs to be acceptable criteria for taking away freedoms and I don't think it need to be based on what I think.

and that all other criteria that don't meet your specifications should be excluded, and that therefore, the will of one minority should take precedence over the will of the majority

I'm arguing the minority have certain things that the majority should not be able to take away, you can argue that marriage isn't one of them but I disagree. Although now the topic has drifted into whether minority rights exist at all so yeah I think minorities have rights the majority should not be allowed to take away. You believe the majority should get away with whatever they want because they're the majority.

, since YOU, in your omniscience, have declared that the minority's reasons are superior to the majority's. Screw what most of the people have said that they want, because they're just a bunch of ignorant oiks who want it for the wrong reasons, so they should just sit down, shut the hell up, and live with laws they don't like for their own damned good.

I say it shouldn't be up to the majority in this case because it barely affects them. The majority can all believe in something for stupid reasons. I don't think there's a good reason to ban gay marriage and just because a lot of people disagree with me it won't change my mind.

Who the hell are you, again, to say, "THIS is the only valid rule to be applied, and therefore, everything that doesn't fall under that heading is all right, forever and ever, amen, only my standards work"? I feel certain that if God had died and left you in charge, there would have been a memo.

I'm giving you my opinion on how minority rights (which seems like a foreign concept to you) should work. Nothing more.

Actually, yes, you would be denying my right to have the laws reflect my desires, since my desires - unlike yours - are seconded by most of the voters.

I'm making this about the whole concept of minority rights. I say that once again that if your desires take away liberties of people it shouldn't always be up to the popular vote.

I know you desperately want to make this all about me, personally, as an individual,

I don't

because you simply have no answer for the fact that the majority of people just don't want what you're selling, but it ain't gonna happen.

I'm selling the concept that there are some rights others get to have that can't be taken away.

You DO want to dismantle something. You want to dismantle the millennia-old definition of "marriage" and make it mean something it never has before. And I've already dealt with your misunderstanding of the word "inalienable", not to mention the fact that it's irrelevant to the topic. Legal sanction of relationships is not and never has been an "inalienable right".

You're original accusation was that I was dismantling society by advocating minority rights, not that I was dismantling marriage.

::yawn:: No, you just rushed ahead and finished up the conversation with yourself, because apparently it would be too much trouble to actually let me answer, read it, think about what I said, and THEN respond to me, the ACTUAL person you're debating with, as opposed to the me you're imagining in your head and thinking up all sorts of words for that bear no relation to anything I'm saying.

I gave you what my response would be if I said yes, and what my response would be if you said no. You know to save time.

Jesus, I think this is about the nth time you've dismissed a point you cannot refute as a "straw man" in order to run and hide from the possibility of ever hearing an opposing opinion.

Because you keep saying I advocate x, y, and z, when I'm trying to make it clear to you that I don't support x, y or z.

You said, and I quote: ". . . at what point do you decide that the freedom of majority to control society needs to be limited?" A person only asks such a question when he thinks there IS a point at which it needs to be limited. I, of course, would never even think of such a question.

Yeah I think it needs to be limited, but I never said everytime I disagree it needs to be limited.

Every textbook on government I've ever seen talks about our government being based in part off minority rights, I've read what some of the founding fathers have to say and I doubt very much they'd agree with you.

You know why don't we just stop this endless blather right here and now. Don't bother responding to my post because we'll keep going around in circles. Like a merry go round. We'll go around the same points over and over and over again and end up in the same positions we started at.

I'll keep arguing minority rights, you'll keep saying they shouldn't exist.
Maybe if we keep arguing you'll stop thinking I'm an anarchist or that I'm using that as a personal excuse to get my way all the time, but I don't think the effort it will take will be worth it.

I know I asked some questions in my post but if you're willing to drop the conversation right here and now I won't care if you don't answer them.

So yeah all for burying this conversation say aye.

 

[WhiteLion]

Mainly because you will then have to allow adoptions to these couple as well as teach kids in public schools that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage when it is clearly not, since homosexuality is not normal, moral or healthy, and it is a lousy way to raise kids.

And the sexual diseases whew wee anal staphylococcus only way to get this is sexual intercourse up the poop shoot, mother natures a bitch remember that

 

[eots]

No it never has been.
Law.com - 5th Circuit Overturns Texas Sex Toys Ban
"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct,"
this coming from an appeals court judge.



What I've been talking about this whole damn time.



Right and if the entire neighborhood didn't like what you did you'd still have the right to do it.



When you have your rights taken away that's being oppressed.


Were you not listening to a damn word I said or are you just thick? I'm not an anarchist, I believe we have certain rights the majority can't take away I do not believe those rights are unlimited. The fact that you keep pretending I'm an anarchist just screams either ignorance or desperation on your part.



Hooray for telling others what they believe, how sad. I've argued they've always had that right and there was no reason why they ever should've lost that right. Once again knock off the straw men.


tyranny n)
1.arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

I'm arguing that the majority should not arbitrarily take away whatever they want, you're arguing that they can because they're the majority (again sounds a lot like ad populum). You're definition is a lot closer to tyranny than mine.



I've made it crystal clear that it's not tyranny of the majority every time the majority votes for something. Knock off the straw men.



That's an empty meaningless shallow argument without any real substance.

I can baselessly insult arguments too. You really should explain why it's baseless in meaningless. The founding fathers took the time to make sure king George III knew they thought that way why do you dismiss it so quickly.



And vice versa. Is it really that hard to get it through your thick skull. Although you say the government is run by the people,. unless they rule something unconstitutional in which case it was temporarily over run by special interests groups how convenient.



Sodomy I think, but even if the courts have always said these laws guarantee the rights of majorities.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,” the court wrote, “it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

This taken from the supreme court's decision on flag burning.

So so far I've quoted supreme court justices, the declaration of independence, and the constitution. You've got your own personal assurances that I'm wrong and secretly long for tyranny.


Sometimes the court rules that 9th amendment covers laws that people thought were covered by the 10th amendment.



What many things? Federal law is made through representatives and gosh darnit those things get overturned. But tell me where does it say democratically elected laws can't get overturned eh? We have one here in CA called prop 9 that's likely to be overturned.


self-determination
1. determination by oneself or itself, without outside influence.
2) freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting another or others.

It means freedom to decide for yourself not have it be decided by others.



Ok fine shouldn't be taken away.






Yeah they also made it incredibly difficult to do. In a poll over 50% of the people wanted flag burning illegal but it got overturned and there's still attempts to overturn that ruling but it hasn't happened because of the difficulties in creating new amendments (as I've said eralier you'd need around 75%, not 51% and even then it's not everyone vote). A republic is different from a democracy though.


You've never talked with Nambla then if you honestly think all their arguments are objective. I've given them the opinions of psychologists on underage sex and yet the refuse to listen to it. I've actually had first hand experience with them.



To be honest this entire conversation has drifted towards this pathetic back and forth we're having about absolute rule by majority (and it's pathetic because neither of us will let it die despite it being blatantly obvious neither of us will budge, I blame myself for this). I'd ask you what they were right now but you seemed to answer that later.



You were specifically mentioning NAMBLA right? I have talked to them, them specifically. I don't agree with socialists, commies or people who think we should have a truly free market with no safety standrads, licensing requirements or any of that, yet I don't automatically dismiss any of them as nuts. Nambla I do because I've heard their arguments.



My argument is there are certain thing, like the right to drink that the majority should never be allowed to take away. Anything that doesn't fall under that category should then be majority rules (I'm opposed to the death penalty but if 50.00000001% of the masses decided to ban it I wouldn't dream of arguing tyranny of the majority inalienable rights etc.)


Ok there are some who want to purge the idea of a traditional family, but if we give them one thing, marraige, we don't have to give them anything else. There are nuts in every movement and on every side even in the gay movement, that doesn't mean if we give them one thing we must give them everything. In California prop 2 passed demanding that preslaughtered animals be given enough room to stretch and turn around. Animal rights groups supported it and some of the more wacky ones (especially PETA, which is the largest animal rights group) are truly out there in terms of what they want (total animal liberation, banning rodeos, animal testing, pets etc.) and just because we gave them a concession doesn't mean we have to give them anything else they demand. It's possible that we can peel back the hate speech laws and still allow gay marriage without letting the wack the definition of traditional family.





No it isn't. They made it hard to change for a reason. They specifically said you'd need 2/3 or 3/4 majority not a majority. Based on this I doubt very much that they intended for the rules to be changed by a 51% majority.



You misunderstand me, I take objections to your idea that if 51% decide something is immoral everyone else has to go along with it. I know you don't think homosexuality is immoral.




Yes, they talked quite a bit about liberty and whatnot. Jefferson was a fan of limited government and letting the government do anything as long as it gets the o.k. from 51% doesn't seem to fit the description in my opinion.




Exaggeration mostly. I dob't believe that negative change will come gradually either.



I don't think the reasons why places become slums are ever that simple. I honestly believe everyone will be better off if weed was legalized.



The street gangs kill each other over drugs because
a. they can and
b. there's no other way to settle disputes in the black market
If it was legalized they could settle disputes in court and if another drug agency attacked them they could go to the police without having to admit to doing something illegal.




Like what? There were a lot of advocates for prohibition who thought it would lead to less crime and a better world and after a while they begrudgingly admitted it didn't work.



You told me what my attitude was, and that wasn't my attitude hence the straw man accusation.


I'm saying that what you think I believe is not what I actually believe. I should've been clearer that that was my opinion.



Did I not give objective reasons for what qualifies as good enough? Never mind. The main point once again is of minority rights. I think there needs to be acceptable criteria for taking away freedoms and I don't think it need to be based on what I think.



I'm arguing the minority have certain things that the majority should not be able to take away, you can argue that marriage isn't one of them but I disagree. Although now the topic has drifted into whether minority rights exist at all so yeah I think minorities have rights the majority should not be allowed to take away. You believe the majority should get away with whatever they want because they're the majority.



I say it shouldn't be up to the majority in this case because it barely affects them. The majority can all believe in something for stupid reasons. I don't think there's a good reason to ban gay marriage and just because a lot of people disagree with me it won't change my mind.




I'm giving you my opinion on how minority rights (which seems like a foreign concept to you) should work. Nothing more.




I'm making this about the whole concept of minority rights. I say that once again that if your desires take away liberties of people it shouldn't always be up to the popular vote.



I don't


I'm selling the concept that there are some rights others get to have that can't be taken away.




You're original accusation was that I was dismantling society by advocating minority rights, not that I was dismantling marriage.



I gave you what my response would be if I said yes, and what my response would be if you said no. You know to save time.


Because you keep saying I advocate x, y, and z, when I'm trying to make it clear to you that I don't support x, y or z.





Yeah I think it needs to be limited, but I never said everytime I disagree it needs to be limited.

Every textbook on government I've ever seen talks about our government being based in part off minority rights, I've read what some of the founding fathers have to say and I doubt very much they'd agree with you.

You know why don't we just stop this endless blather right here and now. Don't bother responding to my post because we'll keep going around in circles. Like a merry go round. We'll go around the same points over and over and over again and end up in the same positions we started at.

I'll keep arguing minority rights, you'll keep saying they shouldn't exist.
Maybe if we keep arguing you'll stop thinking I'm an anarchist or that I'm using that as a personal excuse to get my way all the time, but I don't think the effort it will take will be worth it.

I know I asked some questions in my post but if you're willing to drop the conversation right here and now I won't care if you don't answer them.

So yeah all for burying this conversation say aye.

so it is decided then..NO..to gay marriage..

 

[Father Time]

Just in case anyone's interested numerous studies have been done about the effects on children of being raised in a gay household.

"These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])",

Bibliography of Articles on Gay and Lesbian Parenting

The Future of Children - Sub-Sections

 

[Father Time]

so it is decided then..NO..to gay marriage..

No to long pointless exchanges over minority rights.

I'm still not convinced gay marriage is bad and I'd rather not debate cecile on it because we'd most likely be going in circles... again.

 

[eots]

gay agenda propaganda studies paid for by the velvet Mafia...

 

[Father Time]

Yeah, well, people take pride in being black, Hispanic, whatever, and we know THAT isn't a choice. It's like me being proud of having green eyes. It wasn't actually an accomplishment.

I also think race pride is equally dumb, in case you were wondering.

I go by the George Carlin system

"pride should be reserved for something you attain or achieve on your own, not something that happened by accident of birth" He then goes on to compare pride in that stuff with pride in being 5'11 or susceptible to colon cancer.

 

[Father Time]

gay agenda propaganda studies paid for by the velvet Mafia...

There's no way in hell you could've gone through all those studies or even read the abstract to those studies in three minutes.
You are just dismissing them because they don't say what you believe.

 

[eots]

its a lesbian site...I read it




Some studies report that children, particularly daughters, of lesbian parents adopt more accepting and open attitudes toward various sexual identities and are more willing to question their own sexuality

Finally, many gay and lesbian parents worry about their children being teased, and children often expend emotional energy hiding or otherwise controlling information about their parents, mainly to avoid ridicule. The evidence is mixed, however, on whether the children have heightened difficulty with peers



The only negative suggestion to have been uncovered about the emotional development of children of same-sex parents is a fear on the part of the children—which seems to dissipate during adolescence when sexual orientation is first expressed—that they might be homosexual.22


First, lesbian mothers, and gay fathers (about whom less is known), are much like other parents. Where differences are found, they sometimes favor same-sex parents. For instance, although one study finds that heterosexual fathers had greater emotional involvement with their children than did lesbian co-mothers,

 

[Father Time]

Ok so some admit worse results, how does that make them paid for by the 'velvet mafia'.

 

[eots]

I mean people with a agenda..they considered it a positive that children would be more willing to question there own sexuality as a plus...misery loves company

 

[WhiteLion]

I mean people with a agenda..they considered it a positive that children would be more willing to question there own sexuality as a plus...misery loves company

True children are to young to make decisions like those and are not fully mentally developed enough to understand and are easily molded and this's one of the major things we must fight the legalities of the homosexual adoption agenda. Homosexual families are social debauchery and can destroy national identity and eventually the nation as a whole in just a short time if not kept in check. I guarantee that when, not if, the USA splits or states succession and it will happen, Homosexuality will be one of the leading causes mark it down.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

No it never has been.
Law.com - 5th Circuit Overturns Texas Sex Toys Ban
"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct,"
this coming from an appeals court judge.

Amazingly enough, I do not base my understanding or opinion of the law on the opinions of a bunch of lawyers in black robes who have set themselves up as unelected oligarchs for exactly the same reason I don't support changing the entire society to please a tiny, complaining minority: I'm not in favor of tyranny and dictatorships.

What I've been talking about this whole damn time.

Which would be what? Your own personal understanding of what's right and wrong, which should be superimposed over that of everyone else? What, EXACTLY, is this great and all-powerful reason for making law that takes precedence over the will of the people?

Right and if the entire neighborhood didn't like what you did you'd still have the right to do it.

Sorry, but that's a false analogy. My house is analogous to the society of the United States of America, so the correct analogy to YOUR sentence would be if all the other countries in the world didn't like the way the US sets up its society. And in that case, you'd be right: we WOULD still have the right to do it and tell them to kiss our collective ass.

When you have your rights taken away that's being oppressed.

Nope. Only if it's being done illegally and/or unjustly with no recourse on my part.

Were you not listening to a damn word I said or are you just thick?

Is it just beyond your comprehension limits that I was listening and I'm quite intelligent, but just happen to think your arguments are so full of shit they squeak?

I'm not an anarchist,

I didn't say you were an anarchist. I said you were an elitist who happens to espouse some positions he hasn't thought through clearly enough to realize where they lead. For me to actually think you are an anarchist, I would have to assume you understand what you're talking about.

I believe we have certain rights the majority can't take away I do not believe those rights are unlimited. The fact that you keep pretending I'm an anarchist just screams either ignorance or desperation on your part.

Boy, I sure am glad you keep mindlessly parroting the exact same bullshit phrases in the mistaken assumption that I just didn't understand them the first time and would admit the overwhelming wisdom and brilliance of them if you just say it ONE MORE TIME. I would hate for you ever read my responses and realize that I DO understand what you think and why, and that I think you're foolish and mistaken to do so.

No matter how many times you say, "No, you don't get it, I think we have rights that can't be taken away," I am NOT going to go, "Oh, okay. I was wrong. I didn't realize that you thought we had rights that can't be taken away. You're right." I'm STILL going to say, "Yeah, and you're wrong to think that."

Hooray for telling others what they believe, how sad.

Yeah, it is. So why do you keep doing it?

I've argued they've always had that right and there was no reason why they ever should've lost that right. Once again knock off the straw men.

So NOW your position is that homosexuals have ALWAYS had the right to legal sanction for their relationships, and that it has been wrongfully taken away from them? You have now sunk to new levels of idiocy.

Once again, knock off the pretense of "straw men" in order to avoid dealing with points you can't dispute. You and I both know there are no "straw men" in what I say, just your intellectual cowardice.

tyranny n)
1.arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

Way to edit and skip the parts you don't want to admit to. Kinda the way you pretend you've read my responses.

This is the part that constitutes your lie of omission:

a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler ; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

Here we have the definition from the American Heritage dictionary:

A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).

Use of absolute power.
A tyrannical act.
Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

And while we're at it:

1. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
2. dominance through threat of punishment and violence [syn: absolutism]

It is clear that merely exercising the legal and just right of voting on an issue and winning the vote cannot be defined as a "tyranny of the majority", and that this is merely a euphemism used for propaganda and emotional blackmail.

I'm arguing that the majority should not arbitrarily take away whatever they want, you're arguing that they can because they're the majority (again sounds a lot like ad populum). You're definition is a lot closer to tyranny than mine.

I've made it crystal clear that it's not tyranny of the majority every time the majority votes for something. Knock off the straw men.

Knock off the "knock off the straw men". The fact that you are willing to accept majority rule when you happen to be part of that majority, and only consider it tyranny when they have the sheer gall to disagree with you just makes you a hypocrite. It doesn't invalidate my argument in the slightest, much less make it a "straw man". From here on in, every time you say, "Knock off the straw man", I expect you to demonstrate clearly EXACTLY what was "straw man" about what I said.

That's an empty meaningless shallow argument without any real substance.

In other words, you can't formulate a response, and desperately want it to go away.

I can baselessly insult arguments too. You really should explain why it's baseless in meaningless. The founding fathers took the time to make sure king George III knew they thought that way why do you dismiss it so quickly.

It's baseless and meaningless because it's baseless and meaningless. It's a mishmash of quotes welded together to provoke a kneejerk response to certain buzzwords, but doesn't actually SAY anything, and certainly doesn't relate to anything being discussed here.

What part of that didn't you understand the FIRST time I said it sounded pretty but was meaningless?

And vice versa. Is it really that hard to get it through your thick skull. Although you say the government is run by the people,. unless they rule something unconstitutional in which case it was temporarily over run by special interests groups how convenient.

It's hard to get through my skull because it's not true. That would probably be why I asked for examples and don't happen to see any. You just have a vague idea of how the world works, and the fact that it's never actually worked that way is no reason why you should change your perceptions.

Sodomy I think, but even if the courts have always said these laws guarantee the rights of majorities.

I don't think I asked you to give me examples of where a bunch of judges SAID something was Unconstitutional in order to impose their own brand of tyranny onto people. I asked for an example of an occasion when the majority pressed for a law that was ACTUALLY Unconstitutional.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,” the court wrote, “it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Don't recall the majority clamoring for flag-burning, so that's strike two.

So so far I've quoted supreme court justices, the declaration of independence, and the constitution. You've got your own personal assurances that I'm wrong and secretly long for tyranny.

So far, you've quoted unelected, self-appointed tyrants in black robes, utterly irrelevant, unrelated phrases, and your own misunderstanding of the law.

Just the fact that you're so eager to accept that the law is whatever a bunch of judges say it is, rather than what the law itself says, tells me that you're an elitist who likes tyranny. This is borne out by the fact that you're desperately, passionately arguing in favor of overruling laws duly and correctly passed by the overwhelming majority of voters in order to suit a minority - and your own received, superior wisdom, naturally.

Sometimes the court rules that 9th amendment covers laws that people thought were covered by the 10th amendment.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, but since I don't define laws by whatever some judge decides he likes, it's pretty irrelevant, anyway.

What many things? Federal law is made through representatives and gosh darnit those things get overturned. But tell me where does it say democratically elected laws can't get overturned eh? We have one here in CA called prop 9 that's likely to be overturned.

Where does it say that judges CAN overturn laws? Please find me that anywhere in the actual, written, codified law.

self-determination
1. determination by oneself or itself, without outside influence.
2) freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting another or others.

It means freedom to decide for yourself not have it be decided by others.

Well, no shit, Captain Obvious. And your point in wasting space to tell me something I already knew was . . . ? Oh, right, I forgot. Your position is that your opinions are SO brilliant and objectively correct that the only POSSIBLE reason anyone could disagree with you is just that they didn't understand what you said, and therefore you just need to repeat it over and over until they see the light and fall to their knees in awe of your wisdom.

Ok fine shouldn't be taken away.

Which admission thus makes your entire argument moot.

Yeah they also made it incredibly difficult to do. In a poll over 50% of the people wanted flag burning illegal but it got overturned and there's still attempts to overturn that ruling but it hasn't happened because of the difficulties in creating new amendments (as I've said eralier you'd need around 75%, not 51% and even then it's not everyone vote). A republic is different from a democracy though.

"Incredibly difficult to do" doesn't have a damned thing to do with anything being said here, and certainly refutes none of my argument, so please stop parroting it as though it is somehow going to miraculously become a breakthrough winner for you.

No, a republic is not different from a democracy. It is a type of democracy.

Democracy - 1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Republic - 1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

See the resemblance?

You've never talked with Nambla then if you honestly think all their arguments are objective. I've given them the opinions of psychologists on underage sex and yet the refuse to listen to it. I've actually had first hand experience with them.

I don't think their arguments are objective, Comprehension Boy. That's my point. They aren't objective, and neither are yours. Your view that "everyone knows sex with children is wrong" is negated by the painfully obvious fact that not everyone shares your opinion, and that IS your opinion. I happen to share it, but that doesn't mean it isn't still an opinion, and therefore subjective.

To be honest this entire conversation has drifted towards this pathetic back and forth we're having about absolute rule by majority (and it's pathetic because neither of us will let it die despite it being blatantly obvious neither of us will budge, I blame myself for this). I'd ask you what they were right now but you seemed to answer that later.

I wish it was really a back-and-forth, but the problem here is that you flatly refuse to even try to comprehend what's being said. You just keep parroting the same talking points over and over, and dismissing everything I say as "straw men" without ever responding to it. This has basically become me trying to have a conversation with a tape recording.

You were specifically mentioning NAMBLA right? I have talked to them, them specifically. I don't agree with socialists, commies or people who think we should have a truly free market with no safety standrads, licensing requirements or any of that, yet I don't automatically dismiss any of them as nuts. Nambla I do because I've heard their arguments.

I'm glad to know there are some people whose opinions you utterly ignore without classifying them as nuts. That doesn't change the fact that you are entirely too quick to dismiss people as irrational and illogical for no other reason than that they disagree with you, and I see no reason to believe that you ever DON'T ignore an opinion that you don't share.

My argument is there are certain thing, like the right to drink that the majority should never be allowed to take away.

Well, actually, that WASN'T your argument. If you're making it your argument now, then I'd have to say it's irrelevant, because this isn't about whether or not a law is a good idea. It's about whether or not the people have the legal and just right to pass a law. If you don't think that law is a good idea, then it's your job to convince people that it isn't, not to take away their right to pass it until they wise up and agree with you.

Anything that doesn't fall under that category should then be majority rules (I'm opposed to the death penalty but if 50.00000001% of the masses decided to ban it I wouldn't dream of arguing tyranny of the majority inalienable rights etc.)

So how come the majority can decide to execute people, but can't decide not to sanction same-sex "marriage"? What makes capital punishment inside your boundaries of "I will allow the people to pass laws on this"?

Of course, that still leaves the question of who elected YOU as arbiter of what laws are and aren't allowed.

Ok there are some who want to purge the idea of a traditional family, but if we give them one thing, marraige, we don't have to give them anything else.

The problem here being, why give them marriage? Who gets to set the boundary of "this far, and no farther" there?

There are nuts in every movement and on every side even in the gay movement, that doesn't mean if we give them one thing we must give them everything.

Sorry, but you don't just get to dismiss it as "nuts in every movement".

And once again, you have neglected to make any case for giving them that one thing. It's not even vaguely time to argue whether or not we give them anything ELSE until you convince me we should give them THAT.

In California prop 2 passed demanding that preslaughtered animals be given enough room to stretch and turn around. Animal rights groups supported it and some of the more wacky ones (especially PETA, which is the largest animal rights group) are truly out there in terms of what they want (total animal liberation, banning rodeos, animal testing, pets etc.) and just because we gave them a concession doesn't mean we have to give them anything else they demand. It's possible that we can peel back the hate speech laws and still allow gay marriage without letting the wack the definition of traditional family.

Or it's possible that you could just accept that the people have not indicated any interest whatsoever in letting you and yours set the terms.

No it isn't. They made it hard to change for a reason. They specifically said you'd need 2/3 or 3/4 majority not a majority. Based on this I doubt very much that they intended for the rules to be changed by a 51% majority.

Wow, that still has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand, AND still dishonestly pretends that I made an assertion I never made.

You misunderstand me, I take objections to your idea that if 51% decide something is immoral everyone else has to go along with it. I know you don't think homosexuality is immoral.

You can object all you like. It would be nice, though, if you offered some substantiation other than your blanket assertion that it's wrong and not allowed, or shouldn't be allowed. So you don't like it. So what? I didn't ask you if you did. It's still the way the system works.

Yes, they talked quite a bit about liberty and whatnot. Jefferson was a fan of limited government and letting the government do anything as long as it gets the o.k. from 51% doesn't seem to fit the description in my opinion.

You should possibly hop in your time machine and go back and explain to THEM how conflicted they were, then, because that IS the system they gave us, whatever you think it OUGHT to be.

Exaggeration mostly. I dob't believe that negative change will come gradually either.

Well, the problem there is that it doesn't matter what you think in this case, because you are not the majority.

I don't think the reasons why places become slums are ever that simple. I honestly believe everyone will be better off if weed was legalized.

I'm sure you do, and like everything else you've said, I think you're wrong.

The street gangs kill each other over drugs because
a. they can and
b. there's no other way to settle disputes in the black market
If it was legalized they could settle disputes in court and if another drug agency attacked them they could go to the police without having to admit to doing something illegal.

All pointless and irrelevant to the topic of slums and crimes, let alone to the topic of homosexual "marriage".

Like what? There were a lot of advocates for prohibition who thought it would lead to less crime and a better world and after a while they begrudgingly admitted it didn't work.

That actually is not why they promoted and passed Prohibition. Well, a better world in a manner of speaking, but in that case, it did show positive results.

Prohibition brought about reductions in alcohol consumption, cirrhosis of the liver, alcohol psychosis, and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct. Since health concerns caused by increased medical knowledge of the ill effects of alcohol and increases in antisocial and unacceptable behavior due to alcohol influence were the reasons Prohibition was suggested, it clearly DID work.

You told me what my attitude was, and that wasn't my attitude hence the straw man accusation.

Except it very much WAS the attitude conveyed by your post, which is more than I can say for your constant insistence that I oppose homosexual "marriage" because of religion or because I think it's "yucky".

I'm saying that what you think I believe is not what I actually believe. I should've been clearer that that was my opinion.

At least my interpretation of what you believe is drawn from your actual words, so the problem is that you either aren't expressing yourself adequately, or you just don't hear what you sound like. What's your excuse for erroneously attributing religious motivations to me?

Did I not give objective reasons for what qualifies as good enough?

No, you gave subjective reasons which you BELIEVE to be objective on the grounds that your opinion is just so obviously right.

Never mind. The main point once again is of minority rights.

Not really, in terms of legalized same-sex "marriage", since it is not and never has been a "right", minority or otherwise.

I think there needs to be acceptable criteria for taking away freedoms and I don't think it need to be based on what I think.

No? There IS a criteria in place for limiting freedom, and you don't like it, so you think it should be changed simply because you don't like it.

If you don't want to base it on your own personal, subjective opinion of what's good and bad, what DO you want to base it on?

I'm arguing the minority have certain things that the majority should not be able to take away, you can argue that marriage isn't one of them but I disagree.

Disagree all you like. Doesn't make you right, and doesn't mean you have any proof to back it up.

Although now the topic has drifted into whether minority rights exist at all so yeah I think minorities have rights the majority should not be allowed to take away. You believe the majority should get away with whatever they want because they're the majority.

Wrong again. You just cannot seem to stop confusing "can" with "should". I never said the majority SHOULD take away anything. I said they CAN, because they have the legal right.

Write this down somewhere: "I think this is a bad idea" is NOT the same thing as "You have no right to do this".

I say it shouldn't be up to the majority in this case because it barely affects them.

And I say that's YOUR opinion, and not one you have any right to impose on others. It's not for you to decide what does and doesn't affect others, and it CERTAINLY is not for you to make laws in place of the majority because you've decided they have no stake in the matter. Whether they do or not, it is THEIR job, ultimately, to decide what the law is going to be.

The majority can all believe in something for stupid reasons. I don't think there's a good reason to ban gay marriage and just because a lot of people disagree with me it won't change my mind.

Who's trying to change your mind? What I'm trying to get through to you is that no one gives a rat's ass what you think of the reasons for passing these laws, because YOU do not get to arbitrarily impose YOUR standards on others. THEY think there's a good reason for these laws, and they outnumber you, so they win.

I'm giving you my opinion on how minority rights (which seems like a foreign concept to you) should work. Nothing more.

Oh, good grief. More misplaced "should" and "shouldn't". I am so incredibly not interested in how you believe the world ought to work. The question at hand is solely how it DOES work. And how it DOES work is that the majority of voters have the legal right to pass laws. Period.

I'm making this about the whole concept of minority rights. I say that once again that if your desires take away liberties of people it shouldn't always be up to the popular vote.

You're really arrogant, you know that? "YOU'RE making it about . . ." "YOU think it should work this way." You don't get to set the laws and the parameters for society, and you don't get to set the parameters for the debate. Take notes: NO ONE CARES HOW YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE. What matters is how it IS.

I'm selling the concept that there are some rights others get to have that can't be taken away.

Which is incorrect because you can't seem to tell the difference between "can" and "should".

You're original accusation was that I was dismantling society by advocating minority rights, not that I was dismantling marriage.

Actually, I believe I've accused you of trying to dismantle marriage - which you are - AND trying to dismantle society by promoting rule of the minority over the will of the people - which you also are.

Busy little thing, aren't you?

I gave you what my response would be if I said yes, and what my response would be if you said no. You know to save time.

Yeah, I can see where plugging your ears and never hearing anything you don't want to have to think about would be a big timesaver. As it happens, though, I'm not in a hurry, so please feel free to listen up and think.

Because you keep saying I advocate x, y, and z, when I'm trying to make it clear to you that I don't support x, y or z.

And all you're accomplishing is to convince me further that you ARE advocating those things, and are just so fuzzy-headed that you can't read your own words and realize what you're saying.

Yeah I think it needs to be limited, but I never said everytime I disagree it needs to be limited.

Well, hooray. So you only want to advocate tyranny SOME of the time, rather than all the time. Want a merit badge for that?

Every textbook on government I've ever seen talks about our government being based in part off minority rights, I've read what some of the founding fathers have to say and I doubt very much they'd agree with you.

Textbooks? Oh, my paws and whiskers.

While you were reading what the Founding Fathers had to say, did you bother to read the parts of it that were actually, you know, passed into law?

You know why don't we just stop this endless blather right here and now. Don't bother responding to my post because we'll keep going around in circles. Like a merry go round. We'll go around the same points over and over and over again and end up in the same positions we started at.

Or you could just attempt to converse with me, instead of talking to yourself. I swear to God, I don't think you've actually answered a single, solitary point I've made except to call it a "straw man" or just repeat your original assertion.

I'll keep arguing minority rights, you'll keep saying they shouldn't exist.

You'll keep arguing minority rule while pretending it's about rights, and fraudulently attributing positions to me that don't even remotely resemble anything I've said because you're too chickenshit to actually read my words.

Maybe if we keep arguing you'll stop thinking I'm an anarchist or that I'm using that as a personal excuse to get my way all the time, but I don't think the effort it will take will be worth it.

You'll keep insisting that I think you're an anarchist, despite being told multiple times that I think you're an elitist, because you're only talking to yourself, not me. And most likely, you'll continue telling me how my only objections are religion and immorality and "yuckiness", and you won't ever, EVER simply ask me what I think or why.

I know I asked some questions in my post but if you're willing to drop the conversation right here and now I won't care if you don't answer them.

So yeah all for burying this conversation say aye.

I never object to letting people tuck tail and run when they're thoroughly outclassed. Run along.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just in case anyone's interested numerous studies have been done about the effects on children of being raised in a gay household.

"These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])",

Bibliography of Articles on Gay and Lesbian Parenting

The Future of Children - Sub-Sections

Show of hands, everyone who is utterly unsurprised that Father Time very carefully and selectively ONLY found the studies that met with his agenda, and ignored the numerous studies showing the opposite?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's no way in hell you could've gone through all those studies or even read the abstract to those studies in three minutes.
You are just dismissing them because they don't say what you believe.

Could just be that we've already been there and heard that so often that we might as well have it engraved and hanging on our walls.

 

[WhiteLion]

Just in case anyone's interested numerous studies have been done about the effects on children of being raised in a gay household.

"These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])",

Bibliography of Articles on Gay and Lesbian Parenting

The Future of Children - Sub-Sections

Those rationaLIEzations were propagated by homosexuals for the homosexual agenda. Homosexual parenting is lethally DANGEROUS to the survival of mankind, let alone the American way of life, just that dam simple you idiotic moron......