I find it very disturbing

[Edgetho]

Celebrities Hollywood Power Players Attend Obama Gay-Lesbian Fundraisers - Hollywood Reporter

Donations Flood Obama Campaign After Gay Marriage Announcement

It's no more complicated than that

 

[PratchettFan]

Not in the law. And gay marriage is about the law.

That is exactly why marriage is a religious sacrament. The law does not dictate what marriage is or isn't religiously. Religious freedom is covered under the law, too. How easily and conveniently do you forget that.

And nobody is taking that away. You can consider it anything you like. You just can't tell others how they will consider it.

Of course, and I hope that works both ways.

Of course it works both ways. The JW's may well think Catholics aren't real Christians. They can think that to their hearts content. The can preach it on the street if that makes them happy. They just can't have the state require Catholics stop calling themselves Christians. They can't have the state impose their beliefs on Catholics. Its the same with SSM - or at least it should be.

 

[PratchettFan]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

So...the answer is to start another thread on gays. Lovely.

Only to point out the serious division of the country on this issue. With all of the real problems facing this country and the world. we in the US are obsessed and preoccupied with gay marriage.

I don't understand it. I don't understand why we can't have a vote like we do on most issues and the most votes prevails.

Its not a consittutional issue, its a societal issue. Society should decide by majority vote whether society will sanction gay marriage or not. I am fully willing to abide by the will of the people, are you?

Equal protection under the law is a constitutional issue. We have courts to resolve constitutional issues.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Tyhat's juts it....The issue is not being resolved. The creation of a politically correct protected class with special rights has already been accomplished. And there is not a chance there will be anything more than tolerance for it.
Do not expect acceptance.

It is being resolved. It may not be resolved to your liking, but you don't have to like it. You don't have to accept it.

 

[PratchettFan]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

 

[PratchettFan]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

What's disturbing is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gays. If you and others on the right would simply stop trying to deny gay Americans their civil rights, you'd not have to hear about it any more.

What rights are being violated when someone is discriminated against?

The right to walk into a public place (and when a store opens to the public it is a public place) and be treated like anyone else.

 

[PratchettFan]

You're right that marraige is a civil contract but, if between consenting adults and harms no one, government should have no say in who Redfish or anyone else, marries.

Yes Luddly Neddite so keep the personal terms of Marriage out of govt,
similar to how Atheists sue to remove references to God from public institutions.
If not all people agree on what these words mean without invoking conflicting BELIEFS,
then remove them by "separation of church and state." be consistent or else it's religious discrimination

I believe that is what people are trying to do. You are free to consider your marriage in any way you like, under any terms you like. The government should not be deciding that for you.

Yes PratchettFan I agree with you that is the goal.
The problem in making that goal is this insistence
on demonizing and excluding people who believe in traditional marriage only,
and failing to recognize this belief equally as a valid protected belief,
which cannot be forced to change by govt nor discriminated against.

Until all people's beliefs about marriage are treated and included equally,
the laws are not written to represent all, and they turn into fights for majority rule or court rulings to decide.

No, I DON'T agree that govt should decide these, and that's my whole point!

If people work together to write the laws by consensus, there wouldn't be these fights.
Something is going wrong with the democratic process, where the sides turn against each other
instead of including them all equally.

Maybe the Greens need to facilitate the legislative writing and reforms on these laws,
some group with experience fielding objections and arriving at a consensus decision on how to write a resolution
that includes everyone in the process. The only failure of that system is allowing people to object without requiring
a correction to the objection to resolve it. Just require that people agree to *correct* any source or cause of objection
to how a law is written and applied, if they want to participate in the process, and a consensus can be reached.

No one is demonizing anyone for having a traditional marriage. Not a soul. The only demonizing going on is people who insist only their idea of marriage should be allowed. No one is saying you have to marry a woman or I have to marry a man.

All that is being sought is equality. That is not an attack on marriage. It is a reasonable and rightful goal.

No..Those wishing gay marriage are seeking to be "more equal"....

How is having the same thing "more equal"?

 

[dblack]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

 

[dblack]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

What's disturbing is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gays. If you and others on the right would simply stop trying to deny gay Americans their civil rights, you'd not have to hear about it any more.

What rights are being violated when someone is discriminated against?

The right to walk into a public place (and when a store opens to the public it is a public place) and be treated like anyone else.

No one has that right to begin with.

 

[PratchettFan]

It just takes time.

.......................................

And I fully support your right to disagree.

 

[Skylar]

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

Why is it when a conservative starts talking about 'freedom' is usually about treating someone else like a piece of shit?

 

[dblack]

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

Why is it when a conservative starts talking about 'freedom' is usually about treating someone else like a piece of shit?

Because they're assholes? I dunno. Don't much care either. You wanna address my argument? I'm not really interested in the partisan spats.

 

[PratchettFan]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

Every law forces values on others. Anti-theft laws forces our values on thieves. You cannot exist within any society without having values forced upon you. The only way to escape that is to live in a cabin far from other people.

Requiring a store to serve everyone does not, in any way, stop anyone from pursuing their unique visions of a good life. Allowing an entire section of the citizenry to be treated as second class citizens does.

 

[dblack]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

What's disturbing is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gays. If you and others on the right would simply stop trying to deny gay Americans their civil rights, you'd not have to hear about it any more.

What rights are being violated when someone is discriminated against?

The right to walk into a public place (and when a store opens to the public it is a public place) and be treated like anyone else.

No one has that right to begin with.

Seriously. Do you think any of us has a right to "be treated fairly" by others?

 

[PratchettFan]

Why do you hate the Constitution? We are a nation of laws - and civilized people promote change by voting.

That doesn't answer the question.

Well, sparky, who do you think SHOULD have the power to do that - if not the government?

No one should have the power to do it by force. No one should be "dragged kicking and screaming" in the name of progress.

You should go back to your cave.

Should I be dragged? Kicking and screaming?

Kicking and screaming is optional.

 

[PratchettFan]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

And what does it do?...It starts another thread about gay rights. Are you feeling left out?

You don't get to vote Constitutional rights away!

you don't get to create rights that do not exist.

Obviously those rights do exist, you big dummy.

gay marriage is not a right.

If marriage is a right, gay marriage is a right.

 

[PratchettFan]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

What's disturbing is the unwarranted fear and hatred of gays. If you and others on the right would simply stop trying to deny gay Americans their civil rights, you'd not have to hear about it any more.

What rights are being violated when someone is discriminated against?

The right to walk into a public place (and when a store opens to the public it is a public place) and be treated like anyone else.

No one has that right to begin with.

Seriously. Do you think any of us has a right to "be treated fairly" by others?

By "others"? No. By a company which opens its doors to the public? Yes. No one holds a gun to your head when you decide to do that. If you drive a car, I expect you to obey traffic laws, but no one is forcing you to drive.

 

[dblack]

People are evolving and the issue is being resolved. Bigots and homophobes are kicking and screaming as they are dragged into the 21st century.

Yep. That's exactly what's going on. And some of us are asking, "Should government have the power to do that?".

Yes, it should.

I couldn't disagree more. It's wrong to force your values on others.

This really comes back to the basic disagreement regarding the purpose of government. I want a government that maximizes our freedom to pursue our own unique visions of a good life and a good society, not one that decides what those visions must be and forces compliance.

Every law forces values on others. Anti-theft laws forces our values on thieves. You cannot exist within any society without having values forced upon you. The only way to escape that is to live in a cabin far from other people.

Again, it's the intent that matters - the goal of laws in the first place. It's a question of whether we want government passing laws to maximize our freedom, or to mandate conformity. Some conformity and forcing of values will be required to protect freedom, but the goal should be to protect freedom, not to mandate values.

Requiring a store to serve everyone does not, in any way, stop anyone from pursuing their unique visions of a good life. Allowing an entire section of the citizenry to be treated as second class citizens does.

It absolutely does.

Let me ask you this. Do you think political or societal protests should be allowed in an economic context? Should we be allowed to express our approval or disapproval of others through our economic decisions?

 

[PratchettFan]

Back to my OP. Can anyone explain why this country is currently so obsessed with gay marriage and the gay agenda?

Why is this issue in the forefront when we have much more critical issues facing us?

This is a serious question, if you can't answer seriously then please don't answer.

Because it is the primary issue of civil rights at this time. Why are you?

 

[dblack]

What rights are being violated when someone is discriminated against?

The right to walk into a public place (and when a store opens to the public it is a public place) and be treated like anyone else.

No one has that right to begin with.

Seriously. Do you think any of us has a right to "be treated fairly" by others?

By "others"? No. By a company which opens its doors to the public? Yes.

Really??? Then why do we need 'protected classes'? In point of fact, these laws don't demand that businesses treat everyone fairly, and there's no such right.