I find it very disturbing

[dblack]

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist.

I'm always sort of confounded by this point of view. The reason you think they don't exist is that you don't understand what they are. Yet you (seem to) refuse to consider them, beyond preconceived notions, because you've decided they don't exist.

Inalienable rights are simply an extension of free will - that's it. Saying they are "inalienable" is merely an observation that they are an integral part of consciousness. It doesn't mean that they can't be violated, it doesn't mean that government MUST protect them, or that anyone else must respect them. It doesn't mean they are ordained by 'god' or divine in origin. It just means that the capacity to exercise a right is an inherent by-product of having free will.

The reason it's important as a political concept is the argument we're having right now. It draws a distinction between rights that require the active participation of others, and those that don't. Failing to recognize that distinction leads to the conclusion you have reached - that there are no such thing as fundamental rights and that all of social interaction is competing powers. Further, it implies government with the primary concern of balancing such competing powers. That's corporatism in a nutshell, and it's dangerous.

The cruel irony of these anti-discrimination laws is that they undermine constitutional protection of real minorities, subjecting any and all viewpoints to the approval of the majority. The underlying principle, that our decisions regarding who we do business with should be subject to approval of majority opinion, essentially ensures that any minority can be targeted with such laws.

 

[PratchettFan]

Certainly. But decisions carry consequences. I may not like a decision by my local board of supervisors, but if I burn down the building, even if it just to protest, I am going to jail. That is arson and it is a violation of the law. A store owner can protest by refusing service, but that is a violation of the law. There are consequences to violating the law.

Your real issue here is the law itself. I get that and I understand the basis for your position. I just think you're wrong. There is a balance of conflicting freedoms in almost anything. You think the store owner should have the greater freedom here, I think it is the customer. My position is based upon the consideration that we are not just talking about flowers. If a flower shop owner can turn you away, so can an apartment house, or a grocery story, or a clothing store. That leads to "those people" only being allowed on their side of town. I've seen that and I have no interest in seeing it again. That is not how you maximize freedom.

I don't think you do understand the basis for my position because it all hinges on the concept of inalienable rights. The store owner has an inalienable right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. The idea that a customer has a similar right to be treated fairly is incoherent. Such a right can never be considered inalienable because it requires proactive participation from others. The supposed right to be treated fairly, is actually the power to force someone else to treat your "fairly".

This difference between rights and empowerment is crucial. Ignoring it is the primary reason we're moving to corporatism. The core zeitgeist of corporatism neglects to make the distinction between inalienable rights and proactive empowerment, setting government up as a arbitrator between competing interests - "conflicting freedoms". True freedoms, in the sense of inalienable rights, can't conflict - that's their key feature.

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist. What does exist are human beings, and we have conflicts all the time. If we did not, we would not need laws. I see no benefit to allowing the reduction of a group of citizens to second class status in the name of a philosophical concept that has no basis in reality.

Refusing to call a gay union a marriage does not reduce them to second class status, thats a ridiculous statement.

If, as you claim, the majority of americans approve of gay marriage and want to sanction it, then have congress pass a law making it so.

Your problem is that you are actually smart enough to realize that the majority does not support it so the gay agenda must use the "its in the constitution" argument which fails every time.

Since court after court agrees "it's in the Constitution" your last comment is obviously false. We shall see what the SC says later this year.

You are free to call it anything you like. However, if the state calls it marriage for one group it has to call it marriage for another. That is what people don't seem to get. This is about how the state treats citizens. This has no impact upon you unless you want to marry someone of the same sex. If not, then you are not affected in any manner.

 

[PratchettFan]

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist.

I'm always sort of confounded by this point of view. The reason you think they don't exist is that you don't understand what they are. Yet you (seem to) refuse to consider them, beyond preconceived notions, because you've decided they don't exist.

Inalienable rights are simply an extension of free will - that's it. Saying they are "inalienable" is merely an observation that they are an integral part of consciousness. It doesn't mean that they can't be violated, it doesn't mean that government MUST protect them, or that anyone else must respect them. It doesn't mean they are ordained by 'god' or divine in origin. It just means that the capacity to exercise a right is an inherent by-product of having free will.

The reason it's important as a political concept is the argument we're having right now. It draws a distinction between rights that require the active participation of others, and those that don't. Failing to recognize that distinction leads to the conclusion you have reached - that there are no such thing as fundamental rights and that all of social interaction is competing powers. Further, it implies government with the primary concern of balancing such competing powers. That's corporatism in a nutshell, and it's dangerous.

The cruel irony of these anti-discrimination laws is that they undermine constitutional protection of real minorities, subjecting any and all viewpoints to the approval of the majority. The underlying principle, that our decisions regarding who we do business with should be subject to approval of majority opinion, essentially ensures that any minority can be targeted with such laws.

All society is corporatism. We are social animals. Therefore anything other than corporatism does not work. We have different desires, different goals, different expectations and we have to somehow interact in such a manner that we don't kill each other. You are certainly free to think you have a fundamental right to do something, but someone else will think they have a fundamental right to do something else that conflicts with what you want to do. That has to be resolved without bloodshed, hopefully.

You do not have the unlimited right to do anything. Because you live in a society, what you do impacts others whether it is your intent or not. The very fact you live in the society provides you with benefits you would otherwise not have. That comes with a price tag. If someone doesn't want to pay that price, they need to go somewhere they do not interact with others.

When a store says they will not serve "those people" they are directly impacting the health and safety of society as a whole. Society not only has a right to stop that, it has a responsibility to do it. It can go too far. Frankly, I am not convinced this should apply to luxury items. But the state certainly has the right to extend it out if they so choose.

I am in total disagreement this undermines the constitutional right of anyone. There is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I am aware of nothing in it which gives you the right to discriminate. Perhaps you can point that out to me.

 

[Redfish]

Certainly. But decisions carry consequences. I may not like a decision by my local board of supervisors, but if I burn down the building, even if it just to protest, I am going to jail. That is arson and it is a violation of the law. A store owner can protest by refusing service, but that is a violation of the law. There are consequences to violating the law.

Your real issue here is the law itself. I get that and I understand the basis for your position. I just think you're wrong. There is a balance of conflicting freedoms in almost anything. You think the store owner should have the greater freedom here, I think it is the customer. My position is based upon the consideration that we are not just talking about flowers. If a flower shop owner can turn you away, so can an apartment house, or a grocery story, or a clothing store. That leads to "those people" only being allowed on their side of town. I've seen that and I have no interest in seeing it again. That is not how you maximize freedom.

I don't think you do understand the basis for my position because it all hinges on the concept of inalienable rights. The store owner has an inalienable right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. The idea that a customer has a similar right to be treated fairly is incoherent. Such a right can never be considered inalienable because it requires proactive participation from others. The supposed right to be treated fairly, is actually the power to force someone else to treat your "fairly".

This difference between rights and empowerment is crucial. Ignoring it is the primary reason we're moving to corporatism. The core zeitgeist of corporatism neglects to make the distinction between inalienable rights and proactive empowerment, setting government up as a arbitrator between competing interests - "conflicting freedoms". True freedoms, in the sense of inalienable rights, can't conflict - that's their key feature.

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist. What does exist are human beings, and we have conflicts all the time. If we did not, we would not need laws. I see no benefit to allowing the reduction of a group of citizens to second class status in the name of a philosophical concept that has no basis in reality.

Refusing to call a gay union a marriage does not reduce them to second class status, thats a ridiculous statement.

If, as you claim, the majority of americans approve of gay marriage and want to sanction it, then have congress pass a law making it so.

Your problem is that you are actually smart enough to realize that the majority does not support it so the gay agenda must use the "its in the constitution" argument which fails every time.

Since court after court agrees "it's in the Constitution" your last comment is obviously false. We shall see what the SC says later this year.

You are free to call it anything you like. However, if the state calls it marriage for one group it has to call it marriage for another. That is what people don't seem to get. This is about how the state treats citizens. This has no impact upon you unless you want to marry someone of the same sex. If not, then you are not affected in any manner.

If the SCOTUS rules that gay marriage is legal, then so be it. But that will not change my mind about what is right and what is wrong. You members of the gay mafia want to mandate how people think, that is the real danger here. Read Orwell or Rand, you might get it.

And, such a ruling will legally open the door for all kinds of multiple marriages, relative marriages, etc.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[dblack]

I am in total disagreement this undermines the constitutional right of anyone. There is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I am aware of nothing in it which gives you the right to discriminate. Perhaps you can point that out to me.

I'm not interested in arm-wrestling over interpretations of the Constitution. My point is that the freedom to discriminate in all our associations is an inalienable right, one that ought to be protected by government rather than suppressed.

 

[PratchettFan]

Certainly. But decisions carry consequences. I may not like a decision by my local board of supervisors, but if I burn down the building, even if it just to protest, I am going to jail. That is arson and it is a violation of the law. A store owner can protest by refusing service, but that is a violation of the law. There are consequences to violating the law.

Your real issue here is the law itself. I get that and I understand the basis for your position. I just think you're wrong. There is a balance of conflicting freedoms in almost anything. You think the store owner should have the greater freedom here, I think it is the customer. My position is based upon the consideration that we are not just talking about flowers. If a flower shop owner can turn you away, so can an apartment house, or a grocery story, or a clothing store. That leads to "those people" only being allowed on their side of town. I've seen that and I have no interest in seeing it again. That is not how you maximize freedom.

I don't think you do understand the basis for my position because it all hinges on the concept of inalienable rights. The store owner has an inalienable right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. The idea that a customer has a similar right to be treated fairly is incoherent. Such a right can never be considered inalienable because it requires proactive participation from others. The supposed right to be treated fairly, is actually the power to force someone else to treat your "fairly".

This difference between rights and empowerment is crucial. Ignoring it is the primary reason we're moving to corporatism. The core zeitgeist of corporatism neglects to make the distinction between inalienable rights and proactive empowerment, setting government up as a arbitrator between competing interests - "conflicting freedoms". True freedoms, in the sense of inalienable rights, can't conflict - that's their key feature.

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist. What does exist are human beings, and we have conflicts all the time. If we did not, we would not need laws. I see no benefit to allowing the reduction of a group of citizens to second class status in the name of a philosophical concept that has no basis in reality.

Refusing to call a gay union a marriage does not reduce them to second class status, thats a ridiculous statement.

If, as you claim, the majority of americans approve of gay marriage and want to sanction it, then have congress pass a law making it so.

Your problem is that you are actually smart enough to realize that the majority does not support it so the gay agenda must use the "its in the constitution" argument which fails every time.

Since court after court agrees "it's in the Constitution" your last comment is obviously false. We shall see what the SC says later this year.

You are free to call it anything you like. However, if the state calls it marriage for one group it has to call it marriage for another. That is what people don't seem to get. This is about how the state treats citizens. This has no impact upon you unless you want to marry someone of the same sex. If not, then you are not affected in any manner.

If the SCOTUS rules that gay marriage is legal, then so be it. But that will not change my mind about what is right and what is wrong. You members of the gay mafia want to mandate how people think, that is the real danger here. Read Orwell or Rand, you might get it.

And, such a ruling will legally open the door for all kinds of multiple marriages, relative marriages, etc.

Be careful what you wish for.

No one is requiring you to change your mind. However, I think it is the anti-SSM side which wants to mandate how people think. Or at least what people are allowed to express. Happily, that is changing.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am in total disagreement this undermines the constitutional right of anyone. There is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I am aware of nothing in it which gives you the right to discriminate. Perhaps you can point that out to me.

I'm not interested in arm-wrestling over interpretations of the Constitution. My point is that the freedom to discriminate in all our associations is an inalienable right, one that ought to be protected by government rather than suppressed.

I get your point. I think you are wrong. Both about any right being inalienable (I still think you don't get the meaning of that word) or that you are free to discriminate in all of your associations. You don't have that freedom and society would not work if you did.

 

[g5000]

As a conservative, I have an instinctual opposition to public accommodation laws, even though they serve a "public good".

The thing is, the ability of a business owner to run their business as they see fit is also a public good.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm going to get all spiritual-like for a bit.

God gave us free will for the reason that he did not want us to be angels. He wanted us to be able to choose how we demonstrate our love for him and for each other. Otherwise we would just be creatures of perfection and no choice. Where's the point in that? This was a tremendous gift God gave us.

But that meant God had to deal with the risk and the fact that many of us would not behave like angels.

Just so with freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly. But we cannot have it any other way unless we are forced to surrender all of our will to the State, and then we have utterly lost our freedom.

We need to come to terms with that and stop trying to force people to be perfect robotic angels.

The late great Bill Buckley popularized the term "immanentize the eschaton" for this attempt to make Earth into a liberal paradise.

It just can't be done, kids. As humans, we need free will.


Now, WHITES ONLY lunch counters did not exist in a vacuum. They had a raft of Jim Crow laws and the force of a hostile government toward blacks behind them. The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

A STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery would not have the grossly unconstitutional advantages of Jim Crow. But now we labor under the gross advantages given to those who have usurped our free will.

Let the STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries be. Don't let those bigoted assholes be responsible for further encroachments on our freedom. The People should be free to decide if a STRAIGHTS ONLY business deserves commerce, not the government.

The only real way to defeat bigotry is not by force, but by more freedom and more speech and more understanding.

 

[Redfish]

I don't think you do understand the basis for my position because it all hinges on the concept of inalienable rights. The store owner has an inalienable right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. The idea that a customer has a similar right to be treated fairly is incoherent. Such a right can never be considered inalienable because it requires proactive participation from others. The supposed right to be treated fairly, is actually the power to force someone else to treat your "fairly".

This difference between rights and empowerment is crucial. Ignoring it is the primary reason we're moving to corporatism. The core zeitgeist of corporatism neglects to make the distinction between inalienable rights and proactive empowerment, setting government up as a arbitrator between competing interests - "conflicting freedoms". True freedoms, in the sense of inalienable rights, can't conflict - that's their key feature.

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist. What does exist are human beings, and we have conflicts all the time. If we did not, we would not need laws. I see no benefit to allowing the reduction of a group of citizens to second class status in the name of a philosophical concept that has no basis in reality.

Refusing to call a gay union a marriage does not reduce them to second class status, thats a ridiculous statement.

If, as you claim, the majority of americans approve of gay marriage and want to sanction it, then have congress pass a law making it so.

Your problem is that you are actually smart enough to realize that the majority does not support it so the gay agenda must use the "its in the constitution" argument which fails every time.

Since court after court agrees "it's in the Constitution" your last comment is obviously false. We shall see what the SC says later this year.

You are free to call it anything you like. However, if the state calls it marriage for one group it has to call it marriage for another. That is what people don't seem to get. This is about how the state treats citizens. This has no impact upon you unless you want to marry someone of the same sex. If not, then you are not affected in any manner.

If the SCOTUS rules that gay marriage is legal, then so be it. But that will not change my mind about what is right and what is wrong. You members of the gay mafia want to mandate how people think, that is the real danger here. Read Orwell or Rand, you might get it.

And, such a ruling will legally open the door for all kinds of multiple marriages, relative marriages, etc.

Be careful what you wish for.

No one is requiring you to change your mind. However, I think it is the anti-SSM side which wants to mandate how people think. Or at least what people are allowed to express. Happily, that is changing.

Nope, what I want is for society as a whole to decide these societal issues of right and wrong. One judge with an agenda should not decide something that affects all of society.

I am perfectly willing to accept the will of the majority, are you?

 

[Redfish]

As a conservative, I have an instinctual opposition to public accommodation laws, even though they serve a "public good".

The thing is, the ability of a business owner to run their business as they see fit is also a public good.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm going to get all spiritual-like for a bit.

God gave us free will for the reason that he did not want us to be angels. He wanted us to be able to choose how we demonstrate our love for him and for each other. Otherwise we would just be creatures of perfection and no choice. Where's the point in that? This was a tremendous gift God gave us.

But that meant God had to deal with the risk and the fact that many of us would not behave like angels.

Just so with freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly. But we cannot have it any other way unless we are forced to surrender all of our will to the State, and then we have utterly lost our freedom.

We need to come to terms with that and stop trying to force people to be perfect robotic angels.

The late great Bill Buckley popularized the term "immanentize the eschaton" for this attempt to make Earth into a liberal paradise.

It just can't be done, kids. As humans, we need free will.


Now, WHITES ONLY lunch counters did not exist in a vacuum. They had a raft of Jim Crow laws and the force of a hostile government toward blacks behind them. The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

A STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery would not have the grossly unconstitutional advantages of Jim Crow. But now we labor under the gross advantages given to those who have usurped our free will.

Let the STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries be. Don't let those bigoted assholes be responsible for further encroachments on our freedom. The People should be free to decide if a STRAIGHTS ONLY business deserves commerce, not the government.

The only real way to defeat bigotry is not by force, but by more freedom and more speech and more understanding.

continuing to equate race with sexual orientation is a loser for you and your cause. Got anything else?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REDFISH SAID:

“continuing to equate race with sexual orientation is a loser for you and your cause.”

Failing to acknowledge the fact that Constitutional protections are afford to persons both with regard to race and sexual orientation is why your cause to disadvantage gay Americans was long ago lost.

 

[rdean]

The problem here is that Republicans see gays as a lifestyle choice and a "belief".

Gays just "are". No belief. No choice. They just "are".

 

[dblack]

The problem here is that Republicans see gays as a lifestyle choice and a "belief".

Gays just "are". No belief. No choice. They just "are".

Why would that make any difference?

 

[rdean]

The problem here is that Republicans see gays as a lifestyle choice and a "belief".

Gays just "are". No belief. No choice. They just "are".

Why would that make any difference?

Because you can't legislate civil rights to those whose only "crime" is existing. Which is what Republicans want to do.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Sorry, but you don'the get to vote on denying rights.

 

[Seawytch]

As a conservative, I have an instinctual opposition to public accommodation laws, even though they serve a "public good".

The thing is, the ability of a business owner to run their business as they see fit is also a public good.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm going to get all spiritual-like for a bit.

God gave us free will for the reason that he did not want us to be angels. He wanted us to be able to choose how we demonstrate our love for him and for each other. Otherwise we would just be creatures of perfection and no choice. Where's the point in that? This was a tremendous gift God gave us.

But that meant God had to deal with the risk and the fact that many of us would not behave like angels.

Just so with freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly. But we cannot have it any other way unless we are forced to surrender all of our will to the State, and then we have utterly lost our freedom.

We need to come to terms with that and stop trying to force people to be perfect robotic angels.

The late great Bill Buckley popularized the term "immanentize the eschaton" for this attempt to make Earth into a liberal paradise.

It just can't be done, kids. As humans, we need free will.


Now, WHITES ONLY lunch counters did not exist in a vacuum. They had a raft of Jim Crow laws and the force of a hostile government toward blacks behind them. The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

A STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery would not have the grossly unconstitutional advantages of Jim Crow. But now we labor under the gross advantages given to those who have usurped our free will.

Let the STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries be. Don't let those bigoted assholes be responsible for further encroachments on our freedom. The People should be free to decide if a STRAIGHTS ONLY business deserves commerce, not the government.

The only real way to defeat bigotry is not by force, but by more freedom and more speech and more understanding.

continuing to equate race with sexual orientation is a loser for you and your cause. Got anything else?

Really? We don't seem to be the side losing...

What you keep ignoring is the fact that race and sexual orientation are not being compared, bigots are. (which is why it pisses the bigots off)

 

[PratchettFan]

As a conservative, I have an instinctual opposition to public accommodation laws, even though they serve a "public good".

The thing is, the ability of a business owner to run their business as they see fit is also a public good.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm going to get all spiritual-like for a bit.

God gave us free will for the reason that he did not want us to be angels. He wanted us to be able to choose how we demonstrate our love for him and for each other. Otherwise we would just be creatures of perfection and no choice. Where's the point in that? This was a tremendous gift God gave us.

But that meant God had to deal with the risk and the fact that many of us would not behave like angels.

Just so with freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly. But we cannot have it any other way unless we are forced to surrender all of our will to the State, and then we have utterly lost our freedom.

We need to come to terms with that and stop trying to force people to be perfect robotic angels.

The late great Bill Buckley popularized the term "immanentize the eschaton" for this attempt to make Earth into a liberal paradise.

It just can't be done, kids. As humans, we need free will.


Now, WHITES ONLY lunch counters did not exist in a vacuum. They had a raft of Jim Crow laws and the force of a hostile government toward blacks behind them. The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

A STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery would not have the grossly unconstitutional advantages of Jim Crow. But now we labor under the gross advantages given to those who have usurped our free will.

Let the STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries be. Don't let those bigoted assholes be responsible for further encroachments on our freedom. The People should be free to decide if a STRAIGHTS ONLY business deserves commerce, not the government.

The only real way to defeat bigotry is not by force, but by more freedom and more speech and more understanding.

What is the difference between WHITES ONLY and STRAIGHTS ONLY?

 

[dblack]

As a conservative, I have an instinctual opposition to public accommodation laws, even though they serve a "public good".

The thing is, the ability of a business owner to run their business as they see fit is also a public good.

Bear with me for a moment. I'm going to get all spiritual-like for a bit.

God gave us free will for the reason that he did not want us to be angels. He wanted us to be able to choose how we demonstrate our love for him and for each other. Otherwise we would just be creatures of perfection and no choice. Where's the point in that? This was a tremendous gift God gave us.

But that meant God had to deal with the risk and the fact that many of us would not behave like angels.

Just so with freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly. But we cannot have it any other way unless we are forced to surrender all of our will to the State, and then we have utterly lost our freedom.

We need to come to terms with that and stop trying to force people to be perfect robotic angels.

The late great Bill Buckley popularized the term "immanentize the eschaton" for this attempt to make Earth into a liberal paradise.

It just can't be done, kids. As humans, we need free will.


Now, WHITES ONLY lunch counters did not exist in a vacuum. They had a raft of Jim Crow laws and the force of a hostile government toward blacks behind them. The idiot racists forced the issue and their intransigence and corruption handed the liberals a government victory on a silver platter. We live with the results of their stupidity to this day.

A STRAIGHTS ONLY bakery would not have the grossly unconstitutional advantages of Jim Crow. But now we labor under the gross advantages given to those who have usurped our free will.

Let the STRAIGHTS ONLY bakeries be. Don't let those bigoted assholes be responsible for further encroachments on our freedom. The People should be free to decide if a STRAIGHTS ONLY business deserves commerce, not the government.

The only real way to defeat bigotry is not by force, but by more freedom and more speech and more understanding.

What is the difference between WHITES ONLY and STRAIGHTS ONLY?

In terms of moral defensibility, nothing.

 

[PratchettFan]

As I have said, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. It is a myth. A PR stunt to justify a war. It does not, has not and never will exist. What does exist are human beings, and we have conflicts all the time. If we did not, we would not need laws. I see no benefit to allowing the reduction of a group of citizens to second class status in the name of a philosophical concept that has no basis in reality.

Refusing to call a gay union a marriage does not reduce them to second class status, thats a ridiculous statement.

If, as you claim, the majority of americans approve of gay marriage and want to sanction it, then have congress pass a law making it so.

Your problem is that you are actually smart enough to realize that the majority does not support it so the gay agenda must use the "its in the constitution" argument which fails every time.

Since court after court agrees "it's in the Constitution" your last comment is obviously false. We shall see what the SC says later this year.

You are free to call it anything you like. However, if the state calls it marriage for one group it has to call it marriage for another. That is what people don't seem to get. This is about how the state treats citizens. This has no impact upon you unless you want to marry someone of the same sex. If not, then you are not affected in any manner.

If the SCOTUS rules that gay marriage is legal, then so be it. But that will not change my mind about what is right and what is wrong. You members of the gay mafia want to mandate how people think, that is the real danger here. Read Orwell or Rand, you might get it.

And, such a ruling will legally open the door for all kinds of multiple marriages, relative marriages, etc.

Be careful what you wish for.

No one is requiring you to change your mind. However, I think it is the anti-SSM side which wants to mandate how people think. Or at least what people are allowed to express. Happily, that is changing.

Nope, what I want is for society as a whole to decide these societal issues of right and wrong. One judge with an agenda should not decide something that affects all of society.

I am perfectly willing to accept the will of the majority, are you?

No, I'm not. I am willing for the law to be applied in accordance with the Constitution. That is how our society works. We are not based upon mob rule. We are based upon the law.

 

[Katzndogz]

Homosexuality is a behavior.