I find it very disturbing

[Iceweasel]

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

When is it being voted on?

 

[Seawytch]

How about we start with basic economic justice. Or do you like the fact that 95% of the wealth created in the past decade has gone to 1% of the population?

Do you think denying the ability of someone to marry the person they love is going to fix that? What do you want to do?

Do you extend your "who they love" argument to polygamists and sibling marriage? The arguments for those are exactly the same as the ones you are making for gay marriage.

Yes. The only restriction I would place on it is they must be competent adults, just like in any other contract.

so you are ok with 5 men marrying 6 women, brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying sons and daughters (to avoid inheritence taxes) ?

You have no idea how slippery this slope will become, and our society will be in the toilet.

Yep. I am ok with it. According to so many people society is already in the toilet, so no problem there.

I'm with you. If they are all consenting adults and the siblings aren't going to procreate, who gives a shit? It won't have any effect on my life or my marriage.

 

[Iceweasel]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Is that what I said? You are proving you're an idiot, you don't understand shit.

 

[Seawytch]

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

When is it being voted on?

The SCOTUS is hearing arguments at the end of this month and the ruling will be out in time for June weddings.

 

[Redfish]

Come on fish. You don't want this gay issue to be resolved. What the fuck would you gay bashers have to continually bitch about? I know, you could bash MW workers and poor people. Oh boy.

But why are the majority of the gay bashing threads started by closeted right wingers? Do you know? You just can't get enough of that gay can you?

Wrong, I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. They have a mental condition just like bipolar people have a mental condition. I wish they were sexually normal, but I accept them as they are.

That acceptance does not mean that I think that gay marriage is right for society.

 

[Votto]

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

Why do you wish to afford rights based upon sexual arrangements? Why do you want people voting on what kinds of sex they like and dislike?

I guess that is what I find the most disturbing. Meanwhile, our politicians divide and conquer based on who wants to sleep with who. I guess is sure beats passing budgets and actually talking about them doing their jobs they way they are suppose to do so.

all societies decide what will be considered acceptable to that society. Those decisions are made by majority vote. The civil rights act of 1965 was passed by majority vote (in spite of democrat philibusters).

Its not a matter of voting on what kind of sex they like, its voting on whether society as a whole wants to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Human biology and anatomy say it is not normal.

But the people should make those decisions, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

I do agree with you on the "divide and conquer" points. Obama has been doing that since 2007

No, what you are doing is giving special perks for monogamous sex. It's not about what is legal or not legal. Clearly people are free to engage in these activities if they like, but why is the state involved in endorsing certain sexual activity by encouraging it through special legal perks?

Why are we not treating everyone as equals? Why is being single or a polygamist any less desirable than committing to a monogamous relationship?

This is discrimination at its highest level, disguised as progress and tolerance when it is anything but.

 

[PratchettFan]

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

No. The law decides. That is how a nation of laws work. If the people want to change the Constitution, then they should do so. But so long as the Constitution is the law of the land, then that is what we use.

There is NO law on gay marriage. There is no law to decide or rule on. Trying to use Loving as legal precedent doesn't work. race and gayness are not the same.

if you want national gay marriage and want to limit it to two people, the only way is a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states.

There is quite a bit of law and your opinion on the process is noted, but is clearly wrong. The current system is handling it just fine.

 

[Redfish]

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

the constitution is silent on the normality or abnormality of homosexuality and gay liasons.

You are trying to use the judicial branch to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage as normal.

And I guarantee that is you succeed, the next SC case will be on polygamous marriage using the exact same arguments you are making today.

What arguments will you bring against polygamists who only want to be able to marry who they love?

Not trying.... succeeding. But I don't want to take the credit for it. Other than applauding it, I am a bystander.

we will see what SCOTUS does. If you lose will you STFU?

 

[PratchettFan]

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

When is it being voted on?

Not sure. That would depend upon the SCOTUS calendar. Then we will have the answer. Isn't that great?

 

[Iceweasel]

Notice how every thread about faggots is the same. They come in and live in the threads, all day long, every day. Lie about what any opposing voice says, try to twist words, proclaim it's what the people want, even if they don't and claim victory in court cases that haven't even been heard yet.

I used to not think much about homosexuals but I've seen what low life scum fucks they really are. Their sexual confusions stem from their corrupt inner nature.

 

[Votto]

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

the constitution is silent on the normality or abnormality of homosexuality and gay liasons.

You are trying to use the judicial branch to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage as normal.

And I guarantee that is you succeed, the next SC case will be on polygamous marriage using the exact same arguments you are making today.

What arguments will you bring against polygamists who only want to be able to marry who they love?

Not trying.... succeeding. But I don't want to take the credit for it. Other than applauding it, I am a bystander.

we will see what SCOTUS does. If you lose will you STFU?

Why does society wish to champion monogamous sex?

Until you have an answer, then the state clearly is discriminating against those who are not engaged in such activity.

 

[Redfish]

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

Why do you wish to afford rights based upon sexual arrangements? Why do you want people voting on what kinds of sex they like and dislike?

I guess that is what I find the most disturbing. Meanwhile, our politicians divide and conquer based on who wants to sleep with who. I guess is sure beats passing budgets and actually talking about them doing their jobs they way they are suppose to do so.

all societies decide what will be considered acceptable to that society. Those decisions are made by majority vote. The civil rights act of 1965 was passed by majority vote (in spite of democrat philibusters).

Its not a matter of voting on what kind of sex they like, its voting on whether society as a whole wants to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Human biology and anatomy say it is not normal.

But the people should make those decisions, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

I do agree with you on the "divide and conquer" points. Obama has been doing that since 2007

No, what you are doing is giving special perks for monogamous sex. It's not about what is legal or not legal. Clearly people are free to engage in these activities if they like, but why is the state involved in endorsing certain sexual activity by encouraging it through special legal perks?

Why are we not treating everyone as equals? Why is being single or a polygamist any less desirable than committing to a monogamous relationship?

This is discrimination at its highest level, disguised as progress and tolerance when it is anything but.

for over 3000 years humans have decided that the union of one man and one woman was best for society as a whole. If you call that discrimination, fine. I call it humanity.

 

[dblack]

I used to not think much about homosexuals but I've seen what low life scum fucks they really are.

And now you just can't stop thinking about them, eh?

 

[Votto]

Notice how every thread about faggots is the same. They come in and live in the threads, all day long, every day. Lie about what any opposing voice says, try to twist words, proclaim it's what the people want, even if they don't and claim victory in court cases that haven't even been heard yet.

I used to not think much about homosexuals but I've seen what low life scum fucks they really are. Their sexual confusions stem from their corrupt inner nature.

The goal here is for society to accept gay sex.

What better way than through the law.

In history, we see this happening over and over. Before slavery was made illegal, most thought it was OK even though not ideal. Now it is seen as immoral after being illegal for centuries.

Abortion is the same way. Before abortion was allowed by the courts most thought it immoral. However, decades after being legal the majority consensus is that it is "OK", even though it is not ideal.

Shrug. People are sheep.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

the constitution is silent on the normality or abnormality of homosexuality and gay liasons.

You are trying to use the judicial branch to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage as normal.

And I guarantee that is you succeed, the next SC case will be on polygamous marriage using the exact same arguments you are making today.

What arguments will you bring against polygamists who only want to be able to marry who they love?

Not trying.... succeeding. But I don't want to take the credit for it. Other than applauding it, I am a bystander.

we will see what SCOTUS does. If you lose will you STFU?

Of course not. If you lose will you? You are aware there is a first amendment which says that neither of us has to STFU? And seriously, if you are tired of hearing about it then why are you constantly involved in these discussions? You don't have to be here, you don't have to pay attention to the news stories on it, you don't have to be involved at all. It is entirely voluntary on your part and you are choosing to be engaged. So stop blaming other people for you own actions and take some responsibility for yourself.

 

[zeke]

Wrong, I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them.

I used to not think much about homosexuals but I've seen what low life scum fucks they really are. Their sexual confusions stem from their corrupt inner nature.

fish, your like minded brethren is gonna quit you for your tolerance of gays. You losing creds here dude. You better start ANOTHER gay bashing thread to bring icy back into your good graces.

 

[dblack]

Do you think denying the ability of someone to marry the person they love is going to fix that? What do you want to do?

Do you extend your "who they love" argument to polygamists and sibling marriage? The arguments for those are exactly the same as the ones you are making for gay marriage.

Yes. The only restriction I would place on it is they must be competent adults, just like in any other contract.

so you are ok with 5 men marrying 6 women, brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying sons and daughters (to avoid inheritence taxes) ?

You have no idea how slippery this slope will become, and our society will be in the toilet.

Yep. I am ok with it. According to so many people society is already in the toilet, so no problem there.

I'm with you. If they are all consenting adults and the siblings aren't going to procreate, who gives a shit? It won't have any effect on my life or my marriage.

It seems to me this ought to ring some warning bells for some of you.

 

[Votto]

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

Why do you wish to afford rights based upon sexual arrangements? Why do you want people voting on what kinds of sex they like and dislike?

I guess that is what I find the most disturbing. Meanwhile, our politicians divide and conquer based on who wants to sleep with who. I guess is sure beats passing budgets and actually talking about them doing their jobs they way they are suppose to do so.

all societies decide what will be considered acceptable to that society. Those decisions are made by majority vote. The civil rights act of 1965 was passed by majority vote (in spite of democrat philibusters).

Its not a matter of voting on what kind of sex they like, its voting on whether society as a whole wants to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Human biology and anatomy say it is not normal.

But the people should make those decisions, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

I do agree with you on the "divide and conquer" points. Obama has been doing that since 2007

No, what you are doing is giving special perks for monogamous sex. It's not about what is legal or not legal. Clearly people are free to engage in these activities if they like, but why is the state involved in endorsing certain sexual activity by encouraging it through special legal perks?

Why are we not treating everyone as equals? Why is being single or a polygamist any less desirable than committing to a monogamous relationship?

This is discrimination at its highest level, disguised as progress and tolerance when it is anything but.

for over 3000 years humans have decided that the union of one man and one woman was best for society as a whole. If you call that discrimination, fine. I call it humanity.

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

 

[Seawytch]

Notice how every thread about faggots is the same. They come in and live in the threads, all day long, every day. Lie about what any opposing voice says, try to twist words, proclaim it's what the people want, even if they don't and claim victory in court cases that haven't even been heard yet.

I used to not think much about homosexuals but I've seen what low life scum fucks they really are. Their sexual confusions stem from their corrupt inner nature.

Notice how the anti gay bigots can't resist creating and posting in threads about gays all day long, every day.

Gay marriage, according to polling IS what people want...not that it matters when it comes to Civil Rights...

(Loving v Virginia was in 1967)

 

[Redfish]

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

Why do you wish to afford rights based upon sexual arrangements? Why do you want people voting on what kinds of sex they like and dislike?

I guess that is what I find the most disturbing. Meanwhile, our politicians divide and conquer based on who wants to sleep with who. I guess is sure beats passing budgets and actually talking about them doing their jobs they way they are suppose to do so.

all societies decide what will be considered acceptable to that society. Those decisions are made by majority vote. The civil rights act of 1965 was passed by majority vote (in spite of democrat philibusters).

Its not a matter of voting on what kind of sex they like, its voting on whether society as a whole wants to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Human biology and anatomy say it is not normal.

But the people should make those decisions, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

I do agree with you on the "divide and conquer" points. Obama has been doing that since 2007

No, what you are doing is giving special perks for monogamous sex. It's not about what is legal or not legal. Clearly people are free to engage in these activities if they like, but why is the state involved in endorsing certain sexual activity by encouraging it through special legal perks?

Why are we not treating everyone as equals? Why is being single or a polygamist any less desirable than committing to a monogamous relationship?

This is discrimination at its highest level, disguised as progress and tolerance when it is anything but.

for over 3000 years humans have decided that the union of one man and one woman was best for society as a whole. If you call that discrimination, fine. I call it humanity.

And during that 3000 years women were treated like second class citizens.

Essentially your position is that for 3000 years "whitey" discriminated against everyone, so lets give blacks the same power even though all other races continue to be abused.

You have no moral position that can be defended.

black societies in africa believed in man/woman marriage. Rome fell when it lost its moral compass.

monogamous marriage is not a "whitey" concept, its a human concept.

when you try to equate race or misogyny with homosexuality you lose every time because they are not analagous. (sorry to use so many big words, maybe you can look them up)