Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Redfish]

The constitution was enacted by majority vote. Minority rights are always put in place by majority vote in this country. Except for unborn humans who apparently have no rights.

and you are wrong about states and federal law. Pot is illegal federally but legal in several states.

Majority is a very broad term. It takes much more than a simple majority to amend it and much more than a simple majority enacted it.

Yes, technically a majority is 50.1%, and yes a constitutional amendment would require 38 states to ratify it.

My point is that in every case minority rights have been established by some form of majority vote.

Would you prefer a system where the minority made such decisions?

Society as a whole should decide issues like these, not the most vocal minority voice.

I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that? Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period. Getting married is a part of life.. period. Get over it.

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. IOW you are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian.

wrong again. I want gays to have full rights and be able to legally commit to each other. I don't understand why that legal commitment has to be called a marriage.

Admit it, its all about the word "marriage' with you guys. Its not about rights or equality. Its about using gove to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Until you admit the true agenda of the left on this, it will never get resolved.

 

[RKMBrown]

The intolerance of liberals is quite evident in this thread.

And well it should be. There is no room for tolerance of tyrants like you. Sorry.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The more you act to deny gays what they want, more everyone assumes you must be gay.

"I'm not gay! I reject and deny everything gays want! Who else but someone not gay would do that?"

Someone closeted and in denial springs readily to mind. I'm not into BDSMD/s so don't involve myself with their stuff. I don't oppose it. I don't spend any time at all thinking about it. That's how someone not into something should be. Not spending every waking moment protesting it.

So your agenda is to demonize and insult anyone who does not share your beliefs? Got it !

Scientificly proven. More someone opposes homosexuality, more often they're in fact homosexual.

Homophobics May Be Hidden Homosexuals Homophobia Anti-Gay Sentiment

Are Homophobic People Really Gay and Not Accepting It Psychology Today

Study Reveals Homophobic Men Are In Fact More Likely To Be Gay

and on and on...

 

[RKMBrown]

Majority is a very broad term. It takes much more than a simple majority to amend it and much more than a simple majority enacted it.

Yes, technically a majority is 50.1%, and yes a constitutional amendment would require 38 states to ratify it.

My point is that in every case minority rights have been established by some form of majority vote.

Would you prefer a system where the minority made such decisions?

Society as a whole should decide issues like these, not the most vocal minority voice.

I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that? Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period. Getting married is a part of life.. period. Get over it.

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. IOW you are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian.

wrong again. I want gays to have full rights and be able to legally commit to each other. I don't understand why that legal commitment has to be called a marriage.

Admit it, its all about the word "marriage' with you guys. Its not about rights or equality. Its about using gove to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Until you admit the true agenda of the left on this, it will never get resolved.

You can call it any thing you want. You can call it a union... you can call it a gay marriage.. you can call it a rainbow loop... (yeah I just made that up.)

You've been explained the reasons for using the word "marriage" and not something else TEN THOUSAND TIMES. There are tens of thousands of federal and state laws that pertain to marriage, not civil union.

The despicable homophobic gay haters had decades to "rename" their "blessed" word marriage to civil union and never tried, why not? Easy, cause it's marriage not civil union. The gays want the right to get married, not the right to form a civil union. You let government pass out marriage licenses... and now you have to pay the price for that right... by recognizing gay marriages right along side your religious based marriages. BTW anyone can get married without a priest or church. Church's don't own the word marriage. Just because two people get married does not mean it's a marriage blessed by some church.

Agenda? Yes, there are wackos with agendas in every group. What's your agenda?

 

[Redfish]

The constitution was enacted by majority vote. Minority rights are always put in place by majority vote in this country. Except for unborn humans who apparently have no rights.

and you are wrong about states and federal law. Pot is illegal federally but legal in several states.

Majority is a very broad term. It takes much more than a simple majority to amend it and much more than a simple majority enacted it.

Yes, technically a majority is 50.1%, and yes a constitutional amendment would require 38 states to ratify it.

My point is that in every case minority rights have been established by some form of majority vote.

Would you prefer a system where the minority made such decisions?

Society as a whole should decide issues like these, not the most vocal minority voice.

I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that? Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period. Getting married is a part of life.. period. Get over it.

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. To be tolerant of intolerance is to be a willing collaborator of intolerance.

You are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian. Given that you like to be a libertarian for your own rights, I'll keep reminding you of the irony of hypocrisy of your stance in this regard.

Wrong, but clearly your idea to tolerance is to ram homosexuality up the asses (excuse the pun) of all americans whether they like it or not.

Thats the hypocrisy here. You are totally intolerant of anyone who does not believe as you do.

 

[RKMBrown]

Majority is a very broad term. It takes much more than a simple majority to amend it and much more than a simple majority enacted it.

Yes, technically a majority is 50.1%, and yes a constitutional amendment would require 38 states to ratify it.

My point is that in every case minority rights have been established by some form of majority vote.

Would you prefer a system where the minority made such decisions?

Society as a whole should decide issues like these, not the most vocal minority voice.

I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that? Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period. Getting married is a part of life.. period. Get over it.

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. To be tolerant of intolerance is to be a willing collaborator of intolerance.

You are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian. Given that you like to be a libertarian for your own rights, I'll keep reminding you of the irony of hypocrisy of your stance in this regard.

Wrong, but clearly your idea to tolerance is to ram homosexuality up the asses (excuse the pun) of all americans whether they like it or not.

Thats the hypocrisy here. You are totally intolerant of anyone who does not believe as you do.

ROFL yeah cause being for liberty is the same as being against liberty. How old are you 10?

 

[Redfish]

Yes, technically a majority is 50.1%, and yes a constitutional amendment would require 38 states to ratify it.

My point is that in every case minority rights have been established by some form of majority vote.

Would you prefer a system where the minority made such decisions?

Society as a whole should decide issues like these, not the most vocal minority voice.

I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that? Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period. Getting married is a part of life.. period. Get over it.

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. IOW you are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian.

wrong again. I want gays to have full rights and be able to legally commit to each other. I don't understand why that legal commitment has to be called a marriage.

Admit it, its all about the word "marriage' with you guys. Its not about rights or equality. Its about using gove to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Until you admit the true agenda of the left on this, it will never get resolved.

You can call it any thing you want. You can call it a union... you can call it a gay marriage.. you can call it a rainbow loop... (yeah I just made that up.)

You've been explained the reasons for using the word "marriage" and not something else TEN THOUSAND TIMES. There are tens of thousands of federal and state laws that pertain to marriage, not civil union.

The despicable homophobic gay haters had decades to "rename" their "blessed" word marriage to civil union and never tried, why not? Easy, cause it's marriage not civil union. The gays want the right to get married, not the right to form a civil union. You let government pass out marriage licenses... and now you have to pay the price for that right... by recognizing gay marriages right along side your religious based marriages. BTW anyone can get married without a priest or church. Church's don't own the word marriage. Just because two people get married does not mean it's a marriage blessed by some church.

Agenda? Yes, there are wackos with agendas in every group. What's your agenda?

My agenda? Freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and freedom of religion. I oppose government oppression in all forms, I want the constitution followed, I want society as a whole to decide societal issues, not some minority interest no matter how vocal.

As to marriage, that word has been difined by over 3000 years of human history.

At the risk of being repetitious, if a gay union is called a marriage then there will be no valid legal argument to preclude "marriages" of multiple persons, siblings, parents and children. All such groupings, if called marriages, could be entered into to avoid taxes.

This is a slippery slope no matter how many times you try to deny it.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, technically a majority is 50.1%, and yes a constitutional amendment would require 38 states to ratify it.

My point is that in every case minority rights have been established by some form of majority vote.

Would you prefer a system where the minority made such decisions?

Society as a whole should decide issues like these, not the most vocal minority voice.

I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that? Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period. Getting married is a part of life.. period. Get over it.

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. To be tolerant of intolerance is to be a willing collaborator of intolerance.

You are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian. Given that you like to be a libertarian for your own rights, I'll keep reminding you of the irony of hypocrisy of your stance in this regard.

Wrong, but clearly your idea to tolerance is to ram homosexuality up the asses (excuse the pun) of all americans whether they like it or not.

Thats the hypocrisy here. You are totally intolerant of anyone who does not believe as you do.

ROFL yeah cause being for liberty is the same as being against liberty. How old are you 10?

In any society, liberty is defined by the society as a whole. Minority rights did not just fall from the sky, they were established by a majority vote of the entire society.

Let the people speak, If a majority want gay marriage, then so be it. If a majority do not, then so be it.

What fault do you find with letting the people decide?

 

[Redfish]

The more you act to deny gays what they want, more everyone assumes you must be gay.

"I'm not gay! I reject and deny everything gays want! Who else but someone not gay would do that?"

Someone closeted and in denial springs readily to mind. I'm not into BDSMD/s so don't involve myself with their stuff. I don't oppose it. I don't spend any time at all thinking about it. That's how someone not into something should be. Not spending every waking moment protesting it.

So your agenda is to demonize and insult anyone who does not share your beliefs? Got it !

Scientificly proven. More someone opposes homosexuality, more often they're in fact homosexual.

Homophobics May Be Hidden Homosexuals Homophobia Anti-Gay Sentiment

Are Homophobic People Really Gay and Not Accepting It Psychology Today

Study Reveals Homophobic Men Are In Fact More Likely To Be Gay

and on and on...

So, let me see. Are you saying that obama and hillary were gay when they opposed gay marriage and are now straight?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that? Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period. Getting married is a part of life.. period. Get over it.

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. IOW you are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian.

wrong again. I want gays to have full rights and be able to legally commit to each other. I don't understand why that legal commitment has to be called a marriage.

Admit it, its all about the word "marriage' with you guys. Its not about rights or equality. Its about using gove to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Until you admit the true agenda of the left on this, it will never get resolved.

You can call it any thing you want. You can call it a union... you can call it a gay marriage.. you can call it a rainbow loop... (yeah I just made that up.)

You've been explained the reasons for using the word "marriage" and not something else TEN THOUSAND TIMES. There are tens of thousands of federal and state laws that pertain to marriage, not civil union.

The despicable homophobic gay haters had decades to "rename" their "blessed" word marriage to civil union and never tried, why not? Easy, cause it's marriage not civil union. The gays want the right to get married, not the right to form a civil union. You let government pass out marriage licenses... and now you have to pay the price for that right... by recognizing gay marriages right along side your religious based marriages. BTW anyone can get married without a priest or church. Church's don't own the word marriage. Just because two people get married does not mean it's a marriage blessed by some church.

Agenda? Yes, there are wackos with agendas in every group. What's your agenda?

My agenda? Freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and freedom of religion. I oppose government oppression in all forms, I want the constitution followed, I want society as a whole to decide societal issues, not some minority interest no matter how vocal.

As to marriage, that word has been difined by over 3000 years of human history.

At the risk of being repetitious, if a gay union is called a marriage then there will be no valid legal argument to preclude "marriages" of multiple persons, siblings, parents and children. All such groupings, if called marriages, could be entered into to avoid taxes.

This is a slippery slope no matter how many times you try to deny it.

OMFG what the HELL MAKES YOU THINK A CHILD IS A CONSENTING ADULT? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The more you act to deny gays what they want, more everyone assumes you must be gay.

"I'm not gay! I reject and deny everything gays want! Who else but someone not gay would do that?"

Someone closeted and in denial springs readily to mind. I'm not into BDSMD/s so don't involve myself with their stuff. I don't oppose it. I don't spend any time at all thinking about it. That's how someone not into something should be. Not spending every waking moment protesting it.

So your agenda is to demonize and insult anyone who does not share your beliefs? Got it !

Scientificly proven. More someone opposes homosexuality, more often they're in fact homosexual.

Homophobics May Be Hidden Homosexuals Homophobia Anti-Gay Sentiment

Are Homophobic People Really Gay and Not Accepting It Psychology Today

Study Reveals Homophobic Men Are In Fact More Likely To Be Gay

and on and on...

So, let me see. Are you saying that obama and hillary were gay when they opposed gay marriage and are now straight?

Politicians doing things isn't typically because of hwo they feel, but what a poll says they should do. But if you need to twist things to feel better about yourself, knock yourself out. Here's a hammer.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that? Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period. Getting married is a part of life.. period. Get over it.

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. To be tolerant of intolerance is to be a willing collaborator of intolerance.

You are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian. Given that you like to be a libertarian for your own rights, I'll keep reminding you of the irony of hypocrisy of your stance in this regard.

Wrong, but clearly your idea to tolerance is to ram homosexuality up the asses (excuse the pun) of all americans whether they like it or not.

Thats the hypocrisy here. You are totally intolerant of anyone who does not believe as you do.

ROFL yeah cause being for liberty is the same as being against liberty. How old are you 10?

In any society, liberty is defined by the society as a whole. Minority rights did not just fall from the sky, they were established by a majority vote of the entire society.

Let the people speak, If a majority want gay marriage, then so be it. If a majority do not, then so be it.

What fault do you find with letting the people decide?

What fault do I have with letting a mob take liberty away from a smaller group? What the hell is wrong with you that you have to even ask such a dumb ass question? Are you some NAZI or something?

 

[Redfish]

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. IOW you are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian.

wrong again. I want gays to have full rights and be able to legally commit to each other. I don't understand why that legal commitment has to be called a marriage.

Admit it, its all about the word "marriage' with you guys. Its not about rights or equality. Its about using gove to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Until you admit the true agenda of the left on this, it will never get resolved.

You can call it any thing you want. You can call it a union... you can call it a gay marriage.. you can call it a rainbow loop... (yeah I just made that up.)

You've been explained the reasons for using the word "marriage" and not something else TEN THOUSAND TIMES. There are tens of thousands of federal and state laws that pertain to marriage, not civil union.

The despicable homophobic gay haters had decades to "rename" their "blessed" word marriage to civil union and never tried, why not? Easy, cause it's marriage not civil union. The gays want the right to get married, not the right to form a civil union. You let government pass out marriage licenses... and now you have to pay the price for that right... by recognizing gay marriages right along side your religious based marriages. BTW anyone can get married without a priest or church. Church's don't own the word marriage. Just because two people get married does not mean it's a marriage blessed by some church.

Agenda? Yes, there are wackos with agendas in every group. What's your agenda?

My agenda? Freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and freedom of religion. I oppose government oppression in all forms, I want the constitution followed, I want society as a whole to decide societal issues, not some minority interest no matter how vocal.

As to marriage, that word has been difined by over 3000 years of human history.

At the risk of being repetitious, if a gay union is called a marriage then there will be no valid legal argument to preclude "marriages" of multiple persons, siblings, parents and children. All such groupings, if called marriages, could be entered into to avoid taxes.

This is a slippery slope no matter how many times you try to deny it.

OMFG what the HELL MAKES YOU THINK A CHILD IS A CONSENTING ADULT? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Did I say under age children? No. But a parent/child "marriage" could occur between adults over 21 in order to avoid inheritence taxes.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

 

[Redfish]

The more you act to deny gays what they want, more everyone assumes you must be gay.

"I'm not gay! I reject and deny everything gays want! Who else but someone not gay would do that?"

Someone closeted and in denial springs readily to mind. I'm not into BDSMD/s so don't involve myself with their stuff. I don't oppose it. I don't spend any time at all thinking about it. That's how someone not into something should be. Not spending every waking moment protesting it.

So your agenda is to demonize and insult anyone who does not share your beliefs? Got it !

Scientificly proven. More someone opposes homosexuality, more often they're in fact homosexual.

Homophobics May Be Hidden Homosexuals Homophobia Anti-Gay Sentiment

Are Homophobic People Really Gay and Not Accepting It Psychology Today

Study Reveals Homophobic Men Are In Fact More Likely To Be Gay

and on and on...

So, let me see. Are you saying that obama and hillary were gay when they opposed gay marriage and are now straight?

Politicians doing things isn't typically because of hwo they feel, but what a poll says they should do. But if you need to twist things to feel better about yourself, knock yourself out. Here's a hammer.

So you admit the obozo and the hildebeast are hypocrites on the gay marriage issue? Is anyone surprised?

 

[RKMBrown]

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. IOW you are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian.

wrong again. I want gays to have full rights and be able to legally commit to each other. I don't understand why that legal commitment has to be called a marriage.

Admit it, its all about the word "marriage' with you guys. Its not about rights or equality. Its about using gove to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Until you admit the true agenda of the left on this, it will never get resolved.

You can call it any thing you want. You can call it a union... you can call it a gay marriage.. you can call it a rainbow loop... (yeah I just made that up.)

You've been explained the reasons for using the word "marriage" and not something else TEN THOUSAND TIMES. There are tens of thousands of federal and state laws that pertain to marriage, not civil union.

The despicable homophobic gay haters had decades to "rename" their "blessed" word marriage to civil union and never tried, why not? Easy, cause it's marriage not civil union. The gays want the right to get married, not the right to form a civil union. You let government pass out marriage licenses... and now you have to pay the price for that right... by recognizing gay marriages right along side your religious based marriages. BTW anyone can get married without a priest or church. Church's don't own the word marriage. Just because two people get married does not mean it's a marriage blessed by some church.

Agenda? Yes, there are wackos with agendas in every group. What's your agenda?

My agenda? Freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and freedom of religion. I oppose government oppression in all forms, I want the constitution followed, I want society as a whole to decide societal issues, not some minority interest no matter how vocal.

As to marriage, that word has been difined by over 3000 years of human history.

At the risk of being repetitious, if a gay union is called a marriage then there will be no valid legal argument to preclude "marriages" of multiple persons, siblings, parents and children. All such groupings, if called marriages, could be entered into to avoid taxes.

This is a slippery slope no matter how many times you try to deny it.

OMFG what the HELL MAKES YOU THINK A CHILD IS A CONSENTING ADULT? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Did I say under age children? No. But a parent/child "marriage" could occur between adults over 21 in order to avoid inheritence taxes.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

OMFG WHY THE HELL ARE YOU WANTING TO MARRY YOUR CHILD? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

 

[Redfish]

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it. Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs.

We disagree on this. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine. BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. To be tolerant of intolerance is to be a willing collaborator of intolerance.

You are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian. Given that you like to be a libertarian for your own rights, I'll keep reminding you of the irony of hypocrisy of your stance in this regard.

Wrong, but clearly your idea to tolerance is to ram homosexuality up the asses (excuse the pun) of all americans whether they like it or not.

Thats the hypocrisy here. You are totally intolerant of anyone who does not believe as you do.

ROFL yeah cause being for liberty is the same as being against liberty. How old are you 10?

In any society, liberty is defined by the society as a whole. Minority rights did not just fall from the sky, they were established by a majority vote of the entire society.

Let the people speak, If a majority want gay marriage, then so be it. If a majority do not, then so be it.

What fault do you find with letting the people decide?

What fault do I have with letting a mob take liberty away from a smaller group? What the hell is wrong with you that you have to even ask such a dumb ass question? Are you some NAZI or something?

Do you realize what you are saying? You are advocating tyranny by the minority over the majority. THINK ! Henry VIII would love you.

 

[Redfish]

wrong again. I want gays to have full rights and be able to legally commit to each other. I don't understand why that legal commitment has to be called a marriage.

Admit it, its all about the word "marriage' with you guys. Its not about rights or equality. Its about using gove to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Until you admit the true agenda of the left on this, it will never get resolved.

You can call it any thing you want. You can call it a union... you can call it a gay marriage.. you can call it a rainbow loop... (yeah I just made that up.)

You've been explained the reasons for using the word "marriage" and not something else TEN THOUSAND TIMES. There are tens of thousands of federal and state laws that pertain to marriage, not civil union.

The despicable homophobic gay haters had decades to "rename" their "blessed" word marriage to civil union and never tried, why not? Easy, cause it's marriage not civil union. The gays want the right to get married, not the right to form a civil union. You let government pass out marriage licenses... and now you have to pay the price for that right... by recognizing gay marriages right along side your religious based marriages. BTW anyone can get married without a priest or church. Church's don't own the word marriage. Just because two people get married does not mean it's a marriage blessed by some church.

Agenda? Yes, there are wackos with agendas in every group. What's your agenda?

My agenda? Freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and freedom of religion. I oppose government oppression in all forms, I want the constitution followed, I want society as a whole to decide societal issues, not some minority interest no matter how vocal.

As to marriage, that word has been difined by over 3000 years of human history.

At the risk of being repetitious, if a gay union is called a marriage then there will be no valid legal argument to preclude "marriages" of multiple persons, siblings, parents and children. All such groupings, if called marriages, could be entered into to avoid taxes.

This is a slippery slope no matter how many times you try to deny it.

OMFG what the HELL MAKES YOU THINK A CHILD IS A CONSENTING ADULT? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Did I say under age children? No. But a parent/child "marriage" could occur between adults over 21 in order to avoid inheritence taxes.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

OMFG WHY THE HELL ARE YOU WANTING TO MARRY YOUR CHILD? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Grow up, read what I said. Inheritence taxes could be avoided by a legal trick of an old rich guy "marrying" his 40 year old son or daughter. I don't want to do it, but if gay marriage is federally sanctioned, it could not be prevented.

you have no idea the can of worms you are opening.

and responding in all caps with insults just makes you look like a juvenile idiot.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights. To be tolerant of intolerance is to be a willing collaborator of intolerance.

You are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian. Given that you like to be a libertarian for your own rights, I'll keep reminding you of the irony of hypocrisy of your stance in this regard.

Wrong, but clearly your idea to tolerance is to ram homosexuality up the asses (excuse the pun) of all americans whether they like it or not.

Thats the hypocrisy here. You are totally intolerant of anyone who does not believe as you do.

ROFL yeah cause being for liberty is the same as being against liberty. How old are you 10?

In any society, liberty is defined by the society as a whole. Minority rights did not just fall from the sky, they were established by a majority vote of the entire society.

Let the people speak, If a majority want gay marriage, then so be it. If a majority do not, then so be it.

What fault do you find with letting the people decide?

What fault do I have with letting a mob take liberty away from a smaller group? What the hell is wrong with you that you have to even ask such a dumb ass question? Are you some NAZI or something?

Do you realize what you are saying? You are advocating tyranny by the minority over the majority. THINK ! Henry VIII would love you.

No. Liberty for EVERYONE is not Tyranny ya fool.

 

[RKMBrown]

You can call it any thing you want. You can call it a union... you can call it a gay marriage.. you can call it a rainbow loop... (yeah I just made that up.)

You've been explained the reasons for using the word "marriage" and not something else TEN THOUSAND TIMES. There are tens of thousands of federal and state laws that pertain to marriage, not civil union.

The despicable homophobic gay haters had decades to "rename" their "blessed" word marriage to civil union and never tried, why not? Easy, cause it's marriage not civil union. The gays want the right to get married, not the right to form a civil union. You let government pass out marriage licenses... and now you have to pay the price for that right... by recognizing gay marriages right along side your religious based marriages. BTW anyone can get married without a priest or church. Church's don't own the word marriage. Just because two people get married does not mean it's a marriage blessed by some church.

Agenda? Yes, there are wackos with agendas in every group. What's your agenda?

My agenda? Freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and freedom of religion. I oppose government oppression in all forms, I want the constitution followed, I want society as a whole to decide societal issues, not some minority interest no matter how vocal.

As to marriage, that word has been difined by over 3000 years of human history.

At the risk of being repetitious, if a gay union is called a marriage then there will be no valid legal argument to preclude "marriages" of multiple persons, siblings, parents and children. All such groupings, if called marriages, could be entered into to avoid taxes.

This is a slippery slope no matter how many times you try to deny it.

OMFG what the HELL MAKES YOU THINK A CHILD IS A CONSENTING ADULT? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Did I say under age children? No. But a parent/child "marriage" could occur between adults over 21 in order to avoid inheritence taxes.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

OMFG WHY THE HELL ARE YOU WANTING TO MARRY YOUR CHILD? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Grow up, read what I said. Inheritence taxes could be avoided by a legal trick of an old rich guy "marrying" his 40 year old son or daughter. I don't want to do it, but if gay marriage is federally sanctioned, it could not be prevented.

you have no idea the can of worms you are opening.

and responding in all caps with insults just makes you look like a juvenile idiot.

Incorrect, incest is illegal. Being gay is not the same as INCEST, ya fool. Being gay is LEGAL NOW. You're gonna have to learn to get over your homophobia.

 

[Syriusly]

True liberty is standing up and defending equal rights for those you may despise the most. The Constitution was written on the foundation of the rights of the individual, never the mob rule majority.

there is a vast difference between mob rule (Baltimore) and majority rule (democracy). It amazes me that intelligent people like you don't get it.

Minority rights are established and enforced by majority vote, not by minority dictate.

No, minority rights and all rights are enforced by the rule of law under The United States Constitution. NO state law trumps The Constitution and many state laws are often ruled unconstitutional.
That is what this case is all about.
No one can vote away or establish by vote the rights of anyone if it conflicts with Constitution which is the supreme law of the land..

The constitution was enacted by majority vote. Minority rights are always put in place by majority vote in this country. s.

No- as you well know- that is just frankly a false statement.

Look at Loving v. Virginia- majority of Americans- and certainly majority of Virginians opposed mixed race marriages- but minority rights were protected by the courts.

Other cases?
Lawrence v. Texas.
Griswald v. Connecticut

Just a sampling- courts have often led in the protection of minority rights in the face of majority opposition.