Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Syriusly]

A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:

Science vs. the Gay Gene

Tell us all about how you chose your sexual orientation. Choice means you went over all your options, investigating and contemplating all of them before you made your choice.
So tell us how long did you contemplate liking cock versus pussy. What was the determining factor that made you choose?
I believe you. It did not happen that way with me as I never thought about any choice of cock but if you say it did with you, you would know better than I.
Not in a million years here Mike. I was born straight attracted to women. Unlike you I never had cock as one of my choices.

That is the issue here, whether our kids are taught that they can go either way, or both, when they reach puberty.

I think you are smart enough to realize that that would not be good for society.

The anti-gay movement is the one telling children that they can 'choose' what gender that they will be sexually attracted to.

We are teaching children not to discriminate against other children if they happen to be attracted to the same gender.

I would hope you are smart enough to realize that that is good for society.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Amazing isn't it how these authoritarians want to take away the rights of every group but their own so called "majority."

Every time one of these authoritarians insist on their right to take the rights that they enjoy away from small groups that they don't like... nvm.. just makes me angry.

 

[RKMBrown]

A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:

Science vs. the Gay Gene

Tell us all about how you chose your sexual orientation. Choice means you went over all your options, investigating and contemplating all of them before you made your choice.
So tell us how long did you contemplate liking cock versus pussy. What was the determining factor that made you choose?
I believe you. It did not happen that way with me as I never thought about any choice of cock but if you say it did with you, you would know better than I.
Not in a million years here Mike. I was born straight attracted to women. Unlike you I never had cock as one of my choices.

That is the issue here, whether our kids are taught that they can go either way, or both, when they reach puberty.

I think you are smart enough to realize that that would not be good for society.

The anti-gay movement is the one telling children that they can 'choose' what gender that they will be sexually attracted to.

We are teaching children not to discriminate against other children if they happen to be attracted to the same gender.

I would hope you are smart enough to realize that that is good for society.

Everyone discriminates.. it's normal human practice. The question is, to what end is the discrimination directed.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Admit it, it is all about you wanting to deny marriage to homosexuals. It is all about using government to enforce societal prejudices against homosexuals and to use government to treat homosexuals as abnormal.

Until you admit your true agenda on this, it will never get resolved.

Oh.....and good job about ending your posting on 'gay marriage'....

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Gay marriage will not be 'federally sanctioned'- it will be recognized as 'marriage'- and will change no laws regarding incestuous marriage.

Just more fear mongering by you and your fellow homophobes.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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?

Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Redfish]

A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:

Science vs. the Gay Gene

Tell us all about how you chose your sexual orientation. Choice means you went over all your options, investigating and contemplating all of them before you made your choice.
So tell us how long did you contemplate liking cock versus pussy. What was the determining factor that made you choose?
I believe you. It did not happen that way with me as I never thought about any choice of cock but if you say it did with you, you would know better than I.
Not in a million years here Mike. I was born straight attracted to women. Unlike you I never had cock as one of my choices.

That is the issue here, whether our kids are taught that they can go either way, or both, when they reach puberty.

I think you are smart enough to realize that that would not be good for society.

The anti-gay movement is the one telling children that they can 'choose' what gender that they will be sexually attracted to.

We are teaching children not to discriminate against other children if they happen to be attracted to the same gender.

I would hope you are smart enough to realize that that is good for society.

Sure, acceptance of all people for who and what they are is good for society. Calling mental illness normal is not good for society. Homosexuality is not a normal human mental or physical condition.

The SC church shooter was a mentally ill racist. Do you think he should be called normal so as not to offend him?

 

[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?

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?

Loving v. Virginia.

The Loving case involved one man and one woman. nice try, but it does not apply

 

[Redfish]

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.

Amazing isn't it how these authoritarians want to take away the rights of every group but their own so called "majority."

Every time one of these authoritarians insist on their right to take the rights that they enjoy away from small groups that they don't like... nvm.. just makes me angry.

for the final time. minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.

 

[RKMBrown]

A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:

Science vs. the Gay Gene

Tell us all about how you chose your sexual orientation. Choice means you went over all your options, investigating and contemplating all of them before you made your choice.
So tell us how long did you contemplate liking cock versus pussy. What was the determining factor that made you choose?
I believe you. It did not happen that way with me as I never thought about any choice of cock but if you say it did with you, you would know better than I.
Not in a million years here Mike. I was born straight attracted to women. Unlike you I never had cock as one of my choices.

That is the issue here, whether our kids are taught that they can go either way, or both, when they reach puberty.

I think you are smart enough to realize that that would not be good for society.

The anti-gay movement is the one telling children that they can 'choose' what gender that they will be sexually attracted to.

We are teaching children not to discriminate against other children if they happen to be attracted to the same gender.

I would hope you are smart enough to realize that that is good for society.

Sure, acceptance of all people for who and what they are is good for society. Calling mental illness normal is not good for society. Homosexuality is not a normal human mental or physical condition.

The SC church shooter was a mentally ill racist. Do you think he should be called normal so as not to offend him?

wow just wow... I wonder if your mental illness is curable.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Amazing isn't it how these authoritarians want to take away the rights of every group but their own so called "majority."

Every time one of these authoritarians insist on their right to take the rights that they enjoy away from small groups that they don't like... nvm.. just makes me angry.

for the final time. minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.

Bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:

Science vs. the Gay Gene

Tell us all about how you chose your sexual orientation. Choice means you went over all your options, investigating and contemplating all of them before you made your choice.
So tell us how long did you contemplate liking cock versus pussy. What was the determining factor that made you choose?
I believe you. It did not happen that way with me as I never thought about any choice of cock but if you say it did with you, you would know better than I.
Not in a million years here Mike. I was born straight attracted to women. Unlike you I never had cock as one of my choices.

That is the issue here, whether our kids are taught that they can go either way, or both, when they reach puberty.

I think you are smart enough to realize that that would not be good for society.

The anti-gay movement is the one telling children that they can 'choose' what gender that they will be sexually attracted to.

We are teaching children not to discriminate against other children if they happen to be attracted to the same gender.

I would hope you are smart enough to realize that that is good for society.

Sure, acceptance of all people for who and what they are is good for society. Calling mental illness normal is not good for society. Homosexuality is not a normal human mental or physical condition.

Left handedness is not a normal human physical condition- and for decades schools would beat the 'left handedness' out of kids. We don't do that any more.

Should we be teaching kids that left handedness is abnormal- simply because a small percentage of the population is left handed? Or should we teach kids that whether a person is left handed or not is immaterial- and that we should judge people based upon how they treat others- like whether they go out and murder people or not?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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?

Loving v. Virginia.

The Loving case involved one man and one woman. nice try, but it does not apply

So if it involves mixed race marriage bans- you think- 'to hell with the majority opinion'- but when it comes to 'gay marriage'- you think 'majority opinion' rules.

Thanks for clarifying that your position is based entirely upon your opposition to gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Amazing isn't it how these authoritarians want to take away the rights of every group but their own so called "majority."

Every time one of these authoritarians insist on their right to take the rights that they enjoy away from small groups that they don't like... nvm.. just makes me angry.

for the final time. minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.

Lawrence v. Texas.
Griswald v. Connecticut

 

[Redfish]

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.

Amazing isn't it how these authoritarians want to take away the rights of every group but their own so called "majority."

Every time one of these authoritarians insist on their right to take the rights that they enjoy away from small groups that they don't like... nvm.. just makes me angry.

for the final time. minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.

Bullshit.

then where did minority rights come from? did they just fall from the sky?

 

[Redfish]

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?

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?

Loving v. Virginia.

The Loving case involved one man and one woman. nice try, but it does not apply

So if it involves mixed race marriage bans- you think- 'to hell with the majority opinion'- but when it comes to 'gay marriage'- you think 'majority opinion' rules.

Thanks for clarifying that your position is based entirely upon your opposition to gay marriage.

Listen carefully---------------------one man/one woman = a marriage

 

[Redfish]

A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:

Science vs. the Gay Gene

Tell us all about how you chose your sexual orientation. Choice means you went over all your options, investigating and contemplating all of them before you made your choice.
So tell us how long did you contemplate liking cock versus pussy. What was the determining factor that made you choose?
I believe you. It did not happen that way with me as I never thought about any choice of cock but if you say it did with you, you would know better than I.
Not in a million years here Mike. I was born straight attracted to women. Unlike you I never had cock as one of my choices.

That is the issue here, whether our kids are taught that they can go either way, or both, when they reach puberty.

I think you are smart enough to realize that that would not be good for society.

The anti-gay movement is the one telling children that they can 'choose' what gender that they will be sexually attracted to.

We are teaching children not to discriminate against other children if they happen to be attracted to the same gender.

I would hope you are smart enough to realize that that is good for society.

Sure, acceptance of all people for who and what they are is good for society. Calling mental illness normal is not good for society. Homosexuality is not a normal human mental or physical condition.

Left handedness is not a normal human physical condition- and for decades schools would beat the 'left handedness' out of kids. We don't do that any more.

Should we be teaching kids that left handedness is abnormal- simply because a small percentage of the population is left handed? Or should we teach kids that whether a person is left handed or not is immaterial- and that we should judge people based upon how they treat others- like whether they go out and murder people or not?

of course not, way back when I was in grade school there were left handed desks. you have gone quite far afield on this in your failed effort to find a valid analogy.

I have consistently said that gays should have every right that straights have. Marriage is not a constitutional right. If you think it is, quote the language in the constitution where the word 'marriage' appears.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

for the final time. minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.

Bullshit.

Well, no, but I would rephrase it to "Minority rights would not exist if the majority did not acquiesce."

 

[Redfish]

for the final time. minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.

Bullshit.

Well, no, but I would rephrase it to "Minority rights would not exist if the majority did not acquiesce."

no, its not mere acquiesence, it takes a intentional action by the majority to create and enforce minority rights. It is, and was, the right thing to do, the founders and drafters of the constitution got it right.

The problem today is that we are trying to make every form of deviant human behavior a minority with the right to exist and recruit more to its deviancy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

for the final time. minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.

Bullshit.

Well, no, but I would rephrase it to "Minority rights would not exist if the majority did not acquiesce."

no, its not mere acquiesence, it takes a intentional action by the majority to create and enforce minority rights. It is, and was, the right thing to do, the founders and drafters of the constitution got it right.

The problem today is that we are trying to make every form of deviant human behavior a minority with the right to exist and recruit more to its deviancy.

My point is that if a clear majority were to decide that a particular minority right should not be a right, it would not be. Ergo, it is certainly a matter of the majority acquiescing.