Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Syriusly]

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.

Wow- you really like to dance.

left handed is as 'not normal' as homosexuality is. There is a history of abuse to both left handed people and homosexuals- simply for being 'abnormal' in the minds of those in power. You do not want homosexuality taught as being 'normal'- do you also not want 'left handedness to be taught as normal?

You have consistantly opposed equal treatment of homosexuals- specifically you want to deny actual marriage to homosexuals, offering them instead some form of 'separate but equal' crap.

And marriage is a constitutional right- affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Lawrence v. Texas.
Griswald v. Connecticut

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

 

[Redfish]

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

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.

If you think the majority supports it, then lets have a vote in every state, lets have a consittutional amendment to clarify it once and for all, lets get 38 states to ratify that marriage is any two people over the age of consent.

Lets do it, what are you waiting for?

I know what you are waiting for, you won;t do it because you know that you would lose.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Lawrence v. Texas.
Griswald v. Connecticut

answer the question, did the majority vote for minority rights? yes or no.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Lawrence v. Texas.
Griswald v. Connecticut

answer the question, did the majority vote for minority rights? yes or no.

The answer is that minority rights were recognized by the courts- in Lawrence v. Texas, in Griswarld v. Connecticut and in Loving v. Virginia.

Often in the face of opposition by the majority.

But you only care about 'the majority' when it comes to the issue of 'gay marriage'.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

If you think the majority supports it, then lets have a vote in every state, lets have a consittutional amendment to clarify it once and for all, lets get 38 states to ratify that marriage is any two people over the age of consent.

Lets do it, what are you waiting for?

I know what you are waiting for, you won;t do it because you know that you would lose.

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

 

[WorldWatcher]

answer the question, did the majority vote for minority rights? yes or no.

There were states that voted to amend their constitution to ban interracial marriage, those votes denied minority rights to civil marriage. (Georgia and Alabama come to mind as two.)

Those votes were overturned and rights to marriage for interracial couples made available through court action - not a majority vote.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Strawman bull shit. We don't have to get our rights from anyone, ya fool. Our rights are ours to be enjoyed, period. Why do you feel like you have the power to give and take rights? Who made you god?

 

[RKMBrown]

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. The rights exist PERIOD. A person that switches from believing that they are justified in attacking minorities based on bigotry to a recognition that said violence/punishment against minorities is a vile act, is not acquiescence, it's a change of heart. FYI you don't speak for the majority. While you may have decided to "hide" your bigotry against gays by acquiescing... for others ... well lets just say we just see you for what you are.

 

[Seawytch]

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

My marriage license doesn't hear you.

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder how many more months and posts Redfish will continue to argue about 'gay marriage'- the issue he declared to be a non-issue and that he vowed to stop posting about?

 

[Seawytch]

I wonder how many more months and posts Redfish will continue to argue about 'gay marriage'- the issue he declared to be a non-issue and that he vowed to stop posting about?

It'll be a new freak out after the SCOTUS rules.

 

[RKMBrown]

I wonder how many more months and posts Redfish will continue to argue about 'gay marriage'- the issue he declared to be a non-issue and that he vowed to stop posting about?

It'll be a new freak out after the SCOTUS rules.

We'll know thursday.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No. The rights exist PERIOD.

Alright, word salad. Let's replace "exist" with "exercisable". If a right is not exercisable, its existence is moot.

A person that switches from believing that they are justified in attacking minorities based on bigotry to a recognition that said violence/punishment against minorities is a vile act, is not acquiescence, it's a change of heart.

Who said anything about beliefs or feelies? It's simple numbers.

If there are ten from Group A who agree, and five from Group B who disagree with Group A, and a matter is put to a vote, Group A wins, unless Group A acquiesces to Group B. If Group B votes for a right in the absence of Group A, Group B wins, unless Group A declines to acquiesce.

FYI you don't speak for the majority.

Never claimed to do so, and neither do you.

While you may have decided to "hide" your bigotry against gays by acquiescing... for others ... well lets just say we just see you for what you are.

My only bigotry is toward stupidity, and your myopia is your personal problem.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This thread is still gay...

 

[RKMBrown]

No. The rights exist PERIOD.

Alright, word salad. Let's replace "exist" with "exercisable". If a right is not exercisable, its existence is moot.

A person that switches from believing that they are justified in attacking minorities based on bigotry to a recognition that said violence/punishment against minorities is a vile act, is not acquiescence, it's a change of heart.

Who said anything about beliefs or feelies? It's simple numbers.

If there are ten from Group A who agree, and five from Group B who disagree with Group A, and a matter is put to a vote, Group A wins, unless Group A acquiesces to Group B. If Group B votes for a right in the absence of Group A, Group B wins, unless Group A declines to acquiesce.

FYI you don't speak for the majority.

Never claimed to do so, and neither do you.

While you may have decided to "hide" your bigotry against gays by acquiescing... for others ... well lets just say we just see you for what you are.

My only bigotry is toward stupidity, and your myopia is your personal problem.

Was the life of your closest dead relative "moot?" The state of a right is just that .. the state of it.

No it's not simple numbers.

We do not put all things up for vote.

What you are describing is a tyranny led by a majority. That's not America. Though I understand there are a great many who wish it was.

My myopia? You were the one that forgot about the plain fact that people can change their minds.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Was the life of your closest dead relative "moot?" The state of a right is just that .. the state of it.

Jeez. Taking a trip to crazy land?

What you are describing is a tyranny led by a majority. That's not America.

If the current tyranny of minorities continues, it will become so. Guaranteed.

My myopia? You were the one that forgot about the plain fact that people can change their minds.

Nah.

Indeed they can. Certainly, that was not the issue of this thread.

 

[RKMBrown]

Was the life of your closest dead relative "moot?" The state of a right is just that .. the state of it.

Jeez. Taking a trip to crazy land?

What you are describing is a tyranny led by a majority. That's not America.

If the current tyranny of minorities continues, it will become so. Guaranteed.

My myopia? You were the one that forgot about the plain fact that people can change their minds.

Nah.

Indeed they can. Certainly, that was not the issue of this thread.

The risk of demanding we all live under tyranny of the majority is that you and your piece of shit life might some day no longer be in the majority.

You said the majority will only change it's mind if it acquiesces in an attempt to further piss on gays. That was an incorrect statement.

And yes, this is the issue of the thread.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Was the life of your closest dead relative "moot?" The state of a right is just that .. the state of it.

Jeez. Taking a trip to crazy land?

What you are describing is a tyranny led by a majority. That's not America.

If the current tyranny of minorities continues, it will become so. Guaranteed.

My myopia? You were the one that forgot about the plain fact that people can change their minds.

Nah.

Indeed they can. Certainly, that was not the issue of this thread.

The risk of demanding we all live under tyranny of the majority is that you and your piece of shit life might some day no longer be in the majority.

You said the majority will only change it's mind if it acquiesces in an attempt to further piss on gays. That was an incorrect statement.

And yes, this is the issue of the thread.

I'm done. Please learn to read and comprehend before entering into debate.