The Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda: A New Millenium of Free Speech

[Coloradomtnman]

Your response is ambiguous. Are you stating that sex in whatever dynamic is sex? I can't disagree with that. That sex is love? Well that depends on the level of promuscuity one exercises, which in excessive cases is certainly lust not love. But my question is why is sexual liberation publically paraded by Homosexuals to make a point of civil credibility? How do their public mainstream occupations/careers/activity relate to their bedroom activity? Unless of course your talking about porn actors and models, how does their sexuality make a point in public maintstream society?

Are they asked their sexual disposition on job interviews? When purchasing items at a store? When buying a house? When donating to an organization? Is a person's sexuality a criteria for any of these things?

Are homosexuals asked what sexual disposition they are when running for a beauty pageant?

........... um YEAH! It just happened and a heterosexual woman running in a beauty pageant was fired for it. IMAGINE THAT. How's that for sexual equality. Maybe she should have done a randition of Victor/Victoria and asked that gay judge for a date in drag. lol

Anne Marie

It isn't just their sex lives that are paraded out in public. If you go to a company party with your husband and Jane shows up alone because she doesn't want to be discriminated against at work, that is why its important for them to be "out in the open" about it. So Jane can show up at the company party with the love of her life who it just so happens is also a woman. Is that about sex? Or is that about life, love, commitment, and courage to be one's self and not ashamed of whom one loves? And what about walking down the street holding hands or strolling through the park and kissing during a beautiful sunset? Is that part of the Gay Agenda? Is that pushing it in your face? If that doesn't hurt society, then why allowing them to marry in the eyes of the law, and equal to that of heterosexuals, why would that hurt society instead of making a healthier society where love is recognized and is the focus instead of sexual orientation and rejection as equal an entire group of people?

 

[Tinktink]

Kitty,

Your response is ambiguous. Are you stating that sex in whatever dynamic is sex? I can't disagree with that. That sex is love? Well that depends on the level of promuscuity one exercises, which in excessive cases is certainly lust not love. But my question is why is sexual liberation publically paraded by Homosexuals to make a point of civil credibility? How do their public mainstream occupations/careers/activity relate to their bedroom activity? Unless of course your talking about porn actors and models, how does their sexuality make a point in public maintstream society?

Are they asked their sexual disposition on job interviews? When purchasing items at a store? When buying a house? When donating to an organization? Is a person's sexuality a criteria for any of these things?

Are homosexuals asked what sexual disposition they are when running for a beauty pageant?

........... um YEAH! It just happened and a heterosexual woman running in a beauty pageant was fired for it. IMAGINE THAT. How's that for sexual equality. Maybe she should have done a randition of Victor/Victoria and asked that gay judge for a date in drag. lol

Anne Marie

Have we been watching the same events? Once again, she did not get fired for her comment, she got fired for not doing her job.

 

[sidneyworld]

Colorado,

"It isn't just their sex lives that are paraded out in public. If you go to a company party with your husband and Jane shows up alone because she doesn't want to be discriminated against at work, that is why its important for them to be "out in the open" about it. So Jane can show up at the company party with the love of her life who it just so happens is also a woman. Is that about sex? Or is that about life, love, commitment, and courage to be one's self and not ashamed of whom one loves? And what about walking down the street holding hands or strolling through the park and kissing during a beautiful sunset? Is that part of the Gay Agenda? Is that pushing it in your face? If that doesn't hurt society, then why allowing them to marry in the eyes of the law, and equal to that of heterosexuals, why would that hurt society instead of making a healthier society where love is recognized and is the focus instead of sexual orientation and rejection as equal an entire group of people?"

This is an issue of personal discrimination. The prejudice comes with judging her personally because she happens to be involved with someone of the same sex. However, she clearly has the option to exercise her right to bring her "loved one" to a company party if that is the criteria of the event. Also, she should not have an issue about being open about the simple invitation, whether it makes her uptight or not because in doing so, her apprehension invites the suspicion of doing something wrong, something she feels guilty about. As a matter of law, she cannot be harrassed or fired for having done so, and I would endorse any civil suit against a firm who entertained such a practice.

Now again, Marriage is an entirely different dynamic. While laws prevent protection from discrimination of the individual, including non-citizens by the way, laws do not encourage or prevent choices of partners, of any dynamic. Marriage is not a civil right, a human right or a constitutional right. It is an institution whose potential members must qualify a very fundamental criteria. Like any institution which is licensed, cannons and charters are set to maintain the integrity of such a position or subscription or it becomes useless and ineffective.

"Is Marriage a Civil Right?
By Matt Kinnaman
March 2, 2004

Compelled by the question of whether everyone is being treated fairly in Massachusetts , I attended the Constitutional Convention in Boston on February 11. Outside on Beacon Hill I spoke with supporters of same-sex marriage, one of whom told me I thought he was a second-class person. I told him he was a first-class person, and he thanked me. And that's the truth—I think that supporters of same-sex marriage are first-class citizens. I have no idea what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is talking about when it claims that traditional marriage creates second-class citizens out of those who don't fit its parameters.

I thought that, under the law, everyone is equal, regardless of what institutions they belong to. So what do we do about those who want to enter the institution of marriage, even though they don't fit its definition? Are we denying them their civil rights, thus making them second-class citizens?

For example, The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , also known as our state legislature, is an institution, and membership in it is not a civil right. Membership in the legislature is only available to those who satisfy particular criteria, not to all those who have opinions on legislative matters and would love a chance to vote on pending bills. By definition, the Massachusetts legislature is a closed, exclusionary institution. It's fair to ask: Is barring those who would love to be senators or representatives from membership in the Massachusetts state house a violation of their civil rights?

If the answer is yes, then all barriers to exclusion, including elections, should be dropped, and anyone who wants to be a member of the legislature should be allowed to join. But, if the answer is no, then our definition of “civil rights” must be independent of our right to membership in institutions, and as such, our duly elected senators and representatives should take a new look at the issue of same-sex marriage.

The American founding was characterized by clear thinking about ordered liberty. Today in America , chaos reigns. Judges and mayors are ignoring the law, and the will of the people, while imagining that they themselves, along with supporters of same-sex marriage, are compatriots of those who stood against slavery and communism.

The comparison is not accurate. Their struggle is not the same. Slaves were denied their civil rights. So were those who lived under communism. Civil rights are, as correctly recognized in the American founding, inalienable. They can neither be given by government, nor rightfully taken away. These rights are those which slaves, and all subjects of tyranny, were denied: free speech, the free exercise of religion, a free press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to vote, to be free from unlawful intrusions of government on their persons or property, and the right to fair and equal treatment under the law in all other matters mentioned in the Constitution and its amendments.

The same-sex marriage advocates who today congratulate themselves as freedom fighters in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Pope John Paul, Gandhi, and Lech Walesa are misconstruing the significance of what these leaders accomplished in the face of actual tyranny. Whether they mean to or not, the gay marriage movement is confusing the civil rights struggles against slavery, racism, and totalitarianism with something very different—their desire to redesign history's most important cultural institution in a manner that will eventually render it meaningless.

Those who contend that marriage is a civil right must contend with additional questions. Is graduation from school a civil right? Is a government job? How about being a son, or a daughter, an uncle, or an aunt? What about a graduate degree? Employment? Housing? Health? Business ownership? A driver's license? Membership in the National Organization of Women, the NBA, the PTA, the AARP, the Priesthood?

Just as it is with these institutions and definitions, so it is with marriage—each one is defined with exclusions in place, and once it becomes anything we want it to be, it is nothing at all. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. It has nothing to do with first- or second-class citizenship. Marriage either has an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition."

Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Anne Marie

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Anne-

If someone is murdered and the murderer isn't found guilty in the local court system because the evidence or the investigation work is insufficient to convict them of murder, the FBI can step in and conduct an investigation with it in mind that the victim was denied their civil rights. Those civil rights are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The murderer then might be convicted, with sufficient evidence, of course, of violating the victim's civil rights by taking away their life.

This is one of the reasons why banning same-sex marriages is a civil rights issue: liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Another reason is Freedom of Religion. If it is part of my religious beliefs (which I don't have religious beliefs, but I have spritual beliefs) that homosexuals are equal as human beings to heterosexuals but are denied state-sanctioned marriages unlike heterosexuals, then then my religious freedom is being imposed upon. How many religious homosexuals' freedom of religion is being violated?

Another aspect of the freedom of religion is freedom FROM religion. If a homosexual doesn't believe in Christianity or any other religion that doesn't accept homosexuals, then why should they be imposed upon by the religious dogma of those religions of which that homosexual is not a member?

Another reason is equality. If heterosexuals have the opportunity to marry the person they love (as long as it causes no harm), then, in this country, so should homosexuals. I also think we should extend that to polygamists. If people want to engage in polygamy, and it cause no harm, then why stop them? Incest does not fit with this as it potentially causes harm to any offspring of the couple.

Not to mention that no where in the Bible does it say that marriage is between one man and one woman. But there are passages about Abraham sleeping with his servants and polygamy. Nor does the Qu'ran say such a thing. In fact, there is no major religious text that defines marriage explicitly.

Another reason is the issue about separate but equal. Unless all people are granted civil unions and marriage is an unofficial religious term, civil unions (which currently aren't equal to marriage) are just that. Remember black people in the South? Separate but equal is unconstitutional and it didn't work.

This is why I support gay marriage. That and I have gay friends and family who should be allowed to make official, just like we do, their life-long commitment to the human being they love and who loves them.

 

[sidneyworld]

Marriage is intended to define the union between a man and a woman and any potential offspring, legally, should children be desired. However the child is only covered under existing marriage law if the child is conceived by the couple and no other entity. The harm potentially done to the child is the deliberate displacement of its other natural parent who would only act as a natural parent surrogate within its conception and not part of its life or a legal component of that marriage. Unlike adoption wherein the child was conceived in a completely removed circumstance from adoptive parents, as they would equally adopt that child, and had nothing to do with the conception of that child through a third party natural parent surrogate, the alternate partner of the same sex married couple would also have to legally adopt the natural child.

Also, the third party natural parent surrogate of that child is not protected or recognized under traditional marriage so a child is conceived without the right of being raised by both natural parents. We don't own our children.

To universally pass same sex marriage, several things would have to happen. Any potential children deliberately conceived with a third party natural parent surrogate would have to be included as a viable legal part of that union. Thus three people would be married to each other or at the very least, the surrogate natural parent would have complete authority to raise that child along side the married couple. To not include the third party natural parent is a violation of the human rights of that child. A child has the inherent right to know its natural parents. Both of them. Or know of them, if possible, in the event they were killed, that certainly being one possibly for needing adoption. But certainly not the only reason.

The contemporary of this potential alternative legal marriage scenario is Plural marriages which already exist in this country, and the stats on these arrangements are pathetic after years of interviews of many of the women and children in these marriages: Those who have been able to leave have been quite candid about their situation.

Communal/plural marriages where there is one man and several women and many children are a form of abuse of both the women, (whom throughout the years have admitted to the insanity of such an arrangement) and the children, both boys and girls issued by the entire family in whatever variety. Most recently it was uncovered through extensive research and interviews of those who left their commune that sexual abuse of young girls were common and the very attempt of leaving required the most concise and timely planning without the knowledge of the common husband at a great risk to themselves and to whomever might be left behind. This is because all women and children are required a level of subservancy that cannot challenge the authority of the male head of the family. And the personal strife among the women is remarkably similar to that of ex's dealing with new wives or girlfriend in monogomous marriages. The reason this continues is in two parts. Most of these communities are highly guarded by the elders, mostly males who are usually part of the political structure in these towns, and children are born into this lifestyle so they are completely manipulated into a sense of security as the only thing they understand. Mommy sharing daddy with other women. Having multiple brothers and sisters, and being completely subjected to the favoritism of the elder women or woman's children far more severely than typical sibling rivalry. In any case Plural marriages exist and have for years at the expense of not being able to live any other life by choice for most of the children who are raised in that family. That is a fact.

I can't imagine anything being more dysfunctional than this arrangement.

The bottom line is that no-one, and I agree, can be made to not procreate legally unless they have been convicted of crimes against their own children.. etc. If marriage is recognized by homosexuals as something they have an equal right, a civil right to exercise, than how would marriage universally accommodate the rights of a same sex marriage couple's child, conceived after the fact, by a third party natural parent surrogate?

This is the damage, whether it comes to fruition or not, of such couplings. It doesn't matter if only one same sex marriage couple out of every other in this country want to raise their natural children, conceived after the fact, because when inacting laws, all potentiality must be considered and legislated accordingly no matter it's degree of viability or they are indeed defective.

Marriage is intended to join a heterosexual couple and any potential offspring as one single unit, one single family, in one single household. Anything else becomes an alternative lifestyle which, when all is said and done, is devoid of any proper voice or legal representation of children potentially born into such an arrangement.

It is our inalienable right, our human right to procreate. But, we do not own our children nor it is ethical to usurp their rights in bringing them into an immediately compromising lifestyle.

Anne Marie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Well written post sidney, and completely wrong. I know plenty of gay and lesbians who are raising their children, and doing a wonderful job of it. You're complicating something that is already working well with your ideas, and concepts.

Get to know some gay or lesbian parents and their kids. Lets pass marriage equality and treat these families like any other.

Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being. -Kahlil Gibran

 

[sidneyworld]

Well written post sidney, and completely wrong. I know plenty of gay and lesbians who are raising their children, and doing a wonderful job of it. You're complicating something that is already working well with your ideas, and concepts.

Get to know some gay or lesbian parents and their kids. Lets pass marriage equality and treat these families like any other.

Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being. -Kahlil Gibran

It works because people love their children and human beings have the capacity to love anyone as deeply as anyone else, having the same level and caliber of commitment and dedication, perseverance and devotion to both each other and their children. I completely agree. However, that does not cover anything I posted in terms of the rights of children. Homosexual unions are devoid of the positive natural influence a child would receive of the interaction between a man and a woman which covers 98% of the dynamic of relationships in this country. Men and women have very deliberate roles within a family structure. I don't care how NOW and other womens organization has circumvented their position and status as human beings in this society in challenging all areas of masculinity. Men and women are just that. Men are men, women are women. Both play equal roles in raising their children but with a different focus. None less valuable than the other.

Women have become empowered in this contemporary society to assert their equal viability as individuals despite the obnoxious contentions of rabid liberal activitist who have done well to nearly emasculate men in this society. I've demonstrated that in prior posts without question. It deals with the disproportion of assignment of both roles, sharing in one objective. It simply cannot work because well..... men are men women are women.

I know several gay couples who raise children and successful children. But there are many loose ends which as a society should not be overlooked. I believe it is completely immoral to conceive children outside the family unit. That goes for heterosexual couples as well. But I also do not interfer with life choices of people.

However, on matters concerning marriage as an institution which is a critical component of the way I define the quality of my life, same sex marriages represent an alternative lifestyle that does not accommodate the human rights of any conceived child within that union or the rights of its natural parent surrogate who additionally has no right to that child under the auspices of marriage. I have explained this. And this... is simply the issue. Nothing else.

Leave marriage alone. Find some other way to legislate every other possible alternative to legalize such a union and realize it's benefits. Do not circumvent a very fundamental structure in this society which is clearly embraced by the majority of this country and with every imaginable opportunity and recognition of the human rights of future generations in being raised by a mother and a father.

Anne Marie

 

[Al Gunn]

"Homosexual unions are devoid of the positive natural influence a child would receive of the interaction between a man and a woman which covers 98% of the dynamic of relationships in this country."

"I believe it is completely immoral to conceive children outside the family unit. That goes for heterosexual couples as well."

So children are better off not being born than being born outside of hetero marriage? Barrack Obama was raised outside your perfect world, didn't seem to hurt him too much, did it? Plenty of kids from your perfect world are in jail right now, what's up with that?

Anyone who complains about gays using the word marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.

 

[Father Time]

Anyone who complains about gays using the word marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.

*headsmack*

Can you stop with the blanket statements please?

 

[Al Gunn]

Anyone who complains about gays using the word marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.

*headsmack*

Can you stop with the blanket statements please?

Only if you say purdy pleeeeeeeeeze!

What's the problem, it's true. You don't see gays as equals, if you said, blacks can't use the word marriage, you'd be a racist. But in your world, it's still ok to denigrate gays and say openly that they don't deserve to use certain words or customs because they're not worthy.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Homosexual unions are devoid of the positive natural influence a child would receive of the interaction between a man and a woman which covers 98% of the dynamic of relationships in this country. Men and women have very deliberate roles within a family structure. I don't care how NOW and other womens organization has circumvented their position and status as human beings in this society in challenging all areas of masculinity. Men and women are just that. Men are men, women are women. Both play equal roles in raising their children but with a different focus. None less valuable than the other.

Surrogate parents already exist in this country. You can find ads in your local newspaper for couples looking for surrogate parents so that they can have children. There are laws which already accomodate for this, so I have to think that your argument about the rights of children in non-traditional families isn't sound nor convincing.

I also know that many many children are raised outside of traditional marriages, not just where there is a surrogate parents, but single mothers or fathers either because of divorce, death, etc. I was raised by my mother and later by my mother and setp-father, and my step-father was an abusive drunk. It would've been better for me to have been raised by only my mother. It would've been better to be raised by my mother and father, but they didn't get along, and I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to raise a child who had parents who didn't love eachother and fought a lot. That doesn't seem like a healthy environment for the child. So your points with the man and woman parents argument are weak points, valid, but weak.

Women have become empowered in this contemporary society to assert their equal viability as individuals despite the obnoxious contentions of rabid liberal activitist who have done well to nearly emasculate men in this society. I've demonstrated that in prior posts without question. It deals with the disproportion of assignment of both roles, sharing in one objective. It simply cannot work because well..... men are men women are women.

And this exists only in your ideal world. This isn't your ideal world. Men can be and many are drunks, abusive, irresponsible, unattached to their children. And women can be the same. My mother was a drunk, irresponsible and selfish woman who grew more distant from me every passing year until a few years ago when it was we last spoke.

I know several gay couples who raise children and successful children. But there are many loose ends which as a society should not be overlooked.

And just what are those loose ends? The child's rights? Those aren't loose ends and are addressed in civil law.

I believe it is completely immoral to conceive children outside the family unit. That goes for heterosexual couples as well. But I also do not interfer with life choices of people.

Except when homosexuals wish to describe their state-sanctioned official relationship with the word "marriage".

However, on matters concerning marriage as an institution which is a critical component of the way I define the quality of my life, same sex marriages represent an alternative lifestyle that does not accommodate the human rights of any conceived child within that union or the rights of its natural parent surrogate who additionally has no right to that child under the auspices of marriage. I have explained this. And this... is simply the issue. Nothing else.

Already addressed in civil law.

Leave marriage alone. Find some other way to legislate every other possible alternative to legalize such a union and realize it's benefits. Do not circumvent a very fundamental structure in this society which is clearly embraced by the majority of this country and with every imaginable opportunity and recognition of the human rights of future generations in being raised by a mother and a father.Anne Marie

So when it comes down to it its about the word. Its about the definition over of a word that traditionalists and religious people feel they have some sort of monopoly.

IF homosexuals marry how will it affect you? If homosexuality is "normalized" in society, how will it affect you? Do you swear? Do you say the word "Fuck"? This isn't meant to be offensive, its meant to illustrate something. If you don't say the word "Fuck" or "Motherfucker" or "****", but its legal to say those words, does that mean you HAVE to say them? If you're kicked out for uttering those words at church, can you sue the church? You don't want your kids to say those words even though in society it is "normal". So YOU teach and raise your children NOT to say those words.

Get my drift? If homosexual marriages are legal, YOU nor anyone else HAS to get one. If your church doesn't perform same-sex marriages your church CAN'T be sued. If you don't want your children to be gay (and if they are, then they are and there is little you can do about it) then teach them that its not accepted by your religious beliefs to be homosexual. Teach them that your religious beliefs don't allow for same-sex marriages. Get ready for some serious dysfunction because gay people are gay whether you accept it or God accepts it or not. I've heard from more than a few of my gay friends about being kicked out of the house at a young age, disowned, beaten by their fathers, rejected by their mothers who wouldn't accept that their child was a homosexual. And ALL of those stories I heard were about traditional households with Christian parents. There are some homosexuals who still have happy, healthy, loving relationships with their parents and family because they were non-traditional people who accepted that their child or family member was gay and they love and accept them because it doesn't matter.

I think this has more to do with your religious beliefs than anything.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Anyone who complains about gays using the word marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.

*headsmack*

Can you stop with the blanket statements please?

Only if you say purdy pleeeeeeeeeze!

What's the problem, it's true. You don't see gays as equals, if you said, blacks can't use the word marriage, you'd be a racist. But in your world, it's still ok to denigrate gays and say openly that they don't deserve to use certain words or customs because they're not worthy.

Father Time supports same sex marriage, Al. He was simply criticizing your argument so that instead of raising the defenses and closing the minds of same sex marriage opponents, you might use more effective techniques with which to get through to them, if such a thing is possible. At least don't hurt its chances with name-calling and blanket statements.

 

[Al Gunn]

"Anyone who complains about gays using the word marriage is a homophobe and a bigot."

But it's true, it's the short and simple answer. I think that like Archie Bunker, they either can't see their bigotry or don't care that they're bigots, or a bit of both.
What is a bigot? An intolerant person towards those that are different than you are. That's what the prop 8 folks are, plain and simple.
If the blanket fits...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

"Anyone who complains about gays using the word marriage is a homophobe and a bigot."

But it's true, it's the short and simple answer. I think that like Archie Bunker, they either can't see their bigotry or don't care that they're bigots, or a bit of both.
What is a bigot? An intolerant person towards those that are different than you are. That's what the prop 8 folks are, plain and simple.
If the blanket fits...

Its not about whether its true or not, Al, its about human beings interracting with respect. If you call someone a homophobe and bigot, how can you expect them to respect you or think anything you say is credible, let alone listen to anything you say? How can you expect them not to think you're a hypocrit for disrespecting them while advocating for equality? Kind of dulls any points you might make in trying to discuss anything with them at all.

 

[Father Time]

Anyone who complains about gays using the word marriage is a homophobe and a bigot.

*headsmack*

Can you stop with the blanket statements please?

Only if you say purdy pleeeeeeeeeze!

What's the problem, it's true. You don't see gays as equals, if you said, blacks can't use the word marriage, you'd be a racist. But in your world, it's still ok to denigrate gays and say openly that they don't deserve to use certain words or customs because they're not worthy.

I'm on your side buddy, I just know that not everyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobe (I haven't heard any convincing reasons for their side but that's beside the point).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Bullshit. Take a histroy lesson. You show me the words Christian or Judeo-Christian anywhere in the founding documents, and you have an argument. Otherwise it's just hot air driven by extreme, guilt-driven, emotion.

Oh, GIVE me a fucking break. "The words don't appear, therefore no one believed in any of that stuff and they were all atheists!" Shut the fuck up until you have something to say worth hearing.

Is that all you've got? And it IS debatable as to whether Free Masonry is or is not a religion.

That's all it needs. Your "argument" was silly and childish, and required no more response than to have that pointed out. If the best YOU can do is "this specific word doesn't appear, therefore the concepts aren't there and no one believed them", don't bitch because the answer you get is to be laughed at.

You do realize that their efforts in founding this country were to escape CHRISTIAN totalitarianism right? I'm sorry, but it's true.

No, dumbass, I DON'T realize that, because it's NOT true. You need to take a REAL history lesson and learn to differentiate the various groups which settled here and when. Right now, you're blurring at least three different groups of people from a good hundred-year span into one, and THEN misunderstanding their beliefs into the bargain.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Oh, NOW we're going to do the quote cherrypicking dance. Spare me. You know perfectly well that I can find even more quotes from Thomas Jefferson - not to mention other prominent Americans from history - supporting and admiring Christianity, and if you don't know that, then you're an even bigger imbecile than I'm currently ranking you as. This proves and accomplishes nothing except to make you look like a blindered, dogmatic bigot.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Also meaningless. The desire to allow religious freedom is itself an outgrowth of Christian thought, so it certainly doesn't prove YOUR "point", and I use the term loosely.

 

[Al Gunn]

*headsmack*

Can you stop with the blanket statements please?

Only if you say purdy pleeeeeeeeeze!

What's the problem, it's true. You don't see gays as equals, if you said, blacks can't use the word marriage, you'd be a racist. But in your world, it's still ok to denigrate gays and say openly that they don't deserve to use certain words or customs because they're not worthy.

I'm on your side buddy, I just know that not everyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobe (I haven't heard any convincing reasons for their side but that's beside the point).

Of course everyone who's against gay marriage is a bigot and homophobic, they don't think that gay unions are as worthy as their hetero unions, what more do you need?

CMM, I can't respect bigots, sorry. If they don't like being called a bigot, they shouldn't act like one. And as if I care whether they respect me or not, it's like asking me if I care if the KKK respects me. Don't give a shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe anyone has said there's anything wrong with them trying to attain what they want, so long as they do it legally and within the accepted procedural bounds. Get your asses out, beat the bushes for votes, and exercise your right as citizens to try to convince other citizens to agree with you. More power to you.

What you CAN'T do, and what people object to, is doing an end run around the law and the political process and the people to get what you want imposed on people by activist judges. It's cheating, and you're damned right there's something wrong with it.

Oh, spare me. You're worried about the tyranny of the majority expressed through the legal and Constitutional process of voting, and using it as an excuse for the more literal tyranny of the minority, expressed through saying, "I want it, and I'm taking it, and you can all just shut up because you can't stop me."

Whine to us about tyranny AFTER you stop trying to impose it, hypocrite.

How is the minority attempting to attain rights equal to those already granted to the majority tyranny?

People like you scare me. "As long as I use the right buzzwords and cloak my actions in a costume of goodness, that justifies any evil I do in the name of my righteous cause." The end does NOT justify the means.

Leaving aside the fact that your continued attempts to declare your personal point of view vis a vis "equal rights" the accepted truth and parameters for the debate is both wrong and offensive - you don't get to move the debate away from whether or not we're talking about "equal rights" to "we both agree that they're equal rights, so why are you denying them?" just because you want to - if you are attempted to secure what you want by bypassing the law and suppressing the rights of others, then you are advocating tyranny, and it doesn't matter how right you think your cause is. There's a reason why "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is a cliche.

We are not a truly democratic nation. Courts in the system crafted by our founding fathers are one of the mechanisms that check the majority and state judges are well within their authority to determine the legal meaning of state constitutions and federal judges and the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. I think gays have an extremely good case under the equal protection clause and the due process clause that should afford them the same rights under marriage as heterosexual couples.

Semantic arguments about "democracy" versus "republic" or whatever word you want to use are irrelevant and a smokescreen here, so don't even go there. It doesn't matter what you want to call the system. The law says that THIS is the way the laws are changed, and THESE are the people with the power to do it, and any attempt to change the law by any other means is illegal, illegitimate, tyrannical, and flat-out cheating.

The courts, while certainly part of the system of checks and balances, do NOT fulfill that role by rewriting the law to suit themselves. Nowhere in the written law are they given that ability. They can apply the law AS WRITTEN to individual court cases. They do not get to apply the law AS THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE.

I don't care if you "think" it's a good case or not. Your opinion and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee these days. Your thoughts on this subject are based on an utter misunderstanding of both the English language and the concepts involved. I sincerely doubt you have any idea what "due process" even is, let alone can articulate how it applies to this, and I'm flat-out laughing at your pretentious parroting of "equal protection" because someone who sounded really smart told you it was so.

And on a side note judicial activism does not equate to liberal. A shining example of judicial activism that I could scarcely imagine Republicans objecting to is the SCOTUS overturning the D.C. gun ban. I guess judicial activism is okay only if you agree with its outcome eh? (which in that case I agreed with the court)

Insofar as it is the left, not the right, that automatically defaults to trying to get what they want by subverting the courts, rather than by trying to change hearts and minds, I have to say if the shoe fits, wear it.

Sorry to tell you, but the overturn of the DC gun ban isn't activism at all. That really WAS the simple application of clearly-written law to a court case, which is exactly what the courts are SUPPOSED to do. The US Constitution states plainly, ". . . shall not be infringed." No qualifiers, no restrictions on who can't infringe it. Just "shall not". Period. DC put an Unconstitutional law into effect, and the courts at long last said so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whats wrong with a group of people trying to attain the same rights and benefits that are presently available to you? Just because they are comprised of a minority of the society doesnt make their conquest unjust. In fact I would argue that fighting for equal rights is a very just battle.

The fact that they are a "minority" is in and of itself of little consequence. James Madison warns of the "tyranny of the majority" or as he called it "the violence of the majority faction" in Federalist 10. Our Republic is not a true democratic state and has build in mechanisms to ensure that the rights of minority groups are not oppressed by an unjust majority.

Aside from the marriage thing, what rights do gays not have? Can they not vote, can they not adopt, can they not work, can they not have a dog?

There are numerous rights and benefits... the property rights associated with marriage such as automatic inheritance in the absence of a will. There is also immigration and residency for partners from other countries and the citizenship rights that can come with it marriage. Thats just a couple. There is a large umbrella of rights granted to people through marriage.

Yeah, and if you believe that tripe, I have some swampland to sell you.

But the underlying issue here is the one that you want to avoid by simply declaring that your opinion is the way it is, and assuming that we all accept that and are going to debate from that position. Ain't gonna happen. Recognition of a relationship by the state is NOT a right. It is a privilege, granted because the state recognizes a benefit to itself by doing so. Until you can demonstrate that homosexual relationships provide the state the same benefit, there is no reason to sanction it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Aside from the marriage thing, what rights do gays not have? Can they not vote, can they not adopt, can they not work, can they not have a dog?

They can do all of those things, except have that if they marry the person they love it isn't recognized by the government. Therefore, they do not have equality under the law in this country. PERIOD. Do you not believe in equality, Zoom? Because I do, and I think everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. I think everyone should be able to love and marry the person the wish unless it causes someone harm. If you can prove that homosexuality causes its practitioners harm, or anyone else, then you'll convince me. Until then, I stand for equality under the law.

Same old bullshit canard. I'm still waiting for you to show me the section of the law that talks about "the person they love." You sound like a bad romance novelist from the seventies. Any minute now, you're going to threaten to hit me with your purse.

It's sad how this particular issue turns so many men into misty-eyed little girls.