We're Getting Married!

[Seawytch]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Liar...its a word for you, it's equality for gays.

Change it, just make it the same. But then you wouldn't feel special anymore. Boo hoo.

 

[Redfish]

you are missing the point. our rights were established and our constitution enacted by MAJORITY votes. The people of the USA decided what rights the citizens were to be granted. They did that by consensus, not govt dictate.

Not of the people. Not a single state ratified the constitution with a majority vote. All of them did it at the legislative level. Worse for your argument, the founders believed that rights preceded the government. Meaning that no rights were established with the creation of the constitution. The constitution simple enumerated rights that already existed.

Which is one of the reasons rights trump powers. The rights were here first. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

if you want minority rule and govt dictate, move to north korea.

Damn, I cannot understand the liberal brain, there is absolutely no logic to your arguments.

Says the fella that believes that rights are established by majority vote. That's not the view of the founders. Check out the 9th amendment if you'd like a brief lesson in your misconception about constitutional enumeration establishing rights.

And of course, interpreting the constitution was the job the judiciary by design. Read the federalist papers. Hamilton lays it out, where if a law that was passed conflicts with the constitution, deference should be given by the judiciary to the constitution. Not the law. And its the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

So much for your 'minority rule government'. The judiciary is doing exactly what it was designed to do; protect rights and interpret the constitution.

I think the part of the 'liberal mind' you have the hardest time understanding is the 'informed' part. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I feel like I am discussing this with a frog. legislatures pass laws and ratify by majority vote. majority votes of the people put legislators in their positions. The judiciary decides cases by majority vote of a jury or panel of judges.

everything in our constitution and our statutes was put in place by majority vote at some level.

just because we are a republic does not mean we do not decide things by majority vote.

So what are you complaining about? Judicial rulings are occurring in the way you describe. Gays are marrying in a MAJORITY of states.

thats fine, if a majority of the american people want that, then so be it. But let the people speak by voting.

if it came to a national referendum I would accept the results, would you? be truthful.

 

[Redfish]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Liar...its a word for you, it's equality for gays.

Change it, just make it the same. But then you wouldn't feel special anymore. Boo hoo.

nope, but rant away. your desperation is obvious.

 

[frigidweirdo]

you are missing the point. our rights were established and our constitution enacted by MAJORITY votes. The people of the USA decided what rights the citizens were to be granted. They did that by consensus, not govt dictate.

Not of the people. Not a single state ratified the constitution with a majority vote. All of them did it at the legislative level. Worse for your argument, the founders believed that rights preceded the government. Meaning that no rights were established with the creation of the constitution. The constitution simple enumerated rights that already existed.

Which is one of the reasons rights trump powers. The rights were here first. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

if you want minority rule and govt dictate, move to north korea.

Damn, I cannot understand the liberal brain, there is absolutely no logic to your arguments.

Says the fella that believes that rights are established by majority vote. That's not the view of the founders. Check out the 9th amendment if you'd like a brief lesson in your misconception about constitutional enumeration establishing rights.

And of course, interpreting the constitution was the job the judiciary by design. Read the federalist papers. Hamilton lays it out, where if a law that was passed conflicts with the constitution, deference should be given by the judiciary to the constitution. Not the law. And its the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

So much for your 'minority rule government'. The judiciary is doing exactly what it was designed to do; protect rights and interpret the constitution.

I think the part of the 'liberal mind' you have the hardest time understanding is the 'informed' part. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I feel like I am discussing this with a frog. legislatures pass laws and ratify by majority vote. majority votes of the people put legislators in their positions. The judiciary decides cases by majority vote of a jury or panel of judges.

everything in our constitution and our statutes was put in place by majority vote at some level.

just because we are a republic does not mean we do not decide things by majority vote.

No.

You're missing the fact that the majority DON'T elect Congress or the President.

65 million people voted for Obama. Out of 300 million people. That's 21.6% of the people more or less.
58.2% of the people turned out to vote. Obama gained 51.1% of the 58.2% which is about 27% of those eligible to vote.

In the House in 2012 48.8% of those who bothered to vote voted Democrat and 47.6% of those voted Republican. The Republicans had 51.7% of the vote.

Now, 122 million people voted, 129 million voted in the Presidential election. So, even less than 58% of the people voted.

Even less people voted this year.

None of these federal elections give a person a majority of the American people, at all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

thats fine, if a majority of the american people want that, then so be it. But let the people speak by voting.

if it came to a national referendum I would accept the results, would you? be truthful.

Could you point out the section of the Constitution that provides for a national referendum on anything about making laws?


Thank you in advance.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

you are missing the point. our rights were established and our constitution enacted by MAJORITY votes. The people of the USA decided what rights the citizens were to be granted. They did that by consensus, not govt dictate.

Not of the people. Not a single state ratified the constitution with a majority vote. All of them did it at the legislative level. Worse for your argument, the founders believed that rights preceded the government. Meaning that no rights were established with the creation of the constitution. The constitution simple enumerated rights that already existed.

Which is one of the reasons rights trump powers. The rights were here first. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

if you want minority rule and govt dictate, move to north korea.

Damn, I cannot understand the liberal brain, there is absolutely no logic to your arguments.

Says the fella that believes that rights are established by majority vote. That's not the view of the founders. Check out the 9th amendment if you'd like a brief lesson in your misconception about constitutional enumeration establishing rights.

And of course, interpreting the constitution was the job the judiciary by design. Read the federalist papers. Hamilton lays it out, where if a law that was passed conflicts with the constitution, deference should be given by the judiciary to the constitution. Not the law. And its the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

So much for your 'minority rule government'. The judiciary is doing exactly what it was designed to do; protect rights and interpret the constitution.

I think the part of the 'liberal mind' you have the hardest time understanding is the 'informed' part. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I feel like I am discussing this with a frog. legislatures pass laws and ratify by majority vote. majority votes of the people put legislators in their positions. The judiciary decides cases by majority vote of a jury or panel of judges.

everything in our constitution and our statutes was put in place by majority vote at some level.

just because we are a republic does not mean we do not decide things by majority vote.

No.

You're missing the fact that the majority DON'T elect Congress or the President.

65 million people voted for Obama. Out of 300 million people. That's 21.6% of the people more or less.
58.2% of the people turned out to vote. Obama gained 51.1% of the 58.2% which is about 27% of those eligible to vote.

In the House in 2012 48.8% of those who bothered to vote voted Democrat and 47.6% of those voted Republican. The Republicans had 51.7% of the vote.

Now, 122 million people voted, 129 million voted in the Presidential election. So, even less than 58% of the people voted.

Even less people voted this year.

None of these federal elections give a person a majority of the American people, at all.

OMG, now the electoral college is racist and homophobic.

you guys lost congress in november, and you will lost the whitehouse in 2016. the american people are fed up with lying liberals and corrupt democrats. get over it. you libs had your chance and obama destroyed it for you-----------you picked him, its your fault.

 

[Redfish]

thats fine, if a majority of the american people want that, then so be it. But let the people speak by voting.

if it came to a national referendum I would accept the results, would you? be truthful.

Could you point out the section of the Constitution that provides for a national referendum on anything about making laws?


Thank you in advance.


>>>>

of course not, it was a theoretical question. notice that wytchey did not answer.

 

[mdk]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Socially conservatives states were not satisfied with allowing gays to even have civil unions so they banned them entirely. They also wouldn't recognize civil unions preformed in any other state. Those states forced the hand of gays to ask for marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason folks are now clamoring for civil unions as an alternative to marriage is because they are losing. That ship has sailed and the blame rests squarely with those states that decided even the words "civil union" were too close to marriage for their comfort.

 

[Syriusly]

Try to marry your sister

If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.

Lots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issue

Marriage helps encourage monogomy. Thereby reducing the odds of such 'public health issues'. Meaning that gay marriage produces the exact opposite effect that you're describing.

So why would we strip gays and lesbians of the right to marry?

the act of gay sex is unhealthy regardless and "monogamy" because one is marries does not always mean monogomy

'the act of gay sex'- which act is that exactly?

Cunnilingus?
Anal intercourse?
Blow jobs?

Do you think that people how engage in any of these acts should not be allowed to be married?

 

[Syriusly]

LISTENING SAID:

“If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.”

Incorrect.

Citizens are often compelled to seek relief in Federal court when the states violate their protected rights, in this case the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law.

For example, earlier this month a Federal appeals court reaffirmed as un-Constitutional Florida's public assistance drug test law:

'A Federal appeals court on Wednesday said a Florida law requiring applicants for welfare benefits to undergo drug testing is unconstitutional, a decision that could affect efforts to enforce similar laws in other states.

"By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy," Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for a three-judge panel. "If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that [the law] crosses the constitutional line."

The decision upheld a ruling last December by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Tampa to permanently halt enforcement of the July 2011 law supported by Republican Gov. Rick Scott.'

Court strikes down drug testing for Florida welfare recipients - Orlando Sentinel

Obviously the 4th Amendment's right to privacy and right to be free from unwarranted searches was a protected right before the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure, where a court battle was necessary to indeed protect the right to privacy from the state's excess and overreach.

Incorrect.....

The right to privacy isn't under attack.....

The whole court battle was about whether or not the drug test violated a universally accepted right. There is no disputing that such a "right" exists...it is in the application.

This does not hold as there is no universal right to marry. Marriage is restricted in many instances and applications.

Can't help that.

Incorrect.

The court determined that indeed the right to privacy was violated, a right that existed prior to the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure.

Our rights have existed long before the advent of the Constitution or the founding of the Republic, rights acknowledged by the Constitution and protected by its case law. When government attempts to violate those rights, citizens are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, where measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, such as laws requiring drug tests for those applying for public assistance.

Consequently your statement is wrong, rights do in fact exist – such as the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law – whether a law that violates citizens' rights is subject to litigation or not.

Poppycock....

If such a right existed, then so does the right of a woman to marry more than one man and vice versa.

Also, a grown woman would have the right to marry her father.

You don't get it both ways.

Such a right has never existed.

Sigh......

You have a right to bear a gun, but a State can still take that away from you if you are a convicted felon.

Just because rights can be restricted for cause doesn't mean that there is no such right.

 

[Redfish]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Socially conservatives states were not satisfied with allowing gays to even have civil unions so banned them entirely. They also wouldn't recognize civil unions preformed in any other state. Those states forced the hand of gays to ask for marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason folks are now clamoring for civil unions as an alternative to marriage is because they are losing. That ship has sailed and the blame rests squarely with those states that decided even the words "civil union" as too close to marriage for their comfort.

that may be true. but it begs the question. why aren't gays satisfied with civil unions? why do they drag this out by insisting on calling their committments marriages?

I am personally opposed to gay marriages because I personally believe that they degrade our society as a whole and will lead to more kinds of aberations of human groupings.

Thats the way I feel about it. I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. I am free to express them. As are you.

But just don't try to tell me I have to change what I believe in order to please you or anyone else.

Thats the danger here that most cannot see.

Gay marriage is the symptom, the problem is much deeper.

 

[Syriusly]

Some of you need to grow up, or at least shut up.

This country has serious problems

Gay "marriage" isn't one of them.

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

It hasn't anywhere else yet.

Didn't happen when mixed race marriages were legalized, even though there were folks just like you predicting exactly that.

The only ones mentioning polygamy and incest are those on the right who oppose equal rights for homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Socially conservatives states were not satisfied with allowing gays to even have civil unions so banned them entirely. They also wouldn't recognize civil unions preformed in any other state. Those states forced the hand of gays to ask for marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason folks are now clamoring for civil unions as an alternative to marriage is because they are losing. That ship has sailed and the blame rests squarely with those states that decided even the words "civil union" as too close to marriage for their comfort.

that may be true. but it begs the question. why aren't gays satisfied with civil unions?

I am not gay, but since 'civil unions' never provided the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why would any same gender couple be satisfied with second class citizenship?

 

[Syriusly]

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

If you're so sure that polygamists people who engage in incest have the right to marry, they have it regardless of marriage equality for gays.

Name the countries that perform both same sex and polygamist marriages since there absolutely MUST be a slippery slope.

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

 

[Redfish]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Socially conservatives states were not satisfied with allowing gays to even have civil unions so banned them entirely. They also wouldn't recognize civil unions preformed in any other state. Those states forced the hand of gays to ask for marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason folks are now clamoring for civil unions as an alternative to marriage is because they are losing. That ship has sailed and the blame rests squarely with those states that decided even the words "civil union" as too close to marriage for their comfort.

that may be true. but it begs the question. why aren't gays satisfied with civil unions?

I am not gay, but since 'civil unions' never provided the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why would any same gender couple be satisfied with second class citizenship?

they should provide that same rights. no one wants gays to be second class citizens. But, by the same token, those who believe that homosexuality is a human aberation should not be considered second class citizens.

the real issue here is political correctness as dictated by a minority. Thats the issue and thats where the danger lies.

 

[Redfish]

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

If you're so sure that polygamists people who engage in incest have the right to marry, they have it regardless of marriage equality for gays.

Name the countries that perform both same sex and polygamist marriages since there absolutely MUST be a slippery slope.

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

thats some funny shit. civil rights are always established by majority vote. a majority vote ratified the constitution, a majority vote passed the civil rights law, majority votes elect our representatives, majority votes in congress pass our laws.

the danger exists when minorities control the majority.

Hardly.

Loving v. Virginia established that we Americans have a right to marry another person regardless of our races.

That court case preceeded legalization in the legislature in some cases by decades.

please quote the language from the loving decision that addresses gay marriage. We'll be waiting.

 

[Redfish]

Some of you need to grow up, or at least shut up.

This country has serious problems

Gay "marriage" isn't one of them.

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

It hasn't anywhere else yet.

Didn't happen when mixed race marriages were legalized, even though there were folks just like you predicting exactly that.

The only ones mentioning polygamy and incest are those on the right who oppose equal rights for homosexuals.

OK, then what legal argument do you bring to SCOTUS when a polygamist case arrives for decision? What do you tell them as the reason that they cannot marry who they please?

think before answering, this is important.

 

[mdk]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Socially conservatives states were not satisfied with allowing gays to even have civil unions so banned them entirely. They also wouldn't recognize civil unions preformed in any other state. Those states forced the hand of gays to ask for marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason folks are now clamoring for civil unions as an alternative to marriage is because they are losing. That ship has sailed and the blame rests squarely with those states that decided even the words "civil union" as too close to marriage for their comfort.

that may be true. but it begs the question. why aren't gays satisfied with civil unions? why do they drag this out by insisting on calling their committments marriages?

I am personally opposed to gay marriages because I personally believe that they degrade our society as a whole and will lead to more kinds of aberations of human groupings.

Thats the way I feel about it. I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. I am free to express them. As are you.

But just don't try to tell me I have to change what I believe in order to please you or anyone else.

Thats the danger here that most cannot see.

Gay marriage is the symptom, the problem is much deeper.

It is most certainly true. When a few states started offering civil unions to gays a bunch states decided that even that was too close to marriage and banned them as well. This whole issue could have been solved last decade but those state's over played their hand and are now wishing they had not. Besides, there isn't any reason to create an entirely new system for gays when a system is already in place.

You do not have to change your beliefs in the least. Not for me or not for anyone. If you are going to use your beliefs as the basis for denying gays access to marriage then they better be pretty compelling and thus far that simply isn't the case. All of the points you brought thus far have failed miserably in the vast and overwhelming majority of the courts.

 

[Syriusly]

You can have your own beliefs. And those beliefs can be bigoted. They're not mutually exclusive.

So....tell us why a religious, moral or biological basis for an argument *can't* be bigoted? In all of your hysterics over the 'collapse of civilization' and 'Orwellian societies' you forgot to answer the question.

bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. its is not a universal absolute.

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Does this book say you have to be married to reproduce?

Does it say anything about the overpopulation of the world by humans?

of course not, marriage is a societal creation for the protection and upbringing of children.

Oddly enough none of that was mentioned on my marriage license when my wife and I got married over 20 years ago.

The problem with your claim is that state marriage laws have almost no relation to 'the protection and upbringing of children'.

There was no expectation or requirement that my wife and I intend to, or be able to have children. If we got divorced, marriage law would not change our obligation to protect and raise our child. If we were not married, we would both still have an obligation to protect and raise our child.

There is no requirement that we raise a child together- even if we are married. There is no obligation to stay together if you have a child.

The State doesn't care whether anyone is able to have children when it comes to marriage.

On the contrary- states which allow first cousins to marry will insist that they prove that they cannot bear children.

This is why your argument fails in court.

States didn't start claiming that marriage is only about children until they moved to ban gays from legally marrying.

 

[mdk]

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

Socially conservatives states were not satisfied with allowing gays to even have civil unions so banned them entirely. They also wouldn't recognize civil unions preformed in any other state. Those states forced the hand of gays to ask for marriage instead of civil unions. The only reason folks are now clamoring for civil unions as an alternative to marriage is because they are losing. That ship has sailed and the blame rests squarely with those states that decided even the words "civil union" as too close to marriage for their comfort.

that may be true. but it begs the question. why aren't gays satisfied with civil unions?

I am not gay, but since 'civil unions' never provided the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why would any same gender couple be satisfied with second class citizenship?

they should provide that same rights. no one wants gays to be second class citizens. But, by the same token, those who believe that homosexuality is a human aberation should not be considered second class citizens.

the real issue here is political correctness as dictated by a minority. Thats the issue and thats where the danger lies.

How exactly are you being treated like a second class citizens because gays are getting married?