60 Percent Of Americans Soon Will Live In States With Marriage Equality

[Redfish]

a majority of those voting, idiot, thats how it always works.

The US is moving toward a european type of socialism. If thats what a "majority" of the citizens want, then so be it.

And what's with the insult? You keep changing your mind every five seconds.

Right, so it's always going to be and stay a majority of those who bother to actually vote? Even if it means a minority of actual people? You're not going to change on the next whim?

Next point I need to ask.

The people, a majority of those who voted, voted for Obama, voted for either democrats or republicans, more voted democrat but republicans hold the House, but dems hold the senate.

The Presidents appoint the judges, and if they decide to change this, it's all been done through majority voting. Right?

So is this then okay with you?


Next point. The Bill of Rights and the 14A were both passed by a majority of those who voted. If the Supreme Court finds that preventing gay marriage goes against these, and strikes it down, then this is the will of the majority. So you'd accept that too?

I already said I would accept the will of the people if the people allowed a say in the matter. Are you?

 

[Dot Com]

Civil Rights are not a bad thing rw'ers

Filthy, perverse, unclean, unnatural sexual behaviors are, however, as are legal accommodations for such despicable things.

are you "judging" people

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, neither should we allow a very small minority to dictate how the rest of us live. Societies set their standards of right and wrong based on how a majority of the members of that society feel and believe.

As I said, if a majority of the citizens of the USA (state by state) wish to sanction gay unions and call them marriages, then I will accept the will of the people. If that same number of voters say no to calling gay unions marriages, will you abide by the will of the people? Never mind, I already know the answer

Okay, so I have an idea. Let's make a Bill of Rights that enshrines what rights we want, and we stick to that.

Oh wait, it's been done before, that and the 14th Amendment too, which prevent the US govt sticking its fat nose into people's business where it's not needed, and where they don't do any harm to other people.

So, gay people getting married should be the govt's business? No it should not. So why don't they keep out of it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I already said I would accept the will of the people if the people allowed a say in the matter. Are you?

Well according to you the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment are the will of the people, right? I'll accept those.

 

[Redfish]

No, neither should we allow a very small minority to dictate how the rest of us live. Societies set their standards of right and wrong based on how a majority of the members of that society feel and believe.

As I said, if a majority of the citizens of the USA (state by state) wish to sanction gay unions and call them marriages, then I will accept the will of the people. If that same number of voters say no to calling gay unions marriages, will you abide by the will of the people? Never mind, I already know the answer

Okay, so I have an idea. Let's make a Bill of Rights that enshrines what rights we want, and we stick to that.

Oh wait, it's been done before, that and the 14th Amendment too, which prevent the US govt sticking its fat nose into people's business where it's not needed, and where they don't do any harm to other people.

So, gay people getting married should be the govt's business? No it should not. So why don't they keep out of it?

those words do not say what you claim that they say. Thats the issue, not the constitution or the bill of rights, but the incorrect interpretation that you on the left are attempting to ram up the collective asses of all americans. (excuse the pun, but if the shoe fits---)

 

[Redfish]

No, neither should we allow a very small minority to dictate how the rest of us live. Societies set their standards of right and wrong based on how a majority of the members of that society feel and believe.

As I said, if a majority of the citizens of the USA (state by state) wish to sanction gay unions and call them marriages, then I will accept the will of the people. If that same number of voters say no to calling gay unions marriages, will you abide by the will of the people? Never mind, I already know the answer

Okay, so I have an idea. Let's make a Bill of Rights that enshrines what rights we want, and we stick to that.

Oh wait, it's been done before, that and the 14th Amendment too, which prevent the US govt sticking its fat nose into people's business where it's not needed, and where they don't do any harm to other people.

So, gay people getting married should be the govt's business? No it should not. So why don't they keep out of it?

You with the gay agenda are the ones wanting the govt involved. We normal people want issues like this decided by state and local governments and the citizens of those states.

YOU want the government to mandate how americans are allowed to think about homosexuality. You want to live in a dictatorial nation, where no one is permitted to believe anything except what the government dictates.

said another way---------you are an idiot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

those words do not say what you claim that they say. Thats the issue, not the constitution or the bill of rights, but the incorrect interpretation that you on the left are attempting to ram up the collective asses of all americans. (excuse the pun, but if the shoe fits---)

Then what's your interpretation? I need it in order to be able to continue a conversation with you.

Simply saying it's the "wrong interpretation" doesn't help anyone.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You with the gay agenda are the ones wanting the govt involved. We normal people want issues like this decided by state and local governments and the citizens of those states.

YOU want the government to mandate how americans are allowed to think about homosexuality. You want to live in a dictatorial nation, where no one is permitted to believe anything except what the government dictates.

said another way---------you are an idiot.

Really? All I want is that the govts are all forced to stop taking away people's liberty.

Do you think liberty should be protected by the federal government or not?

Do you think black people should have their liberty restricted in states that were traditionally slave states? State rights and all that.

 

[Redfish]

those words do not say what you claim that they say. Thats the issue, not the constitution or the bill of rights, but the incorrect interpretation that you on the left are attempting to ram up the collective asses of all americans. (excuse the pun, but if the shoe fits---)

Then what's your interpretation? I need it in order to be able to continue a conversation with you.

Simply saying it's the "wrong interpretation" doesn't help anyone.

marriage is not a constitutional right, equal or unequal.

 

[Redfish]

You with the gay agenda are the ones wanting the govt involved. We normal people want issues like this decided by state and local governments and the citizens of those states.

YOU want the government to mandate how americans are allowed to think about homosexuality. You want to live in a dictatorial nation, where no one is permitted to believe anything except what the government dictates.

said another way---------you are an idiot.

Really? All I want is that the govts are all forced to stop taking away people's liberty.

Do you think liberty should be protected by the federal government or not?

Do you think black people should have their liberty restricted in states that were traditionally slave states? State rights and all that.

Define "liberty" then we can continue.


Does liberty include the right of a clergyman to refuse to marry two gay men or women? Or does liberty only apply to the things you support?

 

[frigidweirdo]

those words do not say what you claim that they say. Thats the issue, not the constitution or the bill of rights, but the incorrect interpretation that you on the left are attempting to ram up the collective asses of all americans. (excuse the pun, but if the shoe fits---)

Then what's your interpretation? I need it in order to be able to continue a conversation with you.

Simply saying it's the "wrong interpretation" doesn't help anyone.

marriage is not a constitutional right, equal or unequal.

That's not the issue here. We're not talking marriage as a right. We're talking what's written in the Constitution.

So you tell me what the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment mean then.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Define "liberty" then we can continue.


Does liberty include the right of a clergyman to refuse to marry two gay men or women? Or does liberty only apply to the things you support?

Definition of ldquo liberty rdquo Collins English Dictionary

"the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction"

Which would be, the ability to do as you choose as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others, and doesn't get in the way of other people's liberty.

I don't think anyone has the right to get married in any church they choose. So.....

 

[Shrimpbox]

So when an individual cannot choose his or her morality, cannot think in a way that parallels the majority of the people, and cannot act according to their longstanding religious norms, but are controlled by a small virulent minority and restricted by that minority in the most all encompassing pedestrian ways, infringing manifestly in ones everyday activities, that persons liberty is not being violated?

 

[1776]

You are still an outkast, cocksucker.

The total population of those states, based on 2013 estimates from the Census Bureau, is about 190 million. Just over 60 percent of the U.S. population now lives in a state where marriage equality soon will be legal.

And with Millennials coming into the mjority they stand out for voting heavily Democratic and for liberal views on many political and social issues, ranging from a belief in an activist government to support for same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization.

These findings are based on a new Pew Research Center survey conducted
Feb. 14-23, 2014 among 1,821 adults nationwide, including 617 Millennial adults, and analysis of other Pew Research Center surveys conducted between 1990 and 2014.

Millennials in Adulthood Pew Research Center s Social Demographic Trends Project

 

[Syriusly]

those words do not say what you claim that they say. Thats the issue, not the constitution or the bill of rights, but the incorrect interpretation that you on the left are attempting to ram up the collective asses of all americans. (excuse the pun, but if the shoe fits---)

Then what's your interpretation? I need it in order to be able to continue a conversation with you.

Simply saying it's the "wrong interpretation" doesn't help anyone.

marriage is not a constitutional right, equal or unequal.

Absolutely is.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

 

[Syriusly]

Thank you for putting your ignorance on display.

You mean my common sense and brains? Your welcome.

No, I meant your ignorance and I really do thank you for posting your ignorance for all to see. Comments like the one you made above only helps the marriage equality side. Actual thinking people read your posts and think "I don't want to be like that guy" and are more supportive of marriage equality as a result.

P.S. Never abused as a child.

There's other bad things about upbrinings then being abused just 1 of many examples. Do you read and understand psychology? It's all about what you see and experience while growing up. Not ignorance but common sense and my personal experience which is pretty common.

Yes, just one of many examples of your ignorance. Please, do tell us about the "psychology" of being gay that you've read about. Provide your sources.

My "personal experience" is probably a lot more extensive than yours and every gay person I know says they were born with attractions to the same sex, that it was never a choice.

Obviously you think you chose. When did you choose? Were you equally attracted to both men and women and flipped a coin?

No at one time you were attracted to women naturally unless you were abused before puberty, and then something happened along the lines and changed you. Pretty simple to come to that conclusion if you know psychology. btw.. not all gays can remember the turning point and why it happened which is also natural in psychology.

Which of course is entirely your personal theory and not proven in any way.

 

[Syriusly]

The only vague glint of hope that I see is for homosexuality to be declared dangerous, on the Federal level, in some fashion or another, which will set the stage for a domino effect to reverse Gay Mafia legal gains of recent years.

But, as I said before, we probably lack the will and resolve to save ourselves in this context. What a pity.

"Gay Mafia".....LOL....do you imagine guys in pink fedora's driving around with rainbow tommy guns?

Who do you fantasize will declare homosexuality 'dangerous on a Federal level"- and what do you hope then?

Concentration camps for homosexuals? Or just mandatory execution?

 

[Judicial review]

You mean my common sense and brains? Your welcome.

No, I meant your ignorance and I really do thank you for posting your ignorance for all to see. Comments like the one you made above only helps the marriage equality side. Actual thinking people read your posts and think "I don't want to be like that guy" and are more supportive of marriage equality as a result.

P.S. Never abused as a child.

There's other bad things about upbrinings then being abused just 1 of many examples. Do you read and understand psychology? It's all about what you see and experience while growing up. Not ignorance but common sense and my personal experience which is pretty common.

Yes, just one of many examples of your ignorance. Please, do tell us about the "psychology" of being gay that you've read about. Provide your sources.

My "personal experience" is probably a lot more extensive than yours and every gay person I know says they were born with attractions to the same sex, that it was never a choice.

Obviously you think you chose. When did you choose? Were you equally attracted to both men and women and flipped a coin?

No at one time you were attracted to women naturally unless you were abused before puberty, and then something happened along the lines and changed you. Pretty simple to come to that conclusion if you know psychology. btw.. not all gays can remember the turning point and why it happened which is also natural in psychology.

Which of course is entirely your personal theory and not proven in any way.

You mean I should listen to gays talk about this. They would have to deny this and be dishonest because it would go against the gay agenda. It would ruin them. If I took a poll of 3 billion people and asked them if they were ever attracted to the opposite sex at one point they'd say, yes. Simple psychology.

 

[Syriusly]

No, I meant your ignorance and I really do thank you for posting your ignorance for all to see. Comments like the one you made above only helps the marriage equality side. Actual thinking people read your posts and think "I don't want to be like that guy" and are more supportive of marriage equality as a result.

P.S. Never abused as a child.

There's other bad things about upbrinings then being abused just 1 of many examples. Do you read and understand psychology? It's all about what you see and experience while growing up. Not ignorance but common sense and my personal experience which is pretty common.

Yes, just one of many examples of your ignorance. Please, do tell us about the "psychology" of being gay that you've read about. Provide your sources.

My "personal experience" is probably a lot more extensive than yours and every gay person I know says they were born with attractions to the same sex, that it was never a choice.

Obviously you think you chose. When did you choose? Were you equally attracted to both men and women and flipped a coin?

No at one time you were attracted to women naturally unless you were abused before puberty, and then something happened along the lines and changed you. Pretty simple to come to that conclusion if you know psychology. btw.. not all gays can remember the turning point and why it happened which is also natural in psychology.

Which of course is entirely your personal theory and not proven in any way.

You mean I should listen to gays talk about this. They would have to deny this and be dishonest because it would go against the gay agenda. It would ruin them. If I took a poll of 3 billion people and asked them if they were ever attracted to the opposite sex at one point they'd say, yes. Simple psychology.

So again you are talking once again entirely your personal theory and not proven in anyway.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

faggot "marriage" will never be equal to real marriage. But the first amendment gives you the right to claim otherwise.