How Far Should The Majority Go?

[eric]

Mnt, to them it is not about equal protection, contracts could be used as an instrument to afford the same protections as marriage. It is about trying to gain public acceptance of a vile and filthy sexual orientation.

 

[wonderwench]

I am perfectly au fait with the concept of a civil union for gays. I think the radicals pushed the agenda too far by demanding full marriage. They harmed more moderate gays and lesbians who would have been happy for a different form of legal contract.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by eric
Mnt, to them it is not about equal protection, contracts could be used as an instrument to afford the same protections as marriage. It is about trying to gain public acceptance of a vile and filthy sexual orientation.

You really are a sad and hateful little man. Why does it bother you so much that two consenting adults enjoy sexual activity that you don't?

 

[eric]

Let me go slow again, I have no problem with what people do in their bedrooms and a don't hate them, I do find what they do vile, but hate them no. What I don't like is society becomming more and more liberal all the time. Just look at how much nicer the world is today than 20 years ago !!

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by eric
Let me go slow again, I have no problem with what people do in their bedrooms and a don't hate them, I do find what they do vile, but hate them no. What I don't like is society becomming more and more liberal all the time. Just look at how much nicer the world is today than 20 years ago !!

Splitting hairs - and not believable at all.

If you want society to be more conservative, then it would be logical for you to support civil unions for gays to have monogamous relationships.

 

[William Joyce]

You know, I've been trying to think of something eloquent to say about majority rule, minority rights, and democracy. But I can't. Because I think I should be the one in charge, and screw the rest o' y'all.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do any of those other things listed involve life and death?

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Do any of those other things listed involve life and death?

How does it affect your life or death if two consenting adults form a legally recognized relationship? If you are concerned about the health risks of homosexuality - then it would make sense to encourage monogamous relationships.

 

[Avatar4321]

How can any engagement in sex not involve life? Thats the point of it.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
How can any engagement in sex not involve life? Thats the point of it.

Yes, but who's life? If each individual is entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, isn't it his right to decide the manner in which he lives, as long as he is not infringing on the rights of others?

You not approving of homosexuality is not the equivalent of having your rights infringed. You do not have to become gay just because someone else is.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by dmp
I think Liberals should be sterilized

I hope you've been sterilized. Keep dem genes outta da gene pool, or you'll drag the whole species down.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by eric
Mnt, to them it is not about equal protection, contracts could be used as an instrument to afford the same protections as marriage. It is about trying to gain public acceptance of a vile and filthy sexual orientation.

While contracts offer <i><b>some</b></i> of the same rights and priviledges as marriage, those rights and priviledges are far less secure from a legal standpoint than those of marriage. A civil union entailing <b>ALL</b> of the rights and priviledges of marriage would be an acceptable alternative. But so long as Howdy-Doody is sitting in the Oval Office touting his born-again brand of religion to appease the religious right wing-nuts, that's not gonna happen. So, might as well go for the gold ring...no pun intended.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
But so long as Howdy-Doody is sitting in the Oval Office touting his born-again brand of religion to appease the religious right wing-nuts, that's not gonna happen. So, might as well go for the gold ring...no pun intended.

How do you blame this on Bush when over 60% of the nation is opposed? Are there that many right wing nuts? Seems to me that it's the will of the people pushing this forward.

 

[eric]

those rights and priviledges are far less secure from a legal standpoint

Wrong again ! Bully stick to something you understand, caring for the fags, and leave business to the big boys. You obviously have no understanding of contracts or legal protections afforded thru maritial statutes. How much experience do you have on a daily basis with contratual law or enforcement ( such as an action of specific performance ). Have you ever went to court to enforce a legally binding contract ?

Have you ever been involved in probate proceedings, when a will overrides the protections afforded thru marriage ? It happens all the time !

What contracts will not do is afford certain rights to people, so don't confuse rights with legal protections. Properly drafted and executed contracts are just as strong, if not stronger, than many of the protections afforded by statues.

If you think I am wrong please cite an example and I will double check it with my legal department.

 

[eric]

From the Gallup organization :

Sixty-one percent of Americans in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted March 5-7, say that marriages between homosexuals should not be recognized as legally valid, while 33% say they should be. The current responses are statistically no different from responses obtained in four separate Gallup Poll surveys conducted since October 2003.

From a longer-range perspective, the current level of opposition to legalized same-sex marriage is little changed from responses in surveys that stretch back to 1999, with the exception of one survey in June 2003 in which opposition dropped slightly, to 55%.

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

In short, the evidence suggests that neither the recent spate of same-sex marriages being performed in defiance of the law, nor the president's highly visible opposition to gay and lesbian marriages, have fundamentally altered the American public's basic attitudes. Roughly 6 in 10 Americans remain opposed to same-sex marriage, with only about a third supporting the concept.

 

[jimnyc]

Here's how far some are willing to go when things start getting shoved down their throats:

Tenn. County Wants to Charge Homosexuals

DAYTON, Tenn. - The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

The Rhea County commissioners approved the request 8-0 Tuesday.

Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the measure, also asked the county attorney to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county.

"We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said.

The vote was denounced by Matt Nevels, president of the Chattanooga chapter of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

"That is the most farfetched idea put forth by any kind of public official," Nevels said. "I'm outraged."

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) struck down Texas' sodomy laws as a violation of adults' privacy.

Rhea County is one of the most conservative counties in Tennessee. It holds an annual festival commemorating the 1925 trial at which John T. Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution. The verdict was thrown out on a technicality. The trial became the subject of the play and movie "Inherit the Wind."

In 2002, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the teaching of a Bible class in the public schools.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=519&u=/ap/20040317/ap_on_re_us/county_gay_ban_1&printer=1

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Here's how far some are willing to go when things start getting shoved down their throats:

Tenn. County Wants to Charge Homosexuals

DAYTON, Tenn. - The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

The Rhea County commissioners approved the request 8-0 Tuesday.

Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the measure, also asked the county attorney to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county.

"We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said.

The vote was denounced by Matt Nevels, president of the Chattanooga chapter of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

"That is the most farfetched idea put forth by any kind of public official," Nevels said. "I'm outraged."

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) struck down Texas' sodomy laws as a violation of adults' privacy.

Rhea County is one of the most conservative counties in Tennessee. It holds an annual festival commemorating the 1925 trial at which John T. Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution. The verdict was thrown out on a technicality. The trial became the subject of the play and movie "Inherit the Wind."

In 2002, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the teaching of a Bible class in the public schools.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=519&u=/ap/20040317/ap_on_re_us/county_gay_ban_1&printer=1

should have seen that coming from miles away

and its only going to get worse in the future.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
should have seen that coming from miles away

and its only going to get worse in the future.

I'm not saying I agree fully with such drastic action but this kind of stuff was bound to happen. Sadly, I think the majority of this could have been avoided had the gays went about things in a different way. The constant protests and activist judges and mayors allowing gay marriages before the courts render a decision is forcing the public to shove back.

 

[OCA]

Exactly, radical activism will be met with radical activism. Also I do have a little thought for you Jimmy, you keep talking about how you are against activist judges but want it decided in the courts but aren't those the same things? I think this issue should be decided by the voters and not some judge. But thats wishful thinking because queers know they have no chance to pass anything even close to what they want.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by OCA
Also I do have a little thought for you Jimmy, you keep talking about how you are against activist judges but want it decided in the courts but aren't those the same things?

Not really, these judges have only been ruling on whether or not the marriages should be allowed to continue. It shouldn't even get that far, it's illegal and the people have already had their say. These activist judges and mayors are not only disregarding the peoples vote, they are clearly breaking the law.

The proper way for the gays and activists to proceed would be to have the laws overturned. They feel it's easier and quicker to just thumb their noses at the law.