I find it very disturbing

[Redfish]

I get it, you don't give a shit what society considers normal and acceptable. you are an anything-goes kind of guy. Ok, great. We just disagree. Lets move on.

I get you consider freedom your right to do as you please and my right to do as you please. So we certainly will disagree and I am fine with moving on.

Rights are established by a majority vote of the citizens of any society. our constitution, bill of rights, and all laws were put in place by majority vote. Why should gay marriage be exempt from those established methods of setting societal rules?

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

No, it wasn't. It was done by the various governments of the states. But even if you were right, that does not mean we ignore the Constitution when it suits you. The process is there and that is what we are going to use, whether you approve or not.

the constitution wasn't ratified by a majority vote of the states???? really? where did you go to school?

 

[bodecea]

Pretty much the same thing, yes. The children do not make it different. And even if it does, it falls firmly into the category of none of your business. If people want to engage in a complicated marital arrangement, they had best have a contract to resolve those issue before they enter into it. Frankly, I doubt there will be many of these kinds of marriages but it is their business, not mine and not yours.

If I am not happy with the way you live your life and you are my neighbor, would you care? Would you think it proper for me to get the government to force you to change the way you live your life so it was more to my liking? Or would you just tell me to stick my liking where the sun does not shine?

Uhh, yeah. If you were running a crack house I would expect the govt to put you out of business.

do you also approve of fathers marrying sons to avoid inheritence taxes?

You seem to have trouble distinguishing actions and contracts that harm no one, and illegal drug sales that harm quite a few people.

It is your OPINION that gay marriage harms no one. Not everyone shares that OPINION.

Your OPINION is in the minority of human OPINION on this topic.

A minority OPINION should not be forced on the majority by a dictatorial government.

That is the issue here.

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

 

[Redfish]

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

wrong, our rights under the constitution were established by majority vote, they can be taken away by majority vote. thats how democracy works. like it or not.

No, they can't. That may be the way a democracy works but we are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't they teach civics in your high school?

could an constitutional amendment delete a prior amendment? yes or no.

 

[Redfish]

Uhh, yeah. If you were running a crack house I would expect the govt to put you out of business.

do you also approve of fathers marrying sons to avoid inheritence taxes?

You seem to have trouble distinguishing actions and contracts that harm no one, and illegal drug sales that harm quite a few people.

It is your OPINION that gay marriage harms no one. Not everyone shares that OPINION.

Your OPINION is in the minority of human OPINION on this topic.

A minority OPINION should not be forced on the majority by a dictatorial government.

That is the issue here.

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

If your case was based on something more than opinion, there would be no need for a court ruling, it would be clear---and it isn't

 

[bodecea]

Seriously?

yes, very seriously. The majority of humans on planet earth are opposed to gay marriage.

Ah...I see what you did there....you have to pull in China, Russian, all of the ME, etc. to make your point. Yay! Way to show who you are in agreement with.

Yes, thats correct and it has been so for over 3000 years. You represent a tiny minority of homo sapiens, but somehow you think that you have the right to mandate your views on everyone else.

This country with the FIRST written Constitution with the FIRST written freedom of religion, press, etc. is only just under 250 years old. But, you feel free to live like people did 3000 years ago. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you.

true, and in this country we all have equal say in who rules us and what laws we live by. But you want to ignore that and force your views on everyone else.

What makes your opinions superior to everyone else's?

and tell your buddy seawytch that I have her on ignore so I am not seeing her BS posts.

IT's not an opinion....it's a FAILURE of people like yourself to give any proof that gay marriage is harmful. In this country, the government is there to protect our rights and is ONLY allowed to restrict said rights if there is proven harm. I.E. Murder is harmful, easily proved....laws AGAINST it.

So...where are your FACTS that gay marriage is harmful enough for the government to step in and restrict it?

 

[Redfish]

Uhh, yeah. If you were running a crack house I would expect the govt to put you out of business.

do you also approve of fathers marrying sons to avoid inheritence taxes?

You seem to have trouble distinguishing actions and contracts that harm no one, and illegal drug sales that harm quite a few people.

It is your OPINION that gay marriage harms no one. Not everyone shares that OPINION.

Your OPINION is in the minority of human OPINION on this topic.

A minority OPINION should not be forced on the majority by a dictatorial government.

That is the issue here.

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

very true, but in order for that to apply, you have to establish that gay marriage is a right

 

[bodecea]

You seem to have trouble distinguishing actions and contracts that harm no one, and illegal drug sales that harm quite a few people.

It is your OPINION that gay marriage harms no one. Not everyone shares that OPINION.

Your OPINION is in the minority of human OPINION on this topic.

A minority OPINION should not be forced on the majority by a dictatorial government.

That is the issue here.

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

If your case was based on something more than opinion, there would be no need for a court ruling, it would be clear---and it isn't

Actually, the court is the place for you to prove the harm in gay marriage. If you can prove it....no gay marriage. If you cannot prove the harm, the government is not in a position to restrict the right of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to get legally married just because we are gay.

 

[Redfish]

yes, very seriously. The majority of humans on planet earth are opposed to gay marriage.

Ah...I see what you did there....you have to pull in China, Russian, all of the ME, etc. to make your point. Yay! Way to show who you are in agreement with.

Yes, thats correct and it has been so for over 3000 years. You represent a tiny minority of homo sapiens, but somehow you think that you have the right to mandate your views on everyone else.

This country with the FIRST written Constitution with the FIRST written freedom of religion, press, etc. is only just under 250 years old. But, you feel free to live like people did 3000 years ago. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you.

true, and in this country we all have equal say in who rules us and what laws we live by. But you want to ignore that and force your views on everyone else.

What makes your opinions superior to everyone else's?

and tell your buddy seawytch that I have her on ignore so I am not seeing her BS posts.

IT's not an opinion....it's a FAILURE of people like yourself to give any proof that gay marriage is harmful. In this country, the government is there to protect our rights and is ONLY allowed to restrict said rights if there is proven harm. I.E. Murder is harmful, easily proved....laws AGAINST it.

So...where are your FACTS that gay marriage is harmful enough for the government to step in and restrict it?

the real question is whether society as a whole wants to consider homosexuality and homosexual unions as normal human conditions. all I want is for everyone to have a voice in the decision. Why do your fear that?

 

[bodecea]

You seem to have trouble distinguishing actions and contracts that harm no one, and illegal drug sales that harm quite a few people.

It is your OPINION that gay marriage harms no one. Not everyone shares that OPINION.

Your OPINION is in the minority of human OPINION on this topic.

A minority OPINION should not be forced on the majority by a dictatorial government.

That is the issue here.

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

very true, but in order for that to apply, you have to establish that gay marriage is a right

Marriage IS a civil right.

 

[bodecea]

Ah...I see what you did there....you have to pull in China, Russian, all of the ME, etc. to make your point. Yay! Way to show who you are in agreement with.

Yes, thats correct and it has been so for over 3000 years. You represent a tiny minority of homo sapiens, but somehow you think that you have the right to mandate your views on everyone else.

This country with the FIRST written Constitution with the FIRST written freedom of religion, press, etc. is only just under 250 years old. But, you feel free to live like people did 3000 years ago. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you.

true, and in this country we all have equal say in who rules us and what laws we live by. But you want to ignore that and force your views on everyone else.

What makes your opinions superior to everyone else's?

and tell your buddy seawytch that I have her on ignore so I am not seeing her BS posts.

IT's not an opinion....it's a FAILURE of people like yourself to give any proof that gay marriage is harmful. In this country, the government is there to protect our rights and is ONLY allowed to restrict said rights if there is proven harm. I.E. Murder is harmful, easily proved....laws AGAINST it.

So...where are your FACTS that gay marriage is harmful enough for the government to step in and restrict it?

the real question is whether society as a whole wants to consider homosexuality and homosexual unions as normal human conditions. all I want is for everyone to have a voice in the decision. Why do your fear that?

Don't fear it at all....it's going through the legal process as we speak.....the courts ARE us, they are not some outside entity.

 

[Redfish]

It is your OPINION that gay marriage harms no one. Not everyone shares that OPINION.

Your OPINION is in the minority of human OPINION on this topic.

A minority OPINION should not be forced on the majority by a dictatorial government.

That is the issue here.

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

If your case was based on something more than opinion, there would be no need for a court ruling, it would be clear---and it isn't

Actually, the court is the place for you to prove the harm in gay marriage. If you can prove it....no gay marriage. If you cannot prove the harm, the government is not in a position to restrict the right of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to get legally married just because we are gay.

how does calling your union a marrige benefit you? taxes? inheritence? or is it just the word 'marriage' that somehow makes you feeeeeeeeeeeeeel better?

 

[Redfish]

It is your OPINION that gay marriage harms no one. Not everyone shares that OPINION.

Your OPINION is in the minority of human OPINION on this topic.

A minority OPINION should not be forced on the majority by a dictatorial government.

That is the issue here.

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

very true, but in order for that to apply, you have to establish that gay marriage is a right

Marriage IS a civil right.

which of the bill of rights is that? I can't seem to find it?

 

[PratchettFan]

I get you consider freedom your right to do as you please and my right to do as you please. So we certainly will disagree and I am fine with moving on.

Rights are established by a majority vote of the citizens of any society. our constitution, bill of rights, and all laws were put in place by majority vote. Why should gay marriage be exempt from those established methods of setting societal rules?

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

No, it wasn't. It was done by the various governments of the states. But even if you were right, that does not mean we ignore the Constitution when it suits you. The process is there and that is what we are going to use, whether you approve or not.

the constitution wasn't ratified by a majority vote of the states???? really? where did you go to school?

Where they taught both civics and history. Where did you go to school because I think you were robbed. For example, Delaware was the first state to ratify it with a unanimous vote of 30-0. Do you really think there were only 59 people in the state of Delaware at the time?

 

[bodecea]

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

very true, but in order for that to apply, you have to establish that gay marriage is a right

Marriage IS a civil right.

which of the bill of rights is that? I can't seem to find it?

Legal Precedent......or are you going to next make the case that if it isn't in the Bill of Rights, it isn't a civil right?

 

[PratchettFan]

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

what you are missing is that our rights under the constitution and and our laws were established by majority vote.

You can't strip someone of the rights with a majority vote. Rights trump powers.

wrong, our rights under the constitution were established by majority vote, they can be taken away by majority vote. thats how democracy works. like it or not.

No, they can't. That may be the way a democracy works but we are a Constitutional Republic. Didn't they teach civics in your high school?

could an constitutional amendment delete a prior amendment? yes or no.

Sure.

 

[Redfish]

Rights are established by a majority vote of the citizens of any society. our constitution, bill of rights, and all laws were put in place by majority vote. Why should gay marriage be exempt from those established methods of setting societal rules?

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

No, it wasn't. It was done by the various governments of the states. But even if you were right, that does not mean we ignore the Constitution when it suits you. The process is there and that is what we are going to use, whether you approve or not.

the constitution wasn't ratified by a majority vote of the states???? really? where did you go to school?

Where they taught both civics and history. Where did you go to school because I think you were robbed. For example, Delaware was the first state to ratify it with a unanimous vote of 30-0. Do you really think there were only 59 people in the state of Delaware at the time?

it was a majority vote in the delaware legislature, those legislators were elected by majority vote. why is that so hard for you to grasp? What if it have gone 30-0 against? would you drop it and move on?

 

[bodecea]

Ok, you say that gay marriage harms........who? And what form does that harm take? Provide us with proof.

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

If your case was based on something more than opinion, there would be no need for a court ruling, it would be clear---and it isn't

Actually, the court is the place for you to prove the harm in gay marriage. If you can prove it....no gay marriage. If you cannot prove the harm, the government is not in a position to restrict the right of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to get legally married just because we are gay.

how does calling your union a marrige benefit you? taxes? inheritence? or is it just the word 'marriage' that somehow makes you feeeeeeeeeeeeeel better?

How does calling YOUR union a marriage benefit you? taxes? inheritance? or is it just the word "marriage" that somehow makes you feeeeeeeel better?

 

[Redfish]

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

very true, but in order for that to apply, you have to establish that gay marriage is a right

Marriage IS a civil right.

which of the bill of rights is that? I can't seem to find it?

Legal Precedent......or are you going to next make the case that if it isn't in the Bill of Rights, it isn't a civil right?

No, my point is that our rights were established by majority votes, not dictated from a dictatorial government.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, they are not. They are established by law - the Constitution being primary to all other law. Your approval is not required.

how was the constitution ratified? was it not by majority vote?

No, it wasn't. It was done by the various governments of the states. But even if you were right, that does not mean we ignore the Constitution when it suits you. The process is there and that is what we are going to use, whether you approve or not.

the constitution wasn't ratified by a majority vote of the states???? really? where did you go to school?

Where they taught both civics and history. Where did you go to school because I think you were robbed. For example, Delaware was the first state to ratify it with a unanimous vote of 30-0. Do you really think there were only 59 people in the state of Delaware at the time?

it was a majority vote in the delaware legislature, those legislators were elected by majority vote. why is that so hard for you to grasp? What if it have gone 30-0 against? would you drop it and move on?

It isn't hard for me to grasp, but you kept going on about the will of the people and you didn't agree with me when I said it was done by the various governments. You were clearly talking about a majority of the people, not a majority of the representatives. But let's just say I misunderstood you and go with that. So what? They ratified the Constitution, so we use the Constitution. Show me in the Constitution where it says we resolve disputes under the Constitution by majority vote.

 

[Redfish]

What I said was that a majority of humans BELIEVE that gay marriage would harm society, its their OPINION, just as its your OPINION that it would do no harm.

But your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. So the people should vote and the majority OPINION should prevail. Thats what democracy and freedom are all about.

Laws restricting rights (at least in the United States) aren't based on OPINIONS, they are based on actually proof of harm. We know your opinion is that gay marriage is bad and harmful....how about backing that up with MORE than opinion.

If your case was based on something more than opinion, there would be no need for a court ruling, it would be clear---and it isn't

Actually, the court is the place for you to prove the harm in gay marriage. If you can prove it....no gay marriage. If you cannot prove the harm, the government is not in a position to restrict the right of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to get legally married just because we are gay.

how does calling your union a marrige benefit you? taxes? inheritence? or is it just the word 'marriage' that somehow makes you feeeeeeeeeeeeeel better?

How does calling YOUR union a marriage benefit you? taxes? inheritance? or is it just the word "marriage" that somehow makes you feeeeeeeel better?

LOL so rather than try to answer, you just repeat the question.

let me try again, if you gay union got all the tax and inheritence breaks that a man/woman marriage got would you still be pushing to call it a marraige?

Admit it, its not about rights, freedom, equality, discrimination, or anything else. Its about using the force of government to dictate societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority consider abnormal.