A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[PredFan]

Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.

The majority should not have the ability to vote on what rights should be given to the minority

Rule of Law rather than Rule of Man. Interesting to hear a lefty saying that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The rule of law (the Constitution) protects against the horrors of the rule of man (Hitler).

This is an argument of the left and the right who love our American dream.

No group of Americans, even if a majority, have the power to limit rights of minorities.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great majority of Americans favor universal marriage.

The world of garyganu, predfan, and others is ending on this issue. True story.

 

[PredFan]

The great majority of Americans favor universal marriage.

The world of garyganu, predfan, and others is ending on this issue. True story.

Excuse me? when did my world ever exist? The world where logic, reason, civility, freedom, and liberty are available to all? When has that exised?

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[garyganu]

Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.

The majority should not have the ability to vote on what rights should be given to the minority

That is absurd. First of all, there are no majorities and minorities under the US constitution. We are all unique individuals, not groups and classes. We all have human rights, not Gay rights, women's rights or anything else. There is no such thing as Gay Rights only Human Rights.

Secondly, for argument sake, lets say that we did make legal differentiations between majorities and minorities, it would be absurd for the minority to control the majority.

In a Democratic Republic, the majority vote always rules.

 

[rightwinger]

Activists blame the Catholic Church and the liberal media pretends it's a popular issue. The simple solution is to put it to a referendum and let the people vote on the initiative but it always fails because it's not a popular issue.

The majority should not have the ability to vote on what rights should be given to the minority

That is absurd. First of all, there are no majorities and minorities under the US constitution. We are all unique individuals, not groups and classes. We all have human rights, not Gay rights or anything else. There is no such thing as Gay Rights only Human Rights.

Secondly, for argument sake, lets say that we did make legal differentiations between majorities and minorities, it would be absurd for the minority to control the majority.

In a Democratic Republic, the majority vote always rules.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper"

We are not a nation of majority rule. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the individual against the excesses of the majority

 

[garyganu]

The majority should not have the ability to vote on what rights should be given to the minority

That is absurd. First of all, there are no majorities and minorities under the US constitution. We are all unique individuals, not groups and classes. We all have human rights, not Gay rights or anything else. There is no such thing as Gay Rights only Human Rights.

Secondly, for argument sake, lets say that we did make legal differentiations between majorities and minorities, it would be absurd for the minority to control the majority.

In a Democratic Republic, the majority vote always rules.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper"

We are not a nation of majority rule. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the individual against the excesses of the majority

I disagree Rightwinger. The constitution and the "bill of rights amendments" exists to protect the people against the government.

 

[rightwinger]

That is absurd. First of all, there are no majorities and minorities under the US constitution. We are all unique individuals, not groups and classes. We all have human rights, not Gay rights or anything else. There is no such thing as Gay Rights only Human Rights.

Secondly, for argument sake, lets say that we did make legal differentiations between majorities and minorities, it would be absurd for the minority to control the majority.

In a Democratic Republic, the majority vote always rules.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper"

We are not a nation of majority rule. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the individual against the excesses of the majority

I disagree Rightwinger. The constitution and the "bill of rights amendments" exists to protect the people against the government.

The Bill of Rights are individual rights. So is the 14th amendment

 

[Ariux]

Simple solution, quit "defining" marriage by personal beliefs. Anti miscegenation laws existed in the US until 1967, Loving v. Virginia.

I thought I was racist, but you're comparing blacks to faggots.

 

[garyganu]

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper"

We are not a nation of majority rule. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the individual against the excesses of the majority

I disagree Rightwinger. The constitution and the "bill of rights amendments" exists to protect the people against the government.

The Bill of Rights are individual rights. So is the 14th amendment

The bill of rights only restricts the government. For example: The government can not abridge your right to free speech but your boss can, your teacher can, your parents can, etc. The 14th amendment only requires states to treat individuals equally.

 

[BDBoop]

Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.

Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?

Speaking as a gay man, Gary? Because otherwise I can't help wondering how YOU know what "many gay men" think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great majority of Americans favor universal marriage.

The world of garyganu, predfan, and others is ending on this issue. True story.

Excuse me? when did my world ever exist? The world where logic, reason, civility, freedom, and liberty are available to all? When has that exised?

You don't know what you are talking about.

How was I not polite, logical, reasonable, civil, free, or liberal?

You will be able to practice your marriage form as you please. I doubt anyone will make you marry someone not of your own faith or sex. The fact is this: the great majority of Americans under 40 approve of universal marriage. That approval will continue to affect the laws empowering universal marriage.

 

[BDBoop]

Simple solution, quit "defining" marriage by personal beliefs. Anti miscegenation laws existed in the US until 1967, Loving v. Virginia.

I thought I was racist, but you're comparing blacks to faggots.

You know who is lower than those two? Haters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I disagree Rightwinger. The constitution and the "bill of rights amendments" exists to protect the people against the government.

The Bill of Rights are individual rights. So is the 14th amendment

The bill of rights only restricts the government. For example: The government can not abridge your right to free speech but your boss can, your teacher can, your parents can, etc.

Your comment reveals a very lack of understanding about our Constitution.

Study the concept of incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

You cannot use your lack of understanding to deprive other Americans of their civil rights.

 

[Peach]

Simple solution, quit "defining" marriage by personal beliefs. Anti miscegenation laws existed in the US until 1967, Loving v. Virginia.

I thought I was racist, but you're comparing blacks to faggots.

You indicate hatred of a natural trait among some humans; that defeats all else you write.

 

[garyganu]

Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.

Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?

Speaking as a gay man, Gary? Because otherwise I can't help wondering how YOU know what "many gay men" think.

Dear BDBoop, I have gay friends and gay family members. I also have read statistical studies which confirm my anecdotal evidence.

Do you disagree that gay couples have more extra-relationship sex than straight couples?

 

[garyganu]

The Bill of Rights are individual rights. So is the 14th amendment

The bill of rights only restricts the government. For example: The government can not abridge your right to free speech but your boss can, your teacher can, your parents can, etc.

Your comment reveals a very lack of understanding about our Constitution.

Study the concept of incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

You cannot use your lack of understanding to deprive other Americans of their civil rights.

I don't understand your objection. The 14th amendment protects individuals from state governments.

 

[rightwinger]

Another aspect of marriage is the promise of sexual fidelity. Many gay men do not consider this to be an aspect of a committed gay relationship.

Do gay wedding vows omit the part about fidelity?

Speaking as a gay man, Gary? Because otherwise I can't help wondering how YOU know what "many gay men" think.

Dear BDBoop, I have gay friends and gay family members. I also have read statistical studies which confirm my anecdotal evidence.

Do you disagree that gay couples have more extra-relationship sex than straight couples?

Could not being able to marry impact that?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion.
...

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003,[3] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2003, Marshall authored the court's majority decision that for the first time in Western legal circles, found that same-sex marriages were a lawful extension of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the state's Constitution.

"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," Marshall wrote for the 4-3 majority. "It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."

Margaret Marshall, author of Mass. gay marriage decision, to retire - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe

contrary to your delusions...

 

[Peach]

Speaking as a gay man, Gary? Because otherwise I can't help wondering how YOU know what "many gay men" think.

Dear BDBoop, I have gay friends and gay family members. I also have read statistical studies which confirm my anecdotal evidence.

Do you disagree that gay couples have more extra-relationship sex than straight couples?

Could not being able to marry impact that?

Bizarre question. ganu appears to be an "expert" on the subject.