I find it very disturbing

[Seawytch]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So you haven't actually had that perceived "right" since 1967.

 

[PratchettFan]

And...my point was made...those who "struggle" don't like to think that some other group might in some way have "struggled" just as much as they did. If you'd been around during the Womens Movement in the late 70s, you'd have heard much of the same rhetoric about how "offensive" it is to compare the Noble Civil Rights movement to the Silly and Frivolous Women's Movement. SSDD.

The women's movement bares no comparisons with the struggles endured by black people in this country. Again, trivializing the experience of black people and other ethnic minorities.

No movement or struggle is exactly like any other. Discrimination is still discrimination and bigots are still bigots.

I see, so every issue rises to the same level of importance, is that right? Particularly where human rights issues are concerned, correct? Then why so much focus on this issue and virtually none on basic human rights for all kinds of other people. Seems to me that people's opinions and behavior tend to reflect their own personal interests, rather than any commitment to basic principles of human rights.

Can you be more specific? What human rights are you referring to?

How about we start with basic economic justice. Or do you like the fact that 95% of the wealth created in the past decade has gone to 1% of the population?

Do you think denying the ability of someone to marry the person they love is going to fix that? What do you want to do?

 

[PratchettFan]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

 

[Ame®icano]

Irish are doing it on May 22nd.

 

[CowboyTed]

Your severe homophobia will certainly not detain you from xenophobia, so just tell us straight up....why you harbor such hatred for those not like "you".

Let's persuade our resident Jedi Knights, Guardians of The Realm and Keepers of The Faith to open, start, promote and encourage a gay butt-ranger Board so that all of our libturd friends can go there and participate in reach-arounds ad infinitum.

Problem solved.

Well, IDIOT. The suffix 'phobia' is Greek for 'fear'

I don't 'fear' butt rangers, carpet munchers, perverts, child molesters and other various and sundry deviants.....

I don't like the motherfuckers.

Let's just make that clear.

Now, as to what people do in the privacy of their own home? That's private and you know what?

Let's keep it that way.

Ever know the jerkoff that brags about his every conquest at every opportunity? Yes you have. Everybody has. Don't you hate that moron? Of course you do.

Ever known the slut that no woman can trust her man around? Of course you have. Don't be an idiot.

What I object to more than anything else is the 'in your face' aggressiveness of the perverts.

I don't want your sexuality invading my presence. I don't want you trying to force me to listen to your tales of conquest or any other aspect of your ******* pathetic sex life.

Keep it to yourself. As long as you're not hurting anyone, I don't care what the **** you do. As long as it's between consenting adults, I have no problem with it.

But do me favor. Please.

Just SHUT THE **** UP ABOUT IT!!!

You really sound like someone who over compensating? How long have you been holding back that you are gay...

 

[Redfish]

yes, but the SC cannot make a ruling the is in conflict with existing law or render a decision that is not based on any existing law.

Said another way, the SC cannot issue a ruling on gay marriage unless there is some federal or state law that they declare unconstitutional. If they do that they are not MAKING law, they are simply declaring that some existing law violates the constitution.

I know its a fine line, but we need to keep the SC within its constitutional limits

Sure they can if that existing law is determined to be unConstitutional.

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

 

[Redfish]

The women's movement bares no comparisons with the struggles endured by black people in this country. Again, trivializing the experience of black people and other ethnic minorities.

No movement or struggle is exactly like any other. Discrimination is still discrimination and bigots are still bigots.

I see, so every issue rises to the same level of importance, is that right? Particularly where human rights issues are concerned, correct? Then why so much focus on this issue and virtually none on basic human rights for all kinds of other people. Seems to me that people's opinions and behavior tend to reflect their own personal interests, rather than any commitment to basic principles of human rights.

Can you be more specific? What human rights are you referring to?

How about we start with basic economic justice. Or do you like the fact that 95% of the wealth created in the past decade has gone to 1% of the population?

Do you think denying the ability of someone to marry the person they love is going to fix that? What do you want to do?

Do you extend your "who they love" argument to polygamists and sibling marriage? The arguments for those are exactly the same as the ones you are making for gay marriage.

 

[Redfish]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

 

[Votto]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

Why do you wish to afford rights based upon sexual arrangements? Why do you want people voting on what kinds of sex they like and dislike?

I guess that is what I find the most disturbing. Meanwhile, our politicians divide and conquer based on who wants to sleep with who. I guess is sure beats passing budgets and actually talking about them doing their jobs they way they are suppose to do so.

 

[Seawytch]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

Nope. You don't' get to change the rules in the middle of the game just because you're losing, Chickenfish.

 

[PratchettFan]

Sure they can if that existing law is determined to be unConstitutional.

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

 

[Redfish]

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

Why do you wish to afford rights based upon sexual arrangements? Why do you want people voting on what kinds of sex they like and dislike?

I guess that is what I find the most disturbing. Meanwhile, our politicians divide and conquer based on who wants to sleep with who. I guess is sure beats passing budgets and actually talking about them doing their jobs they way they are suppose to do so.

all societies decide what will be considered acceptable to that society. Those decisions are made by majority vote. The civil rights act of 1965 was passed by majority vote (in spite of democrat philibusters).

Its not a matter of voting on what kind of sex they like, its voting on whether society as a whole wants to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Human biology and anatomy say it is not normal.

But the people should make those decisions, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

I do agree with you on the "divide and conquer" points. Obama has been doing that since 2007

 

[PratchettFan]

No movement or struggle is exactly like any other. Discrimination is still discrimination and bigots are still bigots.

I see, so every issue rises to the same level of importance, is that right? Particularly where human rights issues are concerned, correct? Then why so much focus on this issue and virtually none on basic human rights for all kinds of other people. Seems to me that people's opinions and behavior tend to reflect their own personal interests, rather than any commitment to basic principles of human rights.

Can you be more specific? What human rights are you referring to?

How about we start with basic economic justice. Or do you like the fact that 95% of the wealth created in the past decade has gone to 1% of the population?

Do you think denying the ability of someone to marry the person they love is going to fix that? What do you want to do?

Do you extend your "who they love" argument to polygamists and sibling marriage? The arguments for those are exactly the same as the ones you are making for gay marriage.

Yes. The only restriction I would place on it is they must be competent adults, just like in any other contract.

 

[Redfish]

yes, thats exactly what I said. But they cannot MAKE law, they cannot legislate. They cannot make up a law. They cannot judicially rule on societal morals. They cannot dictate to society as to what must be considered right and wrong.

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

the constitution is silent on the normality or abnormality of homosexuality and gay liasons.

You are trying to use the judicial branch to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage as normal.

And I guarantee that is you succeed, the next SC case will be on polygamous marriage using the exact same arguments you are making today.

What arguments will you bring against polygamists who only want to be able to marry who they love?

 

[PratchettFan]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

No. The law decides. That is how a nation of laws work. If the people want to change the Constitution, then they should do so. But so long as the Constitution is the law of the land, then that is what we use.

 

[zeke]

Come on fish. You don't want this gay issue to be resolved. What the **** would you gay bashers have to continually ***** about? I know, you could bash MW workers and poor people. Oh boy.

But why are the majority of the gay bashing threads started by closeted right wingers? Do you know? You just can't get enough of that gay can you?

 

[Redfish]

I see, so every issue rises to the same level of importance, is that right? Particularly where human rights issues are concerned, correct? Then why so much focus on this issue and virtually none on basic human rights for all kinds of other people. Seems to me that people's opinions and behavior tend to reflect their own personal interests, rather than any commitment to basic principles of human rights.

Can you be more specific? What human rights are you referring to?

How about we start with basic economic justice. Or do you like the fact that 95% of the wealth created in the past decade has gone to 1% of the population?

Do you think denying the ability of someone to marry the person they love is going to fix that? What do you want to do?

Do you extend your "who they love" argument to polygamists and sibling marriage? The arguments for those are exactly the same as the ones you are making for gay marriage.

Yes. The only restriction I would place on it is they must be competent adults, just like in any other contract.

so you are ok with 5 men marrying 6 women, brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying sons and daughters (to avoid inheritence taxes) ?

You have no idea how slippery this slope will become, and our society will be in the toilet.

 

[PratchettFan]

True...some people still believe divorce to be immoral, but it's legal. Some believe inter-faith marriage is wrong, but it's legal.

The SCOTUS can dictate what is considered legal and illegal. And since we are a nation of laws, and since we are talking about legal marriage......that's important.

No, they can't. They can determine what is constitutional, not legal. its not the same thing.

using your arguments then the SC would have to declare polygamy and sibling marriage as legal. What constitutional arguments can you make against them?

The Constitution is law. Deciding is something is or is not Constitutional is entirely legal. It is precisely the same thing.

Personally, I see no Constitutional argument against either.

This current gay debate is not about the constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination, or fairness.

It is about whether the government has the power and authority to mandate societaly acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as the same and equally acceptable as man/woman marriage.

This is about using the government to force the majority to accept the minority view.

This is the exact opposite of freedom, this is about government dictatorship.

The Constitution, law, equality, freedom, discrimination and fairness is precisely what this is about. The fact this is a debate and being decided under the law is why it is not a government dictatorship. Not getting your way doesn't make it one.

the constitution is silent on the normality or abnormality of homosexuality and gay liasons.

You are trying to use the judicial branch to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage as normal.

And I guarantee that is you succeed, the next SC case will be on polygamous marriage using the exact same arguments you are making today.

What arguments will you bring against polygamists who only want to be able to marry who they love?

Not trying.... succeeding. But I don't want to take the credit for it. Other than applauding it, I am a bystander.

 

[PratchettFan]

Can you be more specific? What human rights are you referring to?

How about we start with basic economic justice. Or do you like the fact that 95% of the wealth created in the past decade has gone to 1% of the population?

Do you think denying the ability of someone to marry the person they love is going to fix that? What do you want to do?

Do you extend your "who they love" argument to polygamists and sibling marriage? The arguments for those are exactly the same as the ones you are making for gay marriage.

Yes. The only restriction I would place on it is they must be competent adults, just like in any other contract.

so you are ok with 5 men marrying 6 women, brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying sons and daughters (to avoid inheritence taxes) ?

You have no idea how slippery this slope will become, and our society will be in the toilet.

Yep. I am ok with it. According to so many people society is already in the toilet, so no problem there.

 

[Redfish]

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

So, if I understand you, you think it isn't equal if their rights impose upon your right to take away their rights. Is that about it?

Society as a whole should decide what is considered right and wrong and what "rights" are to be granted to every citizen.

The rights in our constitution, our statutes, and our state laws were all enacted by majority vote, not minority dictate.

Let the people decide.

No. The law decides. That is how a nation of laws work. If the people want to change the Constitution, then they should do so. But so long as the Constitution is the law of the land, then that is what we use.

There is NO law on gay marriage. There is no law to decide or rule on. Trying to use Loving as legal precedent doesn't work. race and gayness are not the same.

if you want national gay marriage and want to limit it to two people, the only way is a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states.