I find it very disturbing

[bodecea]

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.

I thought our rights came from our "Creator".....now you are saying that majority vote gives rights....if majority vote can give rights, majority vote can take rights away. That is what you are advocating.

 

[Redfish]

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.

There are 9 SC justices, is a majority required to settle a case? does a majority of votes elect our senators and representatives? does a majority vote of a jury decide most cases?

I am not saying that all 330,000,000 citizens get to vote on every issue, we do not have a pure democracy.

 

[Redfish]

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.

I thought our rights came from our "Creator".....now you are saying that majority vote gives rights....if majority vote can give rights, majority vote can take rights away. That is what you are advocating.

its not what I am advocating, thats how it works. Do you not think there is a movement from the left to repeal the 2nd amendment?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Let ME try again. If you straight union got all the tax and inheritance breaks that a man/man or women/women marriage got, would you still be pushing to call it a marriage?

 

[bodecea]

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.

I thought our rights came from our "Creator".....now you are saying that majority vote gives rights....if majority vote can give rights, majority vote can take rights away. That is what you are advocating.

its not what I am advocating, thats how it works. Do you not think there is a movement from the left to repeal the 2nd amendment?

So...you ARE asserting that majority vote gives rights and takes rights away. That is what you are saying is how our government is set up.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

There are 9 SC justices, is a majority required to settle a case? does a majority of votes elect our senators and representatives? does a majority vote of a jury decide most cases?

I am not saying that all 330,000,000 citizens get to vote on every issue, we do not have a pure democracy.

Ok. So what you meant was that this should be decided by a majority vote of the 9 members of SCOTUS. Is that correct?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nope. If a state passes a law that abrogates rights, regardless of if is supported by the majority, they're in violation of the 14th amendment. At the very least.

We're a constitutional republic. And the constitutional part is where your argument breaks. As you're describing the tyranny of the majority. Where with a 50% plus 1 vote, any individual can be stripped of any right.

That's not our system. Nor was it ever. We've always protected rights, placing them above the power of government to abrogate. Though this began as an prohibition against Federal abrogation and later grew to a prohibition of State abrogation.

You did give us a lovely window into how YOU think this country should work though.

was the 14th amendment put in place by majority vote? yes or no

A 3/4ths majority of States, yes. But that's not what we're describing in a State law that prohibits marriage, is it?

An individual state doesn't have the authority to abrogate any right.

the question is whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right. that is what they will be deciding.

Nope. Here's the questions they'll be answering:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

You can imagine whatever questions you'd like. But these are actually the one's the the court is answering. And exactly as I said, this is about the 14th amendment.

 

[bodecea]

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.

There are 9 SC justices, is a majority required to settle a case? does a majority of votes elect our senators and representatives? does a majority vote of a jury decide most cases?

I am not saying that all 330,000,000 citizens get to vote on every issue, we do not have a pure democracy.

Ok. So what you meant was that this should be decided by a majority vote of the 9 members of SCOTUS. Is that correct?

SNAP!!!!!!!

 

[Redfish]

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.

Let ME try again. If you straight union got all the tax and inheritance breaks that a man/man or women/women marriage got, would you still be pushing to call it a marriage?

OK, I'm done with your BS. you refuse to discuss this intelligently and logically, you are all full of emotion and ranting.

Go off and enjoy your gay life. maybe the country will sanction your union and call it a marriage. maybe your neighbors will be a marriage of 5 men and 7 women and 14 kids.

WTF, let society go into the shitcan so you can say you and your girlfriend are married.

As I said in the OP, I am tired of the gay shit dominating the public debate while we have so many real problems that are not being addressed.

 

[natstew]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

 

[PratchettFan]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

Not for you to say.

 

[Skylar]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

Marriage? Of course its a civil right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia (1967)

 

[mdk]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

The Supreme Court say otherwise. Your opinion vs. The Supreme Court? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one and not some random person on the internet.

 

[Skylar]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

The Supreme Court say otherwise. Your opinion vs. The Supreme Court? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one and not some random person on the internet.

Good god, that's an effective reply.

 

[Redfish]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

Marriage? Of course its a civil right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia (1967)

Interracial marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing. Show us a court ruling that says gay marriage is a civil right. I know you guys want Loving to apply to your argument, but it doesn't.

 

[Redfish]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

Not for you to say.

is he allowed to have an opinion? is he allowed to state his opinion? or are only those who agree with you allowed to have and state opinions?

you are the most intolerant group of people on the planet.

 

[Skylar]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

Marriage? Of course its a civil right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia (1967)

Interracial marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing.

Marriage most definitely is a civil right. And gays and lesbians have the same civil rights as straights. If you're going to deny them such rights, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative end.

And there are none.

Show us a court ruling that says gay marriage is a civil right. I know you guys want Loving to apply to your argument, but it doesn't.

Says you.

Yet the Supreme Court itself cites Loving in the Windsor v. US decision as an example of the State marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees . Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US the Supreme Court cites 4 race based cases involving discrimination when describing why the rights of gays can't be violated.

You say these raced based cases have nothing to do with gays. Yet the Supreme Court keeps citing them. Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Let ME try again. If you straight union got all the tax and inheritance breaks that a man/man or women/women marriage got, would you still be pushing to call it a marriage?

OK, I'm done with your BS. you refuse to discuss this intelligently and logically, you are all full of emotion and ranting.

Go off and enjoy your gay life. maybe the country will sanction your union and call it a marriage. maybe your neighbors will be a marriage of 5 men and 7 women and 14 kids.

WTF, let society go into the shitcan so you can say you and your girlfriend are married.

As I said in the OP, I am tired of the gay shit dominating the public debate while we have so many real problems that are not being addressed.

Wait....you call my post "BS"...you accuse me of refusing "to discuss this intelligently and logically". You accuse me of being "all full of emotion and ranting"...........................for just flipping YOUR words around to refer to YOUR straight marriage as opposed to my marriage.

So, you condemn yourself.


Oh, if I have a girlfriend....you must just have a girlfriend too...I hope you and your girlfriend don't cause society to go into the shitcan.

 

[bodecea]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

Not for you to say.

is he allowed to have an opinion? is he allowed to state his opinion? or are only those who agree with you allowed to have and state opinions?

you are the most intolerant group of people on the planet.

You can state your opinion all you like...but opinion doesn't hold the same weight as facts and law............for good reason.

 

[bodecea]

That the threads that get the most posts are the ones on gays. I guess that issue divides the US like no other issue. There are very strong feelings on both sides, and both sides sometimes make good arguments.

The only way to resolve it is to let the people speak by voting. We need either a national referendum on gay marriage or a constitutional amendment on it. Let the people decide and lets all live by that decision.

Its one of the most profound civil rights issues in about a generation. And the USSC is hearing cases on the subject in a matter of weeks.

Of course its being discussed.

It's not a civil right!

Marriage? Of course its a civil right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia (1967)

Interracial marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing. Show us a court ruling that says gay marriage is a civil right. I know you guys want Loving to apply to your argument, but it doesn't.

You know...that's what we've gotten in several states and we're gonna get that from the SCOTUS this June, right? When we do.....I'll take the time to show it to you.