We're Getting Married!

[Redfish]

lets just focus on the first one you quoted--------------when did gay become a race?

I don't know, you tell me. I was responding to Russia being racist. I don't think I mentioned anything about gay.

did you bother to read that articles that you cited?

 

[mdk]

Why? What about religion, moral or biological grounds makes opposition void of bigotry? As the use of all three of those bases in opposition to interracial marriage demonstrate, its entirely possible to be both devout and bigoted.

so you want a country that does not allow each person to have his or her personal beliefs? you want an Orwellian society where thoughts are controlled?

this issue is much bigger than gay marriage

You can have your own beliefs. And those beliefs can be bigoted. They're not mutually exclusive.

So....tell us why a religious, moral or biological basis for an argument *can't* be bigoted? In all of your hysterics over the 'collapse of civilization' and 'Orwellian societies' you forgot to answer the question.

bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. its is not a universal absolute.

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish youve never been to Russia if you don't think Russians are racist. That is clear.

I was in St Petersburg earlier this year on business for a week. There are many races and ethnicities in russian society. The problem in Russia is socialism, not racism. All of the power and all of the money is controlled by a very small group of elites.

and you foolish libs keep pushing for a similar system here in the US.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Redfish youve never been to Russia if you don't think Russians are racist. That is clear.

I was in St Petersburg earlier this year on business for a week. There are many races and ethnicities in russian society. The problem in Russia is socialism, not racism. All of the power and all of the money is controlled by a very small group of elites.

and you foolish libs keep pushing for a similar system here in the US.

No you werent

I'm not a lib

We already live in a society where all the power and money is controlled by a very small group of elites.

 

[Redfish]

so you want a country that does not allow each person to have his or her personal beliefs? you want an Orwellian society where thoughts are controlled?

this issue is much bigger than gay marriage

You can have your own beliefs. And those beliefs can be bigoted. They're not mutually exclusive.

So....tell us why a religious, moral or biological basis for an argument *can't* be bigoted? In all of your hysterics over the 'collapse of civilization' and 'Orwellian societies' you forgot to answer the question.

bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. its is not a universal absolute.

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish youve never been to Russia if you don't think Russians are racist. That is clear.

I was in St Petersburg earlier this year on business for a week. There are many races and ethnicities in russian society. The problem in Russia is socialism, not racism. All of the power and all of the money is controlled by a very small group of elites.

and you foolish libs keep pushing for a similar system here in the US.

No you werent

I'm not a lib

We already live in a society where all the power and money is controlled by a very small group of elites.

would you like to see my passport stamps?

yes we do and its getting worse. Shouldn't we try to reverse that?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You can have your own beliefs. And those beliefs can be bigoted. They're not mutually exclusive.

So....tell us why a religious, moral or biological basis for an argument *can't* be bigoted? In all of your hysterics over the 'collapse of civilization' and 'Orwellian societies' you forgot to answer the question.

bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. its is not a universal absolute.

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

And you could certainly have that you dummy.

It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.

Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.

 

[Redfish]

bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. its is not a universal absolute.

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

And you could certainly have that you dummy.

It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.

Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.

you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.

 

[mdk]

You can have your own beliefs. And those beliefs can be bigoted. They're not mutually exclusive.

So....tell us why a religious, moral or biological basis for an argument *can't* be bigoted? In all of your hysterics over the 'collapse of civilization' and 'Orwellian societies' you forgot to answer the question.

bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. its is not a universal absolute.

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people; via their representatives, in Washington DC to pass idiotic and restrictive gun measures, should those laws be allowed to stand because it was their will despite it being unconstitutional? Of course not.

 

[Skylar]

Overall, a quarter of Russian men die before reaching 55, compared with 7% of men in the UK and about 10% in the United States. The life expectancy for men inRussia is 64 years, placing it among the lowest 50 countries in the world in that category.

Russian men losing years to vodka World news The Guardian

Ouch. Seems all that oppositoin to gay marriage hasn't really helped their life expectancy. With the average life expectancy for Russians being about 70 years. Lets take a look at the netherlands:

Life expectancy: 81 years.

Rank 15
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

An extra decade of life! With the 15th highest life expectancy on the planet. While Russia, in its reverant opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage ranks 123rds. Ouch. Lets look at Crime rates:

Russia: 54.32
Netherlands: 36.59

Countries Compared by Crime Crime levels. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

Ouch twice! That's a rate almost half again higher in devout Russia over 'anything goes' Netherlands. But lets break it down a little.

Russia:

Murder Rate 15
Murders per million people: 102
Violent Crime Rate: 8.9
Russia Crime Stats NationMaster.com

Now lets check the Netherlands

Netherlands:

Murder rate: 0.93
Murders per million people: 10.8
Violent Crime rate: 3.9
Netherlands Crime Stats NationMaster.com

Ouch again. More than double the violent crime rate and 9 times the number of murders per capita. Opposition to gay marriage doesn't seem to be doing much for the morals of the Russians. Lets see how it helps their income rates.

Per capita income by country:

Rank 13: Netherlands: 46,440
Rank 46: Russia: 24,298

List of countries by GDP PPP per capita - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Barely more than half of what the Dutch make. Perhaps the Russians find more scholarly edification from their opposition to gay marriage:

Education Index:

Netherlands: Rank #9; Score .989
Russia: Rank #46; Score .941

Education Index - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sucks again. In metric after metric, your assumptions of societal collapse with acceptance of gay marriage is disproven. And the protective effects of opposition to gay marraige demonstrated meaningless babble.

Try again, Chicken Little.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. its is not a universal absolute.

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people; via their representatives, in Washington DC to pass idiotic and restrictive gun measures, should those laws be allowed to stand because it was their will despite it being unconstitutional? Of course not.

Not quite true, The "will of the people" can absolutely take away civil rights . 18th amendment anyone?

 

[Redfish]

bigotry is in the mind of the beholder. its is not a universal absolute.

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people; via their representatives, in Washington DC to pass idiotic and restrictive gun measures, should those laws be allowed to stand because it was their will despite it being unconstitutional? Of course not.

the constitution was adopted and modified by majority vote. Let the people speak by casting their votes. Thats all I am asking for.

 

[mdk]

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people; via their representatives, in Washington DC to pass idiotic and restrictive gun measures, should those laws be allowed to stand because it was their will despite it being unconstitutional? Of course not.

Not quite true, The "will of the people" can absolutely take away civil rights . 18th amendment anyone?

Of course, they can obviously be taken away with amendments to the Constitution.

 

[mdk]

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people; via their representatives, in Washington DC to pass idiotic and restrictive gun measures, should those laws be allowed to stand because it was their will despite it being unconstitutional? Of course not.

the constitution was adopted and modified by majority vote. Let the people speak by casting their votes. Thats all I am asking for.

I get what you are asking for but the people should not have the right to vote on the liberty and rights of other minority groups.

 

[Jroc]

Some of you need to grow up, or at least shut up.

This country has serious problems

Gay "marriage" isn't one of them.

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

If you're so sure that polygamists people who engage in incest have the right to marry, they have it regardless of marriage equality for gays.

Name the countries that perform both same sex and polygamist marriages since there absolutely MUST be a slippery slope.

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

Marriage is not a right, never has been a right, there are restrictions

 

[Jroc]

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

It's a "problem" in your head only. Who cares if gays call themselves "married?"

no one, but it sets a very dangerous precedent. If two men or two women are allowed to marry because it would discriminate against them to not allow it, then the exact same argument will be made for multiple person marriages. "why should they be prevented for marrying who they love and being able to live as they choose?"

its the next logical step, if you are OK with all forms of human co-habitation being called marriage, then fine. But get ready for a complete collapse of civilization.

How is "marriage" going to collapse society? I mean don't get me wrong I think society IS collapsing, but not because of this.

a society where anything goes will not survive. History proves that. Ever study any world history?

Son, gay marriage, or sibling marriage isnt the same thing as "anything goes"

And if YOU had read any world history , you would know that as a rule democratic governments don't usually last as long as we have anyway.

Yeah? who says? i guess we can redefine marriage to whatever we want it to be

 

[Seawytch]

Fishy attempts a deflection...fails.

If opposition to interracial marriage isn't racism and bigotry, what is it?

opposition to interracial marriage wrong and racist, it had nothing to do with same sex marriage.

are you now claiming that homosexuality is a race?

No and I never have, but you made the claim that opposition to same sex marriage wasn't anti gay bigotry. It is...just as opposition to interracial marriage is also bigotry. Fine company...

continuing to repeat a lie does not convert it to truth. race and homosexuality are not analogous, no matter how many times you try to make that claim.

The bigotry and discrimination is...no matter how much you try to deny the parallels.

being opposed to gay marriage on religious, moral, or biological grounds is neither bigotry or discrimination.

Nope, sorry...you don't get a "I'm religious and therefore can't be a bigot" exemption...especially since folks tried to justify their racist bigotry with their religiousosity too.

 

[Seawytch]

The issue of gay marriage is rapidly ceasing to be a 'problem'. As its increasingly legal everywhere. 36 of 50 States. We're 14 away from the resolution of conflict on the issue.

and I guarantee that the next push from the left will be to legalize multiple person marriage, sibling marriage, and all other forms of "marriage".

It will come, do not doubt me.

If you're so sure that polygamists people who engage in incest have the right to marry, they have it regardless of marriage equality for gays.

Name the countries that perform both same sex and polygamist marriages since there absolutely MUST be a slippery slope.

Ya know, the funny thing is the muslim countries allow polygamy but kill gays, while we tolerage homosexuality and ban polygamy.

Every culture has to set its own rules of human behavior based on religion or what the majority believes is right and wrong.

If this country sanctions gay marriage, thats OK with me, but it should be based on the will of a majority of the citizens, not a vocal minority.

I also believe that it would set a precedent such that we would not legally be able to block polygamous marriages in the future. If thats the way the country wants to go, OK. But lets let the people vote.

So no country is that right, Fishy? Not a single country that has legalize polygamy also has legalized same sex marriages and vice versa? Quite the "slippery slope" you found there...

Civil rights should never be decided by majority vote...here's why:

Marriage is not a right, never has been a right, there are restrictions

So you are ignoring the SCOTUS rulings declaring it a fundamental right? How to you ignore established precedent?

 

[Seawytch]

Then explain why religion, moral and biological bases would render an argument immune to bigotry. Because your statement of how a religiously, morally or biologically based argument couldn't be bigoted sounded pretty universal.

And when you're ready to try to explain what relevance human biology has to a valid marriage, I'd be happy to start disassembling that misconception for you too.

before we start please go to your local library and check out a biology 101 text and read the chapter on reproduction in mammals. Yes, not all marriages result in conception, but thats not the point.

Human beings were not designed for penis/anus sex or two females fingering each other.

Lets face reality here, this is about aberant homosexual sexual activity.

The gay agenda is not about equality, discrimination, or "fairness". its about using the government to force societal acceptance of an abnormal lifestyle that a vast majority of human beings in the world find morally wrong.

Gays are getting married in many states now. It certainly doesn't seem to me the government is forcing you or anyone to accept anything.

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates the Constitution. It was the will of the people; via their representatives, in Washington DC to pass idiotic and restrictive gun measures, should those laws be allowed to stand because it was their will despite it being unconstitutional? Of course not.

the constitution was adopted and modified by majority vote. Let the people speak by casting their votes. Thats all I am asking for.

You can ask all you want..,minority rights don't get put up to majority vote.

I like your national referendum idea though. We could get immigration reform, background checks, assault weapons bans, higher taxes on the rich and a public option. Work on that!

 

[WorldWatcher]

the constitution was adopted and modified by majority vote. Let the people speak by casting their votes. Thats all I am asking for.

Am I the only one that knows that the Constitution was not ratified, nor were any of the amendment passed, by national referendum and individual votes? The Constitution was ratified through a representative process at conventions and and amendments have been approved through State legislative action (IIRC the approval by conventions has never been exercised even though it exists).

The point being there is no federal provision for a "referendum" or direct vote on changes to the Constitution.


>>>>