What Is Wrong With Liberals??

[Redfish]

homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with politics or religion. It has to do with human biology.

If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, and two men, then there is no hope for you. your desire to feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel good about everyone has overcome your ability to think.

Do you think it has anything to do with Jedi?

It's not about feeling good about everyone. It's about the govt sticking it's nose out of people's business.

Did the govt tell you who you should marry?

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

 

[RKMBrown]

homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with politics or religion. It has to do with human biology.

If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, and two men, then there is no hope for you. your desire to feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel good about everyone has overcome your ability to think.

Do you think it has anything to do with Jedi?

It's not about feeling good about everyone. It's about the govt sticking it's nose out of people's business.

Did the govt tell you who you should marry?

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

how does allowing two gay people to get married FORCE you to consider being gay normal and acceptable? Are you "special?"

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's what you don't get.

Equal rights are guaranteed for all races, sexes, ethnicities, disabilities, sexual deviances.

Marriage is NOT a right. But if that is your position, then you must approve of all forms of marriage-----------bigamy, polygamy, mother/daughter, brother/sister, man/dog, woman/parrot.

I know that sounds like absurdity, but its the logical extension of gay marriage.

If you make the argument that gays are being denied the right to marry, then that exact same legal argument will be made, and sustained, for all other forms of marriage.

Why aren't gays satisfied with a civil union or mutual support contract? those give them the exact same rights as a man/woman marriage, and they would preclude setting the precedent for all other forms of marriage.

Who decides what is a right and what isn't?
Under law in the US that'd be the US govt.

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

"

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
   "
   

The Supreme Court is part of the US govt, last I heard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

Now imagine that they told you that you couldn't marry the woman you wanted to marry. It's called empathy.

So, they're not telling gay people what to consider normal and acceptable? The problem with that argument is it works both ways, it's like a hole, you have the spade, and gravity means there's only one way out, through the bottom. Keep diggin'.

 

[Redfish]

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

Now imagine that they told you that you couldn't marry the woman you wanted to marry. It's called empathy.

So, they're not telling gay people what to consider normal and acceptable? The problem with that argument is it works both ways, it's like a hole, you have the spade, and gravity means there's only one way out, through the bottom. Keep diggin'.

Let me see if I can answer you and brown in one reply.

Society as a whole should decide what it considers normal and acceptable, right and wrong. Society should make those decisions based on the feelings and beliefs of a majority of the members of that society.

our constitution was adopted by majority vote, our government leaders are chosen by majority vote, our laws are enacted by majority vote. Our cultural standards should be established by what the majority believes.

BTW, the majority are opposed to any kind of discrimination------direct or reverse.

When the government tries to tell the citizens what they must consider right and wrong, that government has exceeded its role.

The gay marriage issue is only the symptom, not the problem.

Read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged and you might have a clue. Yes, they are works of fiction, but what they forecasted is coming true and we better realize it before its too late.

 

[Redfish]

homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with politics or religion. It has to do with human biology.

If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, and two men, then there is no hope for you. your desire to feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel good about everyone has overcome your ability to think.

Do you think it has anything to do with Jedi?

It's not about feeling good about everyone. It's about the govt sticking it's nose out of people's business.

Did the govt tell you who you should marry?

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

how does allowing two gay people to get married FORCE you to consider being gay normal and acceptable? Are you "special?"

No, I am not "special" except maybe to my grandkids.

Do you want a government that sets YOUR standards of right and wrong for you, and then punishes you if you disagree?

 

[Redfish]

Here's what you don't get.

Equal rights are guaranteed for all races, sexes, ethnicities, disabilities, sexual deviances.

Marriage is NOT a right. But if that is your position, then you must approve of all forms of marriage-----------bigamy, polygamy, mother/daughter, brother/sister, man/dog, woman/parrot.

I know that sounds like absurdity, but its the logical extension of gay marriage.

If you make the argument that gays are being denied the right to marry, then that exact same legal argument will be made, and sustained, for all other forms of marriage.

Why aren't gays satisfied with a civil union or mutual support contract? those give them the exact same rights as a man/woman marriage, and they would preclude setting the precedent for all other forms of marriage.

Who decides what is a right and what isn't?
Under law in the US that'd be the US govt.

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

"

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
   "

The Supreme Court is part of the US govt, last I heard.

Yep, it sure is. But its role is to determine whether laws passed by congress are constitutional or not. Their role is not to make law or change the constitution to suit the current "feelings" of the group in power.

 

[Jroc]

Judges are not superhuman.... Even though you might you think they are

So we're supposed to rely on... YOU to educate us on what is constitutional? ROFL

Judges have agendas. Politicians appoint them for political reasons. Doesn't mean they're right, they're just pushing an agenda. It's the states job to regulate marriage not some all powerful judge.

In these cases the so called agenda of the SCOTUS was liberty under the constitution.

Like it or not the 14th amendment and subsequent federal civil rights acts have resulted in the federal government taking regulatory supremacy over the States in such matters. Elections matter. If you want us to go back to being more of a republic you're gonna need representatives with that agenda.

If you want to make bigoted hatred of gays the law of the land you are gonna have to show due process. You are gonna have to show the societal harms that befall you poor heteros by allowing two consenting adult homosexuals to marry.

Cant say as I see gay marriage in there? the amendment was intended to to give full citizenship to blacks, not grant all the states regulatory power to the federal government

Ah, but it did. I'll bold it for ya:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Still don't see it. Same sex marriage is not right. Neither is marriage in general actually. As a "straight" normal person I cant marry a man either in MI. In your world there is no limits. Maybe you're an anarchist?

 

[BlindBoo]

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

Now imagine that they told you that you couldn't marry the woman you wanted to marry. It's called empathy.

So, they're not telling gay people what to consider normal and acceptable? The problem with that argument is it works both ways, it's like a hole, you have the spade, and gravity means there's only one way out, through the bottom. Keep diggin'.

Let me see if I can answer you and brown in one reply.

Society as a whole should decide what it considers normal and acceptable, right and wrong. Society should make those decisions based on the feelings and beliefs of a majority of the members of that society.

our constitution was adopted by majority vote, our government leaders are chosen by majority vote, our laws are enacted by majority vote. Our cultural standards should be established by what the majority believes.

BTW, the majority are opposed to any kind of discrimination------direct or reverse.

When the government tries to tell the citizens what they must consider right and wrong, that government has exceeded its role.

The gay marriage issue is only the symptom, not the problem.

Read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged and you might have a clue. Yes, they are works of fiction, but what they forecasted is coming true and we better realize it before its too late.

Thank god we're a Constitutional Republic and not a tyrannical democracy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let me see if I can answer you and brown in one reply.

Society as a whole should decide what it considers normal and acceptable, right and wrong. Society should make those decisions based on the feelings and beliefs of a majority of the members of that society.

our constitution was adopted by majority vote, our government leaders are chosen by majority vote, our laws are enacted by majority vote. Our cultural standards should be established by what the majority believes.

BTW, the majority are opposed to any kind of discrimination------direct or reverse.

When the government tries to tell the citizens what they must consider right and wrong, that government has exceeded its role.

The gay marriage issue is only the symptom, not the problem.

Read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged and you might have a clue. Yes, they are works of fiction, but what they forecasted is coming true and we better realize it before its too late.

Society DOES decide what is right and acceptable. This is part of the reason for the Bill of Rights, isn't it? Part of what is acceptable is that people do what they like as long as it doesn't hurt others.
Rights are distinctly lacking the majority part, because the founding fathers realised that mob rules simply isn't a good way of going about things.

The constitution was clearly not made by majority rule. 43,782 vote for president in 1788-1789 from a population of about 3.9 million people. Majority vote? I don't think so. Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and South Carolina between then had exactly ZERO voters from the general populace. Then it went through electoral collage votes anyway.

Most Americans could read or write, nor did they have a vote. So, how they managed to agree to the Constitution I'll never know, maybe because they didn't.

Laws are NOT made by majority of the people. People vote for a Senator and a member of the House and these people then vote. There doesn't need to be a majority of the the will of the people. A law can pass with not so many congressmen voting on the bill, and their weight is not based on the number of people who voted for them.

For example, I've just picked at random a state from the info I have, it's California 2006 House elections.

Mike Thompson got 144,000 votes from 218,000 votes in his constituency.
Jim Costa got 61,000 from 61,000 votes.
John Doolittle got 135,000 votes from 276,000..
Barbara Lee got 167,000 votes from 193,000.

So, all in all we have some guy who got 100% of the votes, but that was only 61,000 and his vote carries the same weight as, not only one guy who was elected from 276,000 votes being cast, but also someone who got 167,000 votes, not quite three times what Costa got.

Is this the will of the majority? Really? It seems to be random will if you ask me.

You say the majority is opposed to any kind of discrimination, and yet you've pointed to discrimination of proposition 8, among other such things, where discrimination by the majority is the clear favorite.


Then, to make your logic even more suspect, you say the govt is the will of the majority, and then get annoyed that the govt, which is the will of the majority, is telling the people what to do. So, the majority of the people are telling the people what to do, and getting annoyed about it. And this, apparently, is what the majority want.

Do you follow a line of logic or do you just make stuff up to fit the point you're trying to make at any point in time? This is so contradictory it's crazy. You want me to take you seriously with THIS?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yep, it sure is. But its role is to determine whether laws passed by congress are constitutional or not. Their role is not to make law or change the constitution to suit the current "feelings" of the group in power.

Well actually their role is to interpret the constitution.

So if Congress writes a law, the law means what the Supreme Court says it means, and also the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and not what Congress thinks it means. Usually they go hand in hand, but we've seen plenty of times where interpretations of meanings of the Constitution have changed, which has a direct impact on what laws can and cannot be made.

The Commerce Clause is a perfect example where a looser interpretation give Congress more power.

But then sometimes the Constitution is open to the feelings of the people. For example Cruel punishment. What's cruel? In 1789 it was different to 2014.

 

[Paperman299]

Here's what you don't get.

Equal rights are guaranteed for all races, sexes, ethnicities, disabilities, sexual deviances.

Marriage is NOT a right. But if that is your position, then you must approve of all forms of marriage-----------bigamy, polygamy, mother/daughter, brother/sister, man/dog, woman/parrot.

I know that sounds like absurdity, but its the logical extension of gay marriage.

If you make the argument that gays are being denied the right to marry, then that exact same legal argument will be made, and sustained, for all other forms of marriage.

Why aren't gays satisfied with a civil union or mutual support contract? those give them the exact same rights as a man/woman marriage, and they would preclude setting the precedent for all other forms of marriage.

Civil unions do not give the same rights as legal marriage.

• Legal recognition of the relationship in other states

• The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married

• Tax benefits available to married couples only

• Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse

• Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance

There are many examples of states scrutinizing their "separate but equal" policies and themselves finding that these things are not equal.

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission unanimously concluded that instead of ending discrimination against same-sex couples, P.L.2006, c.103 actually “invites and encourages unequal treatment” of same-sex couples.

I have corrected you on this before. Please stop repeating this erroneous claim.

 

[RKMBrown]

homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with politics or religion. It has to do with human biology.

If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, and two men, then there is no hope for you. your desire to feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel good about everyone has overcome your ability to think.

Do you think it has anything to do with Jedi?

It's not about feeling good about everyone. It's about the govt sticking it's nose out of people's business.

Did the govt tell you who you should marry?

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

how does allowing two gay people to get married FORCE you to consider being gay normal and acceptable? Are you "special?"

No, I am not "special" except maybe to my grandkids.

Do you want a government that sets YOUR standards of right and wrong for you, and then punishes you if you disagree?

Typical authoritarian. Either we have complete anarchy or totalitarianism, you can't fathom something in between can you?

I do not want a government that mandates that minority groups do not have the same liberties as do the groups in the majority. That is called TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. I do not want that for my children.

Do you or do you not understand the difference between government keeping the rule of law for issues such as MURDER and OTHER FORMS OF VIOLENCE; and government mandating that because the majority of the people are heterosexual that homosexuals will be PUNISHED? This is a yes or no question.

Do you or do you not understand that homosexual marriages are not VIOLENT ACTS AGAINST heterosexuals? Again, this is a yes or no question.

 

[RKMBrown]

So we're supposed to rely on... YOU to educate us on what is constitutional? ROFL

Judges have agendas. Politicians appoint them for political reasons. Doesn't mean they're right, they're just pushing an agenda. It's the states job to regulate marriage not some all powerful judge.

In these cases the so called agenda of the SCOTUS was liberty under the constitution.

Like it or not the 14th amendment and subsequent federal civil rights acts have resulted in the federal government taking regulatory supremacy over the States in such matters. Elections matter. If you want us to go back to being more of a republic you're gonna need representatives with that agenda.

If you want to make bigoted hatred of gays the law of the land you are gonna have to show due process. You are gonna have to show the societal harms that befall you poor heteros by allowing two consenting adult homosexuals to marry.

Cant say as I see gay marriage in there? the amendment was intended to to give full citizenship to blacks, not grant all the states regulatory power to the federal government

Ah, but it did. I'll bold it for ya:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Still don't see it. Same sex marriage is not right. Neither is marriage in general actually. As a "straight" normal person I cant marry a man either in MI. In your world there is no limits. Maybe you're an anarchist?

Yeah cause liberty is the same as anarchy...

 

[Redfish]

Yep, it sure is. But its role is to determine whether laws passed by congress are constitutional or not. Their role is not to make law or change the constitution to suit the current "feelings" of the group in power.

Well actually their role is to interpret the constitution.

So if Congress writes a law, the law means what the Supreme Court says it means, and also the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and not what Congress thinks it means. Usually they go hand in hand, but we've seen plenty of times where interpretations of meanings of the Constitution have changed, which has a direct impact on what laws can and cannot be made.

The Commerce Clause is a perfect example where a looser interpretation give Congress more power.

But then sometimes the Constitution is open to the feelings of the people. For example Cruel punishment. What's cruel? In 1789 it was different to 2014.

there is a big difference between interpreting and reinterpreting. The constitution is clear, many SCOTUS decsions are not.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm all for saving time, can we just make a list of what is right with liberals? Please.

 

[Redfish]

homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with politics or religion. It has to do with human biology.

If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, and two men, then there is no hope for you. your desire to feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel good about everyone has overcome your ability to think.

Do you think it has anything to do with Jedi?

It's not about feeling good about everyone. It's about the govt sticking it's nose out of people's business.

Did the govt tell you who you should marry?

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

how does allowing two gay people to get married FORCE you to consider being gay normal and acceptable? Are you "special?"

No, I am not "special" except maybe to my grandkids.

Do you want a government that sets YOUR standards of right and wrong for you, and then punishes you if you disagree?

Typical authoritarian. Either we have complete anarchy or totalitarianism, you can't fathom something in between can you?

I do not want a government that mandates that minority groups do not have the same liberties as do the groups in the majority. That is called TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. I do not want that for my children.

Do you or do you not understand the difference between government keeping the rule of law for issues such as MURDER and OTHER FORMS OF VIOLENCE; and government mandating that because the majority of the people are heterosexual that homosexuals will be PUNISHED? This is a yes or no question.

Do you or do you not understand that homosexual marriages are not VIOLENT ACTS AGAINST heterosexuals? Again, this is a yes or no question.

so you favor the tyranny of the minority, you would be happy in the england of the 1700s.

yes, homosexual marriages are not violent acts, no one said they were.

Why does society ban incest and beastiality? Why does society ban bigamy and polygamy? Why does society set a minimum age for marriage? Because society has told the govenment that a majority of us do not think those things are RIGHT.

A majority of the people on planet earth think that gay marriage is wrong, but we are to ignore that majority view and force the majority to accept the minority view---------can you see the error in that or not?

 

[Redfish]

Here's what you don't get.

Equal rights are guaranteed for all races, sexes, ethnicities, disabilities, sexual deviances.

Marriage is NOT a right. But if that is your position, then you must approve of all forms of marriage-----------bigamy, polygamy, mother/daughter, brother/sister, man/dog, woman/parrot.

I know that sounds like absurdity, but its the logical extension of gay marriage.

If you make the argument that gays are being denied the right to marry, then that exact same legal argument will be made, and sustained, for all other forms of marriage.

Why aren't gays satisfied with a civil union or mutual support contract? those give them the exact same rights as a man/woman marriage, and they would preclude setting the precedent for all other forms of marriage.

Civil unions do not give the same rights as legal marriage.

• Legal recognition of the relationship in other states

• The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married

• Tax benefits available to married couples only

• Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse

• Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance

There are many examples of states scrutinizing their "separate but equal" policies and themselves finding that these things are not equal.

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission unanimously concluded that instead of ending discrimination against same-sex couples, P.L.2006, c.103 actually “invites and encourages unequal treatment” of same-sex couples.

I have corrected you on this before. Please stop repeating this erroneous claim.

What I have said consistently is that civil unions SHOULD convey the same rights as male/female marriage. You have not corrected me because you are too thick headed to try to understand what I am saying.

 

[Redfish]

Let me see if I can answer you and brown in one reply.

Society as a whole should decide what it considers normal and acceptable, right and wrong. Society should make those decisions based on the feelings and beliefs of a majority of the members of that society.

our constitution was adopted by majority vote, our government leaders are chosen by majority vote, our laws are enacted by majority vote. Our cultural standards should be established by what the majority believes.

BTW, the majority are opposed to any kind of discrimination------direct or reverse.

When the government tries to tell the citizens what they must consider right and wrong, that government has exceeded its role.

The gay marriage issue is only the symptom, not the problem.

Read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged and you might have a clue. Yes, they are works of fiction, but what they forecasted is coming true and we better realize it before its too late.

Society DOES decide what is right and acceptable. This is part of the reason for the Bill of Rights, isn't it? Part of what is acceptable is that people do what they like as long as it doesn't hurt others.
Rights are distinctly lacking the majority part, because the founding fathers realised that mob rules simply isn't a good way of going about things.

The constitution was clearly not made by majority rule. 43,782 vote for president in 1788-1789 from a population of about 3.9 million people. Majority vote? I don't think so. Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and South Carolina between then had exactly ZERO voters from the general populace. Then it went through electoral collage votes anyway.

Most Americans could read or write, nor did they have a vote. So, how they managed to agree to the Constitution I'll never know, maybe because they didn't.

Laws are NOT made by majority of the people. People vote for a Senator and a member of the House and these people then vote. There doesn't need to be a majority of the the will of the people. A law can pass with not so many congressmen voting on the bill, and their weight is not based on the number of people who voted for them.

For example, I've just picked at random a state from the info I have, it's California 2006 House elections.

Mike Thompson got 144,000 votes from 218,000 votes in his constituency.
Jim Costa got 61,000 from 61,000 votes.
John Doolittle got 135,000 votes from 276,000..
Barbara Lee got 167,000 votes from 193,000.

So, all in all we have some guy who got 100% of the votes, but that was only 61,000 and his vote carries the same weight as, not only one guy who was elected from 276,000 votes being cast, but also someone who got 167,000 votes, not quite three times what Costa got.

Is this the will of the majority? Really? It seems to be random will if you ask me.

You say the majority is opposed to any kind of discrimination, and yet you've pointed to discrimination of proposition 8, among other such things, where discrimination by the majority is the clear favorite.


Then, to make your logic even more suspect, you say the govt is the will of the majority, and then get annoyed that the govt, which is the will of the majority, is telling the people what to do. So, the majority of the people are telling the people what to do, and getting annoyed about it. And this, apparently, is what the majority want.

Do you follow a line of logic or do you just make stuff up to fit the point you're trying to make at any point in time? This is so contradictory it's crazy. You want me to take you seriously with THIS?

your example makes no sense. just because not all citizens decide to vote does not mean that a majority of those who do should not prevail. Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their voices heard and thereby agree to accept the will of the majority of those who do vote.

Gay marriage does not represent a majority view. If it does sometime in the future, I will accept the will of the majority. The problem is that today you on the left refuse to accept the majority view because you don't like it. All I can say to that is--------tough shit.

 

[Redfish]

NO, but it told me who I could not marry. Not that I ever wanted to marry anyone but the woman I married.

What you want is the worst kind of government intervention. You want the government to dictate what people are allowed to consider normal and acceptable.

Now imagine that they told you that you couldn't marry the woman you wanted to marry. It's called empathy.

So, they're not telling gay people what to consider normal and acceptable? The problem with that argument is it works both ways, it's like a hole, you have the spade, and gravity means there's only one way out, through the bottom. Keep diggin'.

Let me see if I can answer you and brown in one reply.

Society as a whole should decide what it considers normal and acceptable, right and wrong. Society should make those decisions based on the feelings and beliefs of a majority of the members of that society.

our constitution was adopted by majority vote, our government leaders are chosen by majority vote, our laws are enacted by majority vote. Our cultural standards should be established by what the majority believes.

BTW, the majority are opposed to any kind of discrimination------direct or reverse.

When the government tries to tell the citizens what they must consider right and wrong, that government has exceeded its role.

The gay marriage issue is only the symptom, not the problem.

Read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged and you might have a clue. Yes, they are works of fiction, but what they forecasted is coming true and we better realize it before its too late.

Thank god we're a Constitutional Republic and not a tyrannical democracy.

you do understand that our representatives in congress pass laws by majority vote don't you? We don't have a pure democracy because it would be unweildy and too slow. Althought it couldn't be much slower than our current congress.