Support for Same-Sex Marriage at Record High (homosexuals, laws, Virginia)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6031
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Yeah, my Jeep doesn`t run.
I still have to have a valid plate and insurance on it.
In what state is that a law ???????
Quote:
Ain`t life a *****?
Government can`t make a law for every conceivable situation so they make general laws that apply to everyone the same way.
Think of sexual fidelity requirements for married couples as a gun cabinet for a pistol.
If the law says, if you have children in your home, you have to store your pistol in a locked gun cabinet, it doesn`t really make a difference if the pistol is loaded with real bullets or blanks.
The issue is the potential danger the gun presents to the children.
Heterosexuals may or may not make babies outside the marriage; homosexuals cannot.
Heterosexual infidelity presents a potential danger to innocent parties that homosexual sex does not.
The laws you speak of exist in respect to procreation and family stability(nobility,linage, property), not love.
There for, your argument is that we should all just be paired up with the opposite sex.
"As the Supreme Court prepares to decide a key case involving states’ requirements to recognize same-sex marriage, public support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally continues its rapid rise: A 57% majority of Americans now favor allowing same-sex marriage and 39% oppose. As recently as five years ago, more opposed (48%) same-sex marriage than supported it (42%)."
Nice cherry picking. There were at least a dozen polls that I could find in under 10 seconds, none of which showed such a large spread.
It was know that it was going to be a fight and also that right wing religious organizations were dumping enormous amounts of cash into influencing the election.
Hate the constitution much? One of the founding principles of this nation is that the majority doesn't get to decide the rights of the minority. In fact, the whole notion of rights goes out the window if all that is required to override them is popular opinion.
[MOD CUT/off topic]
Name one Constitutional right that has never been voted on.
1. ______________________________________
All rights are voted on, and no, you don`t get to make whatever new right you like by claiming the majority cannot decide what your rights are.
There is nothing logical about Homosexuals much less SSM
Assuming one finds marriage logical at all. I see nothing more, or less, logical about heterosexuality and marriage than homosexuality or marriage however. So your point is not exactly clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
As I said, you will find out when your time comes. I don't need a fairytale, either. I go by belief and faith.
Citations required. Substantiation fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Actually sopport for SSM is falling
Tell that to the people who actually HAVE had this put to a popular vote, and won. Ireland for example where SSM was passed with a more than 2:1 majority. That is not just a victory for it, it is a large one. It is all well and good pointing at this survey, or that survey, but one should also pause to see if the suggestions of the survey actually map onto the real world reality.... instead of simply cherry picking a single poll that agrees with you and ignoring the ones, including the one in the OP, that do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It at least demonstrates that attempts to fabricate data certainly do exist and shows that we should not accept these studies without question.
And in this you and I are in 100% agreement. No one should EVER swallow ANY study without question. Ever. The whole methodology of peer review in science is built around NEVER swallowing any study wholesale.
But that is not what you are doing, and not what I was calling you out on. You are right that taking ANY study without question is bad, but dismissing any study because a DIFFERENT study (may have been) was fabricated is agenda driven bias on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I notice you and your atheists buddies gleefully gobble up ANY study that is anti-Christian WITHOUT question.
You notice no such thing, you just invented that to feed your narrative. Actually I have questioned MANY studies before. Look at my posting history for example related to the studies suggesting non-believers were of higher intelligence than believers. I blew holes in that study. Large ones. Which does not in any way fit the little narrative you have wholesale invented here out of your anti-atheist narrative driven fantasy world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4g4m
I'm sure the less than 4% of the population is happy to see so much support for their cause.
I see that little narrative spewed a lot. What is the point of it exactly? Are you trying to suggest that there is some cut off % where the majority should not be concerned with implementing the happiness and well being of the minority? If so, then I am glad the real world does not match the one in your head. I would not want to live in your world. What % of the population are suffering domestic abuse? What % have AIDS? What % are homeless? Where do we draw the line of what % we have to have before we as a nation or society simply DO THE RIGHT THING?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
This is not the case as the sex part of a sexual relationship is a biological function that requires one penis and one vagina.
Except that is not true at all. Reproduction requires those things, expression of sexuality with a partner however does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
When marriage laws were written, no consideration was given to any relationships except the sort that lead to the creation of biologically related family units.
Nice historical revisionism from you there. Actually those who actually look into the history of marriage, rather than simply make it up to feed an agenda like you do, find that the truth actually is the concept of marriage has as much to do with finances and inheritance as it had to do with biology or reproduction. Your own opinion you are welcome to, your own facts however, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Yes, you have been left out because there is no reason to include you in something that doesn`t in any way pertain to you.
Except more and more they are not being left out. And more and more, like in Ireland, we are seeing them being included. Bully for you I guess. I will find some time to weep for you in my schedule.
Except that is not true at all. Reproduction requires those things, expression of sexuality with a partner however does not. Relevance?
My point exactly. Relevance? You are going on about the physical act related to biological reproduction. So what? Marriage is not synonymous with reproduction and never has been. Many married people can not, or choose not to, reproduce. It is YOU making it about the sexual act, not me. So.... relevance indeed?
We're not a democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic specifically designed to stop the will of the majority from trumping the rights of the minority. You only support the will of the majority because you're part of the majority. Once you become the minority, you'll be glad the majority can't take away your rights.
What rights were taken away? The "rights" deviants can promote deviancy?
Everybody has the same rights. A certain weird minority segment of the population want special rights.
When marriage was declared a fundamental right, same-sex marriage did not exist and the only "marriage" that could have been intended was marriage between one man and one woman.
You don`t get to change the meaning of a word and then claim that was what they meant.
There is no right of two people or any other number of people apart from all the people.
Collective rights, referring to two or more but not all individuals, were the rights of males to vote and white people to own black people.
Today we refer to them as women`s rights and minority rights, but there is no such thing if we are all entitled to the same rights.
Since we are all the same under the law, all our rights are rights of the individual or, when referring to all individuals, the people.
Our rights of the individual are not being treated equally. My neighbor, an individual, can marry a woman. I can not. Why should he have a right that I don't?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
