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.
At this point, the case has not been made that changing the definition of marriage to include 2 men or 2 women is something that is needed. Until that case is made, I don't think it's wise to do so.
Moderator cut: deleted due to rudeness
Why don't you explain to us what you would consider to be a good case that gay marriage is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If the people vote differently, let them do so.
NO! There should never be a popular vote on civil rights. That is ridiculous. The issue of civil rights should always be decided at the Supreme Court level.
Allowing a majority to vote on the rights of a minority is a fundamentally flawed concept, the weakest link in the democratic process. As I've said before, that is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Plus, there are other pragmatic reasons not to leave something so important to whimsy. Everything from voter turn-out to the type of ballot the vote is on - even the weather on voting day can decide the outcome.
Best leave it to the Supreme Court where all arguments will be heard, the facts of the case will be debated, and people who are trained to be impartial can make a ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
How it affects me is a complete non-sequitur. It's not even part of the argument. It's irrelevant. We do not make law based on how something will or will not affect the rest of society.
You're still preaching this contradiction even though I exposed it several pages of posts ago? Funny how you claim it's a non-sequitur until you start complaining about how you're being controlled, how you're being told what to think and how to act. Then, suddenly, how it affects you isn't such a non-sequitur anymore, is it. Lack of consistency in an argument only serves to illuminate the weakness of said argument.
Funny how you claim it's a non-sequitur until you start complaining about how you're being controlled, how you're being told what to think and how to act.
Yet preachers make their living telling people what to think and how to act. Go figure.
The general argument is that all consenting adults who wish to be married should be free to do so.
They already can.
Either you are young, or you are selective in your memory for the sake of supporting your position because this was not always the case. In fact interracial marriage was illegal in many states until 1967.
Cut and run like you always do when you can't answer for your own remarks.
But gays HAVE families. We are family units. If homosexual fuel AIDS why are more heterosexuals infected world wide? Why do lesbians have the lowest 0 rates of any group? We are homosexuals too.
Cut and run... Have fun, but you have shown that you can't even back up your own assertions.
The chopping went really well, I don't want to argue with you guy's endlessly.
Last edited by alexcanter; 01-11-2014 at 07:34 PM..
Moderator cut: Orphaned
Why don't you explain to us what you would consider to be a good case that gay marriage is needed.
NO! There should never be a popular vote on civil rights. That is ridiculous. The issue of civil rights should always be decided at the Supreme Court level.
Allowing a majority to vote on the rights of a minority is a fundamentally flawed concept, the weakest link in the democratic process. As I've said before, that is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Plus, there are other pragmatic reasons not to leave something so important to whimsy. Everything from voter turn-out to the type of ballot the vote is on - even the weather on voting day can decide the outcome.
Best leave it to the Supreme Court where all arguments will be heard, the facts of the case will be debated, and people who are trained to be impartial can make a ruling.
You're still preaching this contradiction even though I exposed it several pages of posts ago? Funny how you claim it's a non-sequitur until you start complaining about how you're being controlled, how you're being told what to think and how to act. Then, suddenly, how it affects you isn't such a non-sequitur anymore, is it. Lack of consistency in an argument only serves to illuminate the weakness of said argument.
Hey Shirina...I got another old thread for you to check out.
It dealt with a lot of things that have been discussed in some current threads.
Of course, GldnRule put forth his rare take on things...and, as typical, took some vicious (even very personal) slams for doing it. Check it out: Ron Paul on the separation of church and state
My opinion is the male gay and the female gay are two different things, it's my objective opinion that's all and how could it be surprising, two different genders.
A couple of missed things that never get considered in this topic.
there are no condom tree's growing in the forest or hills. Condoms and chemicals are band-aids and have nothing to do with the given natural reality in man's setting. Its prob a given that without the condom and chemical the global population would be an all together different thing including behav , expectations and known dangerous behav including hetro promiscuity. I do not have a special place in my heart for any promiscuity regardless.
Completely irrelevant comment about how people with penises differ in certain respects from people with vaginas, and the equally irrelevant observation that condoms are manufactured and not grown.
Well, I guess you figured that posting something - even if it had nothing to do with anything - was better than just not answering. And you've made clear that you have no answers.
Keep trying to find some excuse to justify the fact that you just don't like gays and enjoy seeing them discriminated against.
Completely irrelevant comment about how people with penises differ in certain respects from people with vaginas, and the equally irrelevant observation that condoms are manufactured and not grown.
Well, I guess you figured that posting something - even if it had nothing to do with anything - was better than just not answering. And you've made clear that you have no answers.
Keep trying to find some excuse to justify the fact that you just don't like gays and enjoy seeing them discriminated against.
I don't want to argue with you guys anymore. I have no overall ill intentions for any specific individual in the world, or do my best to keep firm with standards I feel contribute . Plus I don't want to read all these visual anatomy words and need to go out and bring in more of the wood I chopped up.
So what? Even if that were true, it is not just grounds to ban gays from getting married. The silly thing, though, is that your statement isn't even true. Your comment stems from your own innate sense of superiority some people have which goes like this: "whatever I decide to do is superior to the different choices made by others - because I'm making that choice. I wouldn't make an inferior choice therefore ..."
The point that gets lost here is that the choice you made for yourself may be the superior choice - but only for yourself. This line of thinking displays a rather alarming lack of empathy.
But you ARE making up the purpose for marriage, which you have no right to do. People get married for a lot of reasons; "flourishing the species" is just one among many. Are you going to force married couples to have a child within a certain time frame or revoke their marriage licenses?
Again, so what? Have you looked at a list of everything that might cause cancer? Should we ban all of those things, too? You can't apply that rationalization ONLY to gay marriage, but if we applied that logic to other diseases, we would be forced to eat tree bark and live in caves to avoid cancer.
Allow me to use my Universal Galactic Translator on the above comment. Ah yes, here comes the translation now.
"I am insecure in my own masculinity and seeing gay men together is like a punch to the stomach because it makes me wonder just how manly I am. If it can happen to them, could it happen to me? Therefore, in order to avoid feeling emasculated, it is best to ban gay marriage altogether so I don't have to see gay men holding hands or kissing each other. This is why men like me who express their anti-gay opinions always focus on male gays, and even then, always focus on gay sex. But girl-on-girl lesbianism is okay, I guess. That doesn't pose a threat to my masculinity the way male-on-male sex does. Sometimes watching two lesbians is even kinda arousing. Now that I've talked about men loving each other, my masculinity meter is showing a major deficit, so I'm going to run off and do something manly - like, say, chop wood."
Yep.
This must be one of those "do as I say, not as I do" moments because I'm pretty certain that over 32 states have banned gay marriage - which means they've been mixing politics and religion to quite an astounding degree.
Nailed it like a.... carpenter. Can't rep you again yet.
Hey Shirina...I got another old thread for you to check out.
It dealt with a lot of things that have been discussed in some current threads.
Of course, GldnRule put forth his rare take on things...and, as typical, took some vicious (even very personal) slams for doing it. Check it out: Ron Paul on the separation of church and state
I don't want to argue with you guys anymore. I have no overall ill intentions for any specific individual in the world, or do my best to keep firm with standards I feel contribute . Plus I don't want to read all these visual anatomy words and need to go out and bring in more of the wood I chopped up.
Your "ill intentions" seem to be for a whole group of individuals in the world. Hundreds of millions of them. Do you even know any of them?
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.
