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.
TexasReb unless I have missed something you have never acknowledged that marriage equality was legalized through the legislative process in multiple states, rather than via the courts. Are you suggesting that the normal processes of representative democracy should in this instance be uniquely superseceded by referenda, else the will of the electorate is not reflected by their duly elected legislators?
DocJ, my friend? (and I swear I mean that sincerely as hell!). In not a single case, was "marriage equality" approved by the electorial will of the people in any state. If it was?...then what was the state? I will admit to being wrong if you can answer this question. On the other hand, there have been (noteably in California...which nobody can claim is a "conservative" state) of judges overruling the clear will of the people.
Yes, I know where you are going with this. And yes, you are right that there is a process of legislative representive democracy that -- as in the case of MA -- gives it legality. No problem and I have clearly said so before that I have none with a given state doing so. That is, permitting gay marriage.
BUT -- I object to this approach when it goes to the point of that other states recognizing be forced to recognize them them within their own boundaries. Also, I would think you might concede this doesn't help the case much; no matter what a "legislature" does...it doesn't really give a lot of credence to that public opinion (in the given state...which was the original question of sorts) actually supports it. Which is the primary indicator.
Hey, would you have a problem with it being put to a popular vote in each state and let that be the deciding factor? If not? Why not?
And on the always related tangent? DocJ? It really doesn't make any difference -- on another level -- as to what "public opinion" might be. DeToqueville clearly saw foresaw this. The so-called "public opinion" is often easily manipulated by clever propoganda. And coersion if the milder attempts fail. Anyway, just as "God" cannot be erased by an edict (as the old Soviet Union and their minions, noteably,tried to do), so cannot certain facts/realities of human nature and nature itself be permanently suppressed. And that fact is that the natural order -- and definitely physical parts -- is of a man and woman union and procreation and protection of children...and this is reflected in the institution of marriage as we know it. No amount of social engineering or censorship or clever emotive spins is going to change what most people really -- in their hearts -- know to be true.
This is why people -- on this subject -- invariably vote different than what they tell the polling groups over the telephone!
Now then, I think I am going to really call it a night! LOL G'night, y'all!
Gay people will not truly have equality until same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government. Civil-unions are not the same and
it is discrimination to say that heterosexuals can have marriage but gay people can not.
If the holier than thous want to protect the sanctity of marriage then they need to outlaw divorce.
with liberty and justice for ALL...ALL means Everyone !
Do you really think the Founding Fathers had homosexual "marriage" or "right to artificially concieve babies" in mind when that general truth was written?
Considering our founding fathers lived a couple of hundred of years ago and were slave owners, it's hard to accept the argument that we should follow in line 100% with what they're beliefs and intentions were. We should accept their principle beliefs but at the same time we have to update with the progression of society and ensure that people's civil liberties and rights are upheld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Let me put it sorta like this. What if I wanted to "marry" my pet? If marriage is redefined as what it has always been defined as? What is your rationale for telling me a I can't make an arrangement with my sheep...?
Is this an argument you're really trying to use? If you don't see the lunacy in using this then you will always fail at arguing against gays getting married everytime. An animal is not a consenting adult. Your argument is invalid.
Considering our founding fathers lived a couple of hundred of years ago and were slave owners, it's hard to accept the argument that we should follow in line 100% with what they're beliefs and intentions were. We should accept their principle beliefs but at the same time we have to update with the progression of society and ensure that people's civil liberties and rights are upheld.
I am not sure what the founding father reference has to do with anything...except that, yes, it is absolutely silly to think that when the constitution was written, that "gay rights" (or many other new-found "rights" far as that goes) were anything they had in mind. The point is (was), that the constitution -- by way of the Bill of Rights -- contained timeless outlines for what was intrinsic to the perpetual existence of a free people. As also, did the division of powers and system of checks and balances. And all of this was the central point of the earlier argument.
It makes no difference if some of them were slave-owners. Did you ever think that say, two-hundred years from now, that there may be institutions extant today that our own decendents find appalling and hard to believe existed. Hell, "gay marriage" may well be one of them.
Anyway, progression of society, you say? For one thing, the constitution allows for these changes in societies mores and circumstances. It allowed for the eventual abolition of slavery, for instance. And for expanded voting rights, and etc. It also allows for the eventual legalization (or not) of "gay marriage."
BUT, what has been argued here is that many who support this expansion are not content with letting time and potentially changing attitudes (or not) and the legislative process, take their natural and constitutional course.
Instead? They have no problem with -- even actively encourage and endorse -- activist judges overruling -- such as in California as a noteable example -- the will of the people in areas where a clear majority oppose the legalization of gay marriage.
So all in all, that really doesn't say much for your thesis that "we" (whoever "we" are), have to "update" our thinking or whatever, to conform with the "Latest Thing." when obviously a majority do not accept this type thinking. Unless of course, you really believe that all these new "civil rights and liberties" you mention are not those accepted by "the people" (according to their votes), but rather, defined by an activist judge and/or court.
Quote:
Is this an argument you're really trying to use? If you don't see the lunacy in using this then you will always fail at arguing against gays getting married everytime. An animal is not a consenting adult. Your argument is invalid.
Oh lord, spare me from the extremely literal-minded! The point was that if marriage is re-definied to included same-sex couples, then there is no reason it should stop at that. Hell, another posted said clearly there should be no restrictions on group marriages -- same sex or mixed -- so long as they involve consenting adults. There are already moves to lower the age of consent in many places.
So yes, I used a bit of ad-absurdum about marrying your sheep to make the historically true point there is no logical stopping point once the dam is broken, so to speak.
And hey, far as that goes? DON'T dismiss even that as not certain to come up sooner or later. Just when one thinks nothing will surprise anymore? Sure as hell, something does!
BUT, what has been argued here is that many who support this expansion are not content with letting time and potentially changing attitudes (or not) and the legislative process, take their natural and constitutional course.
Instead? They have no problem with -- even actively encourage and endorse -- activist judges overruling -- such as in California as a noteable example -- the will of the people in areas where a clear majority oppose the legalization of gay marriage.
So all in all, that really doesn't say much for your thesis that "we" (whoever "we" are), have to "update" our thinking or whatever, to conform with the "Latest Thing." when obviously a majority do not accept this type thinking. Unless of course, you really believe that all these new "civil rights and liberties" you mention are not those accepted by "the people" (according to their votes), but rather, defined by an activist judge and/or court.
Oh lord, spare me from the extremely literal-minded! The point was that if marriage is re-definied to included same-sex couples, then there is no reason it should stop at that. Hell, another posted said clearly there should be no restrictions on group marriages -- same sex or mixed -- so long as they involve consenting adults. There are already moves to lower the age of consent in many places.
So yes, I used a bit of ad-absurdum about marrying your sheep to make the historically true point there is no logical stopping point once the dam is broken, so to speak.
And hey, far as that goes? DON'T dismiss even that as not certain to come up sooner or later. Just when one thinks nothing will surprise anymore? Sure as hell, something does!
A marriage between two people has NOTHING to do with you or me, so why do anti-gay marriage feel like they have a right to say whether it's right or wrong. It's none of your business. Land of the free my butt. Whatever happened to live and let live. If two loving consenting adults want to marry then why not?
And again, you can't use the slippery slope argument that if gay people can marry each other then what's next? people marrying animals, children etc. They are nowhere near the same level. A rational person can see the difference between consenting adults making decisions for themselves vs underage people/animals/inanimate objects. By your rationale, alcohol should be illegal because if you allow adults the opportunity to obtain and abuse it, who's to say we won't allow kids to start using etc. We are humans and I'd say a great majority of us have better rationality than what you're giving credit for.
A marriage between two people has NOTHING to do with you or me, so why do anti-gay marriage feel like they have a right to say whether it's right or wrong. It's none of your business. Land of the free my butt. Whatever happened to live and let live. If two loving consenting adults want to marry then why not?
And again, you can't use the slippery slope argument that if gay people can marry each other then what's next? people marrying animals, children etc. They are nowhere near the same level. A rational person can see the difference between consenting adults making decisions for themselves vs underage people/animals/inanimate objects. By your rationale, alcohol should be illegal because if you allow adults the opportunity to obtain and abuse it, who's to say we won't allow kids to start using etc. We are humans and I'd say a great majority of us have better rationality than what you're giving credit for.
Part of the problem is that TexasReb has shown, repeatedly, that he feels that gay people are unnatural and, thus, not quite the same as regular people. It is a sad position to take, but he has shown his true feelings several times in this thread. I tried to be civil with him, but when someone basically calls a whole subset of people unnatural, for things out of their control, well, that's when I can't rightly respect that person anymore.
Take this quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
And that fact is that the natural order -- and definitely physical parts -- is of a man and woman union and procreation and protection of children...and this is reflected in the institution of marriage as we know it. No amount of social engineering or censorship or clever emotive spins is going to change what most people really -- in their hearts -- know to be true.
For Reb and others like him, gay and lesbian people are just wrong. No amount of logical reasoning will get him to see otherwise.
Of course, he will then appeal to tradition, claim that we're being intolerant, etc. But, you know, whatever. I don't much care if I have his respect anymore. He's made his position clear. Gay people are inherently wrong and should be seen as such, apparently. After all, that's what we all know in our hearts.
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.
Poll
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
Oh lord, spare me from the extremely literal-minded! 
