California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...This is not how law works. We don't make a list of the things that are legal. We make a list of things that are illegal. For something to be illegal it needs to have a demonstrateable negative impact.

Your endorsement doesn't mean anything. Who gives a ****? Your approval is not needed.

I don't endorse a lot of things. Doesn't mean I have the right to deny others their rights. I don't endorse Fred Phelps, but I'm not trying to take away his right to speak. And by not taking away his right to free speech, I'm not endorsing his speech either.

Granting the same rights you have to a group is not an endorsement.

T
K
O

Actually, my endorsement is needed, because I have one vote. And if most people agree with me that gay marriage is undesirable, according to the system of laws we live under, it won't happen. Careful, your contempt for democracy is showing.

Actually, the "system of laws we live under" does not cater to what is "undesirable." Interracial marriage was not desired, and it's stupid to think that interracial couples should have had to to wait for a majority's approval rather than a rational ruling from the USSC.

Careful, your bigotry is showing.

T
K
O

I'm also amused at ya'll going back and forth with each other rather than, say, actually answering the question of how gay marriage impacts you in the least way.

No, you've only explained that you have some crazy idea that expanding marriage to include homosexuals will somehow "change the definition" of marriage.

But you've failed to, ya know, actually support your assertion.

So basically, you oppose gay marriage because you oppose it.

DrewDad wrote:

I'm also amused at ya'll going back and forth with each other rather than, say, actually answering the question of how gay marriage impacts you in the least way.

I explained exactly how above. It corrupts something I think is beautiful. You keep wanting me to say that it will make my house fall down or something. I think it legitimizes something that is an anomaly and that is contrary to something I think is beautiful. Period. Therefore, I will vote against it when given an opportunity.

Yes, I'm sure you don't much care what other people think is desirable. You don't want them to have a chance to vote, and if they do vote and you don't like the result, you want someone who agrees with you to nullify their vote.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I'm also amused at ya'll going back and forth with each other rather than, say, actually answering the question of how gay marriage impacts you in the least way.

I explained exactly how above. It corrupts something I think is beautiful. You keep wanting me to say that it will make my house fall down or something. I think it legitimizes something that is an anomaly and that is contrary to something I think is beautiful. Period. Therefore, I will vote against it when given an opportunity.

How does someone else's marriage, corrupt yours or anyone else's besides their own? This is the part that you cannot or will not explain.

I must say that I find your attitude to be honestly homophobic. The idea that other people enjoying happiness in the same way as straights is 'corruption' in your mind. Hard to see what other explanation there could be.

Additionally, you state:

Quote:

Yes, I'm sure you don't much care what other people think is desirable. You don't want them to have a chance to vote, and if they do vote and you don't like the result, you want someone who agrees with you to nullify their vote.

The problem is, people don't get a vote on Equality. Our laws and founding documents are quite clear on the need for this, our system relies on it, and it isn't a matter of opinion. Your opinion on gay marriage is immaterial in the eyes of the law; Equality is what matters more, to society and America as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I'm sure you don't much care what other people think is desirable. You don't want them to have a chance to vote, and if they do vote and you don't like the result, you want someone who agrees with you to nullify their vote.

Actually the system of laws we live under is largely about what people think is desirable. This is for two reasons. First of all, the people can pass or refuse to pass any laws they like for any reason they like provided only that they don't violate the Constitution.

I know you don't like it that way, but that's the way it is.

Secondly, if you explain why a law ought to be passed or ought not to, and take the reasoning back to the first cause, ultimately you come to one of three reasons: (1) to allow society to function, (2) religion, or (3) what people think is desirable, and there is no 4th reason I can think of.

I explained exactly how above. It corrupts something I think is beautiful. You keep wanting me to say that it will make my house fall down or something. I think it legitimizes something that is an anomaly and that is contrary to something I think is beautiful. Period. Therefore, I will vote against it when given an opportunity.

I do get a vote. The law states, quite properly, that everyone is equal under the law. This doesn't obligate me to let someone do something he wants to do, provided it is equally forbidden to everyone else. I support keeping same sex marriage illegal for everyone.

Why do you oppose dictatorship? People oppose lots of things just because that's the way they feel.

I explained exactly how above. It corrupts something I think is beautiful. You keep wanting me to say that it will make my house fall down or something. I think it legitimizes something that is an anomaly and that is contrary to something I think is beautiful. Period.

...

Brandon9000 wrote:

Actually the system of laws we live under is largely about what people think is desirable. This is for two reasons. First of all, the people can pass or refuse to pass any laws they like for any reason they like provided only that they don't violate the Constitution.

Which is a pretty big limit, you know. You can't just tell someone not to do something; you have to have a compelling reason, or the courts will throw it out.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Secondly, if you explain why a law ought to be passed or ought not to, and take the reasoning back to the first cause, ultimately you come to one of three reasons: (1) to allow society to function, (2) religion, or (3) what people think is desirable, and there is no 4th reason I can think of.

Actually, religion is not a reason to pass a law. We have freedom from religion in this country; you can't pass a law (and expect it to be upheld by the courts) based on Christianity.

And just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean that there isn't one. We pass laws all the time to prevent undesirable behaviors.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I explained exactly how above. It corrupts something I think is beautiful. You keep wanting me to say that it will make my house fall down or something. I think it legitimizes something that is an anomaly and that is contrary to something I think is beautiful. Period. Therefore, I will vote against it when given an opportunity.

You're certainly welcome to vote however you wish. For someone who prides himself on his rationality, though, that's a pretty blatant retreat into pure emotional reasoning.

Really? Okay, suppose the voters pass a law with no reason other than the fact that they like it that way. On what grounds will the courts throw it out?

You can't decide what's right or wrong based on anything but emotion (or religion of you have one, which I don't), or reference to some simpler ethical principal, which is itself based on emotion (or religiion).

Quote:

I do get a vote. The law states, quite properly, that everyone is equal under the law. This doesn't obligate me to let someone do something he wants to do, provided it is equally forbidden to everyone else. I support keeping same sex marriage illegal for everyone.

Unless you can show the harm that is done by it - which you once again, cowardly, have refused to do in any detail - you have no basis for forbidding people to take action. That is how our laws work.

Cycloptichorn

Really? Okay, suppose the voters pass a law with no reason other than the fact that they like it that way. On what grounds will the courts throw it out?