Gay marriage?

cannistershot wrote:

How do you feel about the issue? Should we allow it? Should we ban it? Or should we try and reach a compromise?

It's not up to us to decide whether "we" will allow it or not.




Actually it is. I thought that we were voting for this in about 16 states this year, so the outcome from that will decide if "we" allow it or not.

Actually it is. I thought that we were voting for this in about 16 states this year, so the outcome from that will decide if "we" allow it or not.

It's not up to us to decide whether "we" will allow it or not.

cannistershot wrote:

Actually it is. I thought that we were voting for this in about 16 states this year, so the outcome from that will decide if "we" allow it or not.

Do you really think so? Do you really think we can succeed at tyranny and oppress those homosexuals?

I guess "we" can outlaw interracial marriages too. Let's all vote to amend our state constitutions to prohibit interracial marriages. Maybe that will help "us" to evade the Supreme Law of the Land so that "we" can impose our moral views on society and deprive others of their fundamental rights.

White Supremacy and Heterosexual Supremacy forever!

'can' and 'shoud' are two different concepts Debra, as are 'can' and 'would be justified to'.

Oh never mind it's the typical lib thing, when you don't know what else to say call the other person a racist. I'm black, ever think about that?

Einherjar wrote:

'can' and 'shoud' are two different concepts Debra, as are 'can' and 'would be justified to'.

Huh?

Tyranny and oppression of the few at the hands of the many can never be justified.

cannistershot wrote:

Oh never mind it's the typical lib thing, when you don't know what else to say call the other person a racist. I'm black, ever think about that?

You ever been called a racist while debating environmental politics? While debating abortion? Vouchers?

The racist - homofobe parallell aplies, as does the same sex marriage - interracial marriage parallell.

Einherjar wrote:

'can' and 'shoud' are two different concepts Debra, as are 'can' and 'would be justified to'.

Huh?

Tyranny and oppression of the few at the hands of the many can never be justified.

Einherjar wrote:

You ever been called a racist while debating environmental politics? While debating abortion? Vouchers?

The racist - homofobe parallell aplies, as does the same sex marriage - interracial marriage parallell.

Actually I have on the abortion issue.

I don't see the parallel between same sex, interracial marriage. I may be wrong but I don't think that it was ever the issue that gay marriage is. By the way just kidding about being black. But I am as far from being a racist as can be, and I do not like being called one.

cannistershot...I am disappointed that you misrepresented yourself as a gay black man. I noticed you live in Atlanta, and I thought "hey, that's really far from Soho..."

cannistershot wrote:

Einherjar wrote:

You ever been called a racist while debating environmental politics? While debating abortion? Vouchers?

The racist - homofobe parallell aplies, as does the same sex marriage - interracial marriage parallell.

Actually I have on the abortion issue.

???

Quote:

I don't see the parallel between same sex, interracial marriage. I may be wrong but I don't think that it was ever the issue that gay marriage is. By the way just kidding about being black. But I am as far from being a racist as can be, and I do not like being called one.

Marriage was once restricted to people of opposite gender and same race. Some 100 years later one of these qualifiers has been deemed bigoted and unjust, why do you think the other isn't?

And to preempt, you are the one asserting there is a fundamental difference, the burden of evidence lies uppon you.

cavfancier wrote:

cannistershot...I am disappointed that you misrepresented yourself as a gay black man. I noticed you live in Atlanta, and I thought "hey, that's really far from Soho..."

Just wanted to make a point, Debra has no idea what I am.

Wow sorry that my opinion is different from yours. But I don't think that is a good reason to accuse me of being a bigot. Oh never mind it's the typical lib thing, when you don't know what else to say call the other person a racist. I'm black, ever think about that?

cannistershot wrote:

Wow sorry that my opinion is different from yours. But I don't think that is a good reason to accuse me of being a bigot. Oh never mind it's the typical lib thing, when you don't know what else to say call the other person a racist. I'm black, ever think about that?

Your opinion, if I understand it correctly, is that the people have the power to implement unlawful discrimination against homosexuals via the ballot box. You are wrong. Loving v. Virginia; Lawrence v. Texas.

Read the Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion that was posted earlier in this thread.

cavfancier wrote:

cannistershot...I am disappointed that you misrepresented yourself as a gay black man. I noticed you live in Atlanta, and I thought "hey, that's really far from Soho..."

Just wanted to make a point, Debra has no idea what I am.

I asked the question because it is one that I struggle with having family, co-workers and friends that are gay, not as a way to be insulted.

cannistershot wrote:

cavfancier wrote:

cannistershot...I am disappointed that you misrepresented yourself as a gay black man. I noticed you live in Atlanta, and I thought "hey, that's really far from Soho..."

Just wanted to make a point, Debra has no idea what I am.

You are uneducated.

Your question, should we allow same-sex marriages, is about as foolish as asking whether we should allow interracial marriages or witch burnings.

Your question ignores the basic concepts of our form of government with three branches and built-in checks and balances. Our government is not a pure democracy, it is a republic. The mob does not rule.

Quote:

I asked the question because it is one that I struggle with having family, co-workers and friends that are gay, not as a way to be insulted.

Educate yourself. Do all your gay family members, co-workers and friends a favor and read the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision posted earlier in this thread.