1
   

Gay marriage?

 
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Nov, 2004 09:23 pm
I asked this question to get other opinions, not be be attacked by Deborah for no reason. I did not post any opinions I simply followed the thread and posted more questions. I don't know why Debroh has a chip on her sholders but I ask for any of you A2K memebers to look back and tell me if I said anything out of the way?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 03:57 am
ignorance is bliss--mob mentality
cannistershot wrote:
I asked this question to get other opinions, not be be attacked by Deborah for no reason. I did not post any opinions I simply followed the thread and posted more questions. I don't know why Debroh has a chip on her sholders but I ask for any of you A2K memebers to look back and tell me if I said anything out of the way?


It is not my fault that you are displaying ignorance concerning the fundamental concepts upon which this country was established. All attempts to provide you with basic information are futile due to your mob mentality. You refuse to educate yourself before going to the polls today to vote. Instead, you wallow in your ignorance and whine. I encourage you to educate yourself and you're whining.

I could care less if you are ignorant or educated. The choice to educate yourself is yours.

You do not understand that the question is not whether "we" (the voters) will allow same-sex marriages--the question is whether the supreme law of the land will allow the majority to discriminate against homosexuals and deny to them the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.

I stated, "It's not up to us to decide whether 'we' will allow it or not." Yet, in your simpleton manner, you insist -- because the issue has been placed on the ballot in 11 states -- that the people have the power to discriminate against homosexuals via the ballot box.

simpleton 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.


Go ahead. Cast your vote for or against amending your state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. If the state consitutional amendment is passed, that doesn't extinquish the issue of same-sex marriage. Why? Because you forgot that our country provides for checks and balances against majority oppression of minorities through judicial review.

The power of the majority to regulate fundamental rights and to discriminate has limits--and you don't understand that basic concept.

Again, read the Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion. Read Loving v. Virginia; read Lawrence v. Texas. Also read Romer v. Evanswherein the United States Supreme Court struck down a state constitutional amendment that discrimates against homosexuals.

Educate yourself or not--I don't care. Maybe you subscribe to the adage, "Ignorance is Bliss."
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 04:23 am
Does the mob rule?
The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)

Democracy or Republic


Quote:
We are not a democracy. We are a republic--which is a representative form of government that captures the best elements of democracy while jettisoning its worst. Too many people throw around that term "democracy" without understanding what it means. If they understood it, they would realize that they're probably not advocates of its purest form, which would mean that we decide every matter by majority vote. Perhaps ancient Athens for a brief time came closest to this, but no society of any size and complexity can practice this form of governance for very long. It's unwieldy and unworkable, endlessly contentious, and disrespectful of certain inalienable rights of individuals who may find themselves in the minority.

People like the sound of "democracy" because it implies that all of us have equal say in our government and that a simple majority is somehow inherently fair in deciding all or virtually all issues. Upon closer examination, it should become very apparent that subjecting every decision of governance to a vote of the people is utterly impossible. Many decisions have to be made quickly; many decisions require knowledge of the issue that few people possess or have the time to become expert on; and many decisions don't belong in the hands of any government at all.

An example of the last point: Suppose someone says, "I just don't like people with red hair. I think we should confiscate their property. Let's have a vote on that." A democratic purist would have to reply, "All in favor say aye." A person interested in securing and protecting individual rights would have to say, "That's not a proper function of government, and even if 99 percent of the citizens vote for that, it's still wrong and illegitimate. There's nothing about mob rule that makes such a decision legitimate. There is never, anywhere or any time, any justification for any government to take someone's property just because he has red hair, and no pile of votes or dimpled chads can change that. Is that anti-democratic? Yes, it is. Some things, like individual rights, are infinitely more important than the notion that Jim and Sally Taxeater want to stick their grubby little fingers into Joe Taxpayer's pockets."

So if I were in a debate on this subject, I'd be tempted to say, "We're not a democracy any more than we're a divine right monarchy. Period. Next question?"

A republican form of government modifies pure democracy considerably. It provides a mechanism whereby almost anyone can have some say in some matters of government. We can run for office. We can support candidates and causes of our choosing. We can speak out in public forums. And, indeed, a few matters are actually decided by majority vote. But a sound republic founded on principles that are more important than voting (like individual rights) will put strong limits on all this. In its Bill of Rights, our Constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law . . ." It doesn't say, "Congress can pass anything it wants so long as 50 percent plus 1 support it even if none of the voters know a thing about the issue." How brainless and destructive that would be! If some debater wants to say "We're a democracy" then you could fire back, "Then explain why there's a laundry list of things our Constitution says not even Congress can make a law about."

Bottom line: We are not Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves. We are not a pack of wolves and a handful of sheep voting on what to have for lunch. We're a republic with certain limitations on what the mob can do to others who are not members of the same mob.
0 Replies
 
eron19
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 08:40 am
To prove homosexuality is wrong through simple common sense
-- please excuse me, i didn't read all 7 pages of replies; i skipped quite a few pages actually Wink --


To prove homosexuality is wrong through simple common sense and logicality(not religiously)...we should first look at what it means to be HETEROSEXUAL/HOMOSEXUAL.


Are humans heterosexual because they are turned on by the opposite sex?
No, because humans are capable of being turned on by a myriad of things...in addition to the same and opposite sexes.

Are humans heterosexual because they are capable of loving the opposite sex?
No, because humans can love anyone. There are not 2-3-4 different types of LOVE. There is 1 love. The love you love your mother, spouse, and kids with.....is the same exact love. The way you express that love...is what is different. So, though we often think the love we express between our spouse is different than the love we have for our mother, sister, brother, etc is different...no it is not. We don't have 2 and 3 different types of hate do we? Love would not be any different.
What is love?

Are humans heterosexual because they are born that way?
No. We have no knowledge of ourselves...let alone sex, gender, or anything when we are born. We don't know anything.

So what is it that makes us heterosexual?
We are heterosexual because that is what we are taught. That is what is promotes universal balance. So where did homosexuality come into the picture? If man can think it...man will do it. Be it logically correct or not.


Also, I could get into how if marriage was meant for 2 people whom love each other...then that would definitely open a PANDORAS box..which would lead to some of the most insane and inappropriate acts of marriage ever thought of...such as...marriage pedophilia...marriage bigamy....marriage incest...and the list goes on. No, you say? Well if we allow homosexuals to marry now untraditionally....who could we stop any of those inappropriate marriage acts? That is.....if since homosexuals use love as a reason they should be allowed to marry. You can continue opening the pandoras box even further. What happens when a man loves his blow up doll more than anything in the world? Should that marriage be allowed and recognized? Oh the homosexual would say, thats to much thats ridiculous...thats going to far. Well I said previously...if man can think of it...man will do it. Continuing to open the pandoras box...whats to stop a human from marrying themselves? their pets? their color television??? Insane, yes...but inconceivable by the human mind...NO.

[my logical opinion]
This is something I generally like to ask homosexuals. I ask "if your love is all that matters, well why do you need to marry?" What is the big deal about marriage? Well, we know...married couples are given certain tax breaks and such. Homosexual couples would also like these benefits. This is why I am for civil unions. So, though civil unions homosexual couples can get the same benefits as married couples. Homosexual couples still want to marry though they are given traditional marriage benefits with civil unions. Obviously, their love is not all that matters, if it was...they would care less about destroying traditional marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.
[/my logical opinion]


We often like to also prove homosexuality is wrong morally. This debate would get deeper than the scope of this thread. What do I mean by deeper/beyond the scope of this thread? Well...there should be no sex before marriage to start with...and if marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman...there wouldn't even be room for homosexuality. But if you want to know about morals, go read the Bible, or you can ask me and I will share with you the knowledge I have...


To end my post...not summarize...but end...I would like to answer the question....If whom you choose to marry is not based on love, how do you choose? Well...one reason there are many divorces here in the U.S., is because people marry for love...and love only. They think because they care for someone extremely, then that is whom they should marry. Wrong. Why marry a liar just because you love them? Why marry a racist person, a cheater, an active criminal just because you love them? We are capable of loving some of the most terrible and uncaring people. That doesn't mean you should marry them. You should base whom you marry on the character of that person. Marry someone whom cares for you with all their heart, and you know they do from the way they act...not only with you...but with OTHER people they say they care about. After a year...don't think you've seen it all, and that you know them like the back of your hand. Take your sweet time. Take 2 or 3 years if you would like.

That is how you choose whom you should marry.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 09:53 am
Thank you Debra for being the voice of the gay community and helping me to decide.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 11:14 am
Thank you eron for one of the few posts that makes sense!
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 12:03 pm
Re: Does the mob rule?
Debra_Law wrote:
The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)


We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 12:42 pm
Re: Does the mob rule?
Baldimo wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)


We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.


What difference would that make?

Are you saying that if someone chooses something you don't like...that is reason enough to deny them certain rights?

I truly do not understand your reasoning.

In any case...it also cannot be "proven" that it is NOT genetic...and arguably...it seems more likely to be genetic than otherwise.

I COULD NOT CHOOSE TO BE TURNED ON BY A MAN!

The simply do not turn me on.

I have known gays who simply cannot get turned on by a woman. They are ONLY sexually attracted to other men.

What on Earth is your problem with this...other than that some god is bothered by it?
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 01:23 pm
Re: Does the mob rule?
Frank Apisa wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)


We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.


What difference would that make?

Are you saying that if someone chooses something you don't like...that is reason enough to deny them certain rights?





Does this mean anything goes?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 01:26 pm
Re: Does the mob rule?
Baldimo wrote:
We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.


Do the research, baldimo. The science is there.
Truthfully, I've lost patience with those who say the science isn't there, and then can't be bothered to read the scientific literature on the subject.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:04 pm
Re: Does the mob rule?
cannistershot wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)


We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.


What difference would that make?

Are you saying that if someone chooses something you don't like...that is reason enough to deny them certain rights?





Does this mean anything goes?


The answer to your question is...No.

Now, would you answer my question?
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:19 pm
I didn't say that I agreed with the post.
0 Replies
 
cannistershot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Nov, 2004 02:21 pm
Re: Does the mob rule?
ehBeth wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.


Do the research, baldimo. The science is there.
Truthfully, I've lost patience with those who say the science isn't there, and then can't be bothered to read the scientific literature on the subject.


Do you have a link?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gay marriage?
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 09:36:53