11 of 11 US states vote against gay marriage

[Dark0ne]

Didn't answer the inequality issue because, as I mentioned, I've already answered it atleast twice. Just read back over the post and you'll get an answer.

 

So as long as a law has the majority vote, it is correct? If the majority and their politicians voted to ban interracial marriage, would you still consider this acceptable?

 

And if your forefathers wrote into the constitution that all people masquerading as birds on forums were to be killed, would you go along with it? Uh huh...lets play make the stupid examples game.

 

Especially with something with as many different meanings from different cultures and beliefs as marriage.

 

Before you weren't willing accept that marriage had any other meaning than the civil sense, now you're welcoming in other viewpoints from other cultures and religions? Make your mind up.

 

You would prefer no protection of your basic rights, and everything left to the direct will of the people? You would rather live in a country where the majority could vote execute all forum admins and you would have no way to appeal that decision?

 

If that happened I'd move to another country, one in which the people weren't so moronic and made stupid examples in debates. We, of course, have rights (and you know this), they're just not wrapped in a dated 300 year old constitution care-package and flown high with the Union Jack as our most appealing attribute.

[Peregrine]

Didn't answer the inequality issue because, as I mentioned, I've already answered it atleast twice. Just read back over the post and you'll get an answer.

 

No you haven't. You have never answered my comparisons to changing the definition of marriage based on race. Probably because you know they can't be answered without proving yourself wrong.

 

Write it again or show me the post, but please answer the following question:

 

If limiting the use of "marriage" to straight couples only is not discrimination, is it acceptable to also limit the use of "marriage" to all-white couples only? If not, why is the former acceptable, but the latter racism?

 

 

And if your forefathers wrote into the constitution that all people masquerading as birds on forums were to be killed, would you go along with it? Uh huh...lets play make the stupid examples game.

 

The two are not at all the same. We know exactly what is in the constitution. The same can not be said about the future will of the people. They might not vote to execute all forum admins, but history is full of examples of majorities abusing the rights of minorities because there is nothing to stop them.

 

For example, in the US, the constitution grants us a right to freedom of speech. Any law that tries to deny this right will not survive a court challenge. Compare this to your constitution-less country, where the only thing preventing a majority from removing that right is their good will towards you. Ever hear of a thing called censorship? What's to stop your pure-will-of-the-people country from censoring all your opinions because the majority doesn't like them?

If that happened I'd move to another country, one in which the people weren't so moronic and made stupid examples in debates.

 

Yes, since every time you have a corrupt and abusive government, the people can easily leave whenever they want.

 

We, of course, have rights (and you know this), they're just not wrapped in a dated 300 year old constitution care-package and flown high with the Union Jack as our most appealing attribute.

 

Unless you have them protected with something like the constitution, in which case your entire argument fails, you don't have them. Your "rights" exist only as long as the good will of the politicians lasts. Rights that are subject to removal at any time are not rights at all.

 

----------------

 

edit: missed one

 

Before you weren't willing accept that marriage had any other meaning than the civil sense, now you're welcoming in other viewpoints from other cultures and religions? Make your mind up.

 

I never said it didn't have any other meanings, just that all of the others are irrelevant when looking at it from a legal perspective. Besides, the point there was a counter-argument to your "use the dictionary in court" argument. How do you propose to decide on which dictionary definition to use when there are so many different possibilities?

[Dark0ne]

No you haven't. You have never answered my comparisons to changing the definition of marriage based on race. Probably because you know they can't be answered without proving yourself wrong.

 

Write it again or show me the post, but please answer the following question:

 

If limiting the use of "marriage" to straight couples only is not discrimination, is it acceptable to also limit the use of "marriage" to all-white couples only? If not, why is the former acceptable, but the latter racism?

 

I gave you my answer on the very first page. It is my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore it is not discrimination to limit marriage to just men and women. It's actually pretty simple to grasp. It is not my interpretation that a black woman can't marry a black man (or a black marrying a white).

 

The two are not at all the same. We know exactly what is in the constitution. The same can not be said about the future will of the people. They might not vote to execute all forum admins, but history is full of examples of majorities abusing the rights of minorities because there is nothing to stop them.

 

Apart from the basic rights given to all people in this country. Correct.

 

For example, in the US, the constitution grants us a right to freedom of speech. Any law that tries to deny this right will not survive a court challenge. Compare this to your constitution-less country, where the only thing preventing a majority from removing that right is their good will towards you. Ever hear of a thing called censorship? What's to stop your pure-will-of-the-people country from censoring all your opinions because the majority doesn't like them?

 

What's to stop them is 150 out of 600 people voting against it. If it's an extremely large matter then a referendum is held in which all people of voting age get to decide. If 50% of people believe it is the right thing then I have faith it IS the right thing.

 

Yes, since every time you have a corrupt and abusive government, the people can easily leave whenever they want.

 

Wouldn't be the government, it would be the people. If all 600 politicians decide to do something ridiculously stupid blatently against the will of the large majority of people then the public can strip the politicians of their power.

 

Unless you have them protected with something like the constitution, in which case your entire argument fails, you don't have them. Your "rights" exist only as long as the good will of the politicians lasts. Rights that are subject to removal at any time are not rights at all.

 

Uh huh. Sort of like how your chief of state can do that anyway, just facing the consequences later?

[Peregrine]

I gave you my answer on the very first page. It is my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore it is not discrimination to limit marriage to just men and women. It's actually pretty simple to grasp. It is not my interpretation that a black woman can't marry a black man (or a black marrying a white).

 

That's not an answer. You keep dodging the second part of that question, and it has nothing to do with whether you believe discrimination based on race is correct:

 

Why is one discrimination and one not?

 

If someone claimed that marriage should only be between white couples, I would label them a racist and show them nothing but contempt. I assume you would do the same.

 

But if you would, why is your opinion of "marriage is between a man and a woman" valid, but their opinion of "marriage is between a white man and a white woman" racism?

 

Apart from the basic rights given to all people in this country. Correct.

 

Rights given by what? If it's something as static as the US constitution, you have the equivalent of the constitution you keep complaining about, and your argument is meaningless. If it isn't something that static, you do not have those rights, because the only thing protecting them is the good will of the majority.

 

What's to stop them is 150 out of 600 people voting against it. If it's an extremely large matter then a referendum is held in which all people of voting age get to decide. If 50% of people believe it is the right thing then I have faith it IS the right thing.

 

150 of 600 is not a majority last time I checked. Without constitutional protection, that 150 person minority's rights exist only as long as the other 450 are benevolent enough to protect them. 150 of 600 people voting against the complete censorship of all your opinions would do absolutely nothing to stop it.

 

Wouldn't be the government, it would be the people. If all 600 politicians decide to do something ridiculously stupid blatently against the will of the large majority of people then the public can strip the politicians of their power.

 

They can? Have you seen how politics works in this country? Anyone outside the major parties has zero chance of winning a national election, and all 600 voting the same means both parties just became the same.

 

And besides, these thigns rarely happen suddenly. First the extremists get censored "in the interest of national security", and everyone approves but a tiny and powerless minority. Then all that's needed is to broaden the definition of what speech is a threat to national security, and apply the existing system.

 

And just in case you've forgotten, extreme abuse by the government has happened countless times in history. If it's so easy for the majority of the citizens to strip them of power, how has this happened?

 

Uh huh. Sort of like how your chief of state can do that anyway, just facing the consequences later?

 

Can do what? The US president has much less direct power than you think, and zero power to overrule the constitution.

[Akrid]

I belive I have a unique view on all this at first. Yes its true Homosexuals, Bisexuals, hetrosexuals and whatever are human beings and therefore have the same rights as everyone else or they should anyway. Now the bigots argue that "marriage" is speicial to them and fairy boys shouldnt be able to dishonor it. And the highly intellegent side claims that gays are being dicriminated because they cant marry each other with benifits like everyone else.

 

This is how I see it. Imagine Aliens come to earth and want to marry certain monkeys and get benifits for it, now we can all agree that would be messed up. But I for one wouldnt care, if thats what they want thats them, as long as no harm comes to the monkey. But because it would be such a new concept it would be deserving of a new name, just as you invent a new object give it a new name, a new child is born, new name, new movie is made, new name.

 

When have homosexuals married each other through out history? Its new right? so give it a new name. However

 

Then I found that many other countrys allready accepted gay marrage with no problem, hmmmm.... well it not new anymore, if they can get married in another country but we wont let them be a couple here then we are discriminating against them.

 

Somone tell me "we are not discriminating against homosexuals by denying them NORMAL marrage and rights that come with it" Please say that to me, because its wrong and I will break it down for you, otherwise agree its wrong and agree that homosexuals should have the right to be married like they can in most places in the world and stuck up bigots should just deal with it.

 

p.s. its ok to admit your wrong and change sides in a debate, we wont mock you for it.

[Zmid]

This is how I see it. Imagine Aliens come to earth and want to marry certain monkeys and get benifits for it, now we can all agree that would be messed up. But I for one wouldnt care, if thats what they want thats them, as long as no harm comes to the monkey. But because it would be such a new concept it would be deserving of a new name

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This reminded me of something - dogs have been married to each other before now. Should gay people be denied marriage when even dogs can get married?

[draighox]

This reminded me of something - dogs have been married to each other before now. Should gay people be denied marriage when even dogs can get married?

You aren't serious, are you? You think dog's marriage is real?

[Zmid]

You aren't serious, are you? You think dog's marriage is real?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As real as any church service. Perhaps they are not legally binding, but a lot of the arguments against gay marriage I am seeing here are not based on the legal rights bestowed by marriage, but how marriage is 'special' and shouldn't be 'degraded' by gay people marrying.

 

So I ask again - if dogs can marry, why can't gay people?

[Mojlnir]

Firstly, why hasn't this dude Indoril Nerevar been tagged for necroing threads, trolling and sheer idiocy? The mods used to shut this s**t down right quick back in the day, what happened to the flaming swords of damnation?

 

As to the topic, I got married (by a Unitarian, ie non-denominational, pastor..who happened to be a woman) this past July in a vineyard. We had a "religious" ceremony because the 'fam' wanted it. We would rather have signed the papers, had the judge do the mumbo-jumbo and been off to Fiji for Mai Tai's.

 

Since then, our car insurance premiums have dropped, our credit has improved, we get more in tax returns and we can visit each other in the hospital should something catastrophic happen.

 

Jesus isn't giving me the "married" tax exemption...Uncle Sam is.

 

Last time I checked 'ol Jebus wasn't working for Geico either.

 

"Marriage" as the term is commonly used by most morons describes a religious ceremony that is highly discriminatory in nature. Whereas "marriage" in the legal, not pea-brained, sense describes a union from which derive certain financial and legal benefits.

 

We have already tried this disrcimination in the United States. It was generally accepted practice for almost 100 years after we fought a war amongst ourselves to see it ended. It doesn't matter if the wording is changed...its the same old hatred, fear and misunderstanding boiling to the surface all over again.

 

Religion has no business in public life. Religious beliefs are inherently private things and have no legal power to create binding law in the United States. The current "religious revival" in the United States is a bigotted abomination driven by the same fear and hatred that have poisoned the history of my nation.

 

EVERY HUMAN BEING IS EQUAL...and to hell with those who claim otherwise.

[Peregrine]

Firstly, why hasn't this dude Indoril Nerevar been tagged for necroing threads, trolling and sheer idiocy? The mods used to shut this s**t down right quick back in the day, what happened to the flaming swords of damnation?

 

Peregrine lost moderator powers in an incident I can't say more about here without getting a ban for offensive language. Since then, it seems the other moderators have forgotten how to use the delete button.