Hypothetical: About Gay Marriage...

By two jurisdictions.

Under California's own constitution, its Equal Protection Clause. (Article 1, Sec. 7). This challenge has already begun.

Secondly, by rising to a federal issue of constitutionality, which I expect will also be brought forward.

 

So then how do you change the constitution, if not by a vote of the people?

 

Ah, yep, agreed - it is for the protections against a "tyranny of the majority" that a good many of our tenets were put in place.

I guess I find it curious that the very notion of an "idiocracy" has already begun sprouting on the forum, respecting the election of Pres. Obama, yet the "numbers" argument is being used here.

 

Are you equating homosexuals to pedophiles? That sounds exactly like what you're saying.

Saying someone is "born that way" is not a justification, it's a statement of reality. When you talk about a lion eating meat and being carnivorous, you aren't "justfiying something disgusting," you're stating reality as they are, in fact, born that way. Snakes slither. Birds fly. You like the opposite sex. I like the opposite sex. Gays like the same sex. Again, reality.

This is a good point to make but -- ramshackle, at best. I've seen the same story as well as a few others and you know what that means?

It means we know that it happened a few times in a few schools in a few classrooms. Does that mean it's going to happen where you live? Fat chance.

Sensationalist media likes to freak you out to keep you glued to their stories, but you need to keep a healthy smirk of skepticism and rationality about you and ... not watch Fox News.

Zing!

Homosexuality can't move with evolution because they can't reproduce, right? I get it and it's clever, but again -- using the evolution card in any sense is a wild card.

Keep in mind, we're talking about two things now-

1.) Evolution in terms of survival of the fittest (weeding out homosexuality)
2.) Evolution in terms of social progress (people pulling their heads out of their asses and seeing the big picture)

For 1, you could assert this as an argument and you might win a few people over .... until you look back at nature and look at a naturally-occurring fact amongst animals. And then you think, hey -- life has been on this planet for millions of years and we've still got the gays -- huh. I guess evolution hasn't kicked them to the curb yet.

For 2, you could also use this as an argument and convince people that already believe it's a "sin" or some kid who thinks it's "gross." But for anyone who has their eyes open, you can draw clearly from the parallels of equal rights cases going back to the days of slaves. I know, I know .. this one gets old but so does the whole "anti-gay" thing. Blacks and women as a whole knew what I'm talking about in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Just because society deems something as odd or "queer" during that time does not make it right and certainly not just.

Banning gay marriage won't stop gay people from being together, having families, being part of families, kissing in public, being friends with anyone or even working right next to you. All it does is deny them basic rights as humans and as consenting adult couples.

And based on what? Biblical sin? As someone said earlier, this isn't the United Christian States of America. Government should be separate from -any- church and that's what my OP is about.

 

Looks like you need to read a little more of the thread. You've got some catching up to do....

So you deny the authenticity of the story? Why does this story not appear on USAToday?

It keeps them from redefining marriage. That's enough for me.

That's why we each get a vote. I was raised thinking that it is wrong. That's why I don't support it.

You've had your chance to vote. You lost.

 

Yeah because your primary concern is obviously that the definitions of words aren't altered.

Ever thought of maybe using your own brain to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions? or has your religion and upbringing entirely stripped you of your capacity to think independently?

 

I've got $5 bucks says he won't answer that without changing the subject.

Who's in? Paypal pool?

 

Don't worry, I wouldn't respond without reading. I wasn't the only one who came to that conclusion.

I never denied the authenticity. I just said I saw the same story. I just don't think Fox News is "fair and balanced." Doesn't mean what they're reporting is untrue.

I was raised thinking a lot of things that I think are silly now. Not most of them, but some of them.

Some kids are raised to think that white people are better than black people, that men are better than women and that Jews are scum.

But time has started to remove the cloth from over our eyes and we're starting to see the big picture.

Well, yes and no. Yes -- this election, my vote went toward the losing side. You got me there.

But all it takes is a bunch of signatures to get it on the ballot in 2012. For California-

Proposition 22 (in 2000): 61.4% approval and 38.6% against.
Proposition 8 (in 2008): 52.5% approval and 47.5% against.

That's about a 1.11% drop in approval each year over 8 years. Based on that, you could assume that by 2012, such a proposition would garner around 48% approval.

However, the next proposition would have to reverse the constitutional amendment that Prop 8 enacts. That's completely possible, but it reverses the percentages: 48% against and 52% in favor.

Only time will tell though. But it is a question of when, not if.

Haha.. well.. perhaps, but let's not make it about one person. :]

It's about the question.

 

Oh Stox,

No, but I would like marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

I do think for myself, Thank you very much. Were your parents gay lovers too? Did they hate Christians also or did you come up with that on your own? Just wondering...

 

If 2 people love each other they should get the right to holy matrimony no matter where they live..

PS: Im straight.

sean

 

The future is going to suck for you then.

You obviously don't as your self confessed reason for opposing gay marriage is because you were "raised thinking that it is wrong. That's why I don't support it". Having bigoted hatred drummed into you as a child is not thinking for yourself.

Feel free to retract what you said and think up a different reason to justify your homophobia, Blaming it on your parents didn't work.

 

Sure, that's how I was raised. Sorry you don't like it.

There's my nasty old pal. Go ahead call me a few more names. Doesn't change a thing.

I'll ask you again, Were your parents gay lovers too? Did they hate Christians also or did you come up with that on your own?

 

How about we get out of "hypothetical" situations and start focusing on reality. The vast majority of Americans, including a lot of liberal panzies don't want gay marriage. Just look at what California, one of the more liberal states, did a couple of nights ago.

 

It shouldn't matter what the majority of Americans want. We are talking about a union between two consenting adults that harms no one. There is no reason other than outright bias to outlaw gay marriage.

 

LMAO - well, 'kay, PHP - then I'd suggest we straight folks stick to straight marriages, since, hell, I like boobs too, and don't want to marry a dude.

The trouble is what Damian and I have discussed: it doesn't matter if "everyone" was aligned up against it. Our Constitution was made so, to protect those without majority "clout" from being unduly hammered by a column of majority opinion. Something about what a vast-majority can muster up, when equanimity is stripped from the conversation, gives me the willies.

 

I can't speak for stOx, but my parents are Christian and specifically requested that I vote yes on 8 (California's proposition to ban gay marriage constitutionally). Unfortunately, my parents and I differ greatly when it comes to politics.

If I question their root motives, it's disrespectful because they're my parents, so I won't. But I can still ask you what your root motives are for being against equal rights for straights and gays (if you don't mind indulging us).

The "hypothetical" was posed as a way to look under the hood, so to speak, and see the real reasons people don't want equal rights for gay people.

Following your logic a century ago, slaves would continue to be slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote. Are you going to stick with that position?

 

nice points. You other guys can't fight with him. He has too many good points. Besides, you guys don't even have any good points on why gay marrige should be banned. It's just the same as racism. They don't get up in the morning saying "ya know what? I think I'll be gay today, and get criticized and made fun of by many many people"

 

I don't understand all the talk about "normal". What is so great about this false notion of an objective norm?
And if there actually is such a thing as a true natural normal, should the government really set out to protect it and would it have to? Sounds like a false battle standard to me. The same one used over and over since the beginning of time to control people. "They are not like us and we cannot allow them to make us into them". If there is anything truly normal we are in no jeopardy of losing it since "us" and "them" obviously share it. If a desire to get married is "normal" and you and they both want it, then you are both "normal". At want point are they different from you enough to not be "normal"? At the point they choose a different sexual preference? Are you a single issue voter? Just wondering.

 

that's fine. But don't pretend "being raised" to believe something equates to thinking for yourself, Because it obviously doesn't. You believe it because you were raised to believe it, Not because you used your brain, thought about it and came to your own conclusions.

Well done on exposing yourself as an intellectually bankrupt drone capable of nothing except repeating what someone else once told you. You certainly made our job easy in this thread.

 

Look who cares about all this stuff anyway. The real problem is flatulence. I was raised to believe farting was wrong and disgusting. I think we need to ban smelly farters from holding public office. Smelly farts ARE a choice! You can always change your diet or wear http://www.flat-d.com/flatdpremium.html
Seriously.