Gay Marriage

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

I wish they would just let us vote on this issue, instead of using the courts to make policy.

---

Of course. Human rights should always be put to a vote. The majority never, ever tramples on the civil rights of the minority because they always understand that the freedom they demand for themselves must be extended to everyone or it means nothing, right?By your logic, the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia striking down miscegenation laws was completely inappropriate. After all, more than 70% of the country at the time felt that interracial marriage should be outlawed. That's more than currently think same-sex marriage should be outlawed. How dare the courts tell us what to do, right? They have no business actually interpreting the Constitution to ensure that the rights of American citizens are not abridged, right?Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, right?

quote:

---

Or at least define marriage, unfourtunately that is not how socialism works.

---

"Socialism"? What on earth are you talking about. "Socialism" is an economic policy.

quote:

---

It was pretty funny that you called somebody a bigot because their beliefs are different than yours, when that is what biggotry is.

---

Incorrect. You're not about to try the discredited notion that refused to accept bigotry is bigotry, are you?No, bigotry is when you refuse to allows other to have that which you demand for yourself.If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, that's perfectly fine. Don't marry somebody of the same sex. Nobody is forcing you to. The equality of the law with regard to marriage does not make anybody do anything they don't want to do nor does it deprive anybody of anything other people have.Trying to have special rights for straight people, on the other hand, is bigotry. You are perfectly free to think that marrying someone of the same sex is horrible and icky. The Catholic church thinks that divorce is horrible and icky and nobody forces them to marry divorcees. Plenty of people think marrying someone of another race is horrible and icky and nobody forces them to do so.But just because you think it is horrible and icky doesn't mean you get to stop someone else from enjoying the same rights you insist upon having for yourself."With liberty and justice for all," ends the Pledge of Allegiance.What part of "for all" is so hard to understand?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

speaking of representative avatars, look in the mirror.
BTW that is not me.I didn't ask for a popular vote, i feel my congressman represents me just fine. thanks for the broad assumption though, quite a bit simple of you.

quote:

---

I'm not particularly surprised that someone from Virginia would like to see popular vote trump the Constitution, given Virginia's history of discriminatory treatment of the right to marriage.

---

Im not from Virginia, but i do live here. and its not about popular vote, then the urban centers would run this country more than they already do.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : bad html

quote:

---

Of course. Human rights should always be put to a vote. The majority never, ever tramples on the civil rights of the minority because they always understand that the freedom they demand for themselves must be extended to everyone or it means nothing, right?

​

By your logic, the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia striking down miscegenation laws was completely inappropriate. After all, more than 70% of the country at the time felt that interracial marriage should be outlawed. That's more than currently think same-sex marriage should be outlawed. How dare the courts tell us what to do, right? They have no business actually interpreting the Constitution to ensure that the rights of American citizens are not abridged, right?

​

Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, right?

---

yep.
the Lovings could have moved to a different state.
states rights, bro.

quote:

---

If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, that's perfectly fine. Don't marry somebody of the same sex. Nobody is forcing you to. The equality of the law with regard to marriage does not make anybody do anything they don't want to do nor does it deprive anybody of anything other people have.

​

Trying to have special rights for straight people, on the other hand, is bigotry. You are perfectly free to think that marrying someone of the same sex is horrible and icky. The Catholic church thinks that divorce is horrible and icky and nobody forces them to marry divorcees. Plenty of people think marrying someone of another race is horrible and icky and nobody forces them to do so.

---

I was actually talking about defining the word marriage as it was originally meant to be defined. unfourtunately in all those marriage laws and rulings (even your so oftenly quoted Loving v. Virginia) it was assumed the marriage was between a man and a women. If Mildred Loving was a man, do you think the ruling would have went the same way? All im saying is let's just define the word in law, as most of us (70%+ according to you), know what it means. I could care less if two d00dz want to be together, but lets call it something else. can you marry your cat? does marriage have to be with a human? if there is no set legal definition then you could interpret it in what ever crazy manner you wanted.you are all hung up on the wrong issue.

You do know that they did move, actually they were given the option of jail or moving out of state. States, as the Supreme Court has ruled, do not have the right to deny basic human rights.

Okay fine, not a popular vote. Would you want anyone other than yourself voting to decide the minutia of your everyday life? I mean other than your mom who sets out your Geranimals in the morning.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

I support allowing marriage of anyone to any sex with as many people as you like.Anything less is facist BS.(As anyone with half a brain knows, the only person you can transfer money, property etc. to without tax liability, is to your spouse (ask John Kerry the Ketchup Queen gave him $173 million tax free). If we allow marrige to anyone in any number it will be possible for me, by getting married and then divorced to live my entire life without having to pay income tax. A quick example, I write a novel and someone wishes to buy the movie rights for 6 million....we don't do that .....instead get married......later when we find out we can't "communicate"...get divorced...and surprise in the property settlement I get 6 million tax free and he gets the movie rights. So, support GAY Marriage. Only problem is how long do you think the Democrats will let this tax windfall go on and what will they do to stop it. Maybe you should think about that.)

quote:

---

Only problem is how long do you think the Democrats will let this tax windfall go on and what will they do to stop it.

---

Wow.So, all these so-called family value wingnuts who pander to the anti gay marriage crowd all the time are actually RINO democrats who oppose gay marriage for tax reasons.*blink**blink*Just . . . . wow.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Why would they give you the six million dollars when they can use a small portion of that six million on a divorce lawyer to take the movie rights? (Or any of a thousand other doors that would be open to the less stupid of the parties in your little schema.) Did you really think you had a brilliant point to bring us all up short, or were you being entirely facetious?

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

They coulda had a pre-nup.

quote:

---

Okay fine, not a popular vote. Would you want anyone other than yourself voting to decide the minutia of your everyday life? I mean other than your mom who sets out your Geranimals in the morning.

---

nope.BTW its your mom who takes care of me every morning

quote:

---

You do know that they did move, actually they were given the option of jail or moving out of state. States, as the Supreme Court has ruled, do not have the right to deny basic human rights.

---

marrying black chicks is a basic human right!?!roflmfao

quote:

---

marrying black chicks is a basic human right!?!

​

roflmfao

---

Why shouldn't it be? And why do you laugh, nothing intelligent to say?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Seems the most democratic thing to do. Shhhhhhh.... Stop making sense. That's not allowed here.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

quote:

---

Seems the most democratic thing to do.

---

Ever heard of the Constitution?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat