~springrain

i agree... please... somebody close this thread...

Cynthetiq

some states require pre marriage counselling, and there are some states that require blood tests and have denied people's marriage licenses based on medical reasoning.

shocking, but has happened to heterosexual couples.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

4thTimeLucky

IMHO a thread shouldn't be closed just because some people are saying things we disagree with.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

~springrain

you are right... and i agree...
i was hoping the thread would close due to the volatile nature of the topic and the general tone of the posts and replies at this point.
it's a loaded issue... certainly not one that will be resolved in any way shape or form here in the TFP...
when i continue to see personal slams, bible quoting, insults and judgements about what is "natural" and what isn't... it makes me sad... and it's not what i come to the TFP for...

i'll just remove myself from the thread at this point...

splck

I don't have a problem with gays getting married. I don't see what the big deal is. What do the nay sayers care what two other people do? I don't think people should fret about what other people do in the privacy of their own home. If you believe in God, let him/her/it deal with them when they die.

I say, let gay people deal with a shitty marriages, just like the rest of us.

__________________
nice line eh?

rmarshall

Us Canadians have freedoms you yanks can only dream about.

Now with de-criminalized pot and same-sex marriages.

If only we could buy beer in the 24-hour corner grocery, like in Quebec.

__________________
"Do not resent growing old. Many are denied the privilege" Irish proverb

spectre

Don't go away from the thread. Many threads here are like discussions in real life, sometimes they get heated. The thread will be closed if it degrades into nothing more than insult trading. As long as there is still discussion, the thread will remain open. Hopefully, our members will continue to be respectful of each other and their views so we won't have to go to the extreme of closing the thread.

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

Prophecy

A few others and I have been trying to point out that the Bible(or any other religious text that speaks against homosexuality) is relevant in this issue. The Bible is the basis of some people's belief and views. To quote SecretMethod:

So in essence if the majority doesn't agree with homosexual marriages they will put someone in office that thinks the same way.

What about people who say that, "I've found God and I know my previous life style was wrong. Homosexual is a sin and I've changed". I've seen a couple of shows like that in the past on Rikki Lake and Sally Jessie Raphael.


Agreed, but I've never thought the issue would be solved here anyway . I personally just see this thread as a way to express opinons and views. And also as a way to explain those opinons and views.

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

Cynthetiq

Spec is right.. sometimes a good debate ruffles some feathers and sometimes it helps someone see a different point of view that they would have not ever considered.

Until the thread degrades into moronic flaming it should be left open...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

titsmurf

Prophecy: This is what, I think, lies at the roots of this debate. It's my opinion that the Bible is not relevant in this issue. I'm not saying it's not relevant to this debate - I'm saying that it's my opinion that the bible is not relevant in whether or not homosexual people should be allowed to get maried.

I don't think there is a foolproof answer to this dilemma, as to some - the Bible is relevant. And they are every bit as much right as I am. As long as this status-quo remains, there is no right and wrong side to this argument.

I've just stated my personal opinion. I never meanth for this to turn into a debate on my opinion, and I hardly think that's the point of this thread. So let's adress the issue - in as far that's still necesary, as to me, it's pretty much been nailed already.

smarm

I doubt seriously that many people would choose to live a gay life style in this society, especially in the more conservative areas of the country. The life is hard, and people are brutal to those who live it. This implies to me, perhaps wrongly, that there is little choice in the matter, at least in most cases. I think the vast majority of people will make rational choices when given a choice and the rational choice in this society is clearly to be straight. Where is there any economic, social, or political benefit in being gay?

If you agree with the nature position, it is hard to argue that gay people (like other minority groups) should not be protected from discrimination, even if that discrimination is based on strong religious belief. Religion has been twisted in many ways to argue against (and for) many things, including racisim, slavery, women's right to vote, prohibition of alcohol, etc. Racist viewpoints are generally regarded as "wrong" at least by most of society, but not many years ago, racism was taught from the pulpit as something the Bible endorsed. I think this is something that will change over time, just as very few churches now would condone the racist sermons of the civil rights or slavery eras.

Institutions and people will adapt... Racism is still present, but much different than it was 100 or even 50 years ago. I think the negative feelings on homosexuals will fade over time.. but it may be generational time.

All of this being said, I respect that religious feelings are truly and deeply felt. I also don't intend to imply that they are wrong, I just think they will change and evolve over time as a realization that people who have no choice in the way they are should not be "punished" for being. Especially when no harm to society is caused by their actions (I suspect this is where this position may be most forcefully argued, but I have a hard time recognizing the harm.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have an immediate relative who is gay and I've watched them struggle with the societal challenges presented. This has certainly colored my thinking in this area.

Regards,

Marburg

Nearly my entire school here in Nova Scotia is celebrating the descision. I wasn't aware that it only applied to Ontario, I bet very few people are aware of it....

__________________
Ask a simple question... get pain.

~springrain

i don't mean to "bail"... i truly believe that we are all entitled to our own opinions... and for those who see this thread as a learning tool... i do agree...

i've been feeling really crappy the last week or so... and the intensity of the conversation as well as what i perceive to be the judgemental statements of some (i repeat, SOME)... just feels like "too much" for me right now...

there is so much unrest, and violence, and hatred, and judgements out in the "big bad world" right now... i think i'm more in need of a respite, than a heated conversation...

nothing personal... just where i need to be right now...

treat each other well... *soft smile*

Halx

I've yet to see someone actually argue against my point.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

The_Dude

it doesnt matter what the majority thinks.

the bill of rights was written to protect minority views and minority opinion. the founders knew that overwhelming majority was dangerous.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Phaenx

Oh boy, I'm going to have to learn to be quicker getting my opinions down or else I'll seem like I'm just echoing everything you say, Six.

You've summed up my feelings on the morality of homosexuality nicely in the first paragraph. I'm not out to hurt anyones feelings but I feel it's a mental disorder rather then a preference. I sound like I'm trolling I know, but that's not my intention. It's off topic here but I'll discuss if anyone wants to make a new thread.

Marriage between gays is fine, if my government can profit from this then that's allright by me. That's not saying I want my government to condone it, they're going to be gay no matter what the government denies them, so they might as well give the homosexuals things we can profit from.

Also, I'm glad Six here brought up alternate lifestyle people adopting children and raising them. This disturbs me, in contrast to our social state now to 50-70 years ago, we're all insane. I think we're going to have serious problems in another 50 years if we don't turn things around. I see it much more likely America will fall under the hand of social/economic ruin rather then military might, gays raising children raises a red flag to me in this context, we need both mentally and physically healthy Americans to pull their weight if we want to remain as powerful as we are now.

There are a lot of things I'd like to believe, what the PC nazis have drilled into me since I've started public school among them, that you should accept anything and everything wrong about a person and only then can we all go dance under a rainbow and sing folk songs, refuse and you're a biggot, a racist, or a naive prick from the KKK out to crucify Jesus and punch a nun. This is easily one of the most irritating things ever.

-Dave!

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

The_Dude

MENTAL DISORDER?????????


come on dude...........

just because you dont understand it doesnt mean that they have mental disorders!

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

The_Dude

compare this to the women's rights movenments of the 1910's or the civil rights movements of the 1960's.

the minority groups in those examples were opposed to the status quo, but they had to fight to change it.

people did stand up against those movements, cuz they thought it was morally wrong, but we're past those days and we look back and see how wrong they were.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Phaenx

I understand it fine, crystal clear vision of what's going down. There's not much to get actually, however, can you prove it's not a mental disorder?

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

4thTimeLucky

Phaenx

It sounds like your trying to breed some sort of pure American super race to take on the world!

Its not a competition. For Americans to live happy prosperous lives you don't need to crush everyone else.

As for the 'give them their freedoms if it means we can make money from them' idea, it sounds like you think they are animals that you give some comforts to so that you can get more production out of them!

I'm sure that's not what you think or meant, but it sure does sound like you've got some pretty extreme ideas germinating in your head.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

manalone

Well then let me drink from that potential poisoned chalice

1)State recognition of an issue which the church claims primary dominion over is a prime motivator for its involvement.

2)It is important to remember that in general, a Church considers itself the prime moral guardian and guide of humanity onto a path of "enlightenment" in its diverse form.

A disestablismentarian opinion is an admirable ideal, but I feel it neglects the fact that religious adherents derive from their sheer numbers a right to representation of their views in society.

There is a and should be a de jure separation of church and state. On this point I agree with you. On the point of de facto relationships derived from the implicit moral influence, I am less certain. If the people elect Christian representatives who espouse Christian Values, then these are what should be enforced. That's democracy.

Naturally, the recognition of fundamental rights limits the effect of this, as a basic humanist assumption of personal freedoms should allow a degree of equality derived from natural justice.

3) As to the point of the state deciding right or wrong, I will reject a point I don't think you were making, in case it was your intent:

There is a duty of government to guarantee the social ethics of the populace in line with the opinions of the populace. This is fundamentally enshrined in personal rights, but extends also to moral guardianship of a certain degree.

Now, if you haven't left due to boredom, my opinion.

There is a fundamental question to be asked:

what is the purpose of marriage and related benefits?

If it is simply a way of encouraging natural reproduction, fine. But one must be even handed in such matters and deny benefits to couples who are incapable or choose not to have offspring.

Hardly a modern opinion. Perhaps more suited to the 1920's.

If, on the other hand, like me, you realise that marital status confers vital rights such as economic benefits and entitlements (inheritance, taxation, etc...) and, perhaps more importantly, rights to decisions such as resuscitation orders and rights of attorney over those who are non compus mentis.

When you realise that marriage is, in addition to its expression of love (which can be done separate to the state) an economic and social entity of great import, then I feel there is a strong case for permitting same sex marriage of equal status.

But that leads to the question of Polygamous or Polyandrous agreements. There I am not so sure.

In conclusion (phew!) I disagree with you when you say the church should not be involved, because it remains a substantial influence on the moral reckoning of a large proportion of people.

On the other hand, I would like to live in a world where who I choose to stick things in and whether or not they stick things in me can be a matter of pure personal choice, subject to obvious moral constraints (species, consent and age).

there... far too many words for little of merit.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Halx

I need only to once again point out the the church and state should indeed be separate, per consitutional amendment.

As well, how is gay marriage an 'ethics' call? The whole prejudice against their institution is based upon IGNORANCE and nothing more. Ethics is not whether two people want to join their incomes, which is the only aspect that the state sees. Who fucking cares what the two people have between their legs!

I personally find this whole debate completely SILLY. The only reason why this perpetuates is because of the desires of many people to RUN other people's lives. People are not content to work on themselves, no, they must fuck other people over.

DONT step on feet. LIVE your own life. LET others do the same.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

manalone

Ok, I still disagree on the point of societal ethical standards,

but I echo the sentiment of mutual respect

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

4thTimeLucky

My goodness.
Someone who actually sounds like they know what they're talking about. And can spell. And use paragraphs. And structure.

Are you sure you're on the right board manalone?

Enough arselicking.
Can I just jot down a few premises of your argument and the conclusion:

P1) There should be a de jure separation of church and state.
P2) The will of the people should be represented by those they elect. That is democracy.
P3) That includes their moral beliefs.
P4) There are a significant number of Christians in America.
P5) There can therefore be a de facto integration of church and state.
P6) The Bible would indicate that homosexual acts are sinful and marriage is between a man and a woman.
P7) There are fundamental human rights, formed on a humanist and natural justice basis.
P8) One of these human rights is equality (of some form or another).
P9) Marriage gives important economic and social benefits.
P10) Sexuality is not a moral constraint (unlike sex, consent and age).

C1 (from P1,7,8,9,10): Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Okay, a few thoughts:
P7 - Can you just assume that human rights arise from natural justice and not God?

P3 - Should the state reflect the moral beliefs of its citizens? Issues on which this does not occur in the UK: capital punishment and War on Iraq. One reason for this is that British MPs believe that they are elected to represent the welfare of their constituents and not their individual beliefs. In other words, we elect the wise among us to make decisions for all of us.

P8 - Equality will need to be defined further. For example: If equality means the government should show equal regard to the beliefs, liberty and happiness of all, then how does it weigh John's deep disgust at the thought of the state condoning homosexual acts with Dave's deep disgust at the thought of the state not condoning homosexual acts.

P10 - Aren't you just begging the question? The Bible says that three main types of sexual act are wrong: sodomy, bestiality and rape - and this moral trinity has been preserved in the Western Christian tradition for the last 2,000 years. As paedophilia is a specific case of rape (because informed consent can never be given) then its addition seems unproblematic. But what lets you remove sexuality/sodomy from the trinity of "obvious moral constraints"?

Is not equally possible from your premises to draw the following conclusion:

C2 (from P 2, 3, 4, 5, 6): Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.


Don't get me wrong, I don't support antidisestablishmentarianism. I just want to make sure that the right argument wins the day.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Halx

God? Who is God? I've never met God. I've never seen him on TV. I have no reason to believe in him or be governed by him.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Halx

And might I add that many Gay people DO NOT LIKE ANAL SEX. Being Gay doesn't mean that GETTING IT UP THE ASS is your only form of sexual expression. A relationship between two gay people DOES IN NO WAY INSINUATE that they have anal sex.

*I am getting very frustrated by the ignorance being displayed*

Wait, why am I arguing against a point that only supporters of the church would bring up? *sigh*

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

4thTimeLucky

Halx

"A relationship between two gay people DOES IN NO WAY INSINUATE that they have anal sex."

Very true. Not only well endowed, but wise with it.

But one possible argument may go:

1) The Bible says that sodomy (sex between two men) is immoral.
2) In 2001 77% of Americans identified themselves as Christian.
3) The state should reflect the morality of its citizens.
4) The state should not condone what is immoral.
5) Marriages must be consumated by sex.

C(1 to 5): The state should not allow homosexual marriage.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Phaenx

Not quite, although my statements can admittedly be easily misunderstood. It's not that I don't like the gays, despite their flaws I still like most people in general, although I won't ignore certain aspects of them, most times it has no affect on my friendliness. I'm no biggot, I have my opinions but I am not so pretentious that I'd attempt to save anyone from what I believe is wrong, or persecute them for being the way they are.

I don't have a problem with them doing what they want as long as they aren't impacting anyone else, and with alternate lifestyle homes cranking out kids over a few decades they will. It's unnatural, and I don't believe people who live like this should raise a child without proper psychological studies assuring the child won't be damaged. Of course the problem there is getting a test subject. They're better left in a home until a proper home is found. (note: That doesn't include some of the good for nothing abusive parents I've heard stories about. I will yield to the idea that a child is better off with potentially having a social disorder then bruised to hell, emotionally scarred, or dead. Having seen the places they live, I'd say they should stay in the government home until a suitable family environment is found.)

I don't remember saying anything about breeding a super race, what I want for America is to have a healthy and strong populace. As I said earlier, I think economic and social ruin is a far greater threat to America then any power you could ever wield in your hand. My point is that with growing problems in these areas, 60% of our populace being overweight, and an unknown number of people with emotional problems, I find it disturbing people would be throwing gas on the fire.

I'd look silly wishing for a continual increase of obesity and mental instablity wouldn't I? These are two things we as a nation could fix, as an individual it's not hard to eat well and exercise so your blood sugar doesn't turn you into a sluggish lazy blob at work. Mental stablity is another story, we have got to start raising our kids better, and if you don't, pass a law that allows me to hit your unruly children. Speaking of rules, where have they gone? Authority figures? Punishment? It's a joke, they aren't going to be ready for jack with all this PC "everyone wins" musical chairs and "Hey, go knock that guys stuff over and scream all day while I threaten to do something, but I actually won't because I'm too lazy, and I bet you know it" crap I sat through at the mall.

I want my country to have a good stance towards a variety of types of health for what I think is a good reason, I want people to pull their own weight, so America can prosper, and I can prosper along with it. The thing about it is this is a competition, our society is based around competition. Free enterprise has made us a lot of money, and I don't think we would have gone to the moon if we weren't racing the Russians. Things are good, but they can be better, and better is always better.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Peetster

The way I look at it, it's none of my business what they do in their bedrooms, nor do I want to know. It's strictly between them. I believe that they have a right to express their love however they feel is appropriate.

Some have touched on this, but the conflict arises when we say "marriage" but think something else. For some, marriage is a legal condition, a contract. For others, it's a sacrament. Same sex unions can only enter into the former. Nothing to argue there.

I've known a few openly gay men, and whether I like them as people or not has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. I think they should have the right to choose their life partner. I tried to reverse it; what if same sex was normal, and I was one of those "sick fucks" that wanted to have sex with women. Sorry, won't work. I'm wired for women. The thought of having sex with a man is so basically repulsive to me that I'm surprised women can do it.

Peetster

Also, let's keep it civil. You won't make your points with sarcasm.

Prophecy

The people(majority) elect the politicians, who can in turn change the laws through amendments or bills. Also they (the people and/or politicians) elect judges who interpret the law, I don't think people would put someone in a postion to rule on laws that doesn't think the same way they do... Its just one big long connected chain...

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

manalone

Your Cheque is in the post.

Somehow I feel this is an underhanded way to introduce homophobia into the debate

Succinctly and Accurately Put.

I think that is a question of semantics to some extent. Natural Justice is the secular humanist method of defining a moral underpinning to all human interaction.

It can be equally interpreted by the religious as the concept of God's Law, based on whatever god you intend to follow.

The concept of natural law as an independent entity is useful to me as I do not believe in the existance of God in any form. On that basis, I rely on a principle that assumes that human interaction should be founded on an ethical basis because I hold certain truths to be self-evident and certain rights to be inalienable.

It also permits the hazy concept of an unenumerated right. A principle of Natural Law that means that certain rights exist a priori of their discovery.

It doesn't make things easier, just fairer

Well, without any statistical evidence that I trust, I would prefer to set aside capital punishment as an example. I think we can make useful progress just on the Iraq issue.

It's a good example of an important question. Did the Blair Government perform its duties properly as a democratically elected government in that situation? I would contend that it may not have. The basis for any government decision must be the will of the people. That does not mean a referendum on every decision, but that the prime concern of government is not to force its will on the people, but accomodate the wishes of the majority, within the boundaries of Natural Law.

However, I feel that this is slightly to the side of the issue, which is centered on the question of the influence of socio-ethical lobby groups (ie the Church) on the supposedly economically focussed State.

My point was, simply, that the State is more than a simple economic entity. It therefore must exhibit the ethical perspective of its constituents.

The principle of equality in natural justice attempts to construct a basis whereby no individual rights override another's. In both cases, the State should merely provide the guarantee of free speech and free association.

In other words, the state must ensure that whatever opinion is held, it must be free from persecution. The right to "not be disgusted" is not, in my opinion a right compatible with the acknowledged right to freedom of speech. This leads to some unpleasant and extreme examples, but such is the nature of free speech.

Indeed. I suppose it comes down to consent. If I may draw your argument about paedophilia out, animals are similarly incapable of granting consent. It therefore becomes the following triad:

1) sodomy (consent required)
2) bestiality (no consent possible)
3) paedophilia (no consent possible)

On that basis I draw from the bible, based on other sexual practices which have become more acceptable since the writing of the document (ie oral sex and masturbation and most importantly adultery), that sexual morality has been reduced primarily to an issue of consent in modern times.

Not exactly. I would phrase C2 as "The states where it is found to be morally unacceptable should not permit or recognise such marriages".

The point to distinguish is that my opinion and what should happen remain separate. What is right and what should be done are also separate. Democracy must rule, with free debate on any side of an issue.

Right is a malleable entity, unfortunately. As a secular humanist, I can only derive principles of right and wrong through reason and opinion. Reason in the case of "natural justice" and opinion in the sense of the majority rules principle.

That does not mean I have to believe what the majority do (My reason outweighs the majority ) but it does mean that I think the only sane basis for government is that derived from democratic principles.

The right argument is the one that is amenable to your intellect and to your conscience.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

manalone

Ably put. One might add that not all heterosexual love is expressed by vaginal penetration.

Well, I think perhaps because it is only through education that we reach enlightened points of view?

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

splck

From the first post:It was the court that ruled it was against their rights to not allow marriage, now the politicians have to change the laws to reflect this. This ruling was based on their rights, rather than a politician’s ideology.

__________________
nice line eh?

Halx

4th
#1 - So?
#5 - moot because once again... anal sex is not a gay person's only option.

As for 2, 3, and 4...
Morality, in your views, is becoming about how you think your neighbor should live his or her life. To that I say, "back off." Communities are diverse. Here where *I* live, America is home of the free. With that, we should be FREE to be whoever we want to be as long as we are hot harming anyone. Gay marriages harm no one.

So let's be a little crazy and hypothetical here: Perhaps there is a community of racist rednecks somewhere in the country... the rednecks would like the freedom to harass, beat and kill all gays, blacks, jews and gypsies they see. Because the rednecks make the majority of that region, do you grant them their request? OF COURSE NOT. You make decisions that are practical and rational. Yeah, that example is a little out there, but let me explain.

Who gives a shit about petty concerns? Homophobia is what we're up against. It develops from lack of education. It develops from hypocritical religious views. We are living in the 21st century where most of the world has abandoned religion in favor of more rational, realistic thinking.

Recognize marriages, increase awareness, preach tolerance, and watch as this debate fizzles into obscurity.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Minx

How sad I am to see what I thought was going to be a good discussion turn to name calling and extreme views.

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky

My goodness.
Someone who actually sounds like they know what they're talking about. And can spell. And use paragraphs. And structure.

Are you sure you're on the right board manalone?


Please don't make it sound as if there are only a few people speaking here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if it differs from your own.....so be it. Don't try to insult the intelligence of the rest of the people who have posted a part of themselves to this thread. I take exception to that.....everyone is entitled to their say without being looked down upon.

__________________
You've been a naughty boy....go to my room!

The_Dude

the men that wrote the constitution were genius'.

yes, politicians can alter the law, but the founders didnt want them to be able to take away basic rights (including the natural rights by locke).

that's why they made ammendments to be such a dragged out process. the didnt want a sudden change in majority opinion to do anything drastic. you know how hard it is to get an ammendment right?


and as for judges, what matters here are what federal judges think. and they dont get elected. i dont think any federal judges get elected and most have life terms, so no worry's regarding re-election.

the supreme court does care to a certain degree about majority opinion, but they have went the other way lots of time and i sure hope they do it here.


EDIT: lemme add more.

the majority in this case are the religious groups (mainly christians). it doesnt matter what christians think, it doesnt matter what god thinks. bill of rights was designed for a situation just like this (again, how smart the founders were...).

overwhelming religious majority wants to set a moral standard for the entire population - big no no.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

gibber71

Excellently stated.Very nice.

charlesesl

call me a close minded triditional man if u wish
but gay is wrong
gay is against the law of nature
I cant believe that the government allows its practice

__________________
It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.
Dr. Viktor E. Frankl

Miekle

It's kinda funny how although here in America your considered free, if your "wierd" your not liked and your free choice is usualy denied.

I have a couple friends that are gay and I don't see much wrong with it. In my opinion it's just a chemical imbalance or something and if not ahh well none of my business they can live how they want it really isn't hurting me any so I don't see the big deal with it all. It seems like some people always have to be telling someone how to do something or whats wrong or right otherwise everyone including them would be perfect and they would go insaine not having something to bitch about.