California Overturns Gay Marriage

[Chukpike]

Just a passing thought; the Nazis considered Homosexuals, Jews, Poles, Russians, Slavs, and Gypsies abnormal. They found a good solution.

I have to disagree with you here. I don't think what the Nazis did was good. I am surprised any one would. I guess you are entitled to your opinion as hateful as it is.

By your calculations, Chukpike, the Selma March, the Dream Speech, the Lunch Counter sit-ins, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, would all be considred "pushing an agenda." Is that necessarily a bad thing? I'm not quite seeing how that would be such an awful thing if someone wants to go one an "Are we not Human?" march if the government is denying them their basic rights. That, I believe, would also give them the right to overthrow said government, according to the Declaration of Independence.

I did not even suggest homosexuals couldn't march and "push an agenda". I was answering Rob's contention that "homosexuals do not try and push an agenda". I hope after reading your post he will except that they do.

It would be better if they waited until they had a majority of the people supporting them before trying to overthrow the government. If they tried it now they would get their butts kicked back to the really dark ages.

Next, I'm not sure how what Henderson is saying is twisting the constitution. The First Amendment gives people the right to assemble, and free speech (Pride Parade). Now mind you, I may not personally enjoy all types of free speech (KKK), but I accept it for what it is, part of the constitution, and thought I may try to reason with people to change their opinion I have to live with the fact that their opinion is theirs, no matter how short-sighted and wacky I may see it to be. However, denying someone these rights because I don't agree with their views makes no sense whatsoever. The Seperation of Church and State does just that; it seperates the Government and any religious group, be it Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Voodoo, etc. If someone wants to impose a law in this country because the Bible or the Koran or Buddha says it's wrong, they can not legally do so. Which brings me full circle; how exactly is what Henderson is saying "Twisting the Constitution"?

He contends that the Constitution gives the individual the right to decide what is right over the will of the majority. He contends that being homosexual is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any amendment that addresses sexual preference. As I said before homosexuals are not going to Federal Court to have their "right" enforced as blacks did. They know that the Constitution does not protect them.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you are quoting the first amendment you should be aware that Rob said the state had no right to allow the people of California to put a petition on the ballot. May be you don't think this is twisting the Constitution, but I do.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I have to disagree with you here. I don't think what the Nazis did was good. I am surprised any one would. I guess you are entitled to your opinion as hateful as it is.

LOL! He's being sarcastic sir. And I think you knew that...

I did not even suggest homosexuals couldn't march and "push an agenda". I was answering Rob's contention that "homosexuals do not try and push an agenda". I hope after reading your post he will except that they do.

And if you would read MY post, I said I was not going to sit here and try and say they don't try to push having their ways accepted, but read my definition of "pushing an agenda." It's like TOG said... By the same token, you consider the black civil rights movement, the female voting movement, etc "pushing an agenda." It's just people wanting the same thing as other people. They just want to be allowed to be married... To share a special connection like we heterosexuals now take advantage of for the most part.

It would be better if they waited until they had a majority of the people supporting them before trying to overthrow the government. If they tried it now they would get their butts kicked back to the really dark ages.

They wouldn't go that far... Just as far as to be considered human by the rest of the human population.

He contends that the Constitution gives the individual the right to decide what is right over the will of the majority. He contends that being homosexual is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any amendment that addresses sexual preference. As I said before homosexuals are not going to Federal Court to have their "right" enforced as blacks did. They know that the Constitution does not protect them.

I never said any of that... I never said homosexuality was guaranteed under the Constitution... Tell me where I said that. PLEASE. I remember saying that there is nothing in the constitution either way that addresses such personal matters as marriage, or sexual preference(since you decided to help my point). The Constitution does not help in this matter NEITHER does it hurt them. The point is, the Constitution said that just because a power was not specifically granted to the national government does not mean it is given to the States. It means that it is up to the people. And quite honestly, the people should have no right to interfere in private matters like these.


Show me where I said those things, please.

Since you are quoting the first amendment you should be aware that Rob said the state had no right to allow the people of California to put a petition on the ballot. May be you don't think this is twisting the Constitution, but I do.

Look, I never quoted the Constitution as saying the states never had a right let California petition... In fact, I remember distinctly saying that that was MY OPINION. Read the post.

 

[Chukpike]

My point being that it shouldn't have been put up for vote. The State shouldn't even have allowed the petition to be brought up for a vote.

I don't see "my opinion" in your statement. Of course, you never quoted the Constitution it is not in there. You ignored the 1st Amendment.

Again, the States gave the right to the people when they put it up for a vote. Now, as far as the people already having the authority, the people do NOT have ultimate power in a democracy.

Once again ignoring the 1st Amendment.
Here I think you ignore the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and every other document that serves a Democracy.
Apparently President Lincoln disagrees with you.

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."



Democracy:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

He's being sarcastic sir. And I think you knew that...

You continually choose to determine what others say and post it like it is a true meaning. I only posted exactly what he said.

It's like TOG said... By the same token, you consider the black civil rights movement, the female voting movement, etc "pushing an agenda."

Here again you have determined what I mean from something I didn't say at all. TOG made a statement beginning with "By your calculations, Chukpike,..." and you have chosen to attribute it's meaning to me.

Show me where I said those things, please.
Look, I never quoted the Constitution as saying the states never had a right let California petition... In fact, I remember distinctly saying that that was MY OPINION. Read the post.

You did not say "MY OPINION", I not sure how in forums "my opinion" is some how supposed to absolve people of meaning what they post.

I should have not said you twisted the Constitution, to be more accurate I should have said, "you ignore the constitution as it suits you".

You are like so many young people today, brainwashed into believing you have the "right" to do what ever you want. Instead of understanding others have just as much right to decide how they wish to live as you. When there is more than one point of view on any subject the will of the majority is still the best course. This does not keep you from working towards a change, it just means until you achieve your desired goal you need to respect the will of others.

 

[HokieMSG]

Whether gays marry or not has no effect on my life. I dont buy for one iota the arguement that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage. Its already legal in many countries and as I am getting married in May -so far no effect. To me that old arguement is not anti-gay marriage, thats simply anti-gay. I am a strong believer in "live and let live" and since Adam and Steve getting married as recognized by the state has no bearing on me, -why should I care what they do? I am not in the habit of sticking my nose in other people's business where I have no concern.

Marriage by the church is a different subject because most religons don't recognize homosexuality. Unless the church were to change its view on this I dont see how gays could get married in church.

I think that the Episcopal Church allows civil unions.

 

[HokieMSG]

My argument here is purely about their eligibility for the benefits of married couples. It's a money grab and they are not entitled. After all, that is what this notion of Homosexual "marriage" is all about.

Thats EXACTLY what it boils down to. Money.

The problem I have is with the fact that I am being told that I have to accept something. In this case Gay Marriage.

A very good friend of mine explained it like this..
It doesn't matter if you are gay. When you announce to the world that you are gay (or whatever). You immediately open yourself to criticism from the rest of the population.

I think that most people wouldn;t care, but for the loud mouths on both sides.
Gay Activist: "I'm gay and entitled to marriage"
Anti Gay Activist" "The Bible says it's wrong and you are going to hell."

Actually I don't agree with it. I can think and say pretty much whatever I want about homosexuality. I don't agree with it and think homosexuality is wrong. (2 guys OR 2 girls)
Is my opinion right? To me it is.
Is it fair? Irrelevant.
Is is bigoted? Probably.
Does it affect me? Not in the least.

 

[The Other Guy]

I have to disagree with you here. I don't think what the Nazis did was good. I am surprised any one would. I guess you are entitled to your opinion as hateful as it is.

You're not stupid, you know what I mean by that. Don't twist my words.

I did not even suggest homosexuals couldn't march and "push an agenda". I was answering Rob's contention that "homosexuals do not try and push an agenda". I hope after reading your post he will except that they do.

Interesting. Because my post says otherwise.

He contends that the Constitution gives the individual the right to decide what is right over the will of the majority. He contends that being homosexual is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any amendment that addresses sexual preference. As I said before homosexuals are not going to Federal Court to have their "right" enforced as blacks did. They know that the Constitution does not protect them.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since you are quoting the first amendment you should be aware that Rob said the state had no right to allow the people of California to put a petition on the ballot. May be you don't think this is twisting the Constitution, but I do.

So if a law is passed banning all minority religions, there's nothing that these religions can do about it, because the people in the majority religion voted for it? According to your interpretation of the constitution, that would be the case. They're the minority, therefore they don't need freedom of religion! That would be freedom to the majority, only halfway there. The last line of the Pledge of Allegiance does read, "...liberty and justice for all." Do note as well that the majority would not have accepted the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Another side note... it took 100 years from the Emancipation Proclamation freeing southern slaves unitl the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In between there was Liberty and Justice for White Men, modified in 1920 to Liberty and Justice for Whites. Now we're almost there; Liberty and Justice for Heterosexuals. I'd like to see the asterisk removed from "Liberty and Justice for All*" before 2108.

 

[senojekips]

Thats EXACTLY what it boils down to. Money.

Is my opinion right? To me it is.

And the majority of society

Is it fair? Irrelevant.
Is is bigoted? Probably.

Life is not "fair",... and we may as well get used to it. In this case a bigot is no more than someone who disagrees with your point of view,... its a form of name calling. and if I'm a bigot, I have every reason to be proud of it as I have the support of society. Which really makes the term an oxymoron.

Does it affect me? Not in the least.

Those who practice overt homosexuality give me the creeps. (Same sex predators).

 

[The Other Guy]

Those who practice overt homosexuality give me the creeps. (Same sex predators).

But you get as many of those, percentage wise, as straight rapists, but in much smaller numbers. Women don't go around terrified that every shifty looking character is going to rape them. So I back up HokieMSG's point; it does not affect me in the least.

 

[HokieMSG]

Exactly! I believe the seperation of Church and State is written into the US constitution. Why should a religious view on marriage be the final word on the nation's views?

Where exactly does it say anything about keeping the Church and State Separate?

You might be mis-reading this...
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[HokieMSG]

And the majority of society
Life is not "fair",... and we may as well get used to it. In this case a bigot is no more than someone who disagrees with your point of view,... its a form of name calling. and if I'm a bigot, I have every reason to be proud of it as I have the support of society. Which really makes the term an oxymoron.
Those who practice overt homosexuality give me the creeps. (Same sex predators).

senojekips, I think that you and I agree on this. I don't want to see it either. As far as being bigoted. Well.. I guess I'm guilty, but only partly.

big⋅ot   /ˈbɪg

ət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh

t] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I'm only intolerant when two "poofs" are kissing in public and I happen to be with my children. I can always look away but I don't need to explain to my young child the facts about the birds and bees at the mall. I will be doing this soon enough and would like to do it at a time and place of my choosing.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I don't see "my opinion" in your statement. Of course, you never quoted the Constitution it is not in there. You ignored the 1st Amendment.

"I don't think that should be the kind of thing put up to the majority." I DON'T THINK. It's all opinionated. Nothing in this thread, save my article and Del Boy's arguments, are factual. It's all opinion.

Once again ignoring the 1st Amendment.
Here I think you ignore the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and every other document that serves a Democracy.
Apparently President Lincoln disagrees with you.

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Damn... A dead President disagrees with me. I don't care what President Lincoln said. I'm sure he wasn't talking about the rights of certain individual cases. "The People" should not interfere with the personal affairs of others. It's not for them to decide. I'll be DAMNED if I want someone telling me who I can marry or not. It's prejudice. You've never been gay, so you should not condemn them. How many gays do you know personally Chukpike?

You continually choose to determine what others say and post it like it is a true meaning. I only posted exactly what he said.

Like he said, you're not stupid... You know what he meant. You know he was being sarcastic.

Here again you have determined what I mean from something I didn't say at all. TOG made a statement beginning with "By your calculations, Chukpike,..." and you have chosen to attribute it's meaning to me.

You're right, that was my fault... I meant to phrase it as a question "By the same token, DO you consider the black civil rights movement, the female voting movement, etc "pushing an agenda"?

Because that's what you're inferring by using them as examples. They can protest for equality, because THAT'S written in the Constitution. But the law (at any level, city, state, or federal) cannot be allowed into the personal lives of the People. Tell me, were/are you for or against the wire-tapping of residential phones to monitor for terrorist conversations?

You did not say "MY OPINION", I not sure how in forums "my opinion" is some how supposed to absolve people of meaning what they post.

I should have not said you twisted the Constitution, to be more accurate I should have said, "you ignore the constitution as it suits you".

Please tell me where in the Constitution it says "The government decides who marries who." PLEASE!!!

You are like so many young people today, brainwashed into believing you have the "right" to do what ever you want. Instead of understanding others have just as much right to decide how they wish to live as you. When there is more than one point of view on any subject the will of the majority is still the best course. This does not keep you from working towards a change, it just means until you achieve your desired goal you need to respect the will of others.

Gag me with your "Oh you young whipper-snappers need to respect people more. The world's going to hell. Blah Blah Blah!"

The basis for the foundation of America was FREEDOM. The original people left for the colonies because of religious persecution. Persecution based on a sexual preference is the same thing. It's someone's ideals, and the majority of the people have no right to decide what goes on inside someone else's life unless it actively harms them. NO ONE can decide how I live MY life. Because it's mine. It's not the government's, it's the the next door neighbor's, it's MINE and ONLY MINE. The majority does not and SHOULD NOT always be the "best." There are cases in which there should be no verdicts either way.

 

[senojekips]

The basis for the foundation of America was FREEDOM. The original people left for the colonies because of religious persecution. Persecution based on a sexual preference is the same thing. It's someone's ideals, and the majority of the people have no right to decide what goes on inside someone else's life unless it actively harms them. NO ONE can decide how I live MY life. Because it's mine. It's not the government's, it's the the next door neighbor's, it's MINE and ONLY MINE. The majority does not and SHOULD NOT always be the "best." There are cases in which there should be no verdicts either way.

I dunno where you've lived all your life then,... certainly not in the USA, because if you cared to open your eyes just a little and have a look around you, you would find that your personal ideals count for nothing in the grand scheme of things. We are all subject to the rules of the majority. That's called DEMOCRACY. Which is no less than the "freedom" of the majority to over rule the selfishness of vocal minorities. Last time I checked the USA was a Democracy.

The type of "freedom" you want is no less than Anarchy by another name.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I dunno where you've lived all your life then,... certainly not in the USA, because if you cared to open your eyes just a little and have a look around you, you would find that your personal ideals count for nothing in the grand scheme of things. We are all subject to the rules of the majority. That's called DEMOCRACY. Which is no less than the "freedom" of the majority to over rule the selfishness of vocal minorities. Last time I checked the USA was a Democracy.

The type of "freedom" you want is no less than Anarchy by another name.

In certain cases, I believe the majority of the people should rule... It's a good idea for a government, because it works... For the most part. But, like I've said 100,000 times in this thread, there are exceptions. Exceptions like marriage. Exceptions like speech. Exceptions like protesting. You're right, my personal ideals don't count for much, but 1.4 million people (though being the minority in the United States statistic-wise) is hardly a "minority." It's a pretty big number, and to demand to be treated like an equal human being is not that big of a demand in my book... Hate them if you want, curse them if you want, condemn them to hell if you want (even though you're not perfect either) but don't treat them like dirt because of a choice they had no say in.


Now, the type of freedom I want is by NO MEANS anarchy. I don't believe in mass chaos. I think order is necessary in an evolved society. But I DO believe that certain things (who you marry) should not be decided by anyone other than you. Is that not fair of me? Is that an unjust demand to be made? Is that so hard to do?! Treat them with the same courtesy you would give to a heterosexual couple!?

 

[Chukpike]

"I don't think that should be the kind of thing put up to the majority." I DON'T THINK. It's all opinionated. Nothing in this thread, save my article and Del Boy's arguments, are factual. It's all opinion.

"I DON'T THINK" you said it not me.

You've never been gay, so you should not condemn them. How many gays do you know personally Chukpike?

I have never been a child molester either, so I should not condemn them?
Currently, I know two Gay couples who have been together for a number of years. Also, a couple gay hairstylist that are in the same salon as the women who cuts my hair. But it doesn't matter how many gays I know or have known in the past. I decided my vote by my values in regards to marriage, not whether I like or dislike homosexuals.

Like he said, you're not stupid... You know what he meant. You know he was being sarcastic.

Apparently you are, as you could not figure out that I was been sarcastic in return.

This next quote is just to funny, he apologizes for attributing to me a statement I did not make. Then in the first sentence of the next paragraph he references back to what I didn't say again. ( He is Definitely not playing with a full deck).

You're right, that was my fault... I meant to phrase it as a question "By the same token, DO you consider the black civil rights movement, the female voting movement, etc "pushing an agenda"?

Because that's what you're inferring by using them as examples.

Tell me, were/are you for or against the wire-tapping of residential phones to monitor for terrorist conversations?

If it was your phone I would feel sorry for the officers as they would go insane listening to your drivel for to long. Alsofftopic:

The basis for the foundation of America was FREEDOM....NO ONE can decide how I live MY life. Because it's mine. It's not the government's, it's the the next door neighbor's, it's MINE and ONLY MINE.

Not sure why it's his next door neighbors right, but he said it.

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Mine, Mine, Mine , Mine....
No body can tell me what to do, I know my rights! With the extra large freedom he sounds sort of like Mel Gibson at the end of Braveheart. Just does not play with the rest of his gibberish.

 

[Rob Henderson]

"I DON'T THINK" you said it not me.

Funny.[/sarcasm]

I have never been a child molester either, so I should not condemn them?
Currently, I know two Gay couples who have been together for a number of years. Also, a couple gay hairstylist that are in the same salon as the women who cuts my hair. But it doesn't matter how many gays I know or have known in the past. I decided my vote by my values in regards to marriage, not whether I like or dislike homosexuals.

Just another way to put my point across. You shouldn't condemn someone for being different. You should condemn them for being good or evil. Is homosexuality evil in your eyes? Does it somehow threaten your every day life? Now, as to your values in regards to marriage... Why do you believe that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to participate in holy matrimony?

Apparently you are, as you could not figure out that I was been sarcastic in return.

Yet he made the same remarks, and does NOT get called stupid.

This next quote is just to funny, he apologizes for attributing to me a statement I did not make. Then in the first sentence of the next paragraph he references back to what I didn't say again. ( He is Definitely not playing with a full deck).

Number 1... Personal attacks in a debate does NOT help your argument in said debate... Nor is it becoming of anyone.

Number 2... Then give an answer... You never answered neither The Other Guy nor I when we tried to find out whether or not you would equate the Black Civil Rights movement to the movement of homosexuals.

If it was your phone I would feel sorry for the officers as they would go insane listening to your drivel for to long. Alsofftopic:

Again, being a jerk is NOT the right way to argue with someone. Quite frankly, it shows an enormous amount of immaturity. And it's not off topic... It's a question of personal freedoms. Do you believe in the government intruding into your home, yes or no?

Not sure why it's his next door neighbors right, but he said it.

And they say sarcasm is a lost art.....

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Mine, Mine, Mine , Mine....
No body can tell me what to do, I know my rights! With the extra large freedom he sounds sort of like Mel Gibson at the end of Braveheart. Just does not play with the rest of his gibberish.

Very good... Because in this case, the case of marriage between two people, it should be between person A and person B. Not between the people down the street who are so narrow-minded as to pre-judge someone based on a personal choice. You're putting words into my mouth. I only said no one could tell me what to do in certain cases. I have no problem with authority... I have a problem with people exerting (or trying to exert) too MUCH authority. My father was in the National Guard as a recruiting NCOIC for 29 years, I'm used to getting told what to do, but dad also believed in personal freedoms. That's what I'm trying to say... There is a MONUMENTAL difference between authority and controlling government. I happen to believe that telling the People who they can and who they cannot marry is EXTREMELY controlling.

 

[The Other Guy]

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Mine, Mine, Mine , Mine....
No body can tell me what to do, I know my rights! With the extra large freedom he sounds sort of like Mel Gibson at the end of Braveheart. Just does not play with the rest of his gibberish.

His? What is this, a psychiatric hospital? First off, the US government is based on the rights of the people. Secondly, your word twisting. You can make Henderson say whatever he wants if you take enough words out of context.

And what about the second bolded part? Makes sense to me. Plays quite well with "the rest of his gibberish" as you call it. You see, each person has rights, and one of them is NOT being allowed to determine whether or not someone gets married.

 

[wolfen]

You go spam king

 

[Rob Henderson]

Wolfen... Might I refer you to this thread... http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/how-behave-forum-t69442.html

 

[Chukpike]

Now, as to your values in regards to marriage... Why do you believe that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to participate in holy matrimony?

Asked an answered in previous posts. Try to keep up.

Do you believe that a church should be forced to marry two people that would violate the Church's belief of what holy matrimony is about? Would you be satisfied with a marriage license and a state wedding? Even though you believe it is not the states business.

Yet he made the same remarks, and does NOT get called stupid.

I assume you mean TOG, very well if the shoe fits wear it.

Then give an answer... You never answered neither The Other Guy nor I when we tried to find out whether or not you would equate the Black Civil Rights movement to the movement of homosexuals.

never neither nor? I will try to figure out what the question is from that. If the question is "would I equate the Black Civil Rights movement to the movement of homosexuals?

Of course not! What Blacks had to go through and are still going through even with the election of a Black President, since the birth of this nation not just the civil war, is far beyond what homosexuals have been exposed too. I think you live in Alabama and should be aware of that.

Again, being a jerk is NOT the right way to argue with someone. Quite frankly, it shows an enormous amount of immaturity.

Then why do you persist in being one?

And it's not off topic... It's a question of personal freedoms. Do you believe in the government intruding into your home, yes or no?

Topic: California Overturns Gay marriage.
Yes, your question is fftopic:

And they say sarcasm is a lost art.....
Very good... Because in this case, the case of marriage between two people, it should be between person A and person B. Not between the people down the street who are so narrow-minded as to pre-judge someone based on a personal choice.... I happen to believe that telling the People who they can and who they cannot marry is EXTREMELY controlling.

Now you want to add person A and person B to who can get married.

But you don't want the people down the street getting married.
"Not between the people down the street who are so narrow-minded as to pre-judge someone based on a personal choice."

You also say personal choice. But you do not really believe in personal choice do you? I have made a personal choice not to support homosexual marriage, and you will not recognize that.

I happen to believe that telling the People who they can and who they cannot marry is EXTREMELY controlling.

Yeah, I think I got that from what I could understand of your previous posts.

 

[senojekips]

In certain cases, I believe the majority of the people should rule... It's a good idea for a government, because it works... For the most part. But, like I've said 100,000 times in this thread, there are exceptions. Exceptions like marriage. Exceptions like speech.

OK,... where did you get the idea that there is such a thing as freedom of speech? It's a common misconception, but surely you are old enough and have enough life experience to know that "freedom' such as you are advocating is only believed by the "dreamboats" of the world. There are lots of things you can't say or do publicly.

Freedom is just a word, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this subject, or life in general, everything you do that can influence our society in a democracy, is only ever done legally with the approval of the majority. In my experience the only time people ever start rabbiting on about "freedom" is when they wish to trample over the "freedoms" of others, such is the case here. The freedom to live in a civilised and socialised (in the true meaning of the word) society where people have to live subject to the desires of the majority.

Democracy ain't perfect but it's the system that we have elected to live under.

Treat them with the same courtesy you would give to a heterosexual couple!?

Definitely No!,... not in all cases, but there may be some exceptions.
(1) They are an antisocial element, and not always deserving of courtesy.
(2) They actively try to distort the values of our society, which to me is a is borderline criminal act. I'm not keen on criminals.