California Overturns Gay Marriage

[Rob Henderson]

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.

Absolutely not. I believe that if a church supports the marriage of homosexuals, then they should be able to get married at that church. Like the Episcopal church... They will marry two homosexuals. PS, it's not me, I just support the equal treatment of homosexuals. But sure, I'd support that.

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.

But they just wanted to be treated like regular humans, and not be discriminated against based on something they couldn't help...

Then why do you persist in being one?

I'm not the one resorting to name calling... I'm trying to have a debate...

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

Uhm. No. Because the State of California telling the people of California who they can marry is government involvement. Am I right or not?

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."

If you would read the sentence before it, "it should be between person A and person B. Not the neighbors down the street..." Make sense now?

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.

That's the thing you don't get... I disagree with your choice, but I respect it... That doesn't mean I can't argue with you... To each his own... And THAT'S what I believe in. It shouldn't be your place to tell someone who they should marry. You can disagree with it if you want, but you shouldn't have any say in the matter itself.

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

Because we all know it was SOO difficult to understand my posts...

 

[senojekips]

Rob, we posted at the same time, i think you missed my answer.

 

[The Other Guy]

Then why do you persist in being one?

Let's start pointing fingers, why don't we? Honestly, I don't feel anyone is being a jerk... yet. I've seen Hendo go nuts, trust me, he's being very civil.

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

and therefore so is your response.

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.

now this is starting to get personal. please, can we try to stick to the argument at hand?

Your second sentence (not really long enough to be considered a paragraph) has nothing to do with what either Hendo or I have been saying. And I notice you've stopped responding to my posts.

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

Because those posts are so difficult to comprehend.

 

[Rob Henderson]

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.

Oops! Sorry I missed you Seno. There's that whole First Amendment to the Constitution thing... I mean, sure, there are lots of things that you can't do publicly, but does that mean you shouldn't be able to do them privately?

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.

I just cannot see how letting two people of the same sex harms the lives of the majority. People, for the most part, should live by the rules of the majority, BUT there are cases that the majority should NOT rule. Like marriage between two people, or what clothes to wear, or how to live YOUR life.

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

You're right, but this, for the thousandth time, should NOT be up to the majority.

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.

1. They are STILL humans. And they deserve the same treatment and privileges as the rest of us do.
2. They are actively trying to be accepted. Last time I checked, acceptance of a lifestyle they had no part in choosing is NOT a criminal act...

To the both of you, I've reiterated the same damned point 500 times, even in the same wording sometimes... I'm done with it... It really doesn't matter what either of us think... Some states allow gay marriage, some states don't , so I guess if they want to be married THAT bad then they can move to one...

 

[Chukpike]

And I notice you've stopped responding to my posts.
Because those posts are so difficult to comprehend.

No, not to hard to understand. Just have not seen anything worth responding to.

 

[senojekips]

Oops! Sorry I missed you Seno. There's that whole First Amendment to the Constitution thing... I mean, sure, there are lots of things that you can't do publicly, but does that mean you shouldn't be able to do them privately?

Marriage is a publicly recognised institution and carries certain obligations and rewards, none of which were intended for the benefit of anti social groups, seeking public recognition against the will of the majority.

I just cannot see how letting two people of the same sex harms the lives of the majority. People, for the most part, should live by the rules of the majority, BUT there are cases that the majority should NOT rule. Like marriage between two people, or what clothes to wear, or how to live YOUR life.
You're right, but this, for the thousandth time, should NOT be up to the majority.

And for the second or third time, the will of the majority is always the deciding factor. It is a basic tenet of Democracy. Absolutely nothing that you can do legally is otherwise. Even where you will live,... there are many places where you cannot live, some of these restrictions are Federal, some are State and others are local ordinances.

Get used to it, you are not free! Not in the sense that you seem to think you are. The only real freedom you have when it's all boiled down, is the freedom to obey the laws and rules of the majority, only then will you live a reasonably unworried life, if you buck the rules, you'll suffer, that is as old as time itself it has always been the case, and always will. It is the rule of human interaction, you see it in the school yard, you see it in the Military (bigtime) and it is also in civil life.

1. They are STILL humans. And they deserve the same treatment and privileges as the rest of us do.

Only if they conform to majority rule, which they don't. otherwise they are social outcasts, like the kid that doesn't conform in a group, or the person that thinks it's easier to steal than to go and earn their money.

2. They are actively trying to be accepted. Last time I checked, acceptance of a lifestyle they had no part in choosing is NOT a criminal act...

They have tried and it has been rejected, what they are doing now is just being antisocial and obnoxious, trying to grind down resistance, by constant bleating. Eventually society will sicken of it and legislate against it altogether.

To the both of you, I've reiterated the same damned point 500 times, even in the same wording sometimes... I'm done with it... It really doesn't matter what either of us think... Some states allow gay marriage, some states don't , so I guess if they want to be married THAT bad then they can move to one...

This debate was really about California, where the people have voted and rejected it. Never the less I feel that it will eventually be banned everywhere, maybe not in my lifetime, but it will be banned end of story. Society is not willing to accept it.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Again... We obviously have completely contradicting views on this... Neither of us is right, as we are both simply stating our opinions. I respect that you don't agree with homosexuality, and I would hope that you would respect that I am willing to accept something different, and not think any less of me for it.

You believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. I see no reason why it should be denied to members of the same sex.

You believe they are anti-social and purely doing this for the worldly benefits, not the love. I believe they are simply different people who happen to love someone of the same sex. They should not be discriminated/cast out because of it.

You say the majority is always the deciding factor, I unfortunately must agree, but disagree with the idea. The majority should not have a say in a matter of who marries who. Even if said marriage IS a "public institution."

Again you're right, I am not free in the sense that I think I SHOULD BE. I never said we ARE free in that sense. I only said that I think it SHOULD be that way. I will not accept rules that I find unjust, and will vote against them when they come to such a vote in my state. I will vote my opinion because I feel it is best for me and my country's people. Funnily enough, I'm reminded of another Abraham Lincoln quote... "A house divided against itself cannot stand." If we continue to persecute based on small things like sexual preference, we will not be united in the United States. The media (Fox included) has stated that this country is taking a liberal turn. I don't believe this is a bad thing. In this world, those who deny change get left behind. My grandmother recently purchased her first cell phone, and cannot even make calls, because she gets confused. Mind you, she's not senile, she just hasn't adapted to the times. She doesn't see the value in change.


The kid that doesn't conform to the group should be praised for his individuality. Not oppressed for his being different than everyone else.

You say they are simply being obnoxious... What would have happened if Martin Luther King, Jr. simply gave up because the majority of people didn't take him seriously after his first few speeches? What would have happened if the Pilgrims simply gave up in England and conformed to the Church of England? What would have happened if blacks just gave up because society didn't want them to vote? If you want something bad enough, people will start to see you for who you really are, and see that a belief, or a skin color, or a sexual preference is NOT a reason to hate. They SHOULD keep pressing on society because eventually people will start to see them as humans. Different people, certainly, but they are still the same underneath.


This debate was not ONLY about California... In fact, 13 brought up the real issue himself...

As much as I'm not a fan of homosexuality I think they should have the right to get married.
I guess my sentiment comes from knowing what it's like to be told that I do not have the right to do certain things. Many things which were and are important to me. If this is that important to them, I say let them.

I disagree with you Spike, I think that eventually, just as with blacks and women, society will realize that this is not an issue to balk at, rather just something to differentiate people from people.

 

[senojekips]

So you say that democracy is not acceptable to your agenda? My advice would be to go somewhere where your views are acceptable.

You believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. I see no reason why it should be denied to members of the same sex.

The difference being that the view I agree with, is supported by the majority and yours is not. Until you find a better system than democracy the majority has the say in what is acceptable and what is not.

The case of Martin Luther King was for the most part won 20 years earlier in the US and long before that in most other socialised societies. Plus,... ones race or sex is not a choice, unlike homosexuality.

Don't bother telling me homosexuality is not a choice, I have seen the choice made by more than one person who was as straight as I, until they had an experience that changed their views, one being brainwashed whilst in an extremely distressed state. I have also seen persons who experimented with it and reverted to heterosexuality. It may be a mental illness, but that remains to be proven too.

The kid that doesn't conform to the group should be praised for his individuality. Not oppressed for his being different than everyone elseThe kid that doesn't conform to the group should be praised for his individuality. Not oppressed for his being different than everyone else

I dunno what planet you have been living on, but it just doesn't happen, that's schoolyard democracy, but democracy never the less.

This debate was not ONLY about California... In fact, 13 brought up the real issue himself...

Just cast your eyes up to the title of this thread,Topic: California Overturns Gay Marriage. the subject may have drifted off topic from time to time, but the "debate" is still as titled. However it makes little difference because it will end up being banned everywhere once people sicken of the constant bleating of this minority group.

I never judge an individual purely on their race or sex, although I do make generalisations occasionally, these are all open to suggestion, and change if necessary,... but anti social lifestyle choices are inexcusable to me, wife beaters, habitual liars, people who refuse to be responsible for their own actions and homosexuals all fall into this sorry group.

 

[A Can of Man]

Rob: That's not my final opinion. That's where I started but some of the guys here who have argued against it have made some very good points.

 

[BritinBritain]

A recent poll in South Africa regarding homosexuality. 80% of those polled stated that homosexuality is wrong and should be made illegal. Those polled made up the whole of the racial spectrum, Asians, Blacks, Coloureds and Whites.

 

[Rob Henderson]

So you say that democracy is not acceptable to your agenda? My advice would be to go somewhere where your views are acceptable.The difference being that the view I agree with, is supported by the majority and yours is not. Until you find a better system than democracy the majority has the say in what is acceptable and what is not.

Here you are putting words in my mouth. I said for the most part, the majority should rule. BUT there are some cases in which they should not. In some cases, yes, democracy is not acceptable to my agenda. Neither the government NOR the people should tell me what I can wear. Neither the government NOR the people should tell me who I can hang out with. Neither the government NOR the people should tell me who I can marry. It's government intrusion into the personal lives of it's people. Mind your own damned business.

The case of Martin Luther King was for the most part won 20 years earlier in the US and long before that in most other socialised societies. Plus,... ones race or sex is not a choice, unlike homosexuality.

Even though blacks were enslaved for hundreds of years before that..... I doubt they accepted it 50 years into service. I bet they had dreams of wanting to be treated like an equal person.

Don't bother telling me homosexuality is not a choice, I have seen the choice made by more than one person who was as straight as I, until they had an experience that changed their views, one being brainwashed whilst in an extremely distressed state. I have also seen persons who experimented with it and reverted to heterosexuality. It may be a mental illness, but that remains to be proven too.

Which is why I've also said for the most part to this part of this issue... For the most part, homosexuality is not a choice. My room mate has never been with a girl. My room mate has never kissed a girl, he's just never felt any attraction to them. That's not his fault... That's something that happened when he was being created. Not a product of his environment.

I dunno what planet you have been living on, but it just doesn't happen, that's schoolyard democracy, but democracy never the less.

Well, it's been a long time since you've been in school....

Just cast your eyes up to the title of this thread,Topic: California Overturns Gay Marriage. the subject may have drifted off topic from time to time, but the "debate" is still as titled. However it makes little difference because it will end up being banned everywhere once people sicken of the constant bleating of this minority group.

You're correct, but again, as I said, the debate was started by the_13th_redneck when he added his opinion to the bottom of the article. The title of the thread is not always the exact topic of the debate. You say constant bleating of this minority group... I say they're fighting just the same as the blacks fought.

I never judge an individual purely on their race or sex, although I do make generalisations occasionally, these are all open to suggestion, and change if necessary,... but anti social lifestyle choices are inexcusable to me, wife beaters, habitual liars, people who refuse to be responsible for their own actions and homosexuals all fall into this sorry group.

So you put wife beaters in with people who simply have an attraction to the same sex?! Now I KNOW you're insane....


Redneck, that's all well and good, but I happen to agree with your first statement. I don't like homosexuality, but I'm against depriving someone of a privilege because of it.

 

[senojekips]

It was you who said that you did not always agree that the wishes of the majority should be the deciding factor. Well,... that's democracy, if you don't agree with it, you are denying the basic tenet of democracy. You can't have it both ways, it's like saying I agree with the law, but want to break it when it suits me.

Your views are like those of the homos, you want these antisocial elements to be able to have the respect due to those who live by the rules yet not have to abide by them themseves.

If they commit anti social acts they won't get respect.

 

[HokieMSG]

But America is not a Democracy. It is a Republic (Representative Democracy). We elect representatives and they handle the voting for us.

Let the states decide. I agree that the government shouldn't have to legislate this as it is intrusive. See the Constitution.

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I disagree with the stance that homosexuals have no choice about their orientation. Procreation is an instinct, mapped into our genes. Having "relations" with someone of the same sex or an animal is simple gratification of the sexual urge, as is masturbation. Attempting to force my acceptance through legislation or majority acceptance will never work. If the majority says that behavior x is acceptable then fine I'll go along with it. I don't have to like it, and I can even say that I don;t support it.

 

[senojekips]

But America is not a Democracy. It is a Republic (Representative Democracy). We elect representatives and they handle the voting for us.

Being a Republic merely means that your country is not ruled by a hereditary monarch, it has nothing to do with the style of governance

A representative democracy is still a form of democratic government, whereby expectations of the majority shape the law of the land, rather than being an autocratic, totalitarian or an anarchistic system. (Yes,.. I realise that the term anarchistic system is an oxymoron)

We must be careful here as to get too "nit picky" or it will confuse the real issue immeasurably. e.g. Usually, a "democratic republic" is not democratic at all, and is not a republic, more likely a totalitarian state or dictatorship. A government that officially calls itself a "democratic republic" is usually a dictatorship. Communist dictatorships have been especially prone to use this term. For example, the official name of North Vietnam was "The Democratic Republic of Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The People's Republic of China."

 

[Rob Henderson]

It was you who said that you did not always agree that the wishes of the majority should be the deciding factor. Well,... that's democracy, if you don't agree with it, you are denying the basic tenet of democracy. You can't have it both ways, it's like saying I agree with the law, but want to break it when it suits me.

I don't ALWAYS agree with it. There should be exceptions. There is no law against that... There are freedoms to do somethings but not others. I'm perfectly allowed to have different opinions about different issues. I'm perfectly allowed to disagree in some instances and agree in others.

Your views are like those of the homos, you want these antisocial elements to be able to have the respect due to those who live by the rules yet not have to abide by them themseves.

That makes no sense. They should have respect because the law shouldn't interfere in the first place.

If they commit anti social acts they won't get respect.

Anti-social in your eyes. Not all eyes.



Ya know, Hokie... You proved my point to an extent... "If the majority says that behavior x is acceptable then fine I'll go along with it. I don't have to like it, and I can even say that I don;t support it."

The same thing holds true with the opposite... Just because the majority says it's unacceptable doesn't mean people automatically have to agree with it. That's not the way it works. People are still entitled to their opinions, and quite frankly, they're still gonna get busy behind their doors. They just can't be "legally" married in some states. Honestly, I'm to the point where I don't care what you people think... Like 13 said earlier, you've already got your minds made up, and arguing is only going to re-enforce the position you already have. I'm for homosexual marriage because it's not fair to deny them something like marriage. I see no reason to deny them something they want so badly. This is not some whimpering fly-by of an issue. This is something they've been wanting for quite some time, and will continue to fight for. Obviously they want to get married for other reasons besides beneficial, so why not let them? (It's a rhetorical question. No answer needed/wanted.) I'm not going to change my opinion, you're not going to change yours. We've both simply begun repeating ourselves, beating the skeleton carcass of the dead horse.

 

[senojekips]

I don't ALWAYS agree with it. There should be exceptions.

Why should there be exceptions? If that were the case a democracy would be framed as a style of government shaped by the will of the majority, except where Rob Henderson wants his own way. Sorry but it doesn't work like that, and it never will.

That makes no sense. They should have respect because the law shouldn't interfere in the first place.

The law "interferes" as you put it, in pretty much all things that are not deemed acceptable by the majority, we've been through this before. That is democracy in action.

Anti-social in your eyes. Not all eyes.

We've also been through this before. If it goes against the will of the majority, it is by definition "antisocial" regardless of what you think, or would like to be the case.

I gotta go to bed, it's 0330 here.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Why should there be exceptions? If that were the case a democracy would be framed as a style of government shaped by the will of the majority, except where Rob Henderson wants his own way. Sorry but it doesn't work like that, and it never will.

I'm not the only one who believes that their should be exceptions. I never said it should be based on my opinions. That's where the REPUBLIC part of this government comes in. I choose someone I think will reflect my opinions on things to represent me in the government. That's why the MAJORITY chose a liberal candidate for President who actually supports gay rights... I find that interesting....

The law "interferes" as you put it, in pretty much all things that are not deemed acceptable by the majority, we've been through this before. That is democracy in action.

Even though this is not something in which the law should interfere. It should be the churches decision whether or not to marry two people.

We've also been through this before. If it goes against the will of the majority, it is by definition "antisocial" regardless of what you think, or would like to be the case.

Actually, it varies on your community. For example, I go to a liberal arts college, and the people here are very accepting of different ideas... They're open to change. And they're the ones who will survive... Not the folks who are closed-minded and who won't change for anything. I can't remember whose signature it used to be but "Too thick to care, and too old to change" or something to that effect... Doesn't work anymore... Either change, or be left behind.

I gotta go to bed, it's 0330 here.

Thank God... I've said I'm through arguing 4 times now.

 

[The Other Guy]

No, not to hard to understand. Just have not seen anything worth responding to.

First off, I tried to pull that one once, and while I understand where you're coming from I will note that you pulled two completely different parts of a post together to do so.

I disagree with the stance that homosexuals have no choice about their orientation. Procreation is an instinct, mapped into our genes. Having "relations" with someone of the same sex or an animal is simple gratification of the sexual urge, as is masturbation. Attempting to force my acceptance through legislation or majority acceptance will never work. If the majority says that behavior x is acceptable then fine I'll go along with it. I don't have to like it, and I can even say that I don;t support it.

You can have an instinct to consume mass quantities of alcohol (family history of alcoholism) but that doesn't mean that you will also be a drunkard.

 

[wolfen]

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

And?
I called nobody a nazi, I have no picture so big you can't download it.
but the video is way funnier than most of this thread

 

[Chukpike]

Let's start pointing fingers, why don't we? Honestly, I don't feel anyone is being a jerk... yet. I've seen Hendo go nuts, trust me, he's being very civil.


and therefore so is your response.



now this is starting to get personal. please, can we try to stick to the argument at hand?

Your second sentence (not really long enough to be considered a paragraph) has nothing to do with what either Hendo or I have been saying. And I notice you've stopped responding to my posts.


Because those posts are so difficult to comprehend.

And I notice you've stopped responding to my posts.Because those posts are so difficult to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Chukpike
No, not to hard to understand. Just have not seen anything worth responding to."

First off, I tried to pull that one once, and while I understand where you're coming from I will note that you pulled two completely different parts of a post together to do so.

You seem to be offended by my response. All I did was answer your two statements. When I quoted them they were the last two sentences of your post I was responding to. The rest of your post were comments I made to Rob. You had added your thoughts and I read them. Since they were self explanatory what did you want me to comment on? You had not added anything new to the discussion.

The top portion is the post I responded to and leaving it all in would have made my response confusing. I guess it would have been better to leave a space between the two sentences.