they would have not voted for letting women vote they certainly did not all condemn slavery the founding fathers are not right because their the founding fathers
they did not set up a government where people had to vote as they would
so what's it mater?
You realize that the democrats until the JFK/LBJ area were a bunch of racist pigs that hated woman and wanted to use blacks ever growing population a voting block?
iv heard what's you point
also herd the republican party absorbed quite a few of those same people
not sure how that matter either unless your tying to point out that political party's are not always right to
in which case I agree with you
I'm not a republican or a democrat....
But why is being gay so "great?"
Because I like ***** is that supper great too?
There is certainly bias there....
People want to talk about bias and **** - well what the **** is up with this?
She's special for being a lesbian and I'm just some dude because I like kooters - wtf...
I agree there is an extreme bias why is it okay to have homosexual parades and I cant go out and have a heterosexual parade. or why can I go have a black Parade that people will call civil rights but if someone goes and has a white parade it is racist?
Judges hold way more power than the state congress or governor.
The same goes for the Federal government with the SCOTUS over the congress and president.
Judges hold way more power than the state congress or governor.
The same goes for the Federal government with the SCOTUS over the congress and president.
you don't have to get upset about me questioning your credibility, i simply saying check before you speak (type?) you said "ALL" when every survey out there in within the (as you said) margin of error. But however since this one is a few percentages in the opposite direction now you bring up the margin of error point. I find that very interesting for a person with a high amount of integrity, go from so sure to margin of error and going for ALL surveys to most. I will definitly say that ALL surverys are within the margin of error as a whole.
Alright Kiddo, you have to have a bit of logic...
can you be a "deist" without being religious? just because he was a deist doesn't mean he wasn't religious.
1.) thats not a problem its made up its 100% meaningless and bringing up religion in a discussion of legal marriage is a complete failed strawman.
Legal marriage factually has nothing to do with religion. this fact will never change
Unfortunately, religion is an issue with those who are adherents to it. And since we live in a representative democracy it becomes an issue. Wheter it is right or wrong is another issue of course.
2.) so like i said it wont be up to the states since that would violate rights
States determine on the rules of accessibility to marriage. SSM is an new idea and the Supreme Court may decide to allow the States to show a compelling State intrest on the restricting of marriage to opposite gender only. They may decide to require the States to accept it otherwise.
3.) still dodging the questions and not committing. This thread as a topic and its equal rights for gays so apply your concerns to that and give us real examples instead of dodges and meaningless generalizations.
We all know that there are Court decisions that were not based on Constitutional grounds and some which seem to be based on nothing more than what the Judge thought was right.
4.) what is " extra-constitutional reasoning" and whats an example of that pertaining to equal rights for gays
Anything reasoning not based on i the meaning of the Constitution which for the most part is written in plain language and should be easily to do so. The issue about SSM is that marriage has been between only between two people and opposite gender only and the question becomes, "Is there a compelling case for State interest to maintaining marriage as it is now or is there a compelling case that it is a violation of Rights to do the same?".
5.) see 4 what specifically would be forced on the states that applies to equal rights for gays
6.) see 5 and 4
please provide REAL answers
I am not going to go further in addressing statements that I made to others.
their are no legal religious connections to marriage In this nation though
and its the moves to ban same sex marriage that have the problem with spurious reasoning
that combined with the discrimination and lack of equal protection under the law justifies forcing those states to allow them
they can grumble about it all they like after
I'm not a republican or a democrat....
But why is being gay so "great?"
Because I like ***** is that supper great too?
There is certainly bias there....
People want to talk about bias and **** - well what the **** is up with this?
She's special for being a lesbian and I'm just some dude because I like kooters - wtf...
I agree there is an extreme bias why is it okay to have homosexual parades and I cant go out and have a heterosexual parade. or why can I go have a black Parade that people will call civil rights but if someone goes and has a white parade it is racist?
We do not want this becoming like the abortion controversy.
1.)Unfortunately, religion is an issue with those who are adherents to it. And since we live in a representative democracy it becomes an issue. Wheter it is right or wrong is another issue of course.
2.)States determine on the rules of accessibility to marriage. SSM is an new idea and the Supreme Court may decide to allow the States to show a compelling State intrest on the restricting of marriage to opposite gender only. They may decide to require the States to accept it otherwise.
3.)We all know that there are Court decisions that were not based on Constitutional grounds and some which seem to be based on nothing more than what the Judge thought was right.
4.)Anything reasoning not based on i the meaning of the Constitution which for the most part is written in plain language and should be easily to do so. The issue about SSM is that marriage has been between only between two people and opposite gender only and the question becomes, "Is there a compelling case for State interest to maintaining marriage as it is now or is there a compelling case that it is a violation of Rights to do the same?".
5.)I am not going to go further in addressing statements that I made to others.
That is true, no legal connections.
There are methods including the Courts to weed out bad law that might result. If the Courts do rule for SSM I hope that they make an air tight argument based on Constitutional Rights.
So long as it is not just a "because we say so" ruling.
We do not want this becoming like the abortion controversy.
Well then it stands to reason then... that Benjamin Franklin along with the founding fathers were religious (religious not meaning "christian" but meaning a spiritual belief in a supreme being) and again the poll shows that nearly everyone who is "religious" disagrees with homosexual marriage. So seeing that most if not ALL the founding fathers were religious... they would have not voted for same sex marriage.
you don't have to get upset about me questioning your credibility, i simply saying check before you speak (type?) you said "ALL" when every survey out there in within the (as you said) margin of error. But however since this one is a few percentages in the opposite direction now you bring up the margin of error point. I find that very interesting for a person with a high amount of integrity, go from so sure to margin of error and going for ALL surveys to most. I will definitly say that ALL surverys are within the margin of error as a whole.
I figured that anyone would understand the margin of error issue when discussing statistics. If someone presents statistics that ignore margin of error, either they are one of the few who didn't know about it, or I would question THEIR integrity.
Btw... I never said "most", though I will concede that if someone polled all fundamental Christians, the poll would probably NOT show those folks in favor of SSM. Of course that particular poll would have no meaning in this discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?