Marriage has been taken up elsewhere many times in this thread by me.
Show me the votes, actual votes, not polls by whomever... where have you and your side the majority of votes?
Ummm....Not very astutely argued there, I am afraid... couldn't come up with even one single actual counter, I mean besides the equivalent of putting your hands on your hips, jutting your chin forward and sticking out your tongue?:lamoeace
More and more people on both sides are beginning to realize what a load of crap they have been sold by your side... folks like Obama have created the American Awakening on that point. We should all have to grow up sometime... well, I guess if one thinks liberally one actually may live in never never land...at least until it collapses around you.
Good for you, so that is your definition of the majority in the country is it? Or the majority of states... maybe? No, that cannot be it either... perhaps the majority in your mind? Yeah, now I get it.
Simply, you have ignored my counters because you just do not agree with them. You have yet to counter in any way that overcomes the ability for a society deciding for itself what its society should and, ultimately WILL, be. That does not meet with your satisfaction, but while your satisfaction is desired, it is ultimately unnecessary.
You try to countermand We the people, I won't let you say you can do that without a fight. We the people are not going to just sit idly by while folks on your side dismantle what is left of the country, surely you are aware of that.
Oh and...
If you simply cannot take honest debate, just want people to agree or you want to then disparage, perhaps you might want to stop posting to me? You see, far worse than using fancy words [ which does not mean that those words have any less heft to their significance, btw ], disparaging without merit does nothing much in a debate but cast further doubt on the issuers words, at least to those watching closely and those with some sentience.
Without giving it a whole lot of thought, I probably would not disagree with much of what you have stated regarding how government generally treats those who deviate from the norm.There is a necessity to treat the "non-norm" equally in our society. That is in fact part of our very reason for existing, so that the non-norms have the same rights as the norms.
What you mention are not government things, where the government treats the "non-norms" unequally. In fact, the government many times insists that non-norms must be treated equally to the greatest degree possible. They have left-handed desks in public schools. Those students identified as "higher intelligence" are in fact recognized as such by schools and given work for them, pushed ahead in grades in fact to accommodate that higher intelligence. Treating them equally would not mean going the entire opposite way and forcing others to act differently. It involves recognizing the difference and doing things within reason to treat them as we treat the "norms".
When you go to extremes, you show your heavy bias. The liberals are not the ones today who are killing homosexuals. That would be the conservative societies. Our society, as it is, is not likely in any way to start killing off homosexuals.
You aren't going to accept anything I give you. Polls are what we have to show public opinion. Unless we made voting compulsory within our nation, then you would not be getting a full view of the issue and where people stand. This is even more true given that votes, particularly on this issue are taken so infrequently, years, even decades apart. And I've already given earlier the fact that pushing votes as more people come to support same sex marriage is a much longer and more difficult process than simply going through the courts, as is a right of citizens. But then even votes are showing that same sex marriage has more and more support. It is no more reasonable to vote by state on this issue and leave it than it is to vote on the rights of redheads or Methodists or interfaith couples or brown-eyed to blue-eyed marriages. The law would still treat people unequally based on characteristics that have nothing to do with the legal operation of marriage. No state interests are furthered by those restrictions.
And you still failed to answer the question. You sidestepped (as usual). You contradicted yourself. You said that you had the majority, then when I said you didn't, you said that it didn't matter if you were in the minority, then backtracked again to say that you were in the majority and that gave you the right to make restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender.
Individual citizens get equal protection under the law, not states. States would only get equal protection in regards to federal laws that affect states. States are the government that the 14th and the EPC was meant to limit in favor of the individual rights.
Without giving it a whole lot of thought, I probably would not disagree with much of what you have stated regarding how government generally treats those who deviate from the norm.
I think it comes down to your statement, "It involves recognizing the difference and doing things within reason to treat them as we treat the "norms"." And I would agree, we recognize the situation with SS couples and we have reasonably accepted the deviance, have accommodated them in myriad ways, but we do not have, being justifiably reasonable, to give them the seal of approval or change our institution of marriage just to accommodate their desires... nor your desires for them. This is the equivalent of shooting a mouse with an elephant gun... or dismantling the entire health care system to include everyone not paying for healthcare at the of all the ones that are paying expense.
There is just no need to create such havoc for something so unnecessary. Nobody is stopping anybody from loving who they choose, marrying in their own way whomever they can attract to such join with them in such a situation.
No, I am not just going to accept whatever it is you decide to give me. With as much bias as there is out there on this topic, the amount of subterfuge on in this all out attack on one of America's foundational institutions, marriage.
I looked with sadness at the data on marriage you provided...so dispiriting that the best building blocks of our strong nation are being torn asunder under the liberal onslaught. It is undeniable, I would say on average the marriage percentages of left leaning states to right leaning were -2%...but hardly any of the states looked in good shape. You feel this is good for the country do you?
The liberal promotion of trojan horse like ideas, of feminism and its impetus, imploring women out of that most important area, raising their own children, the change in marriage laws to make it much easier to divorce, the advent of the pill et al, thus allowing women to be less choosy about who they mate with, both sexes becoming rapidly less desirous of long term relationships, the push of the Psychology/Psychiatric professions' changing distinctions on things deviant to be considered normal ... that and other liberal campaigns while seemingly good on the surface, even having some good, have so badly injured the institution of marriage. And now this, and then comes later all the others who will use 14th amendment protections and the silliness of related arguments to make marriage unrecognizable and, ultimately, a joke.
Screw your amateurish depictions of what I do. I have sidestepped nothing nor have I contradicted myself. There are all sorts of areas we have both been gliding over as neither of us is writing a book here, although I am beginning to think I should have. As regards majority/minority...there are polls out there that show one thing and another, there are states in recent election voting that have shown a different thing, there are states that have already voted on SSM/marriage definitions that show something completely different. So your false, and inept, accusations of sidestepping/contradiction have no value or merit. It doesn't matter if my side is not in the majority in polls, except in the voting booth polls.
Try to see beyond your own narrow viewpoint, please.
Yeah yeah yeah, discriminating against states and therefore against entire groups of people is ok, I see. Don't you think, with all your openness to do something about discrimination wherever it occurs, we should do something about this enormous inequity?
Thanks for the information.Maine Voting to Implement SSCM | General Election November 2012 Passed 53%-47%
Maryland Voting to Implement SSCM | General Election November 2012 Passed 52.4%-47.6%
Washington Voting to Implement SSCM | General Election November 2012 Passed 54%-46%
Minnesota Voting to Ban SSCM | General Election November 2012 Defeated 52.6%-47.% (leading to SSCM passing the legislature in May 2013)
>>>>
Reasonable to you... so in the states where people like you want it, have at it... do not make the unreasonable attempt at forcing it down the rest of our throats...It is reasonable to allow same sex couples to get legally married because there is no part of their relative sexes/genders that prevents two people of the same sex from fulfilling the legal obligations of marriage. There is no legal obligation of marriage to have children, to procreate with each other (or at all even). That is your problem.
There is no "discriminating" against states here. You cannot show standing that states are being discriminated against on this issue. All states are being held to the same standard, equal protection of the laws to their people. You have failed again to provide any sort of logical legal argument.
If we as a society choose not to we do not have to...go pursue your happiness, you just don't have the right to bind the rest of us...sorry, the majority is sufficient.
Nah, its just laughable that you cannot see "people" from the other side of the political spectrum doing the exact same thing. But its not even a point worth languishing any further upon.
Screw your legalese crap... this is society we are talking about here, not your day at the courthouse chatting it up with attorneys and paralegals.None of your "counters" have any bearing in this discussion. They hold no legal weight.
The people are always limited by the US Constitution. And this issue involves a constitutional challenge. Your group of people are free to do whatever you think you must to prevent same sex marriage. But expect to lose. The tide has turned, and it isn't going back.
Reasonable to you... so in the states where people like you want it, have at it... do not make the unreasonable attempt at forcing it down the rest of our throats...
I am not a lawyer, do not intend to be one, and the idea that all our culture has to be given the thumbs up approval of lawyers is purely asinine. You are just substituting lawyer for king now... truly a tyranny.
We, the People...ever heard of US? Apparently not.Who's we? We have restrictions against the majority doing such things. So, no, without any just cause, and that being more than a majority not liking it, you can't treat them differently. Sorry.
Screw your legalese crap... this is society we are talking about here, not your day at the courthouse chatting it up with attorneys and paralegals.
We, the People...ever heard of US? Apparently not.
What restrictions? If there is sufficient majority, we can obtain an amendment to do pretty much anything we desire...except take away inalienable rights... you would agree wouldn't you? How does that equate with your
We as a country do not have to stand for "what is reasonable in a court of law". If its wrong, we don't allow it. If we are forced to comply against the majority will, that is unreasonable.It is from a "reasonable person standpoint". That means reasonable from a court of law. Guess which side has been winning those on this issue?
I can't stand lawyers, but even if we did away with lawyers on this issue, my side would still win. We have the sound, reasonable arguments here, not those that oppose same sex marriage.
We as a country do not have to stand for "what is reasonable in a court of law". If its wrong, we don't allow it. If we are forced to comply against the majority will, that is unreasonable.
No, not when it comes to fundamental changes in our culture we don't. You can, you do, because its been structured to go the wrong way here, the way you would like it to go. We do not have to stand for that as a culture. If its wrong and we do not want it, no court tricks are gonna make it happen.We are discussing marriage laws. That requires us to talk about it from a legal standpoint. Marriage is a legal contract within this country.
No, not when it comes to fundamental changes in our culture we don't. You can, you do, because its been structured to go the wrong way here. We do not have to stand for that as a culture. If its wrong and we do not want it, no court tricks are gonna make it happen.
Wow, what an frightfully poor analysis.
Why should I tell you again, I have written pages and pages and pages of why it should be... illegal.
You think because we are a tolerant nation, that because we have been flexible with this group, a group whose lifestyle includes things that many cannot even bear to take more than a few seconds to shutter thinking about what... see, I need to shove those thoughts away...so the fact that we have been so tolerant of allowing for gay coupling, allowed gay forms of sex to become legal, did not stop gays from going around the system to have children, the fact that some states now allow for gay marriage, that we have allowed all this and now there is a demand for more... that just, in your mind, should be a reason to just say YES...
How absurdly hilarious.
Good lord girl, that is becoming annoying. How many times have I said I am only an individual, but along with the majority...blah blah blah...so cut the silly crap...actually I will just call it silly crap next time you post such...and move on...You are not a designated representative of the rest of the citizens of the US. You aren't even a designated representative of the majority. You are just you. You don't get to speak for "we the people". All of us who are for same sex marriage being legal are part of that "we the people". It is "we the people", not "we the majority".
Good lord girl, that is becoming annoying. How many times have I said I am only an individual, but along with the majority...blah blah blah...so cut the silly crap...actually I will just call it silly crap next time you post such...and move on...
I am not the majority...the majority, nuke, may go the other way from how I think. But, the majority can have its way should it so desire, legalese and courtroom tricks/antics aside. You know very well that has been my point from the beginning.
Gloat and keep waiting and waiting...then gloat some more, then waiting waiting...
We as a country do not have to stand for "what is reasonable in a court of law". If its wrong, we don't allow it. If we are forced to comply against the majority will, that is unreasonable.
Exactly, what is considered wrong is up to the People to determine, especially on anything doing with the fundamental restructuring of our society.Again, you are not a designated representative for the country. You don't get to speak for the citizens of the US as a whole or the country as a whole.
Wrong is subjective. The US Constitution is specifically designed to override the will of the majority when that will violates the rights of others.
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?