- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Waiting on bated breath. Come on, Minnesota. Make us known for something other than Michelle Bachmann and snow.
Allowing SSM is just one more nail in the coffin that has for years been attacking and debasing normal marriage with various forms of do good legislation. It demands that people ignore what is self-evidently natures most productive form of bonding, establishing the most ideal way to rear children. It requires that in free societies, we must come to accept all attempts to instill and install laws that govern the reverse of what is self evident. We will be known as the generation that destroyed itself, or at least began the process.
Tim-
Allowing SSM is just one more nail in the coffin that has for years been attacking and debasing normal marriage with various forms of do good legislation. It demands that people ignore what is self-evidently natures most productive form of bonding, establishing the most ideal way to rear children. It requires that in free societies, we must come to accept all attempts to instill and install laws that govern the reverse of what is self evident. We will be known as the generation that destroyed itself, or at least began the process.
Tim-
How do gays debase your marriage?
Not my marriage, marriage in general. I thought I made it pretty clear. Two homosexuals attaining the same status as my marriage by itself means nothing. Two homosexuals pretending to be husband and wife and raising children is self evidently illegitimate. In spite of how the social scientists will try and redefine what constitutes a healthy environment for children, the best is both a mother and a father to imprint upon them their gender specific attributes, experiences, and interpretations of the world around them. Allowing SSM and parenting will not destroy the human species, but over time I do believe that it will, along with other laws ignoring the marriage contract, and religious expression, debase the concept of marriage entirely. Children will ultimately become merely a product of sex, and ideas of themselves one day meeting an opposite sex partner to settle down with and form a family will have lost all incentive. Simply to produce a child will become known as the success in the evolutionary process. Settling down and forming a nuclear family will become the minority option, and future legislation will afford no privileges to those that do, and THAT is a shame!
Tim-
I find it interesting how many states that uphold traditional marriage do so via state constitutional amendments voted on by people. States that legalize SSM appear to like doing so at the legislative level without having the people vote on it.
They tried one of those Amendments here last year. It went before the people and was defeated by almost 6 points.
Well, your narrow minded "self evident truths" are contradicted by both reality and the dictates of civil rights. So frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. You're simply on the wrong side of history.
I find it interesting how many states that uphold traditional marriage do so via state constitutional amendments voted on by people. States that legalize SSM appear to like doing so at the legislative level without having the people vote on it.
As it should be. Democracy needs to be limited in its scope. You shouldn't have the masses vote on civil rights.
An amendment upholding traditional marriage or legalizing SSM?
The proposed amendment that failed would have banned SSM.
Depends on what you mean by wrong side. You're entitled to your opinion as am I, but if it isn't self evident to you what constitutes the most successful family type in the history of the Earth and encompassing all species that lives and has ever lived, then apparently it isn't as self evident.
By the way... In this context and your apparent refusal to accept what is self evident, I'd say you're the one being narrow minded. Do you feel any guilt? Is it why you're so open to the idea of destroying marriage further? In Sweden a once vibrant family culture, the intact families are in the minority already. In 10 YEARS, they have become the minority in favor of out of wedlock child births.
SSM is only a reason to avoid such a future for ourselves. Tell me, what is the upside to gay marriage?
Tim-
But it should at least reflect the views of the population. I'm fine with amendments and popular voting on issues as well.
That's fine. States should be able to do what they want. If MN wants to legalize SSM let them. If in the future people chose to change that they should be free to do so as well.
Allowing SSM is just one more nail in the coffin that has for years been attacking and debasing normal marriage with various forms of do good legislation. It demands that people ignore what is self-evidently natures most productive form of bonding, establishing the most ideal way to rear children. It requires that in free societies, we must come to accept all attempts to instill and install laws that govern the reverse of what is self evident. We will be known as the generation that destroyed itself, or at least began the process.
Tim-
It does, so to speak. Equality before law, minority rights, and so forth are views of the population. If minorities constantly sought to get approval for equality by the masses, you would rarely get it. These matters usually require going above the people to improve the lives for Americans.
But that's the point. You wanted an amendment legalizing it, and one that banned it failed 6 months ago. Leaving the issue to the legislature to decide.
That's fine. States should be able to do what they want. If MN wants to legalize SSM let them. If in the future people chose to change that they should be free to do so as well.
It may just reflect how we fundamentally disagree on the issue. I do not view SSM as a minority rights issue. I do not believe that homosexuals are entitled to force the state to recognize their unions as legal marriage and as a social issue in which states set policy I think it's completely within the means of the state to allow the general population to vote on it and amend state constitutions. I do not believe it is unlawful discrimination to uphold traditional marriage and to not force changes to a new marriage definition.
But it should at least reflect the views of the population. I'm fine with amendments and popular voting on issues as well.
It is within the state's purview to do such a thing. The trick is in making sure that you do not let the people get that opportunity. The more often that happens with minority matters, the better. Democracy is dangerous for the rights of the few.
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?