- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,840
- Reaction score
- 30,097
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
He means that if the state wants to re-define marriage the people should have some say in it, so make a law and pass it, but you know that the oligharchy won't stand for the people's voice being heard.
But it will be, whether they want it or not.
Since marriage is an institution created by man and defined by man, what men think matters in ways that it wouldn't over simple assertions of fact. What most people consider marriage to be is what marriage actually is or at least should be since this is a democracy and marriage is a matter of democratic law. If the majority think homosexual marriage is something the state should sanction, the legislature should take that into consideration in their law governing marriage and it's definition. And vice versa.
nope bans on interracial marriage were always wrong man you need actual reasons to change that same with ssm opinion doesn't cut it
States rights. What San Francisco residents think doesn't hold water in Alabama. I've got no problem with states redefining marriage to include homosexuals if that supports the values of the people in that state. Not all states are full of people that think this sort of social experiment is a good idea.
Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.
Whoops! Looks like I could stand to take my own advice: the number of 55% is a bit old and that number is actually 56%.
Poll: Majority support SCOTUS gay marriage decision - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com
Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.
Choosing to be with someone of a different or particular race is a behavior, a choice, not a race in itself.
I'm ok with his logic. Choosing to be with someone of a different/particular/same race is about race. Therefore choosing to be with someone of a different/particular/same gender gender is about gender.
Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.
The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".
How are we not tolerating 'traditional' marriage?
People can still get married as 'traditionally' as they want.
How is marriage changed for straight couples?
I would suggest you take a remedial reading comprehension class.
Papa bull said:The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".
How are we not tolerating 'traditional' marriage?
People can still get married as 'traditionally' as they want.
How is marriage changed for straight couples?
I would suggest you take a remedial reading comprehension class.
Which part of the words you wrote did I not comprehend properly? I addressed the bold.
The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".
You just think about it really hard. I didn't say anything about toleration of traditional marriage. Seriously. Read all the words I wrote and think really hard about what they say and resist the urge to make it up as you go along however it suits you and maybe you can get this. Go ahead. Try it. I know you can do this.
Here, I'll help with a little sentence diagram exercise for you since you're having such a challenge.
Try to focus on the underlined words.
And another said that it would be a bad idea for them to step in, anyway, because it's something the states need to deal with at the legislative level. And yet another said that with homosexual marriage being such a new concept, it cannot be assumed that those rejecting it are doing so out of bigotry.
That's a fair point, it shouldn't be assumed that people opposing something have bad motives. But the courts have invited opposition to SSM to testify about their reasons, and those opposed repeatedly come up short and essentially can't articulate reasons to oppose SSM that don't fall back on some notion of traditional values, religion, or bigotry.
Here's Scalia: [The court] "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." His view is clear enough - laws against homosexuality are fine because society has a right to attach moral opprobrium (bigotry, in formal legalese) against homosexuality.
Male/male and female/female pairings make absolutely no sense whatsoever from any natural perspective and they weren't what the institution of marriage was designed to support. I get that it helps people argue that "homosexuality is just the new normal" if society agrees to treat homosexual unions exactly the same as heterosexual unions but I think that's society's decision to make if they want to do that and not the decision of a vocal minority group that wants to "normalize" their sexual proclivity.
And another said that it would be a bad idea for them to step in, anyway, because it's something the states need to deal with at the legislative level. And yet another said that with homosexual marriage being such a new concept, it cannot be assumed that those rejecting it are doing so out of bigotry.
That's a fair point, it shouldn't be assumed that people opposing something have bad motives. But the courts have invited opposition to SSM to testify about their reasons, and those opposed repeatedly come up short and essentially can't articulate reasons to oppose SSM that don't fall back on some notion of traditional values, religion, or bigotry.
Here's Scalia: [The court] "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." His view is clear enough - laws against homosexuality are fine because society has a right to attach moral opprobrium (bigotry, in formal legalese) against homosexuality.
Has no one noticed that Wyoming gave up and started issuing marriage licenses to SSM couples yesterday (immediately upon its decision)?
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?