The real debate on gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[Strangelove]

I've noticed all these 'is anti gay marriage amendment constitutional' type threads here.

Let's get it straight right here and now:

The militant GAYS launched this war by judge shopping in Massachussets last year. An activist, off-the-rails judge, WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM DISSENTERS issued a ruling, thereby allowing gay marriage.

The White House's call for a constitutional amendment is a reaction to a total circumvention of the legislative process.

Why?

Because gays know they can NEVER win the gay marriage issue honestly---at the ballot box---. They were soundly rebuked in 11 states last November. Remember?..'no marriage' amendments passed in all states that offered them for a vote.

If they think they can win, why not put it up for a vote----the American way

This in not Bush gone mad, trying to gas all the gays in concentration camps, as liberals would like you to believe.. It is Bush saying 'enough is enough' with activist,totalitarian judges.

 

[Squawker]

Why?

Because gays know they can NEVER win the gay marriage issue honestly---at the ballot box---. They were soundly rebuked in 11 states last November. Remember?..'no marriage' amendments passed in all states that offered them for a vote.

You could extend this to all the special interest groups. You might also be interested in this thread, Strangelove.
Thread

 

[anomaly]

I've noticed all these 'is anti gay marriage amendment constitutional' type threads here.

Let's get it straight right here and now:

The militant GAYS launched this war by judge shopping in Massachussets last year. An activist, off-the-rails judge, WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM DISSENTERS issued a ruling, thereby allowing gay marriage.

The White House's call for a constitutional amendment is a reaction to a total circumvention of the legislative process.

Why?

Because gays know they can NEVER win the gay marriage issue honestly---at the ballot box---. They were soundly rebuked in 11 states last November. Remember?..'no marriage' amendments passed in all states that offered them for a vote.

If they think they can win, why not put it up for a vote----the American way

This in not Bush gone mad, trying to gas all the gays in concentration camps, as liberals would like you to believe.. It is Bush saying 'enough is enough' with activist,totalitarian judges.

Actually, Bush has gone mad, as he doesn't want to give people a choice. We should leave the gay marriage debate up to the states. California and Massachusets, atleast, certainly would support gay marriage, while the bible-thumpers of the south and the other red states can vote against gay marriage.

 

[Schweddy]

California and Massachusets, atleast, certainly would support gay marriage, while the bible-thumpers of the south and the other red states can vote against gay marriage.

Then why don't they put it up for a vote instead of going through these judges?

I think your counting the eggs before they are hatched.

 

[Strangelove]

Actually, Bush has gone mad, California and Massachusets, atleast, QUOTE]

Apparently, you've never heard of Proposition 22

If your assertion is correct, then gay marriage should pass the test of legitimacy-----in the light of public scrutiny....not hidden away in a judge's secret chamber.

 

[labwitch]

according to the US constitution, remember that one? any issue that the constitution did NOT address was, by agreement of the constitutional congress, left to the states. marriage has always been a state issue and by making it a federal one it will fall prey to the same inanity as all other federal boondogles. the record keeping alone would cause an entire new and horrifying bureaucracy. just my opinion.

 

[shuamort]

I've noticed all these 'is anti gay marriage amendment constitutional' type threads here.

Let's get it straight right here and now:

The militant GAYS launched this war by judge shopping in Massachussets last year. An activist, off-the-rails judge, WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM DISSENTERS issued a ruling, thereby allowing gay marriage.

The White House's call for a constitutional amendment is a reaction to a total circumvention of the legislative process.

Why?

Because gays know they can NEVER win the gay marriage issue honestly---at the ballot box---. They were soundly rebuked in 11 states last November. Remember?..'no marriage' amendments passed in all states that offered them for a vote.

If they think they can win, why not put it up for a vote----the American way

This in not Bush gone mad, trying to gas all the gays in concentration camps, as liberals would like you to believe.. It is Bush saying 'enough is enough' with activist,totalitarian judges.

Yeah, I hate those KWAAAAAZY judges that ruled to stop slavery. Them wacked out liberal judges that gave the blacks the vote too! Make it stop1!

Seriously. How does it affect you personally?

 

[shuamort]

Actually, Bush has gone mad, California and Massachusets, atleast, QUOTE]

Apparently, you've never heard of Proposition 22

If your assertion is correct, then gay marriage should pass the test of legitimacy-----in the light of public scrutiny....not hidden away in a judge's secret chamber.

The court cases aren't secret. Judges aren't out to get you. Lawsuits are being brought up by "Family" organizations to stop gay marriage through the court system. Are you asking that they stop too? If not, you'd be quite the hypocrite.

 

[anomaly]

Yeah, I hate those KWAAAAAZY judges that ruled to stop slavery. Them wacked out liberal judges that gave the blacks the vote too! Make it stop1!

Seriously. How does it affect you personally?

You know, that is a very good question. Why are you on the right so opposed to gay marriage when it does not affect you at all? Are you truly concerned if the gays, in your opinion, go to hell?

 

[labwitch]

iif your assertion is correct, then gay marriage should pass the test of legitimacy-----in the light of public scrutiny....not hidden away in a judge's secret chamber.

--strangelove

i'm going to take this as sarcasm and run with it. if gay marriage should pass the test of legitimacy i can think of straight marriages (literally millions of them) that should also pass the test of legitimacy (no pun intended) ---IN THE LIGHT OF PUBLIC SCRUTINY---

this particular thread is getting a little silly

 

[Schweddy]

You know, that is a very good question. Why are you on the right so opposed to gay marriage when it does not affect you at all? Are you truly concerned if the gays, in your opinion, go to hell?

Yes, it does affect me and my children.

This is a slippery slope that leads to places that I do not want this country to go.

If they keep to themselves I could careless if they "marry".
The problem is - They WON'T! They will go to schools and sell books that says "prince and the prince" marketing toward 6 year olds. They will spew the victim mentality acting as though a victim cause they not normal. Then, they will prey on pubescent kids that have yet to find their sexuality and tell them to do what feels good. Next thing we know 20 years from now they will jump up and down saying they are right cause 30-50% of kids are bisexual. When really it is brainwashing the masses. Next thing is communism. Parents will be unable to discipline their children or tell their own children that it is downright wrong in fear of being sued or going to jail.

No - I don't want any part of it.
It might work in other countries but in the good old USA and our unique view on the world and humanity - gay marriage spells disaster.

 

[labwitch]

wow, call for testosterone level check! also, call for serious scientific studies that refute every one of your assertions. don't worry, i won't even bother anymore on this one, it ain't worth the mental head slaps i give myself to remind myself that half the time most on this issue haven't a clue.

also, isn't that what parent's are for? to explain the diversity in humanity and explain it to their kids? sheesh!

SEGREGATION? :bs

 

[shuamort]

Yes, it does affect me and my children.

This is a slippery slope that leads to places that I do not want this country to go.

Slippery slope argument is always a fallacy. I could use it for gun control "If one criminal has a gun, then they'll all have guns and the country will be run by criminals". So that doesn't work. You have to take each subject as it comes.

If they keep to themselves I could careless if they "marry".
The problem is - They WON'T! They will go to schools and sell books that says "prince and the prince" marketing toward 6 year olds.

Schools can choose to buy them or not. So can the parents of the children.

They will spew the victim mentality acting as though a victim cause they not normal.

Assumptive logic with no basis w/r/t the LGBT community.

Then, they will prey on pubescent kids that have yet to find their sexuality and tell them to do what feels good.

The majority of pedophiles (95%) are straight. That would be a bad argument to keep straight people from marrying, wouldn't it? Of course, gay marriage or any marriage involves consenting adults. It's a legal contract that adults enter.

Next thing we know 20 years from now they will jump up and down saying they are right cause 30-50% of kids are bisexual.

Slippery slope argument. Here's some information about slippery slope arguments so you don't keep making them.

When really it is brainwashing the masses.

Like religion?

Next thing is communism.

What does a fiscal system have to do with homosexuality? You're in a real weird area here.

Parents will be unable to discipline their children or tell their own children that it is downright wrong in fear of being sued or going to jail.

Slippery slope argument with a syllogistic twist.

No - I don't want any part of it.

That's good, you're already married. I don't want any part in a lot of things but that doesn't give me the right to deprive others of gun ownership, clog dancing, or high speed luging.

It might work in other countries but in the good old USA and our unique view on the world and humanity - gay marriage spells disaster.

It sure hasn't spelled disaster yet in Massachusetts. In fact, armageddon hasn't come, communism isn't here, no one is marrying their child, or becoming bisexual solely because gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts.

 

[labwitch]

i spoke too soon, someone was killed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42455-2005Mar17.html. i quit this particular thread when someone gets dead!

 

[Schweddy]

Assumptive logic with no basis w/r/t the LGBT community.

Jada Pinkett-Smith was called "hetronormative" after a speech she gave recently by the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance at Harvard.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=71267

Logically one could conclude that they consider hetrosexual behavior normal. The opposite of that is NOT normal.

When I said "Then, they will prey on pubescent kids that have yet to find their sexuality and tell them to do what feels good." I probably should have been more detailed. I was not refering to sex or molestation. But the idea of sex at early ages is exciting and new. I believe that at the early tender ages thier sexuality is not in stone and they are sensative to any sexual influence. Parents, peirs and the media play a domenent role in that influence.

You are correct in the pedophile statement. What you didn't say was that these kids whom have been molested often go on to molest others when they are older. This is evidence of thier sexuality had not been written yet and later it comes back to haunt them.

I agree with your argument about "slippery slope" not having any real evidence. But, one must use a little logic along with the history to conclude the future. That is what I did. One of the arguments for abortion is that "more" young girls would use back-end alleys for abortions if it were not legal. Is that not a slippery slope as well?

Like religion?

Exactly.

What does a fiscal system have to do with homosexuality? You're in a real weird area here.

I guess I should have said more government control instead of communism. As it stands now, many parents are concerned when disciplining their child physically. Many have been sued or children taken away without due cause. Albiet much more were actually violent and thier children should have been removed. It is getting worse. Whats next? Will verbal statements to a child that reflects a religious or moral statement be deemed illegal?

 

[Schweddy]

i spoke too soon, someone was killed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42455-2005Mar17.html. i quit this particular thread when someone gets dead!

"We have not ruled out anything," Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said late last night. There were no signs of forced entry, but investigators had not eliminated robbery as a possibility.

Until the crime is solved, it cannot be concluded why she was murdered.

 

[labwitch]

very true, but i deal with death on a daily if not hourly basis, you develop an EDGE!

 

[shuamort]

Jada Pinkett-Smith was called "hetronormative" after a speech she gave recently by the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance at Harvard.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=71267

There's a fine line between being P.C. and being a complete retard. The alliance at Harvard must have taken off the short bus helmets for that comment. Luckily, they don't speak for everyone. Just like Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all republicans.

Logically one could conclude that they consider hetrosexual behavior normal. The opposite of that is NOT normal.

Exactly, in fact, if someone had me prescribing what normal is, I'd have a difficult time.

When I said "Then, they will prey on pubescent kids that have yet to find their sexuality and tell them to do what feels good." I probably should have been more detailed. I was not refering to sex or molestation. But the idea of sex at early ages is exciting and new. I believe that at the early tender ages thier sexuality is not in stone and they are sensative to any sexual influence. Parents, peirs and the media play a domenent role in that influence.

So you're assuming that sexuality is a game of "Red Rover, Red Rover" and that anyone can be switched permanently at a pubescent age? I'm positive that no one could have switched me over, do you feel that you could have been?

You are correct in the pedophile statement. What you didn't say was that these kids whom have been molested often go on to molest others when they are older. This is evidence of thier sexuality had not been written yet and later it comes back to haunt them.

Yes, exposure to criminal behavior at an early age may cause that person to repeat these things at an adult age. But the criminal behavior doesn't define the sexuality.

I agree with your argument about "slippery slope" not having any real evidence. But, one must use a little logic along with the history to conclude the future. That is what I did. One of the arguments for abortion is that "more" young girls would use back-end alleys for abortions if it were not legal. Is that not a slippery slope as well?]

Yup. Although there has been a history of back-end alley abortions before Roe V. Wade, there is no proof that there would be a return to it if abortions were to become illegal again.

I guess I should have said more government control instead of communism. As it stands now, many parents are concerned when disciplining their child physically. Many have been sued or children taken away without due cause. Albiet much more were actually violent and thier children should have been removed. It is getting worse. Whats next? Will verbal statements to a child that reflects a religious or moral statement be deemed illegal?

I'm still not sure how any of these points are relevant to gay marriage.

 

[Strangelove]

Yeah, I hate those KWAAAAAZY judges that ruled to stop slavery.

History lesson time-

Abolition (that means 'ending slavery') had nothing-ZERO- to do with 'judges that ruled to stop slavery'.

If facts are important to you, you would know that it was the 13th Amendment to the Constitution that formally abolished slavery, not a judge.

Also, here's a little tidbit that will really stick in your craw:
It was drafted, passed, and ratified by a majority of the states in 309 DAYS.....by an all white, all male congress.

No Amendment before or since has been put into law with this rapidity.

By the way , each Amendment to the Constitution came about for a reason - to overrule a Supreme Court decision, to force a societal change, or to revise the details of the Constitution.

Again, this would never be an issue had GAYS not forced THIS ISSUE IN OUR FACES, by evading the will of the people.

Personally, I have gay friends who think this marriage nonsense just creates more hostility towards them, and I agree.

 

[shuamort]

Personally, I have gay friends who think this marriage nonsense just creates more hostility towards them, and I agree.

Personally, I'm gay. Trump card played there.

 

[Strangelove]

...i give myself to remind myself that half the time most on this issue haven't a clue.

also, isn't that what parent's are for? to explain the diversity in humanity and explain it to their kids? sheesh!

SEGREGATION? :bs

Your posts paint you as quite arrogant, yet ignore the issuse, which is NOT whether or not George Bush hates gays The issue is gays manipulating the court system to legislate from the bench...which is illegal.

If the states wish to have gay marriage, so be it. That would have been th eway for gays to go. Now, by arm twisting, they have aroused the wrath of the country against them, and a federal amendment may result.

"..Arrogance often accompanies the accomplished professional, yet abandons the novice..."-Faulkner

 

[shuamort]

Your posts paint you as quite arrogant, yet ignore the issuse, which is NOT whether or not George Bush hates gays The issue is gays manipulating the court system to legislate from the bench...which is illegal.

No it's not. Please learn some constitutional history, mm'kay? Besides, how could the courts do something illegal. That's a mobius strip o' logic there.

If the states wish to have gay marriage, so be it. That would have been th eway for gays to go. Now, by arm twisting, they have aroused the wrath of the country against them, and a federal amendment may result.

Same was said when Loving V Virginia came about. "Miscegenation? It's against the bible!" The only way for miscegenation to become legal was for a judicial fiat because the people were too bigoted. That's why the founding fathers did NOT set this country up as a democracy.

 

[Schweddy]

So you're assuming that sexuality is a game of "Red Rover, Red Rover" and that anyone can be switched permanently at a pubescent age? I'm positive that no one could have switched me over, do you feel that you could have been?

Not at all. I am saying that very young kids are suseptable to pursuation. If a young child is convinced that they are gay or convinced that only the same sex is attracked to them. Then they will be. Yet, turn back time and take that same child without that influence - I personally believe that child would not be gay.

It is not secret that I was rapped as a young kid. I have said it before in another thread. For years I questioned my sexuality. Had I been younger - I would not dought this coin could have been flipped.

 

[shuamort]

Not at all. I am saying that very young kids are suseptable to pursuation. If a young child is convinced that they are gay or convinced that only the same sex is attracked to them. Then they will be. Yet, turn back time and take that same child without that influence - I personally believe that child would not be gay.

It is not secret that I was rapped as a young kid. I have said it before in another thread. For years I questioned my sexuality. Had I been younger - I would not dought this coin could have been flipped.

Using that logic, wouldn't the same thing apply to be convinced to be straight? There's definitely a lot more influence in the world to bring a child up as straight then there is as gay.

 

[labwitch]

two trump cards here, one of my four sons is gay. two are dead in the morass of iraq. my gay son is the joy of my life i miss my other two all the time, not just once or twice a day, there's a hole there that will never be filled.

all my sons are/were brilliant budding scientists, one is a lawyer and one is a nanotechnologist with his own lab at a flagship university. you guess which one(s) i loved less i can't. but i can tell you who i blame for any and all their life problems caused by war and bigotry! i'm done here. too much hatred for gays to deal with. no fond farewells, just GONE!
NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE ARROGANCE CARDS FROM SOMEONE NAMED STRANGELOVE!