Majority Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

[chess9]

CAD:

Bwuahahaha! I can't believe you actually typed that nonsense.

The conservative notion of judicial restraint was thrown out the window long ago and the Supreme Court's decision in the election case made it a DEAD LETTER. NOT OPERATIVE. As in MUDDLED THINKING. Or, better, WE'LL DO WHAT WE F***ING PLEASE WHEN WE PLEASE.

-Robert

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

As long as your "rights" and personal prejudices don't infringe on the rights of others!

I agree; but same-sex marriage is not an inherent right. The debate is over whether or not it is a legal right. They have the right to live together, sleep together, touch each others genitals, et al?my opposition in no way diminishes their right to be gay.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Good job you don't let the mob decide the rules then.

Andy

So this isn't a Democracy at all? This is place where courts can decide and enact law? Hmm...I thought I kept hearing about the "will of the people" and chants of "for the people by the people" Guess that doesn't apply when it suits your interests.

CkG

Now i understand. When the majority follows the liberal line it is the will of the people but when the majority goes the other way then it is just a mob.

Pathetic
:disgust:

 

[Fencer128]

OK, so is this a Representative Republic at all? This is a place where courts can decide and enact law? Hmm...I thought Red just said that we have a Republic which elects Representatives who reflect the will of the people. But I guess that still doesn't apply when it suits your interests.

CkG

Now i understand. When the majority follows the liberal line it is the will of the people but when the majority goes the other way then it is just a mob.

Pathetic
:disgust:

Err. Not pathetic, but anyway - here's the explanation you need. What I meant by not letting the mob rule is that in any case the law should takes sides based on what is constitutional and what is "right". Where "right" is a grey area then the court should be careful as to how much assistance it offers to each viewpoint. Where it is more clear cut it should rule accordingly and not solely dependant on the number of people that support something.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law, John Adams told a Massachusetts jury while defending British citizens on trial for murder, is inflexible, inexable, and deaf: inexorable to the cries of the defendant; "deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace." His words ring true, 227 years later. Elected officials may consider popular urging and sway to public opinion polls. Judges must follow their oaths and do their duty, heedless of editorials, letters, telegrams, picketers, threats, petitions, panelists, and talk shows. In this country, we do not administer justice by plebiscite. A judge, in short, is a public servant who must follow his conscience, whether or not he counters the manifest wishes of those he serves; whether or not his decision seems a surrender to the prevalent demands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I'm trying to get across - no mob rule.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

As long as your "rights" and personal prejudices don't infringe on the rights of others!

I agree; but same-sex marriage is not an inherent right. The debate is over whether or not it is a legal right. They have the right to live together, sleep together, touch each others genitals, et al?my opposition in no way diminishes their right to be gay.

So what's the p[roblem with them being Married? Look , I am uncomfortable with Homos myself but I don't believe that my personal prejudices should prevent them from enjoying the same rights that any other couples enjoy. Religious beliefs should not be a factor as Religious beliefs should only apply to those who believe in them. Those who don't shouldn't be forced to adhere to them.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

As long as your "rights" and personal prejudices don't infringe on the rights of others!

I agree; but same-sex marriage is not an inherent right. The debate is over whether or not it is a legal right. They have the right to live together, sleep together, touch each others genitals, et al?my opposition in no way diminishes their right to be gay.

So what's the p[roblem with them being Married? Look , I am uncomfortable with Homos myself but I don't believe that my personal prejudices should prevent them from enjoying the same rights that any other couples enjoy. Religious beliefs should not be a factor as Religious beliefs should only apply to those who believe in them. Those who don't shouldn't be forced to adhere to them.

exactly my point (except that I'm not uncomfortable around Homos).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

As long as your "rights" and personal prejudices don't infringe on the rights of others!

I agree; but same-sex marriage is not an inherent right. The debate is over whether or not it is a legal right. They have the right to live together, sleep together, touch each others genitals, et al?my opposition in no way diminishes their right to be gay.

So what's the p[roblem with them being Married? Look , I am uncomfortable with Homos myself but I don't believe that my personal prejudices should prevent them from enjoying the same rights that any other couples enjoy. Religious beliefs should not be a factor as Religious beliefs should only apply to those who believe in them. Those who don't shouldn't be forced to adhere to them.

exactly my point (except that I'm not uncomfortable around Homos).

Not even Hair Dressers on Fire?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

As much as I love lesbianism, I still oppose the marriage thereof

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
As much as I love lesbianism, I still oppose the marriage thereof

Why?

Edit: nevermind, you already explained why..sorry!

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

As long as your "rights" and personal prejudices don't infringe on the rights of others!

I agree; but same-sex marriage is not an inherent right. The debate is over whether or not it is a legal right. They have the right to live together, sleep together, touch each others genitals, et al?my opposition in no way diminishes their right to be gay.

So what's the p[roblem with them being Married? Look , I am uncomfortable with Homos myself but I don't believe that my personal prejudices should prevent them from enjoying the same rights that any other couples enjoy. Religious beliefs should not be a factor as Religious beliefs should only apply to those who believe in them. Those who don't shouldn't be forced to adhere to them.

exactly my point (except that I'm not uncomfortable around Homos).

Not even Hair Dressers on Fire?

LOL

I have a couple of gay friends because my ex-gf used to go to gay clubs to avoid the groping hetero-neanderthaler-machos roaming the dance floor

I REALLY don't see the big deal about same-sex marriages

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I only wish I had freedom from this discussion.

You do - it's called not clicking on this thread

CkG

You don't know how right you are. I really should resist clicking...

Just like you can resist looking at a statue or picture

CkG

Well, if it's a public, governmental building you're referring to, only with blinders on.

As with many other issues around here, it seems like one group is interested in pushing their religious moralistic world-views on the other group. When will people learn to mind their own business when no one is being harmed? It's not freedom to force your religion. <--- oooh, see how I adjusted your little cliche? Who cares what two naked dolts in the garden, munching on fruit and conversing with talking snakes have to say about it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, if it's a public, governmental building you're referring to, only with blinders on.

As with many other issues around here, it seems like one group is interested in pushing their religious moralistic world-views on the other group. When will people learn to mind their own business when no one is being harmed? It's not freedom to force your religion. <--- oooh, see how I adjusted your little cliche? Who cares what two naked dolts in the garden, munching on fruit and conversing with talking snakes have to say about it?

Yes- one group does seem to want to force their views on the rest, it's just that you can't seem to understand that one group is trying to force the courts/gov't to NOT display things. IF you don't believe in GOD, then why would a monument bunch your panties? When I see other religion's monuments - I don't get upset.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, if it's a public, governmental building you're referring to, only with blinders on.

As with many other issues around here, it seems like one group is interested in pushing their religious moralistic world-views on the other group. When will people learn to mind their own business when no one is being harmed? It's not freedom to force your religion. <--- oooh, see how I adjusted your little cliche? Who cares what two naked dolts in the garden, munching on fruit and conversing with talking snakes have to say about it?

Yes- one group does seem to want to force their views on the rest, it's just that you can't seem to understand that one group is trying to force the courts/gov't to NOT display things. IF you don't believe in GOD, then why would a monument bunch your panties? When I see other religion's monuments - I don't get upset.

CkG

To be honest, I've never run across a religious monument in a courthouse or any other gov't building for that matter. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or perhaps it's my geographical location well above the bible belt. In any event, it probably wouldn't bother me much either. However, the issue itself bothers me intellectually. I don't like the concept of religious people forcing their views on others. IMO, that's what's happening here. The monuments or displays go up. The views are forced. Everyone else is forced to deal with it or react. I can't imagine you disputing that chain of events. Who's forcing who here?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
To be honest, I've never run across a religious monument in a courthouse or any other gov't building for that matter. Maybe I'm just lucky. Or perhaps it's my geographical location well above the bible belt. In any event, it probably wouldn't bother me much either. However, the issue itself bothers me intellectually. I don't like the concept of religious people forcing their views on others. IMO, that's what's happening here. The monuments or displays go up. The views are forced. Everyone else is forced to deal with it or react. I can't imagine you disputing that chain of events. Who's forcing who here?

Well, if you think a monument/picture/etc is "forcing" things then that is where the problem lies. I thought most of your ideological persuasion considered those sorts of things "art" But anyway you can believe anything you want but don't whine when the rest of us laugh when you claim a statue/monument/picture "forced" something on you.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, if you think a monument/picture/etc is "forcing" things then that is where the problem lies. I thought most of your ideological persuasion considered those sorts of things "art" But anyway you can believe anything you want but don't whine when the rest of us laugh when you claim a statue/monument/picture "forced" something on you.

CkG

No, I don't consider the ten commandments to be "art." I won't whine as long as you promise not to when the courts remove more and more of these religious pieces from our courts and public buildings. Should we declare a "no whining zone?"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, if you think a monument/picture/etc is "forcing" things then that is where the problem lies. I thought most of your ideological persuasion considered those sorts of things "art" But anyway you can believe anything you want but don't whine when the rest of us laugh when you claim a statue/monument/picture "forced" something on you.

CkG

No, I don't consider the ten commandments to be "art." I won't whine as long as you promise not to when the courts remove more and more of these religious pieces from our courts and public buildings. Should we declare a "no whining zone?"

I'm not the one "whining" and going to court to take these "forceful" objects out of public view. So yes -who is forcing who?

But again this is off-topic - this thread is about "same sex marriage".

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

I don't wanna hear any whining about same-sex marriage either. If you don't agree with it, don't marry a gay person! I blame the puritans!

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,103756,00.html

Despite this week?s lifting of the same-sex marriage ban in Massachusetts, a majority of Americans continues to oppose same-sex marriage, and nearly half oppose civil unions.

following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry.

LoL - I love the spin coming from FOX.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031123/ts_alt_afp/us_gay_marriage_031123190339

 

[thraashman]

Lev. 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Lev. 19:19 "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"

Lev 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

So, according to the Bible. It is just as bad to have sex with someone of the same sex as it is to shave your head. Well since I shave my head, that must mean that God and Jesus hate me as much as they hate those fowl, detestable homos.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: thraashman
Lev. 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Lev. 19:19 "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"

Lev 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

So, according to the Bible. It is just as bad to have sex with someone of the same sex as it is to shave your head. Well since I shave my head, that must mean that God and Jesus hate me as much as they hate those fowl, detestable homos.

Leviticus is a pretty interesting book isn't it. Did you read on to say what should happen to those who sin?:Q

Lev 20:13 - " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.":Q

If you are confused by what Leviticus says or why is says these things, I suggest you ask your Pastor/Preist/etc to explain it to you. I am not qualified to explain these things...especially on an internet message board.

CkG

 

[maluckey]

I believe that the government has little right to endorse a particular sexual practice between consenting adults. I do not believe that it is bound to legislate any aberrant sexual behavior as legal and proper. It is not the courts place to oficially support one certain sexual preferences over others. If so, then it must allow ALL sexual preferences between consenting persons above the age of consent. Even then, the Age of Consent would be immediately challenged I'm afraid.

If this is the case, then what is to stop someone that wants to have sex with 12 year olds? What about beastiality? They are both aberrant sexual preferences, generally condemned by U.S. soceity.

The line has to be established. I fear that establishing a new precedent in this field, will most certinly lead to more court challenges along the lines that I mentioned.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I believe that the government has little right to endorse a particular sexual practice between consenting adults. I do not believe that it is bound to legislate any aberrant sexual behavior as legal and proper. It is not the courts place to oficially support one certain sexual preferences over others. If so, then it must allow ALL sexual preferences between consenting persons above the age of consent. Even then, the Age of Consent would be immediately challenged I'm afraid.

If this is the case, then what is to stop someone that wants to have sex with 12 year olds? What about beastiality? They are both aberrant sexual preferences, generally condemned by U.S. soceity.

The line has to be established. I fear that establishing a new precedent in this field, will most certinly lead to more court challenges along the lines that I mentioned.

Gosh....we haven't heard that line of "reasoning" before....now compare gay men to axe murderers and your work here will be complete.

 

[DealMonkey]

Those who are complaining about the courts and the judicial branch legislating gay marriage simply don' t understand what's going on. The duty of the judicial branch is to uphold and enforce CURRENT law. The arguments being made in favor of gay marriage are being made on the back of EXISTING law. No new laws are being passed here. In Massachusetts, it's their State constitution that protects from discrimination. At the Federal level, it's the U.S. Constitution that (again) grants equal rights under the law.

If anything, it's the gay marriage opponents who want to CHANGE the laws by amending the constitution in various states (like MA) as well as the U.S. Constitution to declare that marriage is only legal between a man and a woman.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Those who are complaining about the courts and the judicial branch legislating gay marriage simply don' t understand what's going on. The duty of the judicial branch is to uphold and enforce CURRENT law. The arguments being made in favor of gay marriage are being made on the back of EXISTING law. No new laws are being passed here. In Massachusetts, it's their State constitution that protects from discrimination. At the Federal level, it's the U.S. Constitution that (again) grants equal rights under the law.

If anything, it's the gay marriage opponents who want to CHANGE the laws by amending the constitution in various states (like MA) as well as the U.S. Constitution to declare that marriage is only legal between a man and a woman.

Federal law already states that "marriage" is defined by a man&woman. Again D.o.M.A.

And again - "equal rights" are already granted to people. If any man marries a woman they meet the requirements....likewise if a woman marries a man -they meet the requirements. Any man or woman of competant mind and of their own free will wishes to marry a person of the opposite human sex - they can be married. Those who do not meet those requirements are not able to marry. There is no fundamental "right" to marriage - there are rules and guidlines that have been set. So no - there is no "equal rights" situation regarding this - everyone has the opportunity to follow the rules and guidelines to become married.

CkG

 

[maluckey]

So Fausto! Do you really want the courts to say what is permissible in your bedroom? Homosexuality is not a physical state of being, it is a sexual choice. What about your claim to fame in your sig....masturbation? In some countries, you could be put to death for it. Here, you are free to do the deed till it falls off. You can't marry you parts though. Not yet at least.

My point was, and is, that the courts should have little to say what happens between consenting parties. Marriage is already defined by the majority of the states, and by numerous Federal legal precedents. This movement hopes to overturn these, and force the government into the bedroom to make choices on what is appropriate.

I don't want Uncle Sam in my bedroom, the schools, or anywhere else that is not absolutely necessary.