I suppose if I was a secretary I would be offended by your insult of my typing. using a shift key isn't indicative of cognitive ability, as you have so appreciatively volunteered to demonstrate.
that's not the argument at all. and if it is easier for you to reduce your opponent in the debate to a homophobe so our exchange is simpler for you, feel free to do so. if you want to address this as the complex debate it actually is, I'll be more than happy to continue that as well. all discrimination is justified. it is whether the justification is logical. is it your position that you are opposed to all forms of discrimination? so you have no problem with children drinking alcohol or driving cars? those are forms of legal discrimination we accept as a society and justify as a benefit towards soceity.
Strange sex laws: -- In Bakersfield, California, anyone having intercourse with Satan must use a condom. -- In Minnesota, it is illegal for any man to have sexual intercourse with a live fish. -- In Romboch, Virginia, it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with the lights on. -- It is illegal for any member of the Nevada Legislature to conduct official business wearing a penis costume while the legislature is in session.
Here's an article from the NY Times today: Is it just me, or is the bolded quote a ridiculous contradiction of American values? Here's what I am getting at: The people running that ads are Christians. Christians (not just them, but alot of them) are among the most adamant supporters of war in order to protect freedom and democracy (they even support the current one, which appears to be about neither of those. Isn't one of the things we have to deal with in democratic societies that fact that we sometimes have to live with what society wants even though we disapprove? I feel like this woman's ideal political regime would be a Christian democracy, where the only variation in our social norms would be limited to what the religion says is OK. Those who are not Christian would have to live the Christian way if they wanted any say in anything. And if this were the case, freedom, in it's purest sense, would be out the window.
So is it majority rules or not? Or is it the voice of the minority taking precedent over the majority? Sorry, gotta go with item one. Have no problem with that. If the voters speak, they speak, and if the voters aren't allowed to speak, then this country has truly gone to hell in a handbasket.
it doesn't seem like a contradiction at all. she says exactly what you did, that she would have to live in a society that approves of behavior that she disapproves of. what exactly is your contention when your position says the exact same thing? American society allows her to voice her disapproval of others behaviors and hope to curb it from becoming the norm. that process and right is as American as your assertion that being American means being forced to live in a society that sometimes opposes your personal views, as she would have to do if gay marriage becomes the norm. any criticism of her execution of that same freedom is the actual contradiction of American values you accuse her of.
I am not saying the woman should speak her mind or that anyone should refrain from taking (legal) action to ensure they approve of the society they live in. However, my interpretation of her comments is that she believes that her rights and those of people like her won't matter, which is incorrect. She will not lose the right to oppose gay marriage, but if it is allowed, of course she'll have to live with it, that is democracy. If you believe in democracy, you should be willing to accept the decisions and changes that arise from it. My interpretation is that this woman would be unwilling to accept this decision, despite the process through which it was made.
Let the states decide. In my state, good luck. Gay marriage is one of the few issues a majority of every voting block in this state (except gays) tend to agree on. No is No. It's been in our constitution since the early part of this decade thanks to a referendum. I think. In your states, maybe. and if congress dare call "commerce clause" on gay marriage, i know of four southern states that would probably at least talk about seceding..since they already are bitching over taxes and other stupid shit.
Putting aside how retarded the south would be for doing that, any federal level law on equal marriage wouldn't have anything to do with the commerce clause. It would almost certainly fall under the 14th amendment.
It boggles my mind that anyone gives a crap what any two other consenting adults want to do together. I was recently in a month long training session that had a large component on The Constitution. I got in a sidebar discussion with the instructor (a renowned Constitutional scholar) on the subject of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He said it is not outside the realm of possibility that one could be enacted, but it is unlikely to be successful. Only once before has the Constitution been amended to limit rights (prohibition) and it was a major failure. His belief is that any similar ban will also be a failure. He also said that he thinks this is a short term issue as the youth of America strongly supports gay rights. He sees this trend continuing into the future and expects opposition to gay marriage to gradually fade away.
Marriage is a religious institution. It's been said before that the secular equivalent is the civil union. Civil Unions. Take it or leave it..go to Canada.
I sort of agree, but it should be civil unions for EVERYONE. Get religion the fuck out of government where it doesn't belong.
Well I am out of work, have no medical insurance, my kids can't pass a basic science and or math test, our kids are usually 20th out of the top 20 developed nations in math or science, my town lost its biggest employer to china, my mother has herpes my dad an enlarged prostate, gas is going back to $3 bucks and oil to $75, my house is less than 1/2 its value, I can't pay my mortgage, we have how many soldiers in Iraq fighting for what exactly?, our borders aren't secure, one probable key to scientific advances is being held back by religious douchebags and our top scientists in this area head for other countries like Singapore for example, our "leaders" are creating debt at unheard of levels and we owe pretty much every other country our "firstborn", the deficit is staggering and figured to get even bigger, we import significantly more the we export, ................. none of that stuff really bothers me, my main concern right now is keeping those fags from marrying, I mean what the fuck?
