- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,493
- Reaction score
- 39,818
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
nope in your logic you clearly ignore how the majority doesnt always get its way ESPECIALLY when it comes to the constitution.
actually (theoretically) it does. a local simple majority is not enough to override a national supermajority; leaving the victory with the majority. so, for example, the state of (making this up) kentucky votes to ban gun ownership, puts the measure to a referendum, and it passes overwhelmingly. but obviously it get's overturned by SCOTUS. did the majority not get it's way? the majority did get it's way because the majority on this question was the Supermajority of Americans who say "no taking away people's right to bear arms".
good lord what planet are you on, all i said is that religion has in fact been used against those movements, interracial marriage, womens and minority rights.
yes. it was a stupid argument.
the reality is that all these things we are discussing (gender equality, individual rights, so forth) are rare and relatively new in the order of human society. they are the exception, not the rule.
wrong again, I claim you have hypocrisy because you want to force your religion on others AND because you say you want equality while denying it to gays.
equality before the law =/= equality of result. you are engaging in a fallacy of assumption here, a just-so argument.
more circle talking that says nothing, its discrimination and thats why its wrong for it to be unequal.
discrimination isn't wrong in and of itself. as has been pointed out here, we discriminate against all kinds of people and in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons. you are arguing from the assumption that this particular discrimination is morally unjustifiable, which is fine, but let's not pretend it's a universally accepted precept (as you do).
I dont need them I got YOU, you were inaccurate with your blanket statements.
:lol: says the man who is tacitly admitting that he can't back his claim by proving a negative.
and I clearly answered, the answer is 100% NO if it involves STOPPING gay marriage. Next time quote the whole thing and it will contain the answer genius lol
lol no you didn't you stated a series of common beliefs lmao and then ttyfn you made a just so statement repeating your belief in a particular set of others motivation bff without answering the question rofl of whether or not you believed that it is possible for well-meaning individuals to come to differing conclusions on this issue lol. jeez. how old are you?
no thanks, not really worth my time
it would take about 1/5th of the time you will spend responding to this post at most. what you mean, i believe, is that you cant.
another dodge
:roll: project much?
good god thanks for the YES/NO answers and circle talking just like I said you would.
well as i pointed out, you weren't necessarily asking yes/no questions.
wow, just wow, so the majority of americans were for minority rights and womens rights when they passed them? link please what was the percentage.
yes they were. you do know this is the only way these things were put into law, right? 14th, 19th Amendment ringing any bells? Civil Rights Act of 1964? it passed the House 290-130 and it passed the Senate 71-29. that's what the math world calls a "majority".
not to mention I said either way pretend it wasnt, pretend 75% of america against it what your answer?
if there were no 14th Amendment, 19th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, so on and so forth, then obviously these people would not have full expression of their rights (which they would retain) and I would fight with them as my ancestors did. however, as far as our legal system would be concerned obviously the situation would be different, and the answer would be to change the legal system by convincing a majority (or, if necessary, supermajority) of my fellow citizens to do so.
dodge 4
see, whenever you say "dodge" i'm translating to "i have no answer to that".
again what a joke, atleat you told the truth about your answer and further showed your hypocrisy.
no hypocrisy here. there would only be that if i accepted your assumptions which i've tried to point out to you i don't; but you seem to have trouble really comprehending that.