If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are...

SouthernDemocrat said:

What you are describing is a tyranny of the majority. Your rights in a free society primarily consist of negative rights. You do have some positive rights, however those positive rights only extend so far as to not impede another individual's rights and privileges.

For example, in a free society, the fundamental basis of that freedom is that individuals own themselves. Thus, even if the majority of citizens in that society voted to institute slavery, that principle of self ownership would prevent that tyranny of the majority from being codified into law. Now thats an extreme example, but the same principle applies to marriage. The majority opinion on the issue is largely irrelevant unless they can reasonably demonstrate how allowing gays and lesbians legal marriage recognition impacts the freedom of others.

Can you do so?

Click to expand...

I have to say that the tyranny of the majority is what put Obama in office. When gay mattiage is put to a vote by the citizens, it loses every time.

Jerry said:

No I can't and I don't claim to be able to either.

Gay marriage falls apart for other reasons. The law requires that gay marriage be a deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the people inorder to be a fundimental right.

It's not, therefore there is no mandate to allow it. Without this mandate neither I nor anyone else need to demonstrate how it would be harmfull and your entire argument falls asside.

Since there is no mandate to permit gay marriage, gays need to demonstrate how gay marriage would better sociaty.

Can you do so?

Click to expand...

The purpose of the state is not to promote, endorse, or compell adherence to cultural and or religious traditions. That is the province of the church and private institutions. I can't think of anywhere in the constitution where that authority is delegated to the government.

If you want to live in a country where the state is used as a vehicle for the promotion and endorsement of cultural and religious tradition, perhaps Iran or Saudi Arabia would be a good fit.

Catman said:

I have to say that the tyranny of the majority is what put Obama in office. When gay mattiage is put to a vote by the citizens, it loses every time.

Click to expand...

I have 5 words for you: Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine.

Catman said:

I have to say that the tyranny of the majority is what put Obama in office. When gay mattiage is put to a vote by the citizens, it loses every time.

Click to expand...

I think we obviously have a lot of people here that flunked civics. In a democracy or democratic republic, you have the positive right as a citizen to vote for the individuals you wish to represent you in public office. That is not an example of a tyranny of the majority, but rather its just a positive right inherent in a democracy or republic.

If we were simply a nation that was subject to majority rule then there would have been no need for a constitution at all other than a simple document that designated us as a nation of majority rule alone. Government could be used for whatever purpose the citizenry chose to use it for without restriction. For example, if the majority up and decided to that the best solution to spiraling Medicare and Social Security costs was to euthanize everyone over 70, then there would be nothing to prevent that law from being implemented and enforced. The role of the courts would simply be to ensure that majority opinion was enforced in all cases.

Goobieman said:

False premise - the majority need show no such thing.

In today's system, a law is passed by the majority; the minority oppressed by that law must then show that their rights have been violated. The majority does not need to show that the existence of gay same-sex marriage hams anyone.

Click to expand...

Exactly, thats why the courts have generally sided with those in favor of legal recognition of same sex marriage. Either way, your on the side of tyranny as you want to take your personal bias and codify that into law.

Catman said:

I have to say that the tyranny of the majority is what put Obama in office. When gay mattiage is put to a vote by the citizens, it loses every time.

Click to expand...

So what about our Constitutional Republic?

SouthernDemocrat said:

The purpose of the state is not to promote, endorse, or compell adherence to cultural and or religious traditions.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was.

SouthernDemocrat said:

That is the province of the church and private institutions.

Click to expand...

One such institution being marriage, sure.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I can't think of anywhere in the constitution where that authority is delegated to the government.

Click to expand...

Me either...what are you talking about anyway?

SouthernDemocrat said:

If you want to live in a country where the state is used as a vehicle for the promotion and endorsement of cultural and religious tradition, perhaps Iran or Saudi Arabia would be a good fit.

Click to expand...

:roll:

***
...sooooo...you can't demonstrate how gay marriage would better sociaty in any way?

Jerry said:

I didn't say it was.



One such institution being marriage, sure.



Me either...what are you talking about anyway?



:roll:

***
...sooooo...you can't demonstrate how gay marriage would better sociaty in any way?

Click to expand...

You stated:

The law requires that gay marriage be a deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the people inorder to be a fundimental right.

It's not, therefore there is no mandate to allow it. Without this mandate neither I nor anyone else need to demonstrate how it would be harmfull and your entire argument falls asside.

Click to expand...

Where in the constitution does it state that for group A to enjoy a right or privilege that group B enjoys, they must demonstrate that there is history and tradition of group A having that right or privilege?

Its an absurd argument that you are making. Our rights and privileges are based in the basic principle that you have the right to live your life the way you choose to so long as your actions do not impede the ability of another individual to do the same. The infringements of this are only when there is an overriding societal concern. For example, if there was a cholera epidemic, your right to live your life the way you chose to might be temporarily restricted because of the dangers to others. Another example is with environmental protections and the commons (parks, public lands). For example, your right to live your life the way you choose to does not extend to having a daily tire fire on your land as there is an overriding societal concern as to the dangers of doing so to others.

The problem is that there is no reasonable argument to be made as to an overriding social concern state recognition of same sex marriages. It neither impacts the rights and freedoms of others, nor does it present a reasonable danger to others. The only real argument against it is the personal bias of others against it. However, in a free society, even if those others are in the majority, thats not good enough to justify the denial of a right or priviliage under the law that everyone else enjoys.

Jerry said:

You didn't take issue with Loving or Skinner, you called SCOTUS precident "usless philociphy" without any qualifyer at all.

Click to expand...

I didn't think that your comment deserved anything in depth at that point, it was just a passing insult comment you made to dismiss my arguments and so I didn't feel the necessity then to waste time trying to explain things to someone whom had already made up his mind to dismiss all of my arguments no matter what. It doesn't change that which I had written about constraint of the branches of government and accountability being held to them.

Jerry said:

...sooooo...you can't demonstrate how gay marriage would better sociaty in any way?

Click to expand...

People are being deprived of a basic right. The arguments against this right are not really valid enough, however they are still accepted. It betters society by giving people a right they have no right to be deprived of.

SouthernDemocrat said:

You stated:

A to enjoy a right or privilege that group B enjoys, they must demonstrate that there is history and tradition of group A having that right or privilege?

Its an absurd argument that you are making. Our rights and privileges are based in the basic principle that you have the right to live your life the way you choose to so long as your actions do not impede the ability of another individual to do the same. The infringements of this are only when there is an overriding societal concern. For example, if there was a cholera epidemic, your right to live your life the way you chose to might be temporarily restricted because of the dangers to others. Another example is with environmental protections and the commons (parks, public lands). For example, your right to live your life the way you choose to does not extend to having a daily tire fire on your land as there is an overriding societal concern as to the dangers of doing so to others.

The problem is that there is no reasonable argument to be made as to an overriding social concern state recognition of same sex marriages. It neither impacts the rights and freedoms of others, nor does it present a reasonable danger to others. The only real argument against it is the personal bias of others against it. However, in a free society, even if those others are in the majority, thats not good enough to justify the denial of a right or priviliage under the law that everyone else enjoys.

Click to expand...

So even if I provide you with source material, you don't care.

Well hey, I don't take issue with that. I've made up my minde on the issue as well and won't fault you for doing the same; but why ask for refrence material when you're closed to it?

That part I don't get.

Ikari said:

I didn't think that your comment deserved anything in depth at that point, it was just a passing insult comment you made to dismiss my arguments and so I didn't feel the necessity then to waste time trying to explain things to someone whom had already made up his mind to dismiss all of my arguments no matter what. It doesn't change that which I had written about constraint of the branches of government and accountability being held to them.

Click to expand...

It's not "no matter what", it's "untill gay marriage is about the family".

But yeah untill then I realy don't care what pathertic argument you bring. I've heard them all. I know they're dishonest and I've become quite good at rejecting them because your predocessors also thought they were comming up with some ingenious new logic I've heard a thousand times before.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Exactly...

Click to expand...

No, not exactly. You argue that the burden of proof in on the majority that looks to oppress the minority. Its exactly the other way around -- the burden is on the oppressed to show that their rights are being voiolated.

Either way, your on the side of tyranny as you want to take your personal bias and codify that into law.

Click to expand...

Which is OK when its YOUR personal bias that's been codified...
But, I know, that's different.

Jerry said:

It's not "no matter what", it's "untill gay marriage is about the family".

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, interesting.

Jerry said:

I've just grown so tired of quoting Loving, Skinner and others, which conclusivly prove you wrong, that I no longer take any of your argments seriously.

Click to expand...

Hmm...does that say "until gay marriage is about family" No, it's an absolute statement. It is a "no matter what".

So...who's being dishonest now Jerry? It seems measured to be you. And the second half of your post is horse **** as well. You refuse to allow other arguments based on rights such as contract because you can't argue against those. So you refuse to accept anyone else's arguments on the front less they agree to your preconceived conditions on what gay marriage is really about. I've always been straight forward with my arguments, based on the innate and inalienable rights of the individual. The dishonest one, as proven here, isn't me but rather it is you.

Cilogy said:

I have 5 words for you: Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine.

Click to expand...

Those states did not put it to a vote on a ballott. AFAIK

Also, why don't some people like the vote? Is it because the analogy of mine was right on the money and those people had no answer?

I've never really cared about gay marriage. I think the entire argument is predicated upon a giant fallacy, i.e. that a state-sanctioned marriage is somehow a right.

Obliging positive recognition from other people and receiving pecuniary benefits from the government because of your lifestyle choices is not a right.

Ikari said:

Hmmmm, interesting.

Hmm...does that say "until gay marriage is about family" No, it's an absolute statement. It is a "no matter what".

So...who's being dishonest now Jerry? It seems measured to be you. And the second half of your post is horse **** as well. You refuse to allow other arguments based on rights such as contract because you can't argue against those. So you refuse to accept anyone else's arguments on the front less they agree to your preconceived conditions on what gay marriage is really about. I've always been straight forward with my arguments, based on the innate and inalienable rights of the individual. The dishonest one, as proven here, isn't me but rather it is you.

Click to expand...

You've made a pro-gm argument based on the good of the family?

Jerry said:

You've made a pro-gm argument based on the good of the family?

Click to expand...

Nope, I base my arguments on the rights of the individual.

But if you want, gay marriage can increase the numbers of potential adoptive families out there. If they are allowed to marry and adopt, they can provide loving homes to orphans and you'll have a larger number of people wishing to do so. And whether or not you want to argue if there's statistical difference in quality of childcare between heterosexual compared to homosexual families, a family of two loving parents is bound to be better than the State. Thus you give children the opportunity to be adopted into a loving home by making available a larger set of two parent homes who would be willing to adopt.

Ikari said:

Nope, I base my arguments on the rights of the individual.

Click to expand...

Since I hold that marriage is not about the indiviguval, why would you be suprised that I don't take your arguments seriously?

Jerry said:

Since I hold that marriage is not about the indiviguval, why would you be suprised that I don't take your arguments seriously?

Click to expand...

I gave you one. This isn't about being surprised or not, this is about your honesty. You said, based on my claim that people who tend to use the marriage is man/woman thing is religion based that you'd never take any of my arguments (regardless of subject or content) seriously again. This isn't limited to just your stance against the right to contract. I pointed out after another of your typical posts about me that I didn't feel in the follow up to your dismissive post that I should have to well qualify at that point any response to you since your post deserved no such thought and time. To which you tried to say I was dishonest and that your dismissal of all my arguments was not so and that it was based particularly on the argument of family as related to gay marriage. I showed where this was a lie, and you in fact had used an absolute statement. So all this "why would I be surprised" stuff is further deflect away from your dishonest nature.

Though I did even take the time to give you a family argument. Though you are ignoring all my arguments so I suppose it doesn't matter.

Ikari said:

I gave you one. This isn't about being surprised or not, this is about your honesty. You said, based on my claim that people who tend to use the marriage is man/woman thing is religion based that you'd never take any of my arguments (regardless of subject or content) seriously again. This isn't limited to just your stance against the right to contract. I pointed out after another of your typical posts about me that I didn't feel in the follow up to your dismissive post that I should have to well qualify at that point any response to you since your post deserved no such thought and time. To which you tried to say I was dishonest and that your dismissal of all my arguments was not so and that it was based particularly on the argument of family as related to gay marriage. I showed where this was a lie, and you in fact had used an absolute statement. So all this "why would I be surprised" stuff is further deflect away from your dishonest nature.

Though I did even take the time to give you a family argument. Though you are ignoring all my arguments so I suppose it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

Marriage being man/woman is law-based. I refered to Loving and Skinner, remember?

You then called all such law "usless philosiphy". You tossed out an entire branch of governement simply because you disagreed with an infintesimal portion of it's findings.

That's irrational.

Jerry said:

So even if I provide you with source material, you don't care.

Well hey, I don't take issue with that. I've made up my minde on the issue as well and won't fault you for doing the same; but why ask for refrence material when you're closed to it?

That part I don't get.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen where you have provided sourced material yet.

Jerry said:

Marriage being man/woman is law-based. I refered to Loving and Skinner, remember?

You then called all such law "usless philosiphy". You tossed out an entire branch of governement simply because you disagreed with an infintesimal portion of it's findings.

That's irrational.

Click to expand...

This is still deflect away from the original post. But let's see.

You don't see marriage as a personal issue, I have to accept that.
I say people who use the man/women thing is mostly religious based, but you don't have to accept that. I have to accept your premise that you put forth, regardless of right to contract. But your SCotUS cases prove the rationalization people make when they make the male/female argument. I didn't toss out an entire branch of government...I tossed out your argument that people use male/female arguments as "law based" and not religious based on account of SCotUS cases which declared marriage a civil right and then claimed interracial marriage was a civil right as well. I think many people who use the male/female argument are not doing so with these cases in mind, but rather going off their own personal perception of what marriage should be between which is influenced and dictated primarily through their religion. But whatever, you basically want to define yourself as always right and that people must always accept your base premise of your arguments and that you don't have to do the same for others. Good job Mr. "honest".

Blackdog said:

Not really. I know plenty of people who would not agree with the mixing of the races, this does not make them racist.

Click to expand...

And on what basis would you not want the mixing of races? Please tell me. I love this white washing of racism. It's the MO of Stormfront members.

Yea thats true, lol.

Click to expand...

REALLY? But not the other one? I wonder why this is true but the other isn't. Are you by any chance poor?

Depends on who you talk to, pretty subjective in this case.

Click to expand...

Really? On what basis would you oppose Muslim/Christian marriages?

I am a bigot for following my religious doctrine? OK I can live with that.

Click to expand...

Funny how you proved my point.

Jerry said:

If you constantly assign slanderous names to people or groups with whom you disagree, you're a hyperpartizen hack best ignored.

Click to expand...

Oh cry me a f'n river. If you don't want to be called a bigot. Don't act like one. Simple.

Hatuey said:

Oh cry me a f'n river. If you don't want to be called a bigot. Don't act like one. Simple.

Click to expand...

Being a bigot means hating those who are different, right? Well, that applies to hating those who have different points of view as well.