Proposed rule for same-sex marriage threads...

trolling will get you know nowhere.
I'd be willing to bet you are the only one in this thread who didn't get that............

 

So you're going to make these vague pronouncements and then hide behind accusing me of trolling when I ask for clarification? I'm actually interested to hear your position... but not in this drive by fashion. Why don't you take the time to spell it out for me? Please be specific.

 

The trick would be that since it would require the consent of everybody already in the contract, billion-people marriages seem pretty unlikely. It would be like, "Yes, I will marry you ... just as soon as you get this piece of paper signed by the other billion people I'm married to." Logistical barrier.

 

I have already answered it. You have rejected federalism. Of course if you believe that the federal government should be an unlimited national government you will not see the harm to individual liberties and freedoms. If equal protection can be used to justify running roughshod over the people in this instance then it can be used to justify anything.

This effectively means the states are mere appendages of a national government. And the people no longer have a voice in their governance.

 

you really cannot be that slow. I have given you credit for being smarter and faster than that. Have I erred?

 

So in other words, you believe in the Moose Card.

And who is promoting these things? Bestiality and pedophilia? Those are traditionally promoted by the same kind of people that like to shoot hippies. Your wires are crossed.

 

OK. You don't want to debate. I don't blame you... You know you can not refute my position so better to not even try... and make yourself look foolish in the process.

 

Citizens are also protected by the Constitution from "The People." Tyranny of the majority is just as much tyranny as the tyranny of a single oligarch or dictator. You have demonstrated here a very sparse understanding of federalism yet here you are trumpeting its virtues. Federalism does not empower the people through the states to infringe on the liberties of their fellow citizens. It does not empower them to deprive their fellow citizens of their constitutionally-guaranteed privileges and immunities. States are not allowed to run roughshod over individual liberty even if "the people" vote on it. Otherwise, there is no need for a Constitution at all... we just put everything to a vote and have mob rule. But don't take it from me... take it from a man far smarter than you and I put together...

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

- B. Franklin

So if every resident of the State of New Jersey except one voted to outlaw guns in that state... it would still constitute a violation of that sole citizen's constitutional rights. How would you address that violation? I mean the people have spoken.

 

Targeted tax breaks and governmental entitlements arent tyranny.

 

That would be fine, except for one thing. One thing DOES lead to another. At 52 years of age I have seen it on many different areas.

Your rule sucks. It belongs in the Sucky Rule pile.

The fact is, you want to delete all posts you don't agree with.

How about this rule: No homos allowed in homo threads. Reason: Conflict of interest and not objective.

 

"You have rejected federalism. Of course if you believe that the federal government should be an unlimited national government you will not see the harm to individual liberties and freedoms. If equal protection can be used to justify running roughshod over the people in this instance then it can be used to justify anything.

This effectively means the states are mere appendages of a national government. And the people no longer have a voice in their governance."

Every time this issue has come up for a vote it has overwhelmingly been voted down by the people. Overwhelmingly. Have you now rejected the consent of the governed? Do you believe that people should no longer have a say in the rules they must live under? Do you believe your massive, and complete, tyranny by a few unelected, and unaccountable, men and women who wear black robes, is superior to 50 locations choosing the rules they will live under?

I believe my understanding of federalism is quite good. Of course I prefer the virtues of citizens choosing, either directly or through their representatives, the rules they agree to live under, to the tyranny of a few unaccountable people who impose their will on an entire nation. You appear to prefer the opposite in this case. But what about the next case? Or the one after?

If 50 different states make 50 different sets of rules then a very large number of people will be pleased by the results. If nine people decide for 350 million people how likely is it that people will be pleased? If I am for something in my state and 70% of the citizens agree with me than 70% will be happy in this state. If you are against something in your state and 70% of the people agree with you than 70% of the people will be happy. If one decision is made than no matter what only one state's worth of people will be happy.

Granted. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. As far as I can tell there is no constitutional right to marriage at all. Marriage, like most, if not all social issues, belong to the states or the people. There is no positive role for the federal government. Its interference will only make things worse. States have it within their power to establish rules for their citizens.

If the majority votes for a rule within a state then it is not running roughshod over their rights. If citizens do not like the rules they can change the rules. If they are unable to convince enough of their fellow citizens they can always move to a place with rules more to their liking. The good ideas will spread. The poor ideas will be isolated.

The Constitution used to guarantee that the greatest number of peoples had the greatest opportunity to live under rules they had a hand in creating. It no longer does.

Isn't that what just happened? A few people decided, against the will of the majority of people, what we would all be forced, henceforth and always, to have for dinner.

I have not ever mentioned democracy.

I suppose one must clarify those rights that are inherent in our being versus rules. We have the right to life. Therefore we have a right to defend ourselves and our property. I will have and exercise that right even if the state does not support it.

If nine people have the power to decide every issue they choose to involve themselves in how have we not fallen into complete tyranny?

 

Great post!! (And I'm stealing your Franklin quote.)

 

Sure anytime someone uses the terms "equality" or "equal rights" or "marriage equality" in the debate in favor of homosexual marriage they are being dishonest. They don't ACTUALLY believe in equality. They only believe in it insofar as it's beneficial to their position.

http://www.marriageequality.org/

They believe in restricting the rights of certain groups to marry as well. They simply JUSTIFY their beliefs and so to them it's okay.

Fantastic then tell me why homosexuals should receive marriage benefits. And remember you can't use "because heterosexuals receive them" as you've just acknowledged they are inherently different.

It means that you reject the slippery slope argument when it's detrimental to the homosexual argument (ie if we allow homosexuals to marry and receive benefits we must allow other sexual perverts to marry and receive benefits.)... yet you ACCEPT the slippery slope argument when it's beneficial to the homosexual argument (ie if we allow heterosexuals to marry and receive benefits we also must allow homosexuals to marry and receive benefits)

No... again... it's not. You made this thread because you DON'T believe in legal parity for your fellow citizens. The woman who lets her dog mount her is still one of your fellow citizens. You simply use logic to justify your discrimination and lack of legal parity against those fellow citizens and so it's okay in your mind.

 

Yes, you have. A car whose engine is firing on half its cylinders is slow. A car with no wheels is not.

 

This is a blatant mischaracterization of our Constitutional Republic.

If that majority voted for an amendment to the constitution to make the 2nd amendment null and void and they had enough numbers... they absolutely could take away that "right".

In fact, they could institute slavery in the constitution and as long as they had enough of a majority then it would be constitutionally acceptable.

If they had a large enough majority, they could put an amendment into the constitution that homosexuals have no rights to anything in this country whatsoever and that would be constitutional.

Your assertion is simply false.

ETA: Hell, as I've pointed out before, the 14th amendment was never constitutionally ratified anyway. So it's not constitutionally valid.

 

Well no the basis for my argument was to point out that people who support homosexuality or homosexual marriage are forced to accept other perversions such as incest or engage in hypocrisy.

And it's rather clear that I was right.

 

They sound like they are. Equal protection, and all that...

 

I couldn't care less whose idea it was, I was just pointing out that your argument against it made no sense.

Seems you've accepted that now.

Because homophobe cards are meaningless and irrelevant.

Which is the exact reason people want new ones... like yours.

I don't need you to abandon anything, or like me.

 

OK and you side can't go with the strawman homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality and should be treated the same.....OK?

 

Heck maybe Eric Holder will show up and help you with your censorship drive.

 

Never good to cut people off OP. Where would the homosexuals be if they were cut off and could not talk?

In the bible, which I don't believe in, God ordered us to kill the homosexuals. As times passed the Episcopal's decided to make homosexuals their bishops instead of killing them. So who can say what the future holds. You can't predict one way or another what people will do.

No, OP, I'm not with you nor am I with degrading trad marriage with the homosexuals. Although I would predict homosexual marriage was decided this week by the court and is headed for all 50 soon.

 

Self-delusion is not a very good basis on which to make an argument. That was stated for the benefit of others, it most likely means nothing to you, since after all, you know very well the day you chose to be a heterosexual and can recall it with great clarity, right?

 

Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant.

The "minor-attracted person" claims that he was "born that way". But that's not relevant to whether or not it's acceptable behavior.

 

if I have to explain what, the, and, this, forward, backward to you, I understand now that I would be wasting my time. Sorry for thinking you were a lot smarter than that. That is not debating, that is being rude to me..........

 

Are you once again referring to your asinine incest analogy? Either provide some proof that anyone who has not been declared insane is wanting to do this (i.e. marry their parent or sibling), or just shut the hell up. 'Cause really, you have presented squat...well, except for your deeply rooted ignorance on homosexuals, which you of course think is something to be proud of.