What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (3 Viewers)

Burton said:
FatMax said:
Burton said:
If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those damn leftist Supreme Court judges did the same thing in Brown vs. Board of Education. It's Un-American.
Click to expand...
There's a big difference. That case was a matter of civil rights. This case involves a redefinition of marriage. There are no civil rights involved.
Click to expand...
You just joined yesterday? Which of your alias got banned? :lmao:
 
Burton said:
If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.
Click to expand...
I think it's highly offensive that you and those like you have received such painfully bad history lessons. This is pretty much one of the main tenets/principles of the founding fathers, and was largely whey they created the constitution and bill of rights. The imposing will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the minority, that's AMERICA!
 
Burton said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Burton said:
...Marriage is a unique institution that protects and promotes the interests of society and our children.
Click to expand...
So society has no interest in the children in gay households?
Click to expand...
We certainly do have an interest in those children. If we expressed our interests correctly in most cases, those children wouldn't be there.This is not to say I am against all gay adoption. But I think, for the interests of society and the children, our priorities should be:1. Husband and wife.2. Wife3. Husband4. Gay couples. If the first three are unable or unwilling to adopt, only then should the fourth couple be allowed to adopt.
Click to expand...
Who is talking about adoption?
 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Burton said:
FatMax said:
Burton said:
If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those damn leftist Supreme Court judges did the same thing in Brown vs. Board of Education. It's Un-American.
Click to expand...
There's a big difference. That case was a matter of civil rights. This case involves a redefinition of marriage. There are no civil rights involved.
Click to expand...
Very rarely does a post match the avatar so perfectly.
Click to expand...
:lmao:
 
Burton said:
McJose said:
It does? How so? And how would allowing gays to marry harm 'the interests of society and our children'?
Click to expand...
I'm going to quote talk show host Michael Medved, who makes the case much better than I can:
Click to expand...
Too bad he doesn't make a very good case either.1. He doesn't say why marriage without reproduction is bad.

2. I'm really not sure what he's trying to say. Marriage shouldn't be or isn't about "feeling"???

3. "The promotion of gay marriage requires the same dismissal of gender differences: if a woman and a man bring utterly distinctive attributes to any marriage then same-sex unions lack the balance, the fusion-of-opposites energy, that constitute the very essence of male-female partnership...it’s ridiculous to claim that a male-male partnership is the same as a female-female partnership – let alone comparable to the combination of manly and feminine elements that characterize traditional marriage."

That's pretty circular. And he assumes that every straight marriage operates on the same gender-based dynamics. 'Men have this role and women have this role'. That's just not true.

He should stick to The Golden Turkey Awards.

 
I missed all the fun today, it seems.

Konotay, I know you're more of a science guy than a gambling expert, but I have what may be a very useful tip for you. Betting with Pickles about what Pickles does for a living is a terrible idea, because he has more information about that subject than you do. It's like betting on the outcome of a tape-delayed game with somebody who saw it live when you didn't. You'll never win that kind of bet. Your opponent already knows if the bet is a winner or a loser for him, and he's not going to take the bet if it's a loser.

 
Hipple said:
Burton said:
If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.
Click to expand...
I think it's highly offensive that you and those like you have received such painfully bad history lessons. This is pretty much one of the main tenets/principles of the founding fathers, and was largely whey they created the constitution and bill of rights. The imposing will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the minority, that's AMERICA!
Click to expand...
This is just entirely wrong. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was designed to check the powers of states. The rights being debated here would not emminate from the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Additionally, only a minority could vote at the time of the ratification - white men - and that minority was free to trump the rights of the majority as they saw fit. Im not sure if you've received bad history lessons, have a bad memory, or just have made specious arguments, but this post is painfully bad.
 
dparker713 said:
Hipple said:
Burton said:
If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.
Click to expand...
I think it's highly offensive that you and those like you have received such painfully bad history lessons. This is pretty much one of the main tenets/principles of the founding fathers, and was largely whey they created the constitution and bill of rights. The imposing will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the minority, that's AMERICA!
Click to expand...
This is just entirely wrong. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was designed to check the powers of states. The rights being debated here would not emminate from the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Additionally, only a minority could vote at the time of the ratification - white men - and that minority was free to trump the rights of the majority as they saw fit. Im not sure if you've received bad history lessons, have a bad memory, or just have made specious arguments, but this post is painfully bad.
Click to expand...
So does that mean that if a majority in one state wants to trump the rights of the minority it's OK?And the bolded makes no sense. Democracy was very limited for a large portion of our nation's history. That has nothing to do with today.

 
Burton said:
McJose said:
Burton said:
FatMax said:
Burton said:
If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those damn leftist Supreme Court judges did the same thing in Brown vs. Board of Education. It's Un-American.
Click to expand...
There's a big difference. That case was a matter of civil rights. This case involves a redefinition of marriage. There are no civil rights involved.
Click to expand...
Big freaking deal.I still don't get why it matters if the "definition" of marriage is man/woman or man/man or woman/woman. Could you explain why it matters?
Click to expand...
Marriage is more than simply a legal arrangement based only on the desires of the adults involved. You want to have that, fine, but call it something else. Marriage is a unique institution that protects and promotes the interests of society and our children.
Click to expand...
:shark:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
This is just entirely wrong. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was designed to check the powers of states. The rights being debated here would not emminate from the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Additionally, only a minority could vote at the time of the ratification - white men - and that minority was free to trump the rights of the majority as they saw fit. Im not sure if you've received bad history lessons, have a bad memory, or just have made specious arguments, but this post is painfully bad.
Click to expand...
Yes the founding fathers had only a small inkling of the ideals they were basing this nation around. We the people needed to, and need to continue to grow into those ideals. Contrary to those that think we should cling to the understanding of the 18th century (or the 1st or 5th BCE).
 
McJose said:
dparker713 said:
Hipple said:
Burton said:
If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.
Click to expand...
I think it's highly offensive that you and those like you have received such painfully bad history lessons. This is pretty much one of the main tenets/principles of the founding fathers, and was largely whey they created the constitution and bill of rights. The imposing will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the minority, that's AMERICA!
Click to expand...
This is just entirely wrong. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was designed to check the powers of states. The rights being debated here would not emminate from the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Additionally, only a minority could vote at the time of the ratification - white men - and that minority was free to trump the rights of the majority as they saw fit. Im not sure if you've received bad history lessons, have a bad memory, or just have made specious arguments, but this post is painfully bad.
Click to expand...
So does that mean that if a majority in one state wants to trump the rights of the minority it's OK?And the bolded makes no sense. Democracy was very limited for a large portion of our nation's history. That has nothing to do with today.
Click to expand...
Your post makes no sense. Hipple completely misstated history while attempting to correct someone. That has nothing to do with your post.
 
dparker713 said:
McJose said:
dparker713 said:
Hipple said:
Burton said:
If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.
Click to expand...
I think it's highly offensive that you and those like you have received such painfully bad history lessons. This is pretty much one of the main tenets/principles of the founding fathers, and was largely whey they created the constitution and bill of rights. The imposing will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the minority, that's AMERICA!
Click to expand...
This is just entirely wrong. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was designed to check the powers of states. The rights being debated here would not emminate from the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Additionally, only a minority could vote at the time of the ratification - white men - and that minority was free to trump the rights of the majority as they saw fit. Im not sure if you've received bad history lessons, have a bad memory, or just have made specious arguments, but this post is painfully bad.
Click to expand...
So does that mean that if a majority in one state wants to trump the rights of the minority it's OK?And the bolded makes no sense. Democracy was very limited for a large portion of our nation's history. That has nothing to do with today.
Click to expand...
Your post makes no sense. Hipple completely misstated history while attempting to correct someone. That has nothing to do with your post.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he did. He simply said that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created largely to protect the minority from the majority will, the phrase "will of the majority" being a pretty obvious shorthand for majority voter intent (your argument about only white voters not making it "majority will" would be like me saying that Prop 8 is not "majority will" because only a small percentage of all Californians voted for it). I'd disagree with including the Constitution in there maybe, and the word "largely" is subjective of course, but it's a pretty accurate statement about the driving forces behind the Bill of Rights. He made a very general statement about founding principles. You're the one who filled in the details about the extension of the Bill of Rights protections to state action- which, like it or not, is completely accepted as a Constitutional principle, at least so far as it extends to Equal Protection- and chose to ignore the common meaning of the phrase "will of the majority."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Konotay said:
Spartans Rule said:
Konotay said:
Running with scissors said:
What relevance do they have to the bet whether he is who he says he is? Either he can verify it or not.
Click to expand...
He is playing chicken. He didn't think I would take him up on the bet and he could skate with his false credentials.
Click to expand...
You still haven't taken him up on the bet.
Click to expand...
It isn't a bet on my part. If he has the goods he will get the money, probably more than he was expecting. It is a win win. He gets money, business, respect and I get some research that I want.
Click to expand...
:useless:This is getting pretty sad.
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I missed all the fun today, it seems.Konotay, I know you're more of a science guy than a gambling expert, but I have what may be a very useful tip for you. Betting with Pickles about what Pickles does for a living is a terrible idea, because he has more information about that subject than you do. It's like betting on the outcome of a tape-delayed game with somebody who saw it live when you didn't. You'll never win that kind of bet. Your opponent already knows if the bet is a winner or a loser for him, and he's not going to take the bet if it's a loser.
Click to expand...
Hush up, you.
 
If I was a wealthy coin collector like Konotay I'd be all over this bet by now. Pickles is obviously lying. K-tay could pocket this ten grand easily and go get himself a nice slabbed Morgan dollar or something.

 
This "will of the majority" argument is crap. "Will of the majority" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.

The constitution exists to protect the sheep. As does the Supreme Court.

Brown vs Board of Education being the perfect example.

 
Having just now read through the last several pages, I would like to apologize for sullying this epic thread with talk of the gays and the Bill of Rights and so on. Hopefully we can return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Konotay, timschochet's pretty much got it nailed. Bet or fold. You tried to give him the Daniel Negreanu "hey, I'm a nice guy, let's talk for a while and I'll try to get some information from you before I eventually decide what I want to do" type routine. It failed. Pickles was too smart for that. It's painfully obvious to everyone that don't want to make the bet. Admit that everyone's right, or prove us wrong.

 
Judge Walker is going to rule today on whether or not to allow gay marriages to occur during the appeal process. This is a separate issue and I'm curious if any lawyers around here could discuss what the legal precedent is for this sort of thing, if there is one.

 
Burton said:
1. Husband and wife.2. Wife3. Husband4. Gay couples. If the first three are unable or unwilling to adopt, only then should the fourth couple be allowed to adopt.
Click to expand...
What about couples that aren't married? Do they actually fall below gay couples on your hierarchy?
 
Mr. Pickles said:
But I really really really want to win a $10k bet. It would be the most epic of shticks.
Click to expand...
No that is not the case. If you had the goods you wouldn't be this reticent to have a civil discussion about your area of expertise. This is just a game of high stakes chicken. You want to set the bar so high that it prohibits real investigation.I did find a way to do the transaction legally. I found a private eye who works with a casino who could be the fiduciary and the investigator. It isn't cheap.But you know the answer before I take the bet. You will not take the bet if you know you will lose. So again this is really no bet at all and you have nothing to lose. This fictitious bet is nothing but a ploy to hide behind which in of itself is the answer. If you had the goods you would not need to play games.
 
Konotay said:
Mr. Pickles said:
But I really really really want to win a $10k bet. It would be the most epic of shticks.
Click to expand...
No that is not the case. If you had the goods you wouldn't be this reticent to have a civil discussion about your area of expertise. This is just a game of high stakes chicken. You want to set the bar so high that it prohibits real investigation.I did find a way to do the transaction legally. I found a private eye who works with a casino who could be the fiduciary and the investigator. It isn't cheap.But you know the answer before I take the bet. You will not take the bet if you know you will lose. So again this is really no bet at all and you have nothing to lose. This fictitious bet is nothing but a ploy to hide behind which in of itself is the answer. If you had the goods you would not need to play games.
Click to expand...
Just stop.You're the one hiding. You're the one not taking the bet. Pickles put an offer on the table. Accept it or reject it. He's under no obligation to offer you further information that might aid you in your decision-making process. Either you say yes or you say no. Don't put it on him.
 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm not sure he did. He simply said that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created largely to protect the minority from the majority will, the phrase "will of the majority" being a pretty obvious shorthand for majority voter intent (your argument about only white voters not making it "majority will" would be like me saying that Prop 8 is not "majority will" because only a small percentage of all Californians voted for it). I'd disagree with including the Constitution in there maybe, and the word "largely" is subjective of course, but it's a pretty accurate statement about the driving forces behind the Bill of Rights.

He made a very general statement about founding principles. You're the one who filled in the details about the extension of the Bill of Rights protections to state action- which, like it or not, is completely accepted as a Constitutional principle, at least so far as it extends to Equal Protection- and chose to ignore the common meaning of the phrase "will of the majority."
Click to expand...
You shed your skin yet this season?
 
Burton said:
McJose said:
Why don't gays deserve civil rights?
Click to expand...
They're not a minority "group." There are gays that are white, Black, Mexican, etc. They're not discriminated against by not being allowed to marry each other. I'm not allowed to marry a guy either, so you can't call it discrimination.
Click to expand...
Your missing the point Burton. The point is that it is no longer about changing hearts and minds one way or the other. Rather than go through the legislative process they have chosen the judicial process to win. Ironically it was probable that same sex marriage would have eventually won at the ballot box or through some legislative victory.The point is, rather than win by the will of people, or the consent of the governed, they have chosen a path which looks like a judicial fiat and against the will of the governed.
 
Konotay said:
Mr. Pickles said:
But I really really really want to win a $10k bet. It would be the most epic of shticks.
Click to expand...
No that is not the case. If you had the goods you wouldn't be this reticent to have a civil discussion about your area of expertise. This is just a game of high stakes chicken. You want to set the bar so high that it prohibits real investigation.I did find a way to do the transaction legally. I found a private eye who works with a casino who could be the fiduciary and the investigator. It isn't cheap.But you know the answer before I take the bet. You will not take the bet if you know you will lose. So again this is really no bet at all and you have nothing to lose. This fictitious bet is nothing but a ploy to hide behind which in of itself is the answer. If you had the goods you would not need to play games.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:this is like one of those evil villains that devises some super complicated scheme to kill the hero.How about this, you agrees agree to the bet in this, or some other amount, and you guys agree on a third party professor to verify one way or the other.
 
Konotay said:
You will not take the bet if you know you will lose. If you had the goods you would not need to play games.
Click to expand...
Am I wrong here? The first statement says that that he knows that he cannot lose if the bet is made. The second statement says that he doesn't have the credentials that he says he has. Dude, I seriously have to ask. Am I right on this and you are seriously that logic impaired? I'm not mocking, I really want to know how you can hold these two ideas at the same time and write them within seconds of each other. I'm seriously shuked here.(Ignoring the crazy about the PI, I'm sure others will jump all over it).
 
Konotay said:
Burton said:
McJose said:
Why don't gays deserve civil rights?
Click to expand...
They're not a minority "group." There are gays that are white, Black, Mexican, etc. They're not discriminated against by not being allowed to marry each other. I'm not allowed to marry a guy either, so you can't call it discrimination.
Click to expand...
Your missing the point Burton. The point is that it is no longer about changing hearts and minds one way or the other. Rather than go through the legislative process they have chosen the judicial process to win. Ironically it was probable that same sex marriage would have eventually won at the ballot box or through some legislative victory.The point is, rather than win by the will of people, or the consent of the governed, they have chosen a path which looks like a judicial fiat and against the will of the governed.
Click to expand...
Havent heard the activist judge thing in a while. Good work.
 
Burton said:
McJose said:
It does? How so? And how would allowing gays to marry harm 'the interests of society and our children'?
Click to expand...
I'm going to quote talk show host Michael Medved, who makes the case much better than I can:Advocates for same-sex marriage should feel embarrassed by current efforts to recycle the three most discredited ideas of the “Free Love” Revolution of the 1960’s. Most Americans look back at the radical notions of that rebellious and drug-soaked era with skepticism and discomfort, if not outright regret. The sweeping changes in intimate relationships may have provoked excitement some forty years ago, but those alterations produced so many painful costs in terms of shattered families, degraded culture and proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases that even the most enthusiastic revolutionaries have come to reconsider the advisability of encouraging copulation without consequences or standards. Nevertheless, arguments for redefining marriage (including the shockingly shallow logic behind last week’s Supreme Court decision in California) rely on shamelessly silly assumptions from the Age of Aquarius without acknowledging their dysfunctional history and unwholesome origins. The case for legal sanction for gay unions relies on the notions that it’s beneficial to separate sex from child-bearing, that every intimate urge deserves respect and fulfillment, and that males and females count, ultimately, as interchangeable. 1. Separating Sex, Marriage and Procreation. The British poet Philip Larkin announced the new order in human relationships in unforgettable terms in his poem “Annus Mirabilis”: Sexual intercourse beganIn nineteen sixty-three(which was rather late for me) -Between the end of the Chatterley banAnd the Beatles' first LP The principal facilitator for the new dispensation involved the development and dissemination of the birth control pill and other improved means of contraception. For the first time, young people could “go all the way” without fear of unintended, life-changing consequences. Legalized abortion (given Constitutional protection by Roe v. Wade in 1973) completed the explosion of the ancient association celebrated in another (anonymous) piece of poetry: First comes love, Then comes marriage, Then comes Sally with a baby carriage. The new ability to enjoy love without baby carriage also meant a new chance to indulge love without marriage… or a baby carriage without marriage, for that matter. The notion that Jr. ought to restrain himself or else he might get his best girl “in trouble” (and face a shotgun wedding) no longer carried weight. According to the core contention of the sexual revolution, intercourse represented a form of self-expression or even recreation, only occasionally (and unnecessarily) connected with procreation or long-term commitment. The result has been an explosion of out-of-wedlock birth (reaching 35% of all American new-borns in most recent numbers) with disastrous impact on poverty, crime and overall family stability. Gay marriage won’t add to the out-of-wedlock birth rate (at least not directly) but it continues and advances the devastating disconnect of sex, marriage and babies. While society suffers from babies without marriage, gay matrimony guarantees marriage without babies. And while some heterosexual couples may prove as infertile, ultimately, as gay couples, only for a tiny minority of male-female marriages will there be the same certainty that exists for all homosexual relationships: that intimate expressions of affection can never produce progeny. Yes, gay couples can raise kids who come to them through adoption or insemination, but in none of these relationships can there be an organic, physical, direct, causal connection between the love (and sex) exchanged between the partners and love for the progeny they produce – the very essence of a traditional marriage arrangement. With same sex union, the nature of marital sex receives a radical redefinition – disconnecting that intimacy from offspring even in a home where children may be present. 2. Following – and Honoring – Your Deepest Urges. Though I ought to be embarrassed to admit it, I actually hitch-hiked to San Francisco during the vaunted “Summer of Love” in 1967 and repeatedly encountered the slogan “If It Feels Good, Do It!” invoked with almost liturgical fervor. As an intrigued eye-witness to some of the public “Love Ins” and private social gatherings associated with that storied time and place, I can testify that this philosophy produced less fleeting fun, let alone long-term satisfaction, than widely assumed. Every moralist, gay or straight, concedes that our passions – even the most deep-seated and undeniable urges—remain notoriously unreliable guides to happiness, productive relationships, and even long-term health. By supplanting the old imperative to “do your duty” with the new commandment “follow your heart,” the Love Generation embraced emotion as the standard for judging all intimate arrangements and explorations. This new emphasis produced its most damaging impact not through the indulgence of new sexual alternatives, but with the exploding rate of divorce in the 1970’s. If marriage rested on feeling rather than obligation, it naturally proved more evanescent and disposable. Before the sexual revolution, many families might quietly hum the Righteous lyrics “We’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling,” but relatively few of them actually broke up their relationships. Commitment, tradition, honor and duty all helped to keep most couples together, even through difficult times. Gay marriage serves to move matrimony even further toward the primacy of feeling. The chief argument for treating gay attraction as equally deserving of respect and support as man-woman-love is the depth, sincerity and undeniable nature of the passion that same sex partners feel for one another. The language promoting such couplings always emphasizes emotion rather than duty or commitment or tradition; same sex partners can hardly take their position in a long, sacred line of succession back to the beginnings of time. Yes, every society has included gay people but no civilization ever sanctioned gay marriages. Redefining matrimony as “an expression of love” rather than a public and profoundly consequential social contract damages the understanding of the institution for all elements of society. 3. Treating Male and Female as Interchangeable . Before John Gray and other astronomers of the intimate discovered the vast distance between Venus and Mars, before “Gender Feminists” revealed the natural superiority of women, before even Hollywood reconnected with the joys of girly-girls and manly men, the “Equity Feminists” of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s preached the interchangeable/indistinguishable nature of males and females. According to some psychological theorists of the prior generation, “gender” amounts to a socio-cultural construct, an artificial distinction meant to subjugate women. Enlightened pre-schools encouraged girls to play with trucks and forced boys to nurture dolls, confident in the expectation that kids of all genders would grow up equally adept as nurses and police officers, nuclear physicists and homemakers. Equality between men and women, according to the thinking of the time, meant the minimization of their intrinsic differences, and the erasure of the time-honored concept that each individual required a partner of the opposite gender for ultimate completion. The popular Ms. Magazine slogan, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” expressed the prevailing derision for the belief that both genders brought something distinctive, precious and irreplaceable to a relationship. The promotion of gay marriage requires the same dismissal of gender differences: if a woman and a man bring utterly distinctive attributes to any marriage then same-sex unions lack the balance, the fusion-of-opposites energy, that constitute the very essence of male-female partnership. If men and women possess fundamental, unavoidable contrasts involving their physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual realities, then it’s ridiculous to claim that a male-male partnership is the same as a female-female partnership – let alone comparable to the combination of manly and feminine elements that characterize traditional marriage. In a sense, the position of gay rights advocates has become contradictory. If replacing a bride with a second groom on the wedding cake makes no difference in the nature of the marriage, then a female partner is interchangeable with a male partner. And if the core differences between men and women count for so little, then it’s hard for homosexuals to claim that they can only feel attraction to their own gender. If men and women are, essentially, the same, then why can’t gay people choose opposite sex partners and spare us all the trouble of redefining the nature of marriage and upending the social order? Despite politically correct protestations to the contrary, men and women remain, and will always remain, vastly and incurably different and for most homosexuals choosing a convenient opposite sex partner seems as unthinkable and unacceptable as my choosing another male. Science can’t fully explain the origins of homosexual impulses, but it’s a terrible mistake for defenders of traditional matrimony to describe it as a “lifestyle choice.” Most people – gay and straight alike – never choose their orientations, and every American deserves respect and liberty and privacy. Insisting on equal rights for individuals, however, hardly requires the equal treatment of all relationships. The demand to recognize same sex unions as virtually identical to male-female marriage isn’t just a matter of extending an ancient, honorable institution to new customers. It is, rather, an unprecedented effort to redefine and restructure that institution at its very core and, in the process to breathe new life into three dysfunctional old ideas definitively discredited many years ago.
Click to expand...
In a sense, the position of gay rights advocates has become contradictory. If replacing a bride with a second groom on the wedding cake makes no difference in the nature of the marriage, then a female partner is interchangeable with a male partner. And if the core differences between men and women count for so little, then it’s hard for homosexuals to claim that they can only feel attraction to their own gender. If men and women are, essentially, the same, then why can’t gay people choose opposite sex partners and spare us all the trouble of redefining the nature of marriage and upending the social order?
Click to expand...
Very interesting post. I believe the answer is that homosexual (coupling) marriage is different than a heterosexual marriage. Men and women are very different. So a man-man, woman-woman and a woman-man relationship are completely different. Calling the relationships something different isn't bigotry because they are different. The biggest difference is that men and woman create children and we need in institution like marriage that protects them. This isn't hate its pragmatic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cassius said:
Burton said:
Marriage is more than simply a legal arrangement based only on the desires of the adults involved. You want to have that, fine, but call it something else. Marriage is a unique institution that protects and promotes the interests of society and our children.
Click to expand...
:popcorn:
Click to expand...
I don't see why you dislike the post. If marriage is only a legal arrangement based only on the desires of the adults involved then we should call other relationships into the fabric of marriage like:polygamyswingers (multiple woman and men)transgendersbisexualsrelationships past the age of puberty. There should be no age discrimination on marriage.Marriage will be morph into anything you want it to. However, marriage will lose its central purpose which is raising children.
 
Seeing how you live in Utah (probably a rural area if you are near polygamists), how much money did you donate toward prop 8?

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm not sure he did. He simply said that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created largely to protect the minority from the majority will, the phrase "will of the majority" being a pretty obvious shorthand for majority voter intent (your argument about only white voters not making it "majority will" would be like me saying that Prop 8 is not "majority will" because only a small percentage of all Californians voted for it). I'd disagree with including the Constitution in there maybe, and the word "largely" is subjective of course, but it's a pretty accurate statement about the driving forces behind the Bill of Rights. He made a very general statement about founding principles. You're the one who filled in the details about the extension of the Bill of Rights protections to state action- which, like it or not, is completely accepted as a Constitutional principle, at least so far as it extends to Equal Protection- and chose to ignore the common meaning of the phrase "will of the majority."
Click to expand...
State action in equal protection and/or substantive due process derive from the 14th Amendment. Not ratified until 1868. The Constitution was ratified in 1789. The Founding Fathers did not survive to the 1860s, so yes his statement is wrong. Especially since there is very little in the original Constitution or Bill of Rights that limited the powers of the state. And your analogy is off. A small percentage of Californians may have voted, but the vast majority COULD vote (excluding felons and children). Women, children, minorities and non-landowners all could not vote at the time of the Founding Fathers by design. There were even religious requirements to vote in many states. And you've got it backwards. The branches of government are designed to prevent majority rule with conflicting branches of government and a bicameral legislature. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the people from the federal government and minority rights from a simple majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paddington
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2
8 9 10
Replies
460
Views
6K
Bottomfeeder Sports
Bottomfeeder Sports
Paddington
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
2 3
Replies
105
Views
3K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Ministry of Pain
What's Normal? Baby Showers, when did this become a Co-Ed event?
2
Replies
99
Views
2K
Zow
Zow

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top