Gay marriage ban in constitution?

[Sayonara]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

Your doing right now, but that doesn't have to do with the thread, so...

That wasn't even a complete sentence.

 

Just stop replying to this thread, k? Like, now.

[Lance]

Sayonara³ said in post #39 :

 

You are really stretching things if you think you can compare the loving, intimate relationship between two sentient beings that 10% of the world's population are wont to have with the unusual desire to find relief in a goat that is prevalent in a mere handful of individuals.

 

10%? Might I ask how you figure that? If I was forced to Guess I would put it in the <1% range.

[Sayonara]

I didn't need to figure it out.

 

It's a commonly accepted figure based on a shed-load of research, which I dare say is probably more accurate than your guess is going to be.

[MishMish]

Whether or not homosexuality is natural, and what percentage of the population may or may not be, is irrelevant. That was gone over in the homosexuality facts thread, the natural argument at least. The question of is one of civil rights. If it causes sufficient harm to others in society there is justification for banning it, if not there is not.

 

Why can't people keep things simple

 

Problem is, people define "harm" quite differently.

 

Those who maintain homosexual marriage will harm society are going to have show some causal link. Otherwise, and as I do not expect them to be able to, we are left with a segment of the population being denied certain rights

[YT2095]

if an act (ANY act) will result in civil unrest of unknown consequences, is it right go forwards with this act?

that basicly seems to be the question, forget that it`s even a gay thing/issue.

 

it`s a ballance of which will lead to the greater good, and as I see it, the best that could be hoped for is damage limitation, as the "Unrest" extent is unknown.

so it`s a trade off really

 

[edit] and lets not forget that this and MANY other issues will be hyped up considerably and not just in the USA, as an atempt to take the focus of this Iraq debacle, the .Gov will be doing their utmost to focus on more internal issues to accomplish this.

 

[MishMish]

YT:

 

"if an act (ANY act) will result in civil unrest of unknown consequences, is it right go forwards with this act?"

 

Short answer, depends on the act

 

The civil rights movement comes to mind straight off the top

 

But I would also question the logic. Perpetuating an injustice is no guarantee of maintaining civil order either. For a small enough minority or with good enough internal security apparatus you may be able to keep unrest to a minimum, but it will not go away under those conditions

[YT2095]

considering the gay population is at the very least a minority, "damage limitation" MAY be better served keeping that Majority happy, hey it`s just an observation, and need not even apply to any specific greivence held, it only need to be A geivence by ANY minority that the majority are generaly opposed to.

it was more a question of Logistics as opposed to who`s right/wrong

[creature]

Must.....resist....ranting about gay marriage debate......

 

Just let them marry. Why on earth is this such a big deal? As developed countries, we do not limit marriage to JUST white people or JUST christian people (examples only) so why the hell do people have problems with homosexuals getting married?? The sanctity of marriage???? About 50% of straight marriages end in separation, divorce, etc......

[fafalone]

YT2095 said in post # :

considering the gay population is at the very least a minority, "damage limitation" MAY be better served keeping that Majority happy, hey it`s just an observation, and need not even apply to any specific greivence held, it only need to be A geivence by ANY minority that the majority are generaly opposed to.

it was more a question of Logistics as opposed to who`s right/wrong

 

See, the founding fathers of the United States were clearly against a system where a majority group could persecute a minority group. Hence why they didn't want direct democracy.

 

Abolition, womens suffrage, suffrage at 18, desegregation... none of these had majority support.

 

[YT2095]

my post was not of ANY political or personal bias (I did my best to totaly avoid that), it was just one of pure observation and logic

[-Demosthenes-]

This will be my last reply to this thread. I retract this post, and I am sorry any hurt feelings. Though I do believe it immoral I relize the importants of choice, and I relize that I might have been hurtfull. I am again sorry.

 

 

-Demosthenes- said in post #26 :

I think it should be illegal. It's immoral. People say that the goverment can't govern morals, but that's what our laws are. You can't commit murder, that's based on a moral. You can't steal from people, that's a moral. That's all that our laws are.

 

It's not discrimination, that's when you judge someone unfairly by how they look or a characteristic that they can't control. People are Judged everyday on there merits, how they act, and other things, that's not discrimination.

 

These people are not fit to make their own decisions in their lives. These people have destroyed themselves through excessive immoral behavior, and need help. Do you let someone who is a danger to himself hurt himself? No. Same here, these people are not thinking clearly and can't be trusted to make sound decisions.

[-Demosthenes-]

BUT, I completely deny EVER being even involved with anything involving anything prejudice or racist in any way.

[iglak]

a bit off topic but still interesting.

 

any quiz you might find that tell girls if they are right for men, or tell couples that they are right for eachother, the more the girl thinks like the man, the better wife/girlfriend(couple) she(they) is(are). so basically... men like women that act like men, so all men are gay

 

also, women generally like gay men more because they are cleaner, nicer, and generally have better bodies and hair than "straight" men.

 

hehe... just interesting observations, that's all.

[fafalone]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

I think it should be illegal. It's immoral. ...

..

These people are not fit to make their own decisions in their lives. These people have destroyed themselves through excessive immoral behavior, and need help. Do you let someone who is a danger to himself hurt himself? No. Same here, these people are not thinking clearly and can't be trusted to make sound decisions.

 

This is prejudiced bigotry whether you realize it or not. If you don't realize it, it's even sadder.

[-Demosthenes-]

Okay. I didn't mean it to be. I truly think that there is some type of mental problem invovled.

[Aegir]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

Okay. I didn't mean it to be. I truly think that there is some type of mental problem invovled.

 

Then I truly think you're a moron.

[fafalone]

...so is every difference you think is bad now a "problem"? You're a bigot and need to go to tolerance camp.

[Dave]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

I think it should be illegal. It's immoral. People say that the goverment can't govern morals, but that's what our laws are. You can't commit murder, that's based on a moral. You can't steal from people, that's a moral. That's all that our laws are.

 

It's not discrimination, that's when you judge someone unfairly by how they look or a characteristic that they can't control. People are Judged everyday on there merits, how they act, and other things, that's not discrimination.

 

These people are not fit to make their own decisions in their lives. These people have destroyed themselves through excessive immoral behavior, and need help. Do you let someone who is a danger to himself hurt himself? No. Same here, these people are not thinking clearly and can't be trusted to make sound decisions.

 

Quite frankly, that's one of the most homophobic, illogical and quite frankly unethical pieces of writing I've read all year. What on earth inspired you to write that load of inane twaddle is quite beyond my comprehension.

 

BUT, I completely deny EVER being even involved with anything involving anything prejudice or racist in any way.

 

That statement just defies belief. I think you need to take a step back from the thread and read just what a contradiction that statement is to the rest of what you have been saying.

[-Demosthenes-]

Do you think of everyone exactly the same? Of course not, and I don't either. If everyone had to be treaked the same then at job interviews who would be chosen if it prejudice against the less qualified people to hire a more qualified person. It's best just to except it, people are diffent. I am not prejudice.

[fafalone]

That's completely ignoring the fact that sexual preference has absolutely no bearing on intelligence or ability to perform a job. You said you think a certain group of people are defective and can't even make decisions for themselves; and this is based on an arbitrary trait.

 

You are extremely prejudiced. Think of it this way: if all the homosexuals came from one geographic location and were thusly labelled a race; you'd be a blatant racist. Thinking someone is somehow inferior and should be denied basic human rights because of a characteristic that in no way alters their ability to contribute to society, and in no way effects you, is being PREJUDICED.

[Aegir]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

I am not prejudice.

 

Everyone is prejudiced. You invalidate your entire argument by claiming it to be obljective.

[-Demosthenes-]

I don't think of them as inferior.

[NSX]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

I don't think of them as inferior.

 

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

These people are not fit to make their own decisions in their lives. These people ...need help. these people are not thinking clearly and can't be trusted to make sound decisions.

 

 

Lay off guys...

 

I see in your profile you're 16 right now?

 

It's easy for 16 y.o.'s to not see the full picture yet, like you of the L.B.G.Q. community. It's also easy for young people to say things right off their head, without giving any thought into it. Testosterone? I remember when I was 16, I was ANTI-GAY as well. WHY? I never really thought about it, just that the media and my peers thought that way. Then via. the learning process of life, I learned to think for myself and yada yada...

 

I think my high school debate club helped alot. It made us see both sides of the argument. I suppose that's the lesson here. Think before you say, or you'll get blasted at by fafalone & sayonara

 

But seriously, if you say the wrong thing in real life, lawyers will be all over you and suing your ass.

[fafalone]

...and you'd get your ass sued off if you said that to the wrong people in the wrong place. And after that, you'd get a visit from KKK and Neo-Nazi recruiters, since they share exactly your thoughts on the subject.

 

I never remember me or any of my friends being that visciously homophobic and prejudiced at that age.

[iglak]

hehe... where i live, the highschoolers are practically homophobiphobic

 

and another interesting short (very short) story:

one of my friends said something along the lines of "that's so gay" (talking about something that seemed homosexual, not weird). someone else responded with "oh my god, are you a homophobe?"

but the strange part is that he is a homosexual (only a few people know)... one that was called a homophobe...