Political Crossfire Forums

[dkong911]

SleepyWeasel wrote: dkong911 wrote: A small percentage of our troops died; a high percentage of abortions died, somewhere near %100. So are you admitting fetuses are being slaughtered? No, because in my book, and the book of 68% of Americans, fetuses can't be slaughtered as they are not alive.

In existence or operation; active.

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

[Skiazo]

dkong911 wrote: SleepyWeasel wrote: dkong911 wrote: A small percentage of our troops died; a high percentage of abortions died, somewhere near %100. So are you admitting fetuses are being slaughtered? No, because in my book, and the book of 68% of Americans, fetuses can't be slaughtered as they are not alive.

In existence or operation; active.

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

But you also have to acknowledge that while sperm cells are considered alive, you wouldnt consider washing a handful of them down the sink a slaughter

[Jay2014]

MrVicchio wrote: At least for now they have had thier say on the issue at the polls and not been told how it is by 9 black robed rulers...

we need the black robes to be doing more. judical review has fallen well short of abolishing unconstitutional laws in this country.

[Coral]

dkong911 wrote: SleepyWeasel wrote: Dated: Feb. 28, 2004. Just a wee bit outdated if ya ask me. Oh, and denying equal rights for Americans? Yeah, real cool.

:lol:

Denying equal rights for Americans is great!.....if you're an abortion activist.

Do they count the fetus in a census? I wasn't aware they were American citizens. I don't think anyone but the anti-abortionists are being activists.

[BTExpress]

There is a new forum for discussing issues such as this.

Gay & Lesbian
A place to discuss gay and lesbian issues such as marriage, the military and equal rights



Moved there

[F'losrix]

Majority opinion in a couple of polls is nothing more than that - an opinion held by a majority of the people polled.

[SavannahMan]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Majority opinion in a couple of polls is nothing more than that - an opinion held by a majority of the people polled.

Absolutely correct. What really counts is the results at the voting booth. Those would seem to indicate that MORE than 60% of America is opposed to gay marriage.

Arkansas 75% (2004)
Georgia 76% (2004)
Kentucky 75% (2004)
Michigan 59% (2004)
Mississippi 86% (2004)
Montana 67% (2004)
North Dakota 73% (2004)
Ohio 62% (2004)
Oklahoma 76% (2004)
Oregon 57% (2004)
Utah 66% (2004)

Nevada 67% (2002)
Hawaii 69% (1998)

Since 1998 eighteen states have elevated the prohibition against same-sex marriage to the level of a constitutional amendment, making the ban impervious to judicial incursion: Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Kansas.

In those eighteen states, the average vote was 70% in favor of the ban and 29% against. No proposal to ban gay marriage ever failed on a statewide ballot.

Oh and dont forget California 61% in 2000[/b]

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Majority opinion in a couple of polls is nothing more than that - an opinion held by a majority of the people polled.

Absolutely correct. What really counts is the results at the voting booth. Those would seem to indicate that MORE than 60% of America is opposed to gay marriage.

Arkansas 75% (2004)
Georgia 76% (2004)
Kentucky 75% (2004)
Michigan 59% (2004)
Mississippi 86% (2004)
Montana 67% (2004)
North Dakota 73% (2004)
Ohio 62% (2004)
Oklahoma 76% (2004)
Oregon 57% (2004)
Utah 66% (2004)

Nevada 67% (2002)
Hawaii 69% (1998)

Since 1998 eighteen states have elevated the prohibition against same-sex marriage to the level of a constitutional amendment, making the ban impervious to judicial incursion: Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Kansas.

In those eighteen states, the average vote was 70% in favor of the ban and 29% against. No proposal to ban gay marriage ever failed on a statewide ballot.

Oh and dont forget California 61% in 2000[/b]

so most people don't want gays to get married in this country (at least in those states and according to those polls). most people supported slavery at one time too. most supported segregation and banning interracial marriages as well. most didn't support equal rights for women at a time. most people in germany during the 1930s approved of stripping jews and homosexuals of their rights. most people thought the world was flat at one point in time.

so what is your arguement against gay marriage here? because the majority doesn't rule and if they did then all those instances i mentioned above must have been justified

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Majority opinion in a couple of polls is nothing more than that - an opinion held by a majority of the people polled.

Absolutely correct. What really counts is the results at the voting booth. Those would seem to indicate that MORE than 60% of America is opposed to gay marriage.

Arkansas 75% (2004)
Georgia 76% (2004)
Kentucky 75% (2004)
Michigan 59% (2004)
Mississippi 86% (2004)
Montana 67% (2004)
North Dakota 73% (2004)
Ohio 62% (2004)
Oklahoma 76% (2004)
Oregon 57% (2004)
Utah 66% (2004)

Nevada 67% (2002)
Hawaii 69% (1998)

Since 1998 eighteen states have elevated the prohibition against same-sex marriage to the level of a constitutional amendment, making the ban impervious to judicial incursion: Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Kansas.

In those eighteen states, the average vote was 70% in favor of the ban and 29% against. No proposal to ban gay marriage ever failed on a statewide ballot.

Oh and dont forget California 61% in 2000[/b]
So, what's your point? That a lot of people don't like the idea of gay marriage? That's hardly news. It does nothing to weaken my resolve. Banning gay marriage or homosexuality completely won't turn any gay people into heterosexuals. It won't stop them from pairing up to form family units.

The only thing these bans will accomplish is making the people who enjoy interfering in stranger's lives happy at the expense of making a whole lot of other people's lives unecessarily more difficult.

Yep, that's really something to be proud of, isn't it?

[SavannahMan]

Not to worry - my objections to gay marriage arent rooted in the fact that the majority opposes it - that was just the subject of this thread.

The assertion that polls are perhaps not always accurate was brought up - I agree with that - the only poll that matters is the voting booth and the results there have been loud and clear.

Comparisons to slavery and Nazi Germany are severely flawed though. No one is talking about "stripping rights" from homosexuals. Marriage is not a "right" any more than a driver's liscence is a right.

While I understand that the homosexual contingent loves to cry "poor me" - a quick look at the demographics of homosexuals would reveal that they are doing quite well in the education and income measurements compared to the general population.

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: Comparisons to slavery and Nazi Germany are severely flawed though. No one is talking about "stripping rights" from homosexuals. Marriage is not a "right" any more than a driver's liscence is a right.

While I understand that the homosexual contingent loves to cry "poor me" - a quick look at the demographics of homosexuals would reveal that they are doing quite well in the education and income measurements compared to the general population.

somehow i knew you'd say this. the comparison wasn't meant to show how gays are having their rights 'stripped away' like the nazis did but instead to show that the opinion of the majority is not always right and should not be considered as sole justification for something. that was the arguement

and yes, many gays do pretty well for themselves. that is something they can be proud of. however, it is never wise to generalize, and there are many gays who are poor, junkies, closeted, or have committed suicide. there's all types of people within just about every group

[ikari]

SavannahMan wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Majority opinion in a couple of polls is nothing more than that - an opinion held by a majority of the people polled.

Absolutely correct. What really counts is the results at the voting booth. Those would seem to indicate that MORE than 60% of America is opposed to gay marriage.

Arkansas 75% (2004)
Georgia 76% (2004)
Kentucky 75% (2004)
Michigan 59% (2004)
Mississippi 86% (2004)
Montana 67% (2004)
North Dakota 73% (2004)
Ohio 62% (2004)
Oklahoma 76% (2004)
Oregon 57% (2004)
Utah 66% (2004)

Nevada 67% (2002)
Hawaii 69% (1998)

Since 1998 eighteen states have elevated the prohibition against same-sex marriage to the level of a constitutional amendment, making the ban impervious to judicial incursion: Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Kansas.

In those eighteen states, the average vote was 70% in favor of the ban and 29% against. No proposal to ban gay marriage ever failed on a statewide ballot.

Oh and dont forget California 61% in 2000[/b]

When you are preventing a group from exercising their rights, percentages do not matter.

[SavannahMan]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Comparisons to slavery and Nazi Germany are severely flawed though. No one is talking about "stripping rights" from homosexuals. Marriage is not a "right" any more than a driver's liscence is a right.

While I understand that the homosexual contingent loves to cry "poor me" - a quick look at the demographics of homosexuals would reveal that they are doing quite well in the education and income measurements compared to the general population.

somehow i knew you'd say this. the comparison wasn't meant to show how gays are having their rights 'stripped away' like the nazis did but instead to show that the opinion of the majority is not always right and should not be considered as sole justification for something. that was the arguement

and yes, many gays do pretty well for themselves. that is something they can be proud of. however, it is never wise to generalize, and there are many gays who are poor, junkies, closeted, or have committed suicide. there's all types of people within just about every group

I am in agreement with both of your points. The majority is not always right - and I didnt mean to imply in any way that it was. (Although I personally believe the majority IS right in THIS case). Secondly - or course there are some individuals in every group that are not doing well - I was not trying to say that every homosexual in this country has a great job, a house, and two cars. The point I was attempting to make is that unlike African-American's who can point to statistics to show that they are disadvantaged in this country -especially educationally and economically - homosexuals can't make the same claim - because of that I find the suggestion that there is widespread discrimination against homosexuals in this country to be very suspect.

[SavannahMan]

ikari wrote:
When you are preventing a group from exercising their rights, percentages do not matter.

Does the "right" to marriage exist?

We prevent many groups from exercising this "right" to marriage (and no I dont think it is a "right"). We prevent brothers from marrying sisters, mothers from marrying sons, 50 year olds from marrying 12 year olds, poligamists from marrying as they wish. There are all sorts of restrictions of the "privledge" of getting married.

[Melchior]

SavannahMan wrote: Marriage is not a "right" any more than a driver's liscence is a right.

Regardless of government involvement (government should not be involved in the first place), we are talking about equal rights and the unlimited right to contract (marriage).

Screw the majority, we are not a democracy.

[ikari]

SavannahMan wrote: Does the "right" to marriage exist?

We prevent many groups from exercising this "right" to marriage (and no I dont think it is a "right"). We prevent brothers from marrying sisters, mothers from marrying sons, 50 year olds from marrying 12 year olds, poligamists from marrying as they wish. There are all sorts of restrictions of the "privledge" of getting married.

The right to marriage does not exist, the unlimited right to contract does. And marriage is a contract.

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Comparisons to slavery and Nazi Germany are severely flawed though. No one is talking about "stripping rights" from homosexuals. Marriage is not a "right" any more than a driver's liscence is a right.

While I understand that the homosexual contingent loves to cry "poor me" - a quick look at the demographics of homosexuals would reveal that they are doing quite well in the education and income measurements compared to the general population.

somehow i knew you'd say this. the comparison wasn't meant to show how gays are having their rights 'stripped away' like the nazis did but instead to show that the opinion of the majority is not always right and should not be considered as sole justification for something. that was the arguement

and yes, many gays do pretty well for themselves. that is something they can be proud of. however, it is never wise to generalize, and there are many gays who are poor, junkies, closeted, or have committed suicide. there's all types of people within just about every group

I am in agreement with both of your points. The majority is not always right - and I didnt mean to imply in any way that it was. (Although I personally believe the majority IS right in THIS case). Secondly - or course there are some individuals in every group that are not doing well - I was not trying to say that every homosexual in this country has a great job, a house, and two cars. The point I was attempting to make is that unlike African-American's who can point to statistics to show that they are disadvantaged in this country -especially educationally and economically - homosexuals can't make the same claim - because of that I find the suggestion that there is widespread discrimination against homosexuals in this country to be very suspect.

i agree, the comparison with african americans can't be made because they are a race of people. homosexuals exist within all races and classes. but just because homosexuals as a whole are not more disadvantaged educationally or economically certainly doesn't mean they haven't experienced discrimination and prejudice. thats why i feel really sorry for black gays, because they experience both of these types of intolerance from various groups (including many anti-gay blacks)

[SavannahMan]

There is no unlimited right to contract as it relates to marriage. A brother cant marry his sister. You are talking about getting a license here - much like a driver's license - and if you want to obtain said license you have to meet the requirements set up by the state.

[Melchior]

SavannahMan wrote: There is no unlimited right to contract as it relates to marriage. A brother cant marry his sister. You are talking about getting a license here - much like a driver's license - and if you want to obtain said license you have to meet the requirements set up by the state.

So do you approve of government involvement in marriage? What if we got government out of marriage and made it a private contract like it used to be? (and should be).

Even if government is involved, it's still an issue of equal rights. One group is not superior over another, at least not in this country. :snoot:

[SavannahMan]

Melchior wrote: SavannahMan wrote: There is no unlimited right to contract as it relates to marriage. A brother cant marry his sister. You are talking about getting a license here - much like a driver's license - and if you want to obtain said license you have to meet the requirements set up by the state.

So do you approve of government involvement in marriage? What if we got government out of marriage and made it a private contract like it used to be? (and should be).

Even if government is involved, it's still an issue of equal rights. One group is not superior over another, at least not in this country. :snoot:

I dont support making wholesale changes to the institution of marriage like that to satisfy less than 1% of the population.

No one is suggesting that one group is superior to another group.