Gay marriage

[mightymouse]

Oligarchy has nothing to do with the rich. Once again, i suggest you refer to a dictionary then get back to me. Being a constitutional republic means we are governed by elected representatives. This was never able to be passed by legislatures because the vast majority of people do not want it. What you are effectively saying is that we as a people do not get a say in the laws that govern us...small groups of appointed offiicials get to tell us what laws we live by.

I'll admit to confusing plutocracy with oligarchy. Thanks for the advice on the dictionary. Now, get a good civics book and do some reading yourself. The Supreme Court decides court cases where questions of constitutionality are involved. They don't listen to the will of the people, and they are not beholden to elected representatives. In this case they decided that the EPC of the 14th amendment applies to a rather unpopular minority--some surprise, isn't it, since the 14th was adopted to protect the newly freed slaves in post Civil War America. But that's the way it works in a constitutional Republic--the rule of law protects unpopular minorities from the ill will of the popular majority.

 

[mightymouse]

Seriously, if you don't know how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court of the United States of American, please stop discussing constitutional law.

I happen to know how many justices sit on SCOTUS. It was SoonerATC who referred to "a panel of 7 people". I merely qouted him.

 

[Dave70968]

Not really. Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents, but that is hardly the case. Especially since there are multiple reasons to vote for one candidate.

Actually, I think he's talking about California's Proposition 8, Oklahoma's constitutional amendment question, etc. He's right insofar as a larger sample size gives--ceteris paribus--a more accurate result, but he fails to account for selection bias, specifically that the more passionate one's beliefs, the more likely one is to go vote.

More importantly, he fails remember that rights aren't up for a vote, nor are they subject to a public opinion poll. In his misguided world, if a majority of people were to say that "guns are bad, mmm'kay," we'd have to get rid of them

Rights are rights. They're owed to each and every individual person, and they cannot properly be abridged. No matter how large the majority, you cannot vote away somebody's right to equal protection under the law.

 

[Ignored Member]

Is it worse to molest a kid of your same sex?

what the F*** are you talking about? Your weird obsession with child molestation is quite disturbing.

 

[mightymouse]

More importantly, he fails remember that rights aren't up for a vote, nor are they subject to a public opinion poll.

Rights are rights. They're owed to each and every individual person, and they cannot properly be abridged. No matter how large the majority, you cannot vote away somebody's right to equal protection under the law.

Well said, sir!

 

[caojyn]

what the F*** are you talking about? Your weird obsession with child molestation is quite disturbing.

You're cute

 

[farmerbyron]

Actually, I think he's talking about California's Proposition 8, Oklahoma's constitutional amendment question, etc. He's right insofar as a larger sample size gives--ceteris paribus--a more accurate result, but he fails to account for selection bias, specifically that the more passionate one's beliefs, the more likely one is to go vote.

More importantly, he fails remember that rights aren't up for a vote, nor are they subject to a public opinion poll. In his misguided world, if a majority of people were to say that "guns are bad, mmm'kay," we'd have to get rid of them

Rights are rights. They're owed to each and every individual person, and they cannot properly be abridged. No matter how large the majority, you cannot vote away somebody's right to equal protection under the law.

It's disturbing how many people do not understand this very basic principle. Yet they all are most likely waving a Gadsden flag chanting "Don't tread on me" without a clue what it all actually means.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

It's disturbing how many people do not understand this very basic principle. Yet they all are most likely waving a Gadsden flag chanting "Don't tread on me" without a clue what it all actually means.

Not one single poster in this thread has offered any input on how allowing gays to marry would have a negative effect on their lives. Lots of bigots, homophobes, and closet homosexuals here on OSA.

 

[Coded-Dude]

my life has changed because now i have friends, both male and female, who can now make decisions on their future with the one they love..... whether that be through last wishes, hospital visits, inheritance, or something similar. they at least have a better option than before. to try and claim it impacts me negatively would be insincere and uncouth. /never married heterosexual

 

[Junior Bonner]

Not one single poster in this thread has offered any input on how allowing gays to marry would have a negative effect on their lives. Lots of bigots, homophobes, and closet homosexuals here on OSA.

Generally speaking, rampant, openly tolerated homosexuality marks a civilization's high water mark. This realization of the penultimate apogee in societal evolution transcends a basic human drive to procreate in the fundamental sense.

Hence, the benefactored societal component is set to be superseded by an ascendant culture. Case in point, the Anglo Saxon domination is set to become subordinated to the influx of Latin Americans who are less aesthetic in their enlightenment and have the highest fecundity rate in the world.