Gay Marriage Ruling

[zk]

“It’s funny that you concede almost all of my points yet I don’t see you being a cheerleader for incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy.”

First of all, I didn’t concede almost all of your points.

And if incest rights, lowering the age of consent or eliminating the prohibition against polygamy were the issues being debated here, perhaps I would be a cheerleader for them. But they’re not.

“Apparently the homesexual ‘lobby’ has strong enough financial backing to build the grassroots groundswell of support.”

No, but they do have the enlightened portion of the population on their side.

“As to being brainwashed, that’s YOUR opinion. I could argue that many of your views are the result of ‘brainwashing’ by the media and your liberal idealogues.”

If that’s what you want to argue, then argue it and we’ll go from there. But I think you also think they were brainwashed and I don’t think you’re ready to say that they weren’t.

“your liberal idealogues.”
I don’t have any liberal idealogues. I come up with my own ideas.

“Finally, you may disagree with the notion of ‘social norms’ but they are a fact of life unless you are a hermit. Even if you were living in a commune, there would be things that are aren’t ‘acceptable’.”

Meet meadandale. And welcome to the 1950’s. Just because something doesn’t conform doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

“Cannibalism, murder, polygamy, etc ad nauseum–virtually anything that you can think of is subject to cultural and societal influences. Human sacrifice used to be common amongst some quite advanced cultures. Today we mostly frown upon it. How come? We certainly don’t have a problem killing our enemies. Why not capture them live and gut them on an altar to appease our ‘god’?”

We as a society have fortunately moved to a place where doing things that harm others is usually illegal. We frown upon human sacrifice because it causes harm to an innocent person. Do you really need me to answer that for you?

[DWCAP]

damnit, it did post, sorry about that.

MDale.

You bring up a very compelling argument. I have not properly considered all aspects of what you say. Society is responsible for dictating acceptable behavior of those in the society for the saftey and happness of those same people. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is drawn is arbitrary and debateable. Why not just let people do whatever they want, whenever and to WHOM ever they want? That is what nature does. Nature says survival of the fittest, so why do we include more? If we do, it will impede on someones right to do something. But if we dont intercede, civilization as we know it will crash. So, then what is acceptable intercession into peoples behavior? Interesting mind games. Need to think about that.

[DWCAP]

damnit, it did post, sorry about that.

MDale.

You bring up a very compelling argument. I have not properly considered all aspects of what you say. Society is responsible for dictating acceptable behavior of those in the society for the saftey and happness of those same people. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is drawn is arbitrary and debateable. Why not just let people do whatever they want, whenever and to WHOM ever they want? That is what nature does. Nature says survival of the fittest, so why do we include more? If we do, it will impede on someones right to do something. But if we dont intercede, civilization as we know it will crash. So, then what is acceptable intercession into peoples behavior? Interesting mind games. Need to think about that.

[DWCAP]

damnit, it did post, sorry about that.

MDale.

You bring up a very compelling argument. I have not properly considered all aspects of what you say. Society is responsible for dictating acceptable behavior of those in the society for the saftey and happness of those same people. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is drawn is arbitrary and debateable. Why not just let people do whatever they want, whenever and to WHOM ever they want? That is what nature does. Nature says survival of the fittest, so why do we include more? If we do, it will impede on someones right to do something. But if we dont intercede, civilization as we know it will crash. So, then what is acceptable intercession into peoples behavior? Interesting mind games. Need to think about that.

[DWCAP]

damnit, it did post, sorry about that.

MDale.

You bring up a very compelling argument. I have not properly considered all aspects of what you say. Society is responsible for dictating acceptable behavior of those in the society for the saftey and happness of those same people. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is drawn is arbitrary and debateable. Why not just let people do whatever they want, whenever and to WHOM ever they want? That is what nature does. Nature says survival of the fittest, so why do we include more? If we do, it will impede on someones right to do something. But if we dont intercede, civilization as we know it will crash. So, then what is acceptable intercession into peoples behavior? Interesting mind games. Need to think about that.

[DWCAP]

damnit, it did post, sorry about that.

MDale.

You bring up a very compelling argument. I have not properly considered all aspects of what you say. Society is responsible for dictating acceptable behavior of those in the society for the saftey and happness of those same people. Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is drawn is arbitrary and debateable. Why not just let people do whatever they want, whenever and to WHOM ever they want? That is what nature does. Nature says survival of the fittest, so why do we include more? If we do, it will impede on someones right to do something. But if we dont intercede, civilization as we know it will crash. So, then what is acceptable intercession into peoples behavior? Interesting mind games. Need to think about that.

[sd_matt]

Asianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.

First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.

While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.

[sd_matt]

Asianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.

First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.

While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.

[sd_matt]

Asianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.

First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.

While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.

[sd_matt]

Asianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.

First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.

While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.

[sd_matt]

Asianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.

First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.

While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.

[Anonymous]

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

The truth is I love being in a man’s arms so much, I wouldn’t choose anything else, darling. 🙂

[Anonymous]

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

The truth is I love being in a man’s arms so much, I wouldn’t choose anything else, darling. 🙂

[Anonymous]

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

The truth is I love being in a man’s arms so much, I wouldn’t choose anything else, darling. 🙂

[Anonymous]

In any event, like Marion, I woke up this morning and chose to be straight:)

pabloesqobar

The truth is I love being in a man’s arms so much, I wouldn’t choose anything else, darling. 🙂

[Author]

Posts