http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Same_sex_marriage

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia!

Assuming (dangerous to do, I know) your last comment was connected to comment 71, what exactly was wrong with what he said? I’ve retreated from the local gatherings because of the slander my ex spread, and general hostility. But they accept her infidelities just fine, along with others. So I’ve tried 1 and 2, and ran into the same problem that leaves me with 3 as my only option. So at least with my lifestyle community, he’s in the black.

You’re right, it is. And really, there are three steps that you follow:

1. Ask nicely for them to stop.

2. Ask directly for them to stop

3. Make it clear to the public that these people are disgusting perverts who don’t know the difference between right and wrong, who are abusing the public trust, and who should be arrested for their refusal to obey the law.

The problem in the gay community is that it’s stuck on 1, mainly because anyone who actually sticks to their guns and goes to 2 gets the full-bore “Jewish Nazi” treatment. But you have a choice: either accept the behavior for your own personal comfort or stick up for the principles involved and take the abuse.

The Constitution exists to protect rights, John, not to deny them — and in your case, your attempts to use it to deny people their right to vote to make changes to it, a right which is clearly spelled out in it and protected by it, demonstrates that you have nothing but contempt for both the Constitution and for basic rights.

Look for the posts by Chris. Enjoy.

Livewire: I’ve already said it once here, but I’m a pragmatist so am willing to settle for civil unions for now as long as they have all the rights and responsibilities (including dropping the ban on adoptions for qualified couples) and are nationwide. Citizen Crain has been posting about this recently and I’m intrigued by what he has been saying. I do believe there is a constitutional issue here with regards to full marriage equality, but other than discussing this academically I guess, I’m willing to put this aside for the next generation to argue for. However, the religious right is not willing to compromise on this, pushing for the most stringent bans, some of which include making civil unions verboten, depending upon what they think they can get away with from state to state. They speak out of both sides of their mouths and lie about this to voters, which is one reason I have zero problems seeking redress in the courts.

Btw, it should be noted I am speaking in general terms here with labels such as “religious right”. This does not include each and every person whose political and religious views are more right of center. Obviously not all persons who hold religious faith are included either, especially since about half are either moderate or liberal and even some who are conservative do not hold to everything religious right groups believe. I am speaking mainly about these activist groups like AFA, AFTAH, FRC, etc.

I do have a question though. Whichever way the court rules, what’s the best way to address the change, in your opinion? By legislation trying to pin the court down, or by changing the composition of the court.

I would say legislation, the method I would prefer anyways in recognizing same-sex marriage. The mistake that some here are thinking is that this is an either/or proposition. Nope. I prefer the legislative route because that’s better for society and less acrimonious. As I’ve said, I’m also willing to settle for now. Yet at no time does this mean we cast aside the same right all Americans have in the judicial route when necessary. Let’s assume for the moment that the Court upholds Prop 8 in answering your question. Unless they come out with something completely outlandish, which I don’t expect, I would not support removing the Justices. It would be disappointing but that would be the time to regroup and re-strategize. Something I did like recently came from Equality Utah, which took the LDS leadership’s statements on civil unions to heart and called upon them to assist in doing so in that state. I believe the LDS leaders were a bit embarassed at their slip and have started to backtrack but even so I like that this is being tried.

If this loses for now, fine. We will continue fighting on through the best methods available. Time is on our side.

Or to explain why liberals support gay couples who are dressing up their children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs to “show off” for adults masturbating and having public sex.

I mean, I’m a lone conservative voice in the leather community, and, while I try to educate people curious about the lifestyle, too many people are louder than I. It’s hard to lobby that ‘the majority of us want to have fun behind closed doors’ when the face is stuff like comfest, NLA and Folsom street fair. I’d assume it’s the same uphill battle in the gay community. For ever GayPatriot and NDT who just want to be left the hell alone and not force their way of life on others, you have the same problems.

salvage. zzzzzz I know who and what I am, and don’t need your pathetic condemnation or validation.

Makes me very sad when bigots don’t like me.

You hate gays on some level and you don’t want to be alone in that hate so you try your darndest to keep them outside of society anyway you can. Your kind is losing and that makes you confused and angry.

Oh and since you compare gay couples with bestiality I think you may want to think about how to be civil yourself.

Or it’s okay to compare fags to that sort of thing? If anyone has sex in a way you don’t like they’re animals themselves right?

A thorough housecleaning in the gay community.

When the antireligious bigots, the racists, the sexual libertines, and the others who have been co-opting sexual orientation as an excuse for their antisocial behavior and marriage (for which they have nothing but contempt) as a proxy battle against those they dislike are eliminated, then the actual passage of partnership laws will be a piece of cake.

Better question, John; why do you refuse to acknowledge the right of voters to amend their own constitution and continue to try to disenfranchise them?

The voters have followed the rules set out in their constitution and amended it. It is only you and your fellow bigot gays who continue to try to deny the voters their legal rights, which ARE spelled out in the constitution.

In short, you are trying to change the rules because you keep losing. It is amusing beyond belief that you accuse others of not believing in constitutions or civil liberties when you pervert the use of the former and deny the latter to others.

I agree it is a long trying process to change a society. Civil unions (or as I call it ‘fred’) is the first step. Legal recongition of monogomus two partner contracts of people for the same sex. Some might dismiss this step, but it is needed, both to ‘prove’ that the institution needs to exist, and to give society time to assimilate the change. This is how societies change in times of peace. To be seasonal, this is how Christmas became celebrated on the 25th.

The 0-30 record is a sign that society is not going to currently accept gay marriage as marriage. The demographics are on the ‘marriage’ side, but how long to wait for the whole pie, or grab the slice. Florida, who’s laws are more hostile than Ohio’s are a sign that the baby boomers (for all their tollerance and the 60’s) will need to change/die off. And who knows? With immigration and social changes, if you don’t grab now, you might not get the whole pie later. Another reason for the establishment of ‘fred’.

As to the revision vs. Ammendment, INAL, but it does seem like sour grapes, and a reach. Personally, I hope that just as the MA supreme court upheld the 1913 citizenship law, the court will leave well enough alone for now, rather than upset more voters. Plus the precident it sets is bad. But I accept that you and I are never going to agree on the role of the courts in law.

I do have a question though. Whichever way the court rules, what’s the best way to address the change, in your opinion? By legislation trying to pin the court down, or by changing the composition of the court.

salvage. you know nothing. Nothing about me nothing about how to be civil. Your postings are full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, and singifying nothing. Please stop projecting and go somewhere your rantings will be appriciated. I hear daily kos still has room.

However two women having sex is fantastic and I do encourage that sort of thing.

Now I’m done with you.

Which the people of California did.

iff they did then 2/3’s of the state legislature would have referred this matter to the People as required by the CA Constitution in cases of revision. Now, of course, you will insist that Prop 8 was an amendment and not a revision while I will continue to maintain otherwise. So guess who that leaves to decide the matter? You got it! The CA Supremes.

Of course all of this is academic anyways since you don’t believe in constitutions or civil liberties.

And yet, oddly enough, in Baker v. Nelson, the very same Supreme Court that decided Loving, which overturned a state law that banned interracial marriage, let stand a state law and decision that banned gay marriage.

Indeed. Of course this is at the Federal level and not the California state level. And just like rulings some conservatives don’t like (Roe springs to mind), the matter will continue to be argued – or are you saying that efforts like Heller were wrong to reverse previous rulings that a later generation found wanting? Btw, since you raise this issue does that mean that you now accept the CA Court’s authority in their May ruling and whatever they may decide regarding Prop 8 or are you trying to have it both ways?

This is all part of salvage’s rhetoric about how “consensual sex is no one’s business” and how gays should be allowed to have sex with whomever they want in the “pursuit of happiness”.

Of course, how liberal gays like salvage define “fidelity” and “forsaking all others” looks very different.

Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”

Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”

Add to that the Beyond Marriage manifesto, which calls for sibling marriage and marriage for “households with more than one conjugal partner”, and what it makes obvious is that salvage and his fellow liberal gays care nothing about what marriage means and are demanding that people accept and endorse whatever combination salvage and his ilk want.

Which the people of California did. But now, since John doesn’t like the result, he tries to argue that it’s wrong — which makes it obvious that he doesn’t believe in or support the principles he is trying to espouse, and that he would try the same tricks if it were the US Constitution.

Marriage has been defined as a right since at least Loving v. Virginia, if not earlier in Perez.

And yet, oddly enough, in Baker v. Nelson, the very same Supreme Court that decided Loving, which overturned a state law that banned interracial marriage, let stand a state law and decision that banned gay marriage.

So explain again: how does a “right” only apply to one set of people?

And gays will be right there saying its their “right”!

When robots are given the same rights as humans in the Constitution, I’ll worry about it then. After 219 years, we’re still don’t quite got the equal rights and equality thing for all humans yet.