DOMA WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Mega-Bear]

You guys
some christians don't feel comfortable with gay marriage because they follow a religion where God intended marriage to be for a man and a woman
why are you trying to force your opinion on them

It's not really "forcing an opinion." People are ready to treat gays equally and there are some who stand in the way of that. If we don't try to sway the opposition then how can progress be made at all? Although I agree a lot of people get too forceful from time to time.

Supreme Court get off your slow poke ass already declare the more important issues like NDAA, Patriot Act, and NSA actions unconstitutional.

Agreed.

moderate here

nobody else but you and i are moderates here

I'm a moderate, but when it comes to equality I'm pretty vehement. Economics, meh, I lean left but if a fiscal conservative is in office it doesn't bother me.

[Ad Bot]

[Kearn]

I think you might be loving handicapped, because first of all I know you know we're not a democracy. Or at least hope you know that. I might be mistaken but the reason we were set up as a republic was to avoid exactly what you said. We don't live by majority rule and we don't want too either. There are quite a few reasons why majority rule is awful, but I think you might be able to think of some.

ad hominem, good start a+

we democratically elect our representatives (and senators because some other idiots decided that state legislatures appointing senators was bad (also promoted by democrat woodrow wilson and the progressive movement)) and whichever party has the most representatives is a majority and we vote for our own state propositions via directly democratic methods

or is that too hard to infer

[Doomonkey]

Democratic methods in a republic do not make it a democracy. Some aspects function as a democracy, but in general, it is not a democracy.

[Bahamut]

why are you trying to force your opinion on them

when did we force it on them
as far as i know we've just been following our own opinions/religions unless i'm wrong

[devildogelite]

ad hominem, good start a+

we democratically elect our representatives (and senators because some other idiots decided that state legislatures appointing senators was bad) and whichever party has the most representatives is a majority and we vote for our own state propositions via directly democratic methods

or is that too hard to infer

Yes, ad hominem. Whole argument is invalid, the whole thing.

We do not have majority rules, that is not what our government was intended for. Yes of course we elect people to represent our interests. That doesn't mean it's a battle royale anything goes system. Our elected legislatures also have to follow the constitution. No where in the constitution does it say that gays are sub human, does it?

[Kearn]

No where in the constitution does it say that gays are sub human, does it?

this is exactly my point, nowhere does it say anything about them at all

therefore it is delegated to the states through the 10th amendment and the states are allowed to let the public vote democratically whether or not to ban marriage a la proposition 8

[lolz??]

Saw this coming a mile away, enjoy arguing everybody

[Doomonkey]

this is exactly my point, nowhere does it say anything about them at all

therefore it is delegated to the states through the 10th amendment and the states are allowed to let the public vote democratically whether or not to ban marriage a la proposition 8

It is debatable whether or not marriage falls under this section of Amendment 14

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[hodototman]

It is debatable whether or not marriage falls under this section of Amendment 14

it does, holy stuff

i need to read up on the constitution

[Night Fox]

either works

"Hypocrisy and irony are words with different meanings, used in different contexts.

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, ideals, thoughts, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Irony refers to if the result of something which is the opposite of what was expected; an ironic event is one at odds with what might have been intended or expected.

I can see how you could think the meanings are similar, but this should help to make the definitions clearer:
So an example of hypocrisy would be a person who claims they hate people who fake tan, but does it his/herself.
An example of irony would be a person who works at a tanning salon, but is as fair and pale as ever."

[Kearn]

It is debatable whether or not marriage falls under this section of Amendment 14

then the same arguably applies to not making unemployment benefits indefinite because they might not have enough money without them to get everything they want

edit woops that was worded weird

But just so we understand Kearn's world views, if I'm not mistaken he said that the regulation that the early 20th century meat packing industry was bullstuff. I know that topic isn't relevant to the discussion, but it gives you a decent view into how his mind works.

man you really cling onto that pretty desperately huh

but ok sure it makes sense that you would eat raw meat instead of cooking it first

[Doomonkey]

an ironic event is one at odds with what might have been intended or expected.

Even though this is a rather limited definition, I'll work with it.

So an example of hypocrisy would be a person who claims they hate people who fake tan, but does it his/herself.

Would not that be an ironic event when the crusader against those who fake tan partakes in the evils of fake tanning? Is not that the opposite of what one might expect?

So the person may be described as a hypocrite, but the event they did might have been ironic. If one claimed to be against making bashing posts, and then made a bashing post, that would make them a hypocrite. The action of posting a bashing post would be ironic, because you would not expect that from one who is against bashing.

Both do apply, but in slightly different ways.

[devildogelite]

But just so we understand Kearn's world views, if I'm not mistaken he said that the regulation that the early 20th century meat packing industry was bullstuff. I know that topic isn't relevant to the discussion, but it gives you a decent view into how his mind works.


So kearn, what do you think of abortion. I'm wondering if you're 100% against it or think it's a state issue.

[King of the Bill]

Personally I've always wondered why they don't replace the legal use of "marriage" with "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or something like that so the religious people can go save their oh-so-holy-yet-still-sinful-marriage and so that gays get equal rights.

I know that the bible says love is a sin as well. Funny how you don't get religious people wanting to sanction it.

[Kearn]

So kearn, what do you think of abortion. I'm wondering if you're 100% against it or think it's a state issue.

against it but state issue, roe v wade should be overturned and it should go to the states to decide

I know that the bible says love is a sin as well. Funny how you don't get religious people wanting to sanction it.

dumbest thing i've ever heard, source to verse(s) or go away