NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/

Are you not happy?

“Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit,” Bruning said.

I hate that line of thought that if the majority wants it, they should have it.

I hate that line of thought that if the majority wants it, they should have it.
Tyranny by the majority

I hate that line of thought that if the majority wants it, they should have it.

He's basically saying it's a state right, and that the states have that right to define marriage.

I hate that line of thought that if the majority wants it, they should have it.

I agree with you, 50 years ago a bunch of people were against the equal rights for blacks music in the south. If the US federal govt. let states like Mississippi make their own laws it would have been hell.

In another 50 years some guy could be typing the same thing I just typed except the word blacks will be replaced with homosexuals.

Hooray for tyranny of the majority! America will be a much better place when we do away with that pesky "equality under the law" notion that the Founders forgot to erase from their drafts. Once we let the controlling majority take rights away from the minority on a whim, America can become the great, moral, badass nation it is meant to be!

Remember, you have no rights other than those given to you by a majority of your neighbors, so don't diss on anybody's potroast at the church picknick!

He's basically saying it's a state right, and that the states have that right to define marriage.

Yeah well sometimes people dont know whats best for them and everyone else in their f***** up state known as Nebraska.

He's basically saying it's a state right, and that the states have that right to define marriage.
but states dont have the right to discriminate--this is a flawed ruling

Here 51% controls the other 49% without question.

He's basically saying it's a state right, and that the states have that right to define marriage.

I understand what he's saying, and I disagree with it. The citizens do not have the right to shape their constitution however they want. Our form of government exists to prevent 51% of the population from running roughshod over the other 49% if they want to just because they can.

I understand what he's saying, and I disagree with it. The citizens do not have the right to shape their constitution however they want. Our form of government exists to prevent 51% of the population from running roughshod over the other 49% if they want to just because they can.
The problem with our system of checks and balances is that it is very sensitive.

Hooray for tyranny of the majority! America will be a much better place when we do away with that pesky "equality under the law" notion that the Founders forgot to erase from their drafts. Once we let the controlling majority take rights away from the minority on a whim, America can become the great, moral, badass nation it is meant to be!

Remember, you have no rights other than those given to you by a majority of your neighbors, so don't diss on anybody's potroast at the church picknick!

You could not be more right! Go up to any number of the 70% of those nebraskans. Set up a phony voting booth and play a little game called "Getting a Taste of Your Own Medicine!" Than have a bunch of people vote to get rid of something he loves just so (s)he can see what it feels like. Such as if they like cigarettes, ban cigarettes from them. Than say, no, its better for and your neighbors if you dont smoke.

Good on him. Am glad to see a judge have the courage and strength of his convictions to do something like this. Hope more follow his lead.

Sometimes the minority need protection from the bigotry of the majority.

Unfortunately though, its not enough. This doesnt even make it legal in Nebraska, just not illegal. Wht the US needs to do is pass a nationwide law allowing gays to get married. What some idiots dont realize is that being gay is not a choice. I dont get whats so hard to understand about that. You have just about as much being gay as you do being a man. By that I mean a man can change himself into a woman but although he may look a little more like a woman, hes still a man on the inside.

Unfortunately though, its not enough. This doesnt even make it legal in Nebraska, just not illegal. Wht the US needs to do is pass a nationwide law allowing gays to get married. What some idiots dont realize is that being gay is not a choice. I dont get whats so hard to understand about that. You have just about as much being gay as you do being a man. By that I mean a man can change himself into a woman but although he may look a little more like a woman, hes still a man on the inside.

Unless he has the operation and takes the hormones. Then he does become a she, in my opinion anyway :D.

and I agree with you that being gay isn't a choice but the anti-gay people can't admit that, even if they believe it which a lot of them don't, because that would blow most of their arguements against gay rights out of the water.

One thing that puzzles me is that I've noticed a lot of the anti-gay people are only shooting their verbal cannons at gay men. Lesbians are either ignored or grudgingly accepted. Why the double standard?

I understand what he's saying, and I disagree with it. The citizens do not have the right to shape their constitution however they want. Our form of government exists to prevent 51% of the population from running roughshod over the other 49% if they want to just because they can.

Well it is Amendment #10. But I agree with your points on tyranny by majority.

Unless he has the operation and takes the hormones. Then he does become a she, in my opinion anyway :D.

and I agree with you that being gay isn't a choice but the anti-gay people can't admit that, even if they believe it which a lot of them don't, because that would blow most of their arguements against gay rights out of the water.

One thing that puzzles me is that I've noticed a lot of the anti-gay people are only shooting their verbal cannons at gay men. Lesbians are either ignored or grudgingly accepted. Why they double standard?

Duh, they are horny they like watching lesbians.

Question how did the word "duh" Russian for yes, become a way to say obviously. Must of been during the Red Scare, what say you?

So far, the only real argument I've ever heard from anti-gay people is the bible. NEWS FLASH - NOT ALL AMERICANS ARE CHRISTIANS!

Saying "Homosexuality is wrong because God doesn't like it!" Is not a credible argument.

And by the way, I commend that judge, all I want to know is why nobody did what he did sooner.

Yes, I am not happy.

Yes, I am not happy.
Thats ok you dont have to be

The vast majority of people would vote to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide. I don't think we should let the majority rule. If the majority ruled I'd have to buy water from the same people who sell crack. Persons are smart. People are stupid.

http://www.dhmo.org/

Well, he asked.

Homosexuality is so unproductive.

Homosexuality is so unproductive.
So is love

Funny how when it's a Clinton appointee upholding the Constitution, it's an "activist judge" and judicial power comes under review; but when it's a Bush appointee spitting on the Constitution, it's a "good moral victory for the United States".

I wonder if the Wrong (I refuse to call them Right) will ever get over Clinton.

Homosexuality is so unproductive.

So is NS General.

Someone should get the judge a really hot boyfriend. :D

Actually, Love is very productive.
if nobody loved anyone else the world would be way more chaotic.

So is NS General.
LOL :fluffle:

Actually, Love is very productive.
if nobody loved anyone else the world would be way more chaotic.
Oh? I see love CREATE chaos all the time

Homosexuality is so unproductive.

Wait wait wait wait ...

Something has occured to me.

If a man is sterile and/or his woman barron, should they not be allowed to marry? It's just as unproductive. Oh wait, you mean sex has a purpose *beyond* creating a brood? Wow ... who'd have thunk it.

Trust me, Kholar, when the poets write about love, they ain't writin' about makin' babies. Nobody gives a rat's ass if sex is "productive" or not. It feels good and it gets you naked and close to someone you love. If that ain't productive, I don't know what is.

I'm serious, if no one cared about anyone else all sorts of crap would go unpunished. But what is homosexuality good for, other than grossing some people out and spreading the occasional STD?

I'm serious, if no one cared about anyone else all sorts of crap would go unpunished. But what is homosexuality good for, other than grossing some people out and spreading the occasional STD?

Homosexuality has little to do with sex. Can you not grasp that two men or two women can actually love each other, care about each other, wish to spend the rest of their lives together, and affirm that love through ritual ceremony?

Does love not come into your equation, Kholar?

I'm serious, if no one cared about anyone else all sorts of crap would go unpunished. But what is homosexuality good for, other than grossing some people out and spreading the occasional STD?
Lol people can care for other people without being in love with them

Homosexuality is not an act it is a feeling homosexual is what someone is not what they do its like saying what is hetrosexuality good for it does not make sence

In case you can't tell I'm trying to think like a robot. I thought it might be interesting. OK, actually seriously I can think of several objections to homosexuality but you wouldn't accept them so I'm not evan going to start.

Homosexuality is not an act it is a feeling homosexual is what someone is not what they do its like saying what is hetrosexuality good for it does not make sence

Actually, heterosexuality is good for grossing some people out and spreading the occasional STD.

In case you can't tell I'm trying to think like a robot. I thought it might be interesting. OK, actually seriously I can think of several objections to homosexuality but you wouldn't accept them so I'm not evan going to start.


Robots don't think. Robots are programmed. You're doing a very good job of that. Now, dance monkey!

In case you can't tell I'm trying to think like a robot. I thought it might be interesting. OK, actually seriously I can think of several objections to homosexuality but you wouldn't accept them so I'm not evan going to start.
I would accept them if you prove they are valid ... but I highly doubt that you could I dont just accpet things at face value ... ANYthing

Unfortunately though, its not enough. This doesnt even make it legal in Nebraska, just not illegal. Wht the US needs to do is pass a nationwide law allowing gays to get married. What some idiots dont realize is that being gay is not a choice. I dont get whats so hard to understand about that. You have just about as much being gay as you do being a man. By that I mean a man can change himself into a woman but although he may look a little more like a woman, hes still a man on the inside.

Thanks for calling me an idiot there... :rolleyes:

My personal convictions have me believe that love is a choice. Y'see, love is not a series of chemical reactions and imbalances. It's a set of decisions that lead up to a caring of another person. Lust on the other hand is based upon chemical reactions. I'm gonna be stepping on a limb here and say that most people, at one point or another, get stimulated (if only slightly) by people of the same sex. It doesn't happen with me often, but I choose to love those of the opposite sex.

So, technically, I can't see anyone "falling in love". They can fall in lust, but not love.

Just my .02 cents.

"people can care for other people without being in love with them"

I was talking about platonic love but whatever....
anyways. Like I said I'm not even going to seriously get into this discussion because I've done it before and it's hopeless.

Plus since I don't know everything. ( yes that's right I just admitted it :D )
I would have to eventually defer to more knowledgable people.

Thanks for calling me an idiot there... :rolleyes:

My personal convictions have me believe that love is a choice. Y'see, love is not a series of chemical reactions and imbalances. It's a set of decisions that lead up to a caring of another person. Lust on the other hand is based upon chemical reactions. I'm gonna be stepping on a limb here and say that most people, at one point or another, get stimulated (if only slightly) by people of the same sex. It doesn't happen with me often, but I choose to love those of the opposite sex.

So, technically, I can't see anyone "falling in love". They can fall in lust, but not love.

Just my .02 cents.

So you activly chose who you are attracted to?

So you activly chose who you are attracted to?

No, I activly choose whom I love. Love has nothing to do with attraction. That's the mistake many make in their thinking. Lust is the attraction part. Love is the caring. I can't choose whom I lust after, but I can choose whom I love.

I can't choose whom I lust after, but I can choose whom I love.

Then you, my friend, have never truly known love.

"Thanks for calling me an idiot there..."

If you hang around any forum for too long you'll get used to it. And If certain people call you an idiot then you know your right :p

Then you, my friend, have never truly known love.

Actually, I have. I'm currently in a year and a half relationship with a wonderful woman. I know that I'd die for her. Yes, I was attracted, but then, when I knew (or felt that I knew) she could be "the one", I decided that I would devote myself to her. The same went for her about me. Next year, if we're still together, I plan to make the commitment final and ask her to marry me.

What we don't realize is that we relate hating with choice. One can choose to hate their neighbor, as one can just as easily choose to love him/her. It's a choice issue. Physical attraction is completely different, and in no way, for me, ties in with true love. True love is way more than that.

No, I activly choose whom I love. Love has nothing to do with attraction. That's the mistake many make in their thinking. Lust is the attraction part. Love is the caring. I can't choose whom I lust after, but I can choose whom I love.
If so what is wrong with me choosing someone of the same thing (as you say lust is sepperate from love) what is wrong with me loving and marying someone that I care for? even if they are of the same sex
Even if I am hetrosexual

If so what is wrong with me choosing someone of the same thing (as you say lust is sepperate from love) what is wrong with me loving and marying someone that I care for? even if they are of the same sex
Even if I am hetrosexual

And for that matter, whats wrong with choosing to love someone you lust after? Why not have it all? Lust within marriage isn't considered "a sin" as far as I know.

Actually, I have. I'm currently in a year and a half relationship with a wonderful woman. I know that I'd die for her. Yes, I was attracted, but then, when I knew (or felt that I knew) she could be "the one", I decided that I would devote myself to her. The same went for her about me. Next year, if we're still together, I plan to make the commitment final and ask her to marry me.

What we don't realize is that we relate hating with choice. One can choose to hate their neighbor, as one can just as easily choose to love him/her. It's a choice issue. Physical attraction is completely different, and in no way, for me, ties in with true love. True love is way more than that.
But some of us just "know" right then ... no decision we just LOVE with our whole heart it was NOT a decision

If so what is wrong with me choosing someone of the same thing (as you say lust is sepperate from love) what is wrong with me loving and marying someone that I care for? even if they are of the same sex
Even if I am hetrosexual

I never said it was wrong. I was defending my belief that love is a choice, not if homosexuality is wrong. (Personal convictions have me believe it is, but that was beside the point.)

And for that matter, whats wrong with choosing to love someone you lust after? Why not have it all? Lust within marriage isn't considered "a sin" as far as I know.
Very true though as u and I know its not really a total choice ... I chose to date someone I did not choose the love that happened

I never said it was wrong. I was defending my belief that love is a choice, not if homosexuality is wrong. (Personal convictions have me believe it is, but that was beside the point.)
Well for me love was never a choice ... it happened beyond the concious I was just IN love

And for that matter, whats wrong with choosing to love someone you lust after? Why not have it all? Lust within marriage isn't considered "a sin" as far as I know.

Again, I didn't say it was wrong. I lusted after my girlfriend, but the lust contributed to my love for her. It wasn't a key factor.

But some of us just "know" right then ... no decision we just LOVE with our whole heart it was NOT a decision

Some people decide to love quicker than others. It may be even compulsary to love others without a second thought. My whole point is that it's a decision made, be it immediate or over time.

EDIT: As an addendum, I personally believe that true love and love are two completely different things. You can care for your family and friends, enjoy spending time with them, and what not. This is love. You can even love your pet. True love is the ultimate choice to devote yourself utterly and completely to someone. It's something that, no matter how you may feel about that person at one time or another, you'll stick with them, through thick and thin. True Love is beyond feeling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/

Are you not happy?



YAY!!!

Nay!!

YAY!!!

I second that.

Love is a chemical reaction like any other.

It's subject to both nature and nurture, like most psychological conditions.

I've concluded that people who think that the majority can take rights away from the minority fall into one of two categories:

1. They've never read the Consitution, whether because they are too lazy or they simply cannot read. People who think they know what they are talking about fit into this category. However, they couldn't tell you the 9th amendment from the 24th amendment to save their lives.
2. People who have read the Consitution, but don't think it applies to anyone but people who look and think like them.

Any other categories I'm missing?

And for that, I'm off to watch Robot Chicken on [adult swim], because I love that show. ;)

I'll be back in about half an hour, if anyone else will still be here...

EDIT: Ack! Alas and alak I am befuddled! Robot Chicken does not come on for yet another half hour. T.T I suppose that I can hang around until then...

Love is a chemical reaction like any other.

It's subject to both nature and nurture, like most psychological conditions.

So, aside from a chemical reaction, what do you view to be love? True love, I mean.

(Now I'm really off. If you reply, I'll reply to you when I get back in 30 minutes or so.)