NationStates Jolt Archive

Essential point right there in the title. Why do I say this? A few simple reasons:

1. In my district(not entirely certain which number at the moment) Tancredo once again beat out a respectable opponent by acting completely out of character for his entire campaign.

2. Amendment 43, a somewhat redundent measure to begin with, was passed, defining marriage in Colorado as a union between one man and one woman.

3. Referendum I, basic legal rights for gay couples--a domestic partnership law, if you will--was voted down.

4. Marilyn Musgrave, current incumbant of House District 4 and staunch Bush supporter is projected to win over a just a wee bit better than her in a Kerry kind of way Democrat Angie Pachionne.

5. Amendment 44, a sensible measure that would free up quite a bit of currently unnecesserily used room in Colorado prisons by allowing possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults 21 years of age or old was solidly struck down.

At least Bob Beuprez was defeated by Bill Ritter for the governership. But it's just ridiculous the way Colorado voters have reacted over the past twenty-four hours. Referendum I and Amendment 43 especially confuse and disgust me with the way they were voted down and passed respectively. How people can think they can force their own moral values on others and deam homosexuals as second-class citizens at best simply because of their own religious beliefs will NEVER make sense to me. It's stupid. It's wrong. But, that's Colorado for you, proving again that idiocy can and probably always will trump sensibility.

I love America.

I'd suggest moving away. Apparently there's no cure for stupidity no matter where you go, so find a place a little more sensible and settle there.

fuck colorado. I still can't believe they fucked up the new cap system. Theodore is far too unreliable.

But it's just ridiculous the way Colorado voters have reacted over the past twenty-four hours. Referendum I and Amendment 43 especially confuse and disgust me with the way they were voted down and passed respectively. How people can think they can force their own moral values on others and deam homosexuals as second-class citizens at best simply because of their own religious beliefs will NEVER make sense to me. It's stupid. It's wrong. But, that's Colorado for you, proving again that idiocy can and probably always will trump sensibility.

I know how you feel...my state passed a no gay-marriage amendment today as well.

I might just move...I don't feel like living in a state where bigotry is written into the constitution.

Sadly, my options seem to be more and more limited with each election. :(

I'd suggest moving away. Apparently there's no cure for stupidity no matter where you go, so find a place a little more sensible and settle there.

I don't think so.

1. I'm only nineteen, and my current job is at Wendy's, a fast food restaurant.

2. I love Colorado itself too much to do so. The environment, the climate, the football team(Broncos) and the general FEEL of the people is too much for me to give up.

Besides, I'm painting a slightly bleaker picture than there really is right now. I suspect changes will start coming soon. And hopefully, when I am able, I can enact some of those changes, since I plan on going into local politics at some point.

Delator: I share your feelings on that regard. But, as sad as it is, there are few states left that haven't passed such amendments. We can't escape them right now. Hopefully, however, we will see them overturned eventually.

fuck colorado. I still can't believe they fucked up the new cap system. Theodore is far too unreliable.

Go Buffalo!

I don't think so.

1. I'm only nineteen, and my current job is at Wendy's, a fast food restaurant.

2. I love Colorado itself too much to do so. The environment, the climate, the football team(Broncos) and the general FEEL of the people is too much for me to give up.


There are other fast food restaurants, no matter where you go. ;)

I'm guessing you haven't been many places yet. Most of the world is simply beautiful and great, you just have to pick the area that offers most for you.
That's why I left Germany, but came back to Europe anyway eventually. :)

Let my cow alone . . . dont get horny . . .:fluffle: :sniper:

Gay :upyours:

There are other fast food restaurants, no matter where you go. ;)

I'm guessing you haven't been many places yet. Most of the world is simply beautiful and great, you just have to pick the area that offers most for you.
That's why I left Germany, but came back to Europe anyway eventually. :)
Actually, I've lived in quite a few different places around the U.S. I'd start listing them, but I'm quite tired, as I've been up for well over twenty hours now.

In fact, I should probably go to sleep.

Alrighty then. Well...we know which state is going first!:p

Delator: I share your feelings on that regard. But, as sad as it is, there are few states left that haven't passed such amendments. We can't escape them right now. Hopefully, however, we will see them overturned eventually.

Not going to happen in this state any time soon...

Hehehe. Colorado was beaten by Oklahoma. Wait...that's college football, not politics...ummm...ummmmmmmm....ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


So, are you all against or for gay/lesbian marriage?

So, are you all against or for gay/lesbian marriage?

Should be farily obvious, based on my posts, that I am for it.

I don't think so.

1. I'm only nineteen, and my current job is at Wendy's, a fast food restaurant.

2. I love Colorado itself too much to do so. The environment, the climate, the football team(Broncos) and the general FEEL of the people is too much for me to give up.

Besides, I'm painting a slightly bleaker picture than there really is right now. I suspect changes will start coming soon. And hopefully, when I am able, I can enact some of those changes, since I plan on going into local politics at some point.

Delator: I share your feelings on that regard. But, as sad as it is, there are few states left that haven't passed such amendments. We can't escape them right now. Hopefully, however, we will see them overturned eventually.

Then live under a rock and ignore politics.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, why do these idiots keep suggesting otherwise?

I guess the moron who said "oh gosh, its fairly obvious I support it based on my posts" will abuse me but flamers will be lamers.

Should be farily obvious, based on my posts, that I am for it.

Alright, just was confused.

Me, personally, don't give a rat's bum. I'm straight and proud to be. If people are gay, they are gay. It's their choice.

Some minorities love to shout loud they are martyrs in the establishment.
Are they? Or are they not a f*** minority and majority does not give a dam about them? Mummy, mummy he started it!

Other minorities were clever enough to naff off far away.
They now have their own trouble like Liberia and Israel.
Who's next? California?

Some minorities love to shout loud they are martyrs in the establishment.
Are they? Or are they not a f*** minority and majority does not give a dam about them? Mummy, mummy he started it!

Other minorities were clever enough to naff off far away.
They now have their own trouble like Liberia and Israel.
Who's next? California?

Oooo! Stars!

-.-

Sorry, head is killing me and this 'Tag' stuff is really strong...

Anyways, what other problems haven't we discussed?

Me, personally, don't give a rat's bum. I'm straight and proud to be. If people are gay, they are gay. It's their choice.

Sure its their choice to be gay and have all the sinful sex they want. BUT, marriage for them should be out of the question. Love and all that jazz they can still have, so the piece of paper shouldn't matter.

Alright, just was confused.

Me, personally, don't give a rat's bum. I'm straight and proud to be. If people are gay, they are gay. It's their choice.

*Nitpick alert*

Studies show that homosexuality may not actually be a choice, but as a result of biological differences in the brain, primarily the hypothylamus.

*Nitpick has ended*

That is all.

Sure its their choice to be gay and have all the sinful sex they want. BUT, marriage for them should be out of the question. Love and all that jazz they can still have, so the piece of paper shouldn't matter.

Hmm.
I guess that works.
Was it the 'Church' that stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman and during marriage, sex should only be for the creation of life and not just for pleasure?

Sure its their choice to be gay and have all the sinful sex they want. BUT, marriage for them should be out of the question. Love and all that jazz they can still have, so the piece of paper shouldn't matter.

Sex for any reason other than procreation is technically a sin.

How about this-they have the same legal benefits that straight couples have. A civil union or what not.

Solves everyone's problems.

*Nitpick alert*

Studies show that homosexuality may not actually be a choice, but as a result of biological differences in the brain, primarily the hypothylamus.

*Nitpick has ended*

That is all.

-Laughs-
Wow, I was actually remembering the episode of American Dad that aired Sunday evening!

*Nitpick alert*

Studies show that homosexuality may not actually be a choice, but as a result of biological differences in the brain, primarily the hypothylamus.

*Nitpick has ended*

That is all.

Yeah well I was trying to be less offensive, of course its a failure in the brain, nobody would submit themselves to homosexuality if it was a choice. Seriously, back in the day you'd be abused blue in the face, things are a lot better now and yet they are still not perfect.

They'll find the cause of homosexuality to be alcoholism, drug abuse etc of the parents or something of a similar description and all gay people will denounce such a study. Pity really.

Hmm.
I guess that works.
Was it the 'Church' that stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman and during marriage, sex should only be for the creation of life and not just for pleasure?

Meh, the passage in the bible about "bedding a man" or whatnot actually lists quite a few things that deal with sexual pleasure and whatnot. Just seems that so many people focus on the homosexual part(which may have been taken out of context) instead of focusing on the point as a whole, and that being that sex for pleasure is a sin, more or less. Would go farther, but it's late and I'm tired.

Sex for any reason other than procreation is technically a sin.

How about this-they have the same legal benefits that straight couples have. A civil union or what not.

Solves everyone's problems.

-Shrugs-
I'm tired and would go with anything right about now.
Looks like I'm pulling an all-nighter, so brew me some effin coffee...:p

Hmm.
I guess that works.
Was it the 'Church' that stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman and during marriage, sex should only be for the creation of life and not just for pleasure?

True... straight people should not be allowed to enjoy themselves. It's sinful.

Yeah well I was trying to be less offensive, of course its a failure in the brain, nobody would submit themselves to homosexuality if it was a choice. Seriously, back in the day you'd be abused blue in the face, things are a lot better now and yet they are still not perfect.

They'll find the cause of homosexuality to be alcoholism, drug abuse etc of the parents or something of a similar description and all gay people will denounce such a study. Pity really.

It's not a failure, it's just a different make up than heterosexual people. If it really were a choice, I really doubt that we would have any sex drive whatsoever, as that would mean that the area of our brain devoted to sex would be underdeveloped, thus producing no sex drive.

And there is no "root cause" of the difference in the brain. It's a developmental and hormonal thing, for the most part. Really, you likely aren't "born" homosexual in a sense, but instead your hormones and such cause a different development in the areas of the brain than in heterosexual

Really, it's not offensive, as it in no way means that the homosexual brain is inferior. Just developmentally different than heterosexuals.

True... straight people should not be allowed to enjoy themselves. It's sinful.

-.-'

Someone get me some coffee...lol.

Well, then Dolphins sin every day.

Considering that there are only two species of animal in the world that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and Humans...but I could swear dogs were in there...:p

True... straight people should not be allowed to enjoy themselves. It's sinful.

Indeed, the carnal pleasures have a great deal of evidence in the bible as to being "sinful"(which irks me because so many people consider homosexuality as a damnable offense, where they really should not. You know, the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all).

It's not a failure, it's just a different make up than heterosexual people. If it really were a choice, I really doubt that we would have any sex drive whatsoever, as that would mean that the area of our brain devoted to sex would be underdeveloped, thus producing no sex drive.

And there is no "root cause" of the difference in the brain. It's a developmental and hormonal thing, for the most part. Really, you likely aren't "born" homosexual in a sense, but instead your hormones and such cause a different development in the areas of the brain than in heterosexual

Really, it's not offensive, as it in no way means that the homosexual brain is inferior. Just developmentally different than heterosexuals.

Yeah I see where your coming from. I still would fight to the bloody death to keep marriage rights for heterosexual only couples, and I'm sure many others would too. Doesn't matter too much as its likely the next generation will give them away freely so the homosexuals will prevail in the end.

-.-'

Someone get me some coffee...lol.

Well, then Dolphins sin every day.

Considering that there are only two species of animal in the world that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and Humans...but I could swear dogs were in there...:p

Bonobos sex each other up for fun too, I think. And I think there's some kind of male walrus that's gay out of mating season and straight during.

-.-'

Someone get me some coffee...lol.

Well, then Dolphins sin every day.

Considering that there are only two species of animal in the world that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and Humans...but I could swear dogs were in there...:p

Not true, there is a species of Chimpanzee which rather frequently engages in sex, regardless of whether or not it is mating season, and often times involve two of the same sex to engage in sexual activities. Rather remarkable.

Yeah well I was trying to be less offensive, of course its a failure in the brain, nobody would submit themselves to homosexuality if it was a choice. Seriously, back in the day you'd be abused blue in the face, things are a lot better now and yet they are still not perfect.

They'll find the cause of homosexuality to be alcoholism, drug abuse etc of the parents or something of a similar description and all gay people will denounce such a study. Pity really.

Any why wouldn't they? :confused:
Personally, I've always ejoyed it quite a bit.

Bonobos sex each other up for fun too, I think. And I think there's some kind of male walrus that's gay out of mating season and straight during.

Bonobos! That's right. It's late, I'm tired, and couldn't remember what they were.

Guess we need to fire the sex-ed teacher at the local high school for teaching us the wrong stuff... :p

-.-'

Someone get me some coffee...lol.

Well, then Dolphins sin every day.

Considering that there are only two species of animal in the world that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and Humans...but I could swear dogs were in there...:p

Here's a list of all animals which show homosexual behaviour :

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior)

Seems to be the rule rather than the exception. :)

Yeah I see where your coming from. I still would fight to the bloody death to keep marriage rights for heterosexual only couples, and I'm sure many others would too. Doesn't matter too much as its likely the next generation will give them away freely so the homosexuals will prevail in the end.

Now, I'm going out on a limb here, and assuming your a Christian, no? Tell me, then, where in teh Bible that is specifically says that governments must give rights to married couples? I'm going to assume nowhere, as marriage in the bible is summed up as basicall a binding of two into one, or something along those lines. So... why support thus? The government should stay out of Chruch business, the Church the same.

Here's a list of all animals which show homosexual behaviour :

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior)

Seems to be the rule rather than the exception. :)

Ha! I'm pretty sure my dog is gay too, it also had sex with my cat. Oh well, I guess Chernobyl screwed the planet over, as well as those 2000 above ground nuclear tests...

Here's a list of all animals which show homosexual behaviour :

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior)

Seems to be the rule rather than the exception. :)

Huh, that's an oddly short list, really.

In reality, almost all species of animals have instances of homosexuality. It's really not unnatural, and infact may be a natural occurance.

Here's a list of all animals which show homosexual behaviour :

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior)

Seems to be the rule rather than the exception. :)

Animals are so gay.........;)

Ha! I'm pretty sure my dog is gay too, it also had sex with my cat. Oh well, I guess Chernobyl screwed the planet over, as well as those 2000 above ground nuclear tests...

True, there was never any observance of homosexual behaviour in anybody or anything before Chernobyl happened... :rolleyes:

*lol

Ha! I'm pretty sure my dog is gay too, it also had sex with my cat. Oh well, I guess Chernobyl screwed the planet over, as well as those 2000 above ground nuclear tests...

Uh... yeah, homosexual behavior among animals has been going on long before nuclear energy was ever discovered.

Anyone gonna get me some bloody coffee????

lol

Umm. Next topic of discussion if you will.

Now, I'm going out on a limb here, and assuming your a Christian, no? Tell me, then, where in teh Bible that is specifically says that governments must give rights to married couples? I'm going to assume nowhere, as marriage in the bible is summed up as basicall a binding of two into one, or something along those lines. So... why support thus? The government should stay out of Chruch business, the Church the same.

Nah I'm of no religion as it causes 99% of all global bloodshed. I can't explain why I am against it really, I just don't like the idea of the man+woman being turned into a filthy gay porno! man+man, woman+woman, man+man+woman, etc. Gay people should settle with a civil union with the same rights.

Anyone gonna get me some bloody coffee????

lol

Umm. Next topic of discussion if you will.

*buys a cup of coffee for Dephire*

We're in it for the long haul, tonight, eh?

Huh, that's an oddly short list, really.

In reality, almost all species of animals have instances of homosexuality. It's really not unnatural, and infact may be a natural occurance.

I guess it just lists species were such behaviour was studied by biologists or zoologists.

Am I the only one who's giggling because the Blow-Fly is on the list? :D

Ha! I'm pretty sure my dog is gay too, it also had sex with my cat. Oh well, I guess Chernobyl screwed the planet over, as well as those 2000 above ground nuclear tests...

Oh yeah, Chernobyl released gaydiation that went back in time and pwned heterosexuality.

*buys a cup of coffee for Dephire*

We're in it for the long haul, tonight, eh?

-Takles Seangoli-

Thank joo!

Alright, I've had my coffee. Let's keep debating!

Nah I'm of no religion as it causes 99% of all global bloodshed. I can't explain why I am against it really, I just don't like the idea of the man+woman being turned into a filthy gay porno! man+man, woman+woman, man+man+woman, etc. Gay people should settle with a civil union with the same rights.

Eh, that's really what they want. Really, I have no idea why the Government sanctions marriage. Causes a ton of confusion.

And the "it's gross!" thing isn't that great of an argument, really. I don't want to watch it, but homosexuals don't really bother me in the least.

Oh yeah, Chernobyl released gaydiation that went back in time and pwned heterosexuality.

Yeah that just about sums it up!

But in all seriousness, its just nature, everything is fucked and the fittest of the fucked survives!

I guess it just lists species were such behaviour was studied by biologists or zoologists.

Am I the only one who's giggling because the Blow-Fly is on the list? :D
Nope :D
Nah I'm of no religion as it causes 99% of all global bloodshed. I can't explain why I am against it really, I just don't like the idea of the man+woman being turned into a filthy gay porno! man+man, woman+woman, man+man+woman, etc. Gay people should settle with a civil union with the same rights.

They don't even have a civil union in some cases.

Nah I'm of no religion as it causes 99% of all global bloodshed. I can't explain why I am against it really, I just don't like the idea of the man+woman being turned into a filthy gay porno! man+man, woman+woman, man+man+woman, etc. Gay people should settle with a civil union with the same rights.

I always try to keep my distance from people who threat to fight for (or against) something until "bloody death" for no other reason than that the voices in their heads tell them to...













*moves away*

Yeah that just about sums it up!

But in all seriousness, its just nature, everything is fucked and the fittest of the fucked survives!

You're right, homosexuality is just nature.

I guess it just lists species were such behaviour was studied by biologists or zoologists.

Am I the only one who's giggling because the Blow-Fly is on the list? :D

Yeah, that could be true. We still don't know much about many animals in the world, behavior wise. To much information, not enough time.

Fun Fact-At a rodeo when I was 8, I learned that the bulls they used for bull riding get "cage fever". If you catch my drift.

And heh, I wonder how the "Blow-Fly" got it's name... hehehe.

I always try to keep my distance from people who threat to fight for (or against) something until "bloody death" for no other reason than that the voices in their heads tell them to...


*moves away*

Nah, I wouldn't be that devoted in seriousness, how would I play NationStates or SuperPower 2 if I were to be dead?

Nah, I wouldn't be that devoted in seriousness, how would I play NationStates or SuperPower 2 if I were to be dead?

Take a laptop to whichever plane of existence you venture off to and hope to all that is good that it's wireless range extends beyond the fabrics of space and time?

This sucks, especially since I was born in colorado. :(

Just move to Montana...

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, why do these idiots keep suggesting otherwise?

I guess the moron who said "oh gosh, its fairly obvious I support it based on my posts" will abuse me but flamers will be lamers.

And yet you flamed me with your very first post on this forum...

...good job. :rolleyes:

Alright, just was confused.

Me, personally, don't give a rat's bum. I'm straight and proud to be. If people are gay, they are gay. It's their choice.

That about sums up my thoughts on the issue as well.

Nah I'm of no religion as it causes 99% of all global bloodshed. I can't explain why I am against it really, I just don't like the idea of the man+woman being turned into a filthy gay porno! man+man, woman+woman, man+man+woman, etc. Gay people should settle with a civil union with the same rights.

The amendment that just passed here in Wisconsin blocks both marriage AND civil unions for homosexual couples.

So are you still saying I should have voted for it?

-Collapses onto the floor, but still manages to type this somehow...-

"Ah well. Now onto our next topic please."

Here's a list of all animals which show homosexual behaviour :

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior)

Seems to be the rule rather than the exception. :)

even the White-lipped Peccary is gay? wow, you've just shattered my worldview to pieces :(

I don't think so.

1. I'm only nineteen, and my current job is at Wendy's, a fast food restaurant.

2. I love Colorado itself too much to do so. The environment, the climate, the football team(Broncos) and the general FEEL of the people is too much for me to give up.

Move to NYC. You can ride the subway and FEEL all the people you want. In rush hour you won't be able to help yourself. And just because you have become accustomed to the feel of Coloradans, doesn't mean it's a good thing to go feeling. Nettles have a nice fuzzy texture, like soft felt, but they're covered in poison stingers. Any group of people who feel the way they do as a result of having such fundamentally evil philosophies motivating them are pleasant the way that refined dietary fat is. You might enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it isn't killing you.

even the White-lipped Peccary is gay? wow, you've just shattered my worldview to pieces :(

Why do you think it has white lips ;) :eek:

Considering that there are only two species of animal in the world that has sex for pleasure. Dolphins and Humans...but I could swear dogs were in there...:p

Don't forget Bonobos. Monkey sex! :)

If you're tired of US stupidity, come to the mother country - the UK. :p

Nah I'm of no religion as it causes 99% of all global bloodshed. I can't explain why I am against it really, I just don't like the idea of the man+woman being turned into a filthy gay porno! man+man, woman+woman, man+man+woman, etc. Gay people should settle with a civil union with the same rights.

Well then it's pretty clear that the reason you're against it is that you're intolerant and superstitious. Incapable of holding moral positions based on reason and sense.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, why do these idiots keep suggesting otherwise?

I guess the moron who said "oh gosh, its fairly obvious I support it based on my posts" will abuse me but flamers will be lamers.

No need to flame. Pretty soon people with views like this will be regulated to the same sort of place that we now keep people who think mixed-race marriages are somehow less worthy of recognition.

Don't forget Bonobos. Monkey sex! :)

If you're tired of US stupidity, come to the mother country - the UK. :p

Or join us Loyalists in Canada, where gay people can get married.

Essential point right there in the title. Why do I say this? A few simple reasons:

1. In my district(not entirely certain which number at the moment) Tancredo once again beat out a respectable opponent by acting completely out of character for his entire campaign.

2. Amendment 43, a somewhat redundent measure to begin with, was passed, defining marriage in Colorado as a union between one man and one woman.

3. Referendum I, basic legal rights for gay couples--a domestic partnership law, if you will--was voted down.

4. Marilyn Musgrave, current incumbant of House District 4 and staunch Bush supporter is projected to win over a just a wee bit better than her in a Kerry kind of way Democrat Angie Pachionne.

5. Amendment 44, a sensible measure that would free up quite a bit of currently unnecesserily used room in Colorado prisons by allowing possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults 21 years of age or old was solidly struck down.

At least Bob Beuprez was defeated by Bill Ritter for the governership. But it's just ridiculous the way Colorado voters have reacted over the past twenty-four hours. Referendum I and Amendment 43 especially confuse and disgust me with the way they were voted down and passed respectively. How people can think they can force their own moral values on others and deam homosexuals as second-class citizens at best simply because of their own religious beliefs will NEVER make sense to me. It's stupid. It's wrong. But, that's Colorado for you, proving again that idiocy can and probably always will trump sensibility.

Unless, of course, you have chosen the wrong definitions for idiocy and sensibility.

Nah I'm of no religion as it causes 99% of all global bloodshed. I can't explain why I am against it really, I just don't like the idea of the man+woman being turned into a filthy gay porno! man+man, woman+woman, man+man+woman, etc. Gay people should settle with a civil union with the same rights.

Gay people shouldn't have to "settle" for anything. They deserve the same rights that you or I do.

Gay people shouldn't have to "settle" for anything. They deserve the same rights that you or I do.

Quite right, but the voters in Colorado don't appear to agree with you. Gay people have officially been declared to have fewer rights than heterosexual citizens. Well, I guess it's back to the drawing board to reorganize and regroup.

Quite right, but the voters in Colorado don't appear to agree with you. Gay people have officially been declared to have fewer rights than heterosexual citizens. Well, I guess it's back to the drawing board to reorganize and regroup.

Who has fewer rights? *counting rights, then reading the US amendments looking for forgotten rights*

I don't see it. Looks like they share same number of rights to me. The same-sex marriage advocates want to increase the number of "rights" citizens have, not equalize them. They have the same rights as the heterosexual person does now only they don't want the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, but they have it all the same.

Who has fewer rights? *counting rights, then reading the US amendments looking for forgotten rights*

I don't see it. Looks like they share same number of rights to me. The same-sex marriage advocates want to increase the number of "rights" citizens have, not equalize them. They have the same rights as the heterosexual person does now only they don't want the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, but they have it all the same.

Heterosexual couples couples have the right to marry. Homosexual couples don't. Ergo, heterosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples.

Heterosexual couples couples have the right to marry. Homosexual couples don't. Ergo, heterosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples.

It's not a right. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Who has fewer rights? *counting rights, then reading the US amendments looking for forgotten rights*

I don't see it. Looks like they share same number of rights to me. The same-sex marriage advocates want to increase the number of "rights" citizens have, not equalize them. They have the same rights as the heterosexual person does now only they don't want the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, but they have it all the same.

You don't see it because you are blind. Heterosexual people are free to marry those whom they wish to marry, members of the opposite sex. Homosexual people are not free to marry those whom they wish to marry. That is the issue, and your pathetic attempts to confuse that point by saying "gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people, so the rights are equal" are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

It's not a right. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Then the state needs to entirely discontinue recognizing marriage as a legal status whatsoever.

You don't see it because you are blind. Heterosexual people are free to marry those whom they wish to marry, members of the opposite sex. Homosexual people are not free to marry those whom they wish to marry. That is the issue, and your pathetic attempts to confuse that point by saying "gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people, so the rights are equal" are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.


If homosexual people can't get married then none of them would be divorcees... except there are many homosexual divorcees now aren't there?

Mutually shared and perpetually granted sexual attraction for your spouse is NOT guaranteed by the bestowment of a marriage license. To pretend that it is, is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt ~

It would be the same as saying a middle aged person who leaves their spouse of twenty years for their twenty year old secretary is somehow “justified” and understandable because they are simply not attracted to forty year old people… Your argument is only different by making the twenty year old secretary the same sex as the boss, not a significant difference whatsoever. Mutual sexual attraction is not a condition of marriage. What if you spouse changes their body shape by working out or getting fat or plastic surgery etc.,, what if they change their hair color or their style of dress and mannerisms? A promise of fidelity is irrelevant to continued attraction or not.

Lots of homosexually oriented people are married, to argue that they aren’t allowed to marry is a misnomer. You mean something else.

snip

Homosexuals are only married in US states/countries where governments allow it. Just living together and loving each other does not constitute as marriage.

If homosexual people can't get married then none of them would be divorcees... except there are many homosexual divorcees now aren't there?

Mutually shared and perpetually granted sexual attraction for your spouse is NOT guaranteed by the bestowment of a marriage license. To pretend that it is, is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt ~

It would be the same as saying a middle aged person who leaves their spouse of twenty years for their twenty year old secretary is somehow “justified” and understandable because they are simply not attracted to forty year old people… Your argument is only different by making the twenty year old secretary the same sex as the boss, not a significant difference whatsoever. Mutual sexual attraction is not a condition of marriage. What if you spouse changes their body shape by working out or getting fat or plastic surgery etc.,, what if they change their hair color or their style of dress and mannerisms? A promise of fidelity is irrelevant to continued attraction or not.

Lots of homosexually oriented people are married, to argue that they aren’t allowed to marry is a misnomer. You mean something else.

You are comparing being gay to dying your hair?

You are comparing being gay to dying your hair?


Nope, I'm comparing not being attracted to your spouse to not being attracted to your spouse.

Homosexuals are only married in US states/countries where governments allow it. Just living together and loving each other does not constitute as marriage.

There are lots of married homosexual people, the proof is in the number of homosexuals whom are divorcees.

There are lots of married homosexual people, the proof is in the number of homosexuals whom are divorcees.

Fine. Give me the statistics that show all these invisible legal homosexual divorcees.

Nope, I'm comparing not being attracted to your spouse to not being attracted to your spouse.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You seem to be equating "I don't want to marry a woman, because I am gay", with "I don't want to marry THAT woman, because I like blondes".

Or am I misjudging you?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You seem to be equating "I don't want to marry a woman, because I am gay", with "I don't want to marry THAT woman, because I like blondes".

Or am I misjudging you?

I am equating the arguments, not the people. IF the argument that people should be allowed to marry whomever they are sexually attracted to is true then the same for both homosexual or the heterosexual applies either way.

I simply put the other spin on it: A middle age person who gets a divorce to marry someone new because they are NOT attracted to their spouse anymore (for any reason, or even if they never were attracted to them) is a weak argument for changing the definition of marriage in my opinion. Regardless if the new would be spouse is the same sex as themselves or not, sexual attraction is sexual attraction, unrelated to the definition of marriage. Sexual attraction is not addressed in the definition in the first place.

I am equating the arguments, not the people. IF the argument that people should be allowed to marry whomever they are sexually attracted to is true then the same for both homosexual or the heterosexual applies either way.

I simply put the other spin on it: A middle age person who gets a divorce to marry someone new because they are NOT attracted to their spouse anymore (for any reason, or even if they never were attracted to them) is a weak argument for changing the definition of marriage in my opinion. Regardless if the new would be spouse is the same sex as themselves or not, sexual attraction is sexual attraction, unrelated to the definition of marriage. Sexual attraction is not addressed in the definition in the first place.

But, you start from the false premise that anything is being redefined. Marriage is a union of things - that is what it 'means'. It has been used as a term to describe the specific union of humans with one another for quite some time - but it has never been universally limited to one particular gender arrangement, or even to one particular number of participants.

You are trying to impose Judeo-Christian opinions of 'marriage', on the legal rights of myriad people - many of whom may care nothing for your particular leanings on such an issue.

yes they are...
my crazy dog is f*** anything, even cats...

The vet said it's hormonal???
But the bastard* does males and females (*the dog, not the vet).

I am equating the arguments, not the people. IF the argument that people should be allowed to marry whomever they are sexually attracted to is true then the same for both homosexual or the heterosexual applies either way.

I simply put the other spin on it: A middle age person who gets a divorce to marry someone new because they are NOT attracted to their spouse anymore (for any reason, or even if they never were attracted to them) is a weak argument for changing the definition of marriage in my opinion. Regardless if the new would be spouse is the same sex as themselves or not, sexual attraction is sexual attraction, unrelated to the definition of marriage. Sexual attraction is not addressed in the definition in the first place.

The argument is NOT "people should be allowed to marry whomever they are sexually attracted to." It is "people should be allowed to marry who they want to marry." The two are different.

Here's the deal as I see it. A heterosexual couple can stroll down to the local government offices and buy a marriage license for not a lot of money. Assuming they meet the requirements for marriage in their state, they can then go through whatever ceremony they like (or none), sign the license and mail it in. As soon as the paperwork is processed, hey! presto! they're married. They can now file their taxes as a couple, each can inherit the other's property in the sad event that one of them dies (without a great deal of rigamarole), the surviving partner can get benefits from Social Security, they can cover each other under their employer's benefits package, they can make medical decisions each for the other with few questions, if any, asked. Their marriage will be recognized in every one of the other 49 states and the however many US territories.

I and my Lady cannot do that because we are both female. We can attain certain of the items listed above by going to a lawyer, paying money (more than a marriage license costs) and entering into contracts and agreements with each other. For medical purposes, we can have papers drawn up giving each other power of attorney (if that's the right term), but God help us if something happens and we don't happen to have our "papers" handy (there was a case of just that here and one of the partners died in the ambulance in which the other was not allowed to ride because they didn't have their "papers" at hand). And we cannot get the same tax rights or the same survivor benefits rights, period.

So how do we have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

Yeah I see where your coming from. I still would fight to the bloody death to keep marriage rights for heterosexual only couples, and I'm sure many others would too.

This depresses me to no end.

So how do we have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

In the minds of some, you might 'choose' to abdicate your rights by 'choosing' to want someone the same flavour as you. They would argue that the 'same rights' are available to you, if you would simply 'choose' to act the way they do.

Of course - if the law currently disallowed Christians from marrying, for example (although they could easily get round it by 'choosing' to be Atheists or something), you can bet they would be making all the same arguments... and louder.

But, you start from the false premise that anything is being redefined. Marriage is a union of things - that is what it 'means'. It has been used as a term to describe the specific union of humans with one another for quite some time - but it has never been universally limited to one particular gender arrangement, or even to one particular number of participants.

You are trying to impose Judeo-Christian opinions of 'marriage', on the legal rights of myriad people - many of whom may care nothing for your particular leanings on such an issue.

I am not starting from a false premise, the law of Colorado does not and never did recognize anything other than one man and one woman marriage, with limitations on individual age, family relations and pre-existing marriage still in effect. Colorado (or the US or any other country for that matter) do not have to recognize ancient Roman custom or Mesopotamian or Egyptian or Asian marriage laws when assessing their own definition. Polygamy may be legal in Saudi Arabia, but when that man brings his four wives and fifteen children to Colorado, Colorado does not have to redefine it's definition of marriage to accommodate them. The same is true for any other group that wants to rewrite Colorado’s definition of marriage. The only marriage definition that matters is the one with the weight of law behind it where you live.

And yes, this so happens to be the traditional Judeo-Christian definition, that is irrelevant, as that is the one they communally accepted at the beginning of Colorado law. That will always be fact, even if they rewrite their future definition (assuming they vote or are forced to change it sometime in the future) the historical definition of marriage in Colorado is what it was there, not somewhere else in a different land in a different culture and time…

In the minds of some, you might 'choose' to abdicate your rights by 'choosing' to want someone the same flavour as you. They would argue that the 'same rights' are available to you, if you would simply 'choose' to act the way they do.

Of course - if the law currently disallowed Christians from marrying, for example (although they could easily get round it by 'choosing' to be Atheists or something), you can bet they would be making all the same arguments... and louder.

You're right, that is the message being sent. If I choose to behave as a heterosexual, I can have those rights. Never mind my heart. Silly me.

I am not starting from a false premise, the law of Colorado does not and never did recognize anything other than one man and one woman marriage, with limitations on individual age, family relations and pre-existing marriage still in effect. Colorado (or the US or any other country for that matter) do not have to recognize ancient Roman custom or Mesopotamian or Egyptian or Asian marriage laws when assessing their own definition. Polygamy may be legal in Saudi Arabia, but when that man brings his four wives and fifteen children to Colorado, Colorado does not have to redefine it's definition of marriage to accommodate them. The same is true for any other group that wants to rewrite Colorado’s definition of marriage. The only marriage definition that matters is the one with the weight of law behind it where you live.

And yes, this so happens to be the traditional Judeo-Christian definition, that is irrelevant, as that is the one they communally accepted at the beginning of Colorado law. That will always be fact, even if they rewrite their future definition (assuming they vote or are forced to change it sometime in the future) the historical definition of marriage in Colorado is what it was there, not somewhere else in a different land in a different culture and time…

At the risk of being rude...

Utter wank.

You can't possibly be so blinkered as to not even realise that the application of European common law to the violent immigrant population of these shores, missed by several thousand years any right to claim to be the 'beginning' of any kind of law.

The fact that puritans with delusions of grandeur and control issues came to dominate (and, let's face it - they STILL dominate) is the ONLY reason any kind of Jedeo-Christian hegemony holds sway, and it was a deliberate and conscious attack on pre-established culture and laws.

If we are talking 'precedent' as a reason to do anything, the palefaced invaders are certainly not the people with the best claim to 'american' law.


On the other hand - if we are going to pretend to 'justice', these relics of puritan oppression need to follow the laws that allowed slavery... anachronisms, with no relevence to a 21st century 'civilised' nation.

You're right, that is the message being sent. If I choose to behave as a heterosexual, I can have those rights. Never mind my heart. Silly me.

If you carefully read the posts of the 'opposition', homosexual marriage is all about penises and vaginas, and has nothing to do with hearts. Only heterosexuals know how to 'love', right?

In the matter of the sanctity of marriage, as in all things, we should follow the shining example of Britney Spears (pbuh).

If you carefully read the posts of the 'opposition', homosexual marriage is all about penises and vaginas, and has nothing to do with hearts. Only heterosexuals know how to 'love', right?

In the matter of the sanctity of marriage, as in all things, we should follow the shining example of Britney Spears (pbuh).

Well, Britney ... I don't think the Values People would hold anyone in the Entertainment Industry up as a good example. But take Newt Gingrich, the man who divorced his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer, and who was divorced by his second wife because she'd caught him cheating on her with someone twenty years younger. There's an example of the sanctity of one man, one woman marriage for you.

Well, Britney ... I don't think the Values People would hold anyone in the Entertainment Industry up as a good example. But take Newt Gingrich, the man who divorced his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer, and who was divorced by his second wife because she'd caught him cheating on her with someone twenty years younger. There's an example of the sanctity of one man, one woman marriage for you.

'Happily married Evangelists' with drugdealer gay lovers, politicians propositioning underage pages, governors trading wives at sex parties... you'd think the 'sanctity of marriage' people would be encouraging some other portion of the population to come and take some of the blame... :o

'Happily married Evangelists' with drugdealer gay lovers, politicians propositioning underage pages, governors trading wives at sex parties... you'd think the 'sanctity of marriage' people would be encouraging some other portion of the population to come and take some of the blame... :o

You forgot that the politician propositioning underage pages served on the House committee on the exploitation of children and authored some of the legislation he could be prosecuted under. :rolleyes:

You forgot that the politician propositioning underage pages served on the House committee on the exploitation of children and authored some of the legislation he could be prosecuted under. :rolleyes:

Oh, believe me, I didn't forget that delicious detail for a second.

So yeah, anyway, we desperately need to protect the 'sanctity' of the establishment.

First, though... we just have to sew these buttons on the Emperor's new clothes...

I'd suggest moving away. Apparently there's no cure for stupidity no matter where you go, so find a place a little more sensible and settle there.

Utopia doesn't exist, neither does a sensible place.

I find it amusing to note that all those who argued against Farnhamia suddenly disappeared once she started pointing out the real flaws in their arguments.

Here is my personal world view, one that I personally think the law should uphold: So long as an action by one person does not directly harm another person without their consent(that means that those who chose to be harmed, such as those participating in BDSM, or those wishing to commit suicide with another's help, etc etc are protected) it should be legal. Prositution? Sure! Drugs? You got 'em. Homosexual marriage? Why not? You guys are people too.

The fact is, people in general have this tendency to want to force their own moral beliefs onto others. I don't know about you guys, but I'm no Christian, be it the fundie-style or even the optimum truely sticking to their values Amishly style Christian. I'm an athiest. I make my own morals. People should be allowed to live by their own morals. Some morals are universal: murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Etc. But apart from those few universal morals, people should be allowed to do as they please. You do not have the right to bend others to your will. You do not have the right to tell them who they can and cannot marry. You do not have the right. Period.

I find it amusing to note that all those who argued against Farnhamia suddenly disappeared once she started pointing out the real flaws in their arguments.

Here is my personal world view, one that I personally think the law should uphold: So long as an action by one person does not directly harm another person without their consent(that means that those who chose to be harmed, such as those participating in BDSM, or those wishing to commit suicide with another's help, etc etc are protected) it should be legal. Prositution? Sure! Drugs? You got 'em. Homosexual marriage? Why not? You guys are people too.

The fact is, people in general have this tendency to want to force their own moral beliefs onto others. I don't know about you guys, but I'm no Christian, be it the fundie-style or even the optimum truely sticking to their values Amishly style Christian. I'm an athiest. I make my own morals. People should be allowed to live by their own morals. Some morals are universal: murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Etc. But apart from those few universal morals, people should be allowed to do as they please. You do not have the right to bend others to your will. You do not have the right to tell them who they can and cannot marry. You do not have the right. Period.

Thank you. :p

The sad part is, They have so frightened people that They have taken that right now, the right to impose their view of morality on others, and enshrined it in the law. Well, there's no rest for the weary, I suppose. Someday. And if the best revenge is living well, then that's what we'll do, while they marry and divorce, marry and divorce, all the while bemoaning the fact that marriage isn't sacred anymore and what happened to the world? ;)

Who has fewer rights? *counting rights, then reading the US amendments looking for forgotten rights*

I don't see it. Looks like they share same number of rights to me. The same-sex marriage advocates want to increase the number of "rights" citizens have, not equalize them. They have the same rights as the heterosexual person does now only they don't want the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, but they have it all the same.Okay, we'll go back to the days when interracial marraiges were against the law. Black people would have the same rights as white people. To marry someone of the same race. Too bad if they fell in love with someone of a different race.
BTW, most people get married because they're in love, not merely because of attraction, otherwise I'd have been married a couple of dozen times.

Here is my personal world view, one that I personally think the law should uphold: So long as an action by one person does not directly harm another person without their consent(that means that those who chose to be harmed, such as those participating in BDSM, or those wishing to commit suicide with another's help, etc etc are protected) it should be legal. Prositution? Sure! Drugs? You got 'em. Homosexual marriage? Why not? You guys are people too.


... 'And it harm none, do as thou will'?

Utopia doesn't exist, neither does a sensible place.

I never said it did. But different places suit different people better than others.

... 'And it harm none, do as thou will'?

In essence, that is my philosophy, and it's the one I'd apply to anything I'd try to do if I were to go into politics. (Of course, what I'd LOVE to do is found a new political party, run for various offices along with other party members, make changes in places, run for President, and then with the help of the other party members elected to Congress, both from my new party and other third parties, eliminate the two-party system forever. But that might be a wee bit wishful.)

In essence, that is my philosophy, and it's the one I'd apply to anything I'd try to do if I were to go into politics. (Of course, what I'd LOVE to do is found a new political party, run for various offices along with other party members, make changes in places, run for President, and then with the help of the other party members elected to Congress, both from my new party and other third parties, eliminate the two-party system forever. But that might be a wee bit wishful.)

They have you trained, unfortunately. They've got the general populace chained to these identities... EITHER you drink coke, or pepsi... EITHER you vote Republican, or Democrat.

It's why "Fight Club" should be a compulsary text at school, and also, why it never will be.

Okay, we'll go back to the days when interracial marraiges were against the law. Black people would have the same rights as white people. To marry someone of the same race. Too bad if they fell in love with someone of a different race.
BTW, most people get married because they're in love, not merely because of attraction, otherwise I'd have been married a couple of dozen times.


And they married thinking having children.
Gay marriage is pure economical politic.

Marriage institution is to defend the parental cause and to help the family as an entity, not to specifically introduce a religious blessing or a political wish to see the demography growing faster.
A family is fragile having lotta internal trouble and is a bit away of external affairs.
Bachelors people do not have all these daily wars to solve and are ready to defend themselves.

We Jesuites are a big family, it's no bachelor in our country, only a few soldier who learnt their family is the army, should they be gay?

They have you trained, unfortunately. They've got the general populace chained to these identities... EITHER you drink coke, or pepsi... EITHER you vote Republican, or Democrat.

It's why "Fight Club" should be a compulsary text at school, and also, why it never will be.
...what? I thought I just said that I reject such choices and want to change it so people DON'T have to deal with such choices. :confused:

Thank you. :p

The sad part is, They have so frightened people that They have taken that right now, the right to impose their view of morality on others, and enshrined it in the law. Well, there's no rest for the weary, I suppose. Someday. And if the best revenge is living well, then that's what we'll do, while they marry and divorce, marry and divorce, all the while bemoaning the fact that marriage isn't sacred anymore and what happened to the world? ;)

Gee wiz... the public was asked to make a choice and they did. it was a choice some don't like and now they are screaming for the courts to overturn it.

hmm... the people spoke and now you want to tell those people that their voice doesn't matter.

This happened before, didn't it... in the 2000 Presidential Elections, the opposite was being decried. "Gore got the most votes", "Gore won the Popular votes", "It should be POPULAR VOTES that determine the winner!"

well, in Colorado, the choice of marriage being one man/one woman had the most votes, it was the MOST POPULAR among voters. the choice for domestic partnerships was also known. a NO! and now the cry is "Majority Votes isn't fair." "The Courts should overturn this now!" "It shouldn't be POPULAR VOTES!"

Right or wrong, it was put to the people and the People decided.

So what you really need to ask yourselves... which do you want?

POPULAR VOTE or A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE APPOINTED MAKES ALL THE DECISIONS?

Gee wiz... the public was asked to make a choice and they did. it was a choice some don't like and now they are screaming for the courts to overturn it.

hmm... the people spoke and now you want to tell those people that their voice doesn't matter.

This happened before, didn't it... in the 2000 Presidential Elections, the opposite was being decried. "Gore got the most votes", "Gore won the Popular votes", "It should be POPULAR VOTES that determine the winner!"

well, in Colorado, the choice of marriage being one man/one woman had the most votes, it was the MOST POPULAR among voters. the choice for domestic partnerships was also known. a NO! and now the cry is "Majority Votes isn't fair." "The Courts should overturn this now!" "It shouldn't be POPULAR VOTES!"

Right or wrong, it was put to the people and the People decided.

So what you really need to ask yourselves... which do you want?

POPULAR VOTE or A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE APPOINTED MAKES ALL THE DECISIONS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrany_of_the_majority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrany_of_the_majority

so...

Which do you preferre, a Tyrany of the Majority or a Tyrany of the Minority? (in this case, being SCOTUS/Lawyers and Judges)

so...

Which do you preferre, a Tyrany of the Majority or a Tyrany of the Minority? (in this case, being SCOTUS/Lawyers and Judges)

Neither. In the case of an election to a public office, there has to be a majority, period. However, with regards to homosexual marriage there is no tyranny of the minority because the minority is not depriving the majority of its interests. Or let me put it this way: the majority (heterosexuals) is saying that minority (homosexuals) cannot marry. The minority is not saying the majority cannot marry. If they were, then you would have a tyranny of the minority. However, in this case, you don't.

As Batuni put it: "... 'And it harm none, do as thou will'?"

Neither. In the case of an election to a public office, there has to be a majority, period. However, with regards to homosexual marriage there is no tyranny of the minority because the minority is not depriving the majority of its interests. Or let me put it this way: the majority (heterosexuals) is saying that minority (homosexuals) cannot marry. The minority is not saying the majority cannot marry. If they were, then you would have a tyranny of the minority. However, in this case, you don't.

As Batuni put it: "... 'And it harm none, do as thou will'?"but what's the difference between the two elections?

Both are asking for the citizen's choice in the direction of their Government.
In this case, what's the Harm of not allowing this certain pairing? None, (and there is also no harm allowing it either.) so it's not harming anyone, thus Batuni often quoted phrase allows for either choice.

and while it's true that the Minority is not telling the Majority what they cannot do, the People still have spoken and the losers don't like it.

What's it called when the People want one thing but is forced to accept the ruling (even if it's not desired) that is favored by the smaller group? it's still Tyranny reguardless of what the end is.

Allowing possession of small amounts of marajuana was surely the most practical measure. Only the most unthinking, stupidly conservative people couldn't see that it would be a service to the prison system.

Both are asking for the citizen's choice in the direction of their Government.
In this case, what's the Harm of not allowing this certain pairing? None, (and there is also no harm allowing it either.)
It harms the gays who want to get married.

but what's the difference between the two elections?
One is an election for a person. One is an referendum on a specific policy. The two are different. Even then, to compare the two as an analogy because when you quoted the 2000 election we are discussing the the way the election took place. In discussing homosexual marriage we are talking about not they way the election took place but the choice the people made during the election.

That's why the two are different and do not provide for an analogy.

Both are asking for the citizen's choice in the direction of their Government.
In this case, what's the Harm of not allowing this certain pairing? None, (and there is also no harm allowing it either.) so it's not harming anyone, thus Batuni often quoted phrase allows for either choice.
No it doesn't. Depriving a minority of the right/privilege to marry is a tyranny of the majority. To have a tyranny of the majority you do not need to harm someone.

and while it's true that the Minority is not telling the Majority what they cannot do, the People still have spoken and the losers don't like it.
Nobody is denying that, but tyrrany of the majority is still not a good thing.

What's it called when the People want one thing but is forced to accept the ruling (even if it's not desired) that is favored by the smaller group? it's still Tyranny reguardless of what the end is.
No it isn't, because the majority do not have their interests blocked by the minority. In this case, the heterosexual majority can still marry.

One is an election for a person. One is an referendum on a specific policy. The two are different.but both were offered to the people to choose. the populace of the State was given a choice. Yes or No, one or the other. how is it different? ones a person, the others a State Constitutional Amendment, ok, but both are still a choice between the citizens.
Even then, to compare the two as an analogy because when you quoted the 2000 election we are discussing the the way the election took place. and what way was that. the people voted, they let their opinions known. Suddenly a small group of people vote contrary to the popular opinion and people are pissed. yet should the popular opinion not be to their liking, then it's "Please [small group of people (Supreme court this time) tell the people that they cannot have their 'Popular Opinion."
In discussing homosexual marriage we are talking about not they way the election took place but the choice the people made during the election. both the way it took place all hinged on one factor. The popular vote was entangled in a controversal ruling.

the only difference is the Individual's posistion in relation to the Popular Vote.

No it doesn't. Depriving a minority of the right/privilege to marry is a tyranny of the majority. To have a tyranny of the majority you do not need to harm someone.then your Batuni quote is worthless here.

and thus it comes back to Tyranny of the Majority or Tyranny of the Minority. it's only Tyranny on the opposing's viewpoint.

Nobody is denying that, but tyrrany of the majority is still not a good thing.and neither is Tryanny of the Minority. but which do you preferre?

No it isn't, because the majority do not have their interests blocked by the minority. In this case, the heterosexual majority can still marry.yes it is, the Majority are having their opinions and right to have a government that is supposed to be "FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE" Ignore their voice that has been proven to be a desire of the masses.

It harms the gays who want to get married.How are they being hurt?

but both were offered to the people to choose. the populace of the State was given a choice. Yes or No, one or the other. how is it different? ones a person, the others a State Constitutional Amendment, ok, but both are still a choice between the citizens.
You cannot draw one as an analogy of the other, as I said previously, since one is a criticism of the way the election works and the other of the voters themselves.

and what way was that. the people voted, they let their opinions known. Suddenly a small group of people vote contrary to the popular opinion and people are pissed. yet should the popular opinion not be to their liking, then it's "Please [small group of people (Supreme court this time) tell the people that they cannot have their 'Popular Opinion."
both the way it took place all hinged on one factor. The popular vote was entangled in a controversal ruling.
Can you enlighten me as to what you're getting at here?

the only difference is the Individual's posistion in relation to the Popular Vote.
And here?

then your Batuni quote is worthless here.
We aren't talking about physical harm here, but I don't want to go into semantics.

and thus it comes back to Tyranny of the Majority or Tyranny of the Minority. it's only Tyranny on the opposing's viewpoint.
Having. Gay. Marriage. Is. Not. Tyranny. Of. The. Minority.

and neither is Tryanny of the Minority. but which do you preferre?
Having. Gay. Marriage. Is. Not. Tyranny. Of. The. Minority.

[QUOTE=JuNii;11936620]yes it is, the Majority are having their opinions and right to have a government that is supposed to be "FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE" Ignore their voice that has been proven to be a desire of the masses.
You mean, 'by the majority, for the majority', not the people at all. If it were for all the people it would be a government for the minority just as much as the majority.

You cannot draw one as an analogy of the other, as I said previously, since one is a criticism of the way the election works and the other of the voters themselves.by criticising the voters, you are criticising the way the election is held and the results it gave. the only difference is where you stand on the popular viewpoint.

Can you enlighten me as to what you're getting at here?the fact that people are crying about the results of one election and how it was resolved, saying that such a thing is not needed, yet they rely on a similar check and balance when they are on the other end of the popular vote.

And here?"the loosers whine alot." (and I do mean that for everything.) And I am glad the mods squashed the whining from this past elections.

We aren't talking about physical harm here, but I don't want to go into semantics.then how else would you define As Batuni put it: "... 'And it harm none, do as thou will'?" do you mean "Restrict" that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Having. Gay. Marriage. Is. Not. Tyranny. Of. The. Minority.Having. People. Vote. Then. Overturn. The. Results. With. A. Decision. Of. A. Few. People. IS. Tyranny. Of. The. Minority.


]Having. Gay. Marriage. Is. Not. Tyranny. Of. The. Minority.The. Question. Was. Which. Do. You. Preferre. Tyranny. Of. The. Majority. Or. Tyranny. Of. The. Minority.

Both occurre in the US. that's one of the results of the checks and balances we got.

You mean, 'by the majority, for the majority', not the people at all. If it were for all the people it would be a government for the minority just as much as the majority.and since both having the popular vote succeed, about the same amount as the ruling of a select few, both sides are equally represented.

...what? I thought I just said that I reject such choices and want to change it so people DON'T have to deal with such choices. :confused:

As soon as you arrange a guerrilla army capable of taking over the government by force because that is the only way it will happen.