So Gay marriage failed again...

[Supa Beanie]

Lyrika the Lunatic

pulchritudinous soup

Supa Beanie

pulchritudinous soup

Supa Beanie

However back to the issue this thread is about. wink I understand that civil unions are not what gay people want, but the public has had their vote in most if not all of the states. The ones who passed gay marriage did so very underhandedly passing it in the middle of the night and not telling anyone there was going to be a meeting about it so nobody would show up. It seems to me that it's turned into a dirty battle where the gays are saying I'm going to get what I want no matter what the public says. Which I think is completely wrong, unconstitutional, and manipulative. If they want the same respect, they won't get it by being underhanded in their dealings with the public at large just to get their way.

They overturned the law that states how marriage may only be between a man and a woman for being unconstitutional. The same happened for interracial marriages.

Quote:

Although anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in United States Congress in 1871, 1912-1913 and 1928,[5][6] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 to 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states did so.[citation needed] In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them.

Here.

Doesn't matter how it was done, the fact of the matter is that it was done without the consent of the constituents.

Then what's the point of having a constitution if the government continues to allow laws that bypass the amendment's?

Quote:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

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.

US Constitution

Don't forget the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If everything were put to a vote, only white males would have the right to do so, and blacks would still be enslaved. Sometimes the government has to take a stand for the common good, ensuring that everyone has the same rights and privileges, and go against the majority. Alas, that seems to be a concept lost. We've elected a bunch of corrupt wusses, ninnyhammers, and Bible-thumping nutcases.

I don't see how this is relevant, what does gay marriage bring to us as a society that makes it so important for us to accept? They cannot produce children without expensive treatments, then male couples need a woman to carry it, it's completely unnatural and harmful to the family unit as we've always known it. It does nothing for the "greater good" and brings nothing helpful to society or the family unit. They can't really call it a 'right' because by deffinition they have no 'right' to do it. You can sit here and argue ethics all day long, I don't really care about ethics, what I care about is cold hard facts. Biologically homosexual marriage would be a joke, if you put all men together, and then all women in a society, the entire society would eventually thin and then die out because there is no opportunity for reproduction. Just because we live in a society where invitro is normal, doesn't make homosexuality normal, and doesn't give it a basis for allowing them to be married. If there was to ever be a time where America had a major problem like civil war or the like, or our country collapsed in any way, there wouldn't be a medical system around to offer these services to anyone. Then we'd be back to square one, homosexuals cannot reproduce, and a society full of them would die out.

[CoConutsForAll]

Darkphantom

CoConutsForAll

I'd have to agree with him on this one. Though he may not like whatever the subject is, he can hardly be considered troll. Just because someone who shows up in almost every topic that's about homosexuality to give his opinion on it hardly makes him a troll. If you went by that you could more or less consider any person who posted in anything a troll.

No you don't understand I'm not accusing him of begin a troll, I'm saying HE IS A TROLL.

******** it I can't help you if you just won't trust me on this. Believe what you want. But I did tell you can you can't use the "I was uninformed Defence" you are actually ignorant.

Never-the-less if your unfamiliar with the homosexual marriage debate then you might aswell go find some crafty rebuttles for his imaginary claims as you will occasionally run into them from fundamentalists and such a like but don't take them to heart.

Akira Fudoh

you're..right about that too.

I do feel pressured sometimes. Like..if I dont agree with the majority I must be a dumb a**. mad

lol he is a very good troll, Poor kid... Didn't stand a chance. Young kids throwing in your hats with the f**-lynchers. An unsettling stealth parody.

I am hardly ignorant. Do I know who Octane is and what he does? Yes I do. I am not uninformed. In fact I happen to be present at times that he's in the ED, which one of them was just a few days ago. More or less I agree with him because of what my definition of troll is. My definition. Not yours. Furthermore that's your opinion which is also in agreement with other people's opinions. Do I like Octane? Hell no, but I won't just call someone troll on them being present in almost every topic of homosexuality. Other than that, shoo shoo miss dark girl. CoCo does not like you.

[Cherrath]

Supa Beanie

I don't see how this is relevant, what does gay marriage bring to us as a society that makes it so important for us to accept? They cannot produce children without expensive treatments, then male couples need a woman to carry it, it's completely unnatural and harmful to the family unit as we've always known it. It does nothing for the "greater good" and brings nothing helpful to society or the family unit. They can't really call it a 'right' because by deffinition they have no 'right' to do it. You can sit here and argue ethics all day long, I don't really care about ethics, what I care about is cold hard facts. Biologically homosexual marriage would be a joke, if you put all men together, and then all women in a society, the entire society would eventually thin and then die out because there is no opportunity for reproduction. Just because we live in a society where invitro is normal, doesn't make homosexuality normal, and doesn't give it a basis for allowing them to be married. If there was to ever be a time where America had a major problem like civil war or the like, or our country collapsed in any way, there wouldn't be a medical system around to offer these services to anyone. Then we'd be back to square one, homosexuals cannot reproduce, and a society full of them would die out.

There are so many falicies in this argument i don't know where to start.
1) They can produce children without expensive treatment (they're not sterile you know and it's frightfully easy to get most women pregnant)

2) We do not know that they are harmful to the family unit, in fact there's 0 evidence to back that statement, theoretical or otherwise.

3) Homosexual couples adopting children instead of making their own counts as a greater good in my opinion, unless you hate orphans of course.

4) How exactly do they have no right to do it?

5) Your argument about the population thinning out is a snowball argument of an impossible worst case scenario and therefore not worth the time it would take to read it. What if all the homosexuals combust and then they catch the world on fire? Doesn't sound like something I want to see happen.

[pulchritudinous soup]

Supa Beanie

I don't see how this is relevant, what does gay marriage bring to us as a society that makes it so important for us to accept? They cannot produce children without expensive treatments, then male couples need a woman to carry it, it's completely unnatural and harmful to the family unit as we've always known it. It does nothing for the "greater good" and brings nothing helpful to society or the family unit. They can't really call it a 'right' because by deffinition they have no 'right' to do it. You can sit here and argue ethics all day long, I don't really care about ethics, what I care about is cold hard facts. Biologically homosexual marriage would be a joke, if you put all men together, and then all women in a society, the entire society would eventually thin and then die out because there is no opportunity for reproduction. Just because we live in a society where invitro is normal, doesn't make homosexuality normal, and doesn't give it a basis for allowing them to be married. If there was to ever be a time where America had a major problem like civil war or the like, or our country collapsed in any way, there wouldn't be a medical system around to offer these services to anyone. Then we'd be back to square one, homosexuals cannot reproduce, and a society full of them would die out.

Yes, and there's no reason to have interracial marriages. In fact, if we do want to become objective when gratifying a social issue, we should not tolerate reproduction according to region and skin colour. It would be counter-productive to allow Caucasoid's to marry and reproduce (since, according to you, marriage is objective and not subjective) within regions like Africa. Why? Because their skin is less prone to UV rays. If the only reason to marry is to benefit within reproduction, we must reconsider each situation depending on regionalism, am I correct?

You tend to believe that marriage is far more complex than a social make-up. You're incredibly wrong. It was solely a social construct and, naturally (or biologically), it offers nothing. Realistically, marriage is anything but productive. If you're going to play the "baby card", how is marriage going to help? Marriage identifies a monogamous relationship and it relies that both partners are faithful to one another. It would be easier to have sex with anybody and have these moral issues completely ignored in order to benefit population.

Biologically, marriage is a joke. And, socially, your argument is a joke.

I'm hoping you can correlate how marriage is completely subjective with the relevancy of gay marriage. It's not a biological factor; no, it's far from biology. Marriage is purely civil and social.

[Darkphantom]

CoConutsForAll

I am hardly ignorant. Do I know who Octane is and what he does? Yes I do. I am not uninformed. In fact I happen to be present at times that he's in the ED, which one of them was just a few days ago. More or less I agree with him because of what my definition of troll is. My definition. Not yours. Furthermore that's your opinion which is also in agreement with other people's opinions. Do I like Octane? Hell no, but I won't just call someone troll on them being present in almost every topic of homosexuality. Other than that, shoo shoo miss dark girl. CoCo does not like you.

Idiot, Fine degrade the whole debate with your stupidity and pandering to trolls and individuals with non-existent inauthentic nonfactual positions

Just what the ******** can anyone do?... It's no wonder the referendum got the result it did despite no rational argument begin put against it. the USA is full of pepole as stupid as yourself.

[The Last Reminisce]

Darkphantom

CoConutsForAll

I am hardly ignorant. Do I know who Octane is and what he does? Yes I do. I am not uninformed. In fact I happen to be present at times that he's in the ED, which one of them was just a few days ago. More or less I agree with him because of what my definition of troll is. My definition. Not yours. Furthermore that's your opinion which is also in agreement with other people's opinions. Do I like Octane? Hell no, but I won't just call someone troll on them being present in almost every topic of homosexuality. Other than that, shoo shoo miss dark girl. CoCo does not like you.

Idiot, Fine degrade the whole debate with your stupidity and pandering to trolls and individuals with non-existent inauthentic nonfactual positions

Just what the [********] can anyone do?... It's no wonder the referendum got the result it did despite no rational argument begin put against it. the USA is full of pepole as stupid as yourself.

The first rule of debate:
Foul language to prove your point NEVER works.

[Darkphantom]

The Last Reminisce

Darkphantom

CoConutsForAll

I am hardly ignorant. Do I know who Octane is and what he does? Yes I do. I am not uninformed. In fact I happen to be present at times that he's in the ED, which one of them was just a few days ago. More or less I agree with him because of what my definition of troll is. My definition. Not yours. Furthermore that's your opinion which is also in agreement with other people's opinions. Do I like Octane? Hell no, but I won't just call someone troll on them being present in almost every topic of homosexuality. Other than that, shoo shoo miss dark girl. CoCo does not like you.

Idiot, Fine degrade the whole debate with your stupidity and pandering to trolls and individuals with non-existent inauthentic nonfactual positions

Just what the [********] can anyone do?... It's no wonder the referendum got the result it did despite no rational argument begin put against it. the USA is full of pepole as stupid as yourself.

The first rule of debate:
Foul language to prove your point NEVER works.

But Trolling and bigotry do.

[The Last Reminisce]

Darkphantom

The Last Reminisce

Darkphantom

CoConutsForAll

I am hardly ignorant. Do I know who Octane is and what he does? Yes I do. I am not uninformed. In fact I happen to be present at times that he's in the ED, which one of them was just a few days ago. More or less I agree with him because of what my definition of troll is. My definition. Not yours. Furthermore that's your opinion which is also in agreement with other people's opinions. Do I like Octane? Hell no, but I won't just call someone troll on them being present in almost every topic of homosexuality. Other than that, shoo shoo miss dark girl. CoCo does not like you.

Idiot, Fine degrade the whole debate with your stupidity and pandering to trolls and individuals with non-existent inauthentic nonfactual positions

Just what the [********] can anyone do?... It's no wonder the referendum got the result it did despite no rational argument begin put against it. the USA is full of pepole as stupid as yourself.

The first rule of debate:
Foul language to prove your point NEVER works.

But Trolling and bigotry do.

But he proves points. You basically attack his because you can't come up with a logical response to his.

[Akira Fudoh]

Darkphantom

CoConutsForAll

I am hardly ignorant. Do I know who Octane is and what he does? Yes I do. I am not uninformed. In fact I happen to be present at times that he's in the ED, which one of them was just a few days ago. More or less I agree with him because of what my definition of troll is. My definition. Not yours. Furthermore that's your opinion which is also in agreement with other people's opinions. Do I like Octane? Hell no, but I won't just call someone troll on them being present in almost every topic of homosexuality. Other than that, shoo shoo miss dark girl. CoCo does not like you.

Idiot, Fine degrade the whole debate with your stupidity and pandering to trolls and individuals with non-existent inauthentic nonfactual positions

Just what the ******** can anyone do?... It's no wonder the referendum got the result it did despite no rational argument begin put against it. the USA is full of pepole as stupid as yourself.

yeah ok, if they dont agree with you, they're stupid.

You seem like an intelligent person. dont degrade yourself by being childish.

[CoConutsForAll]

Darkphantom

CoConutsForAll

I am hardly ignorant. Do I know who Octane is and what he does? Yes I do. I am not uninformed. In fact I happen to be present at times that he's in the ED, which one of them was just a few days ago. More or less I agree with him because of what my definition of troll is. My definition. Not yours. Furthermore that's your opinion which is also in agreement with other people's opinions. Do I like Octane? Hell no, but I won't just call someone troll on them being present in almost every topic of homosexuality. Other than that, shoo shoo miss dark girl. CoCo does not like you.

Idiot, Fine degrade the whole debate with your stupidity and pandering to trolls and individuals with non-existent inauthentic nonfactual positions

Just what the ******** can anyone do?... It's no wonder the referendum got the result it did despite no rational argument begin put against it. the USA is full of pepole as stupid as yourself.

If you think that insulting me makes you anymore right, then by all means please proceed, but it will hardly make a difference on what I think nor will it make you right. You shout at me that I'm stupid and an idiot yet you do not show me how. Do not argue on any subject and call someone stupid unless you're going to give me sources on how I am. That's the point of the ED now isn't it? To have intelligent debates, not pointless insult hurling.

[pulchritudinous soup]

Torrent_Of_Octane

Except prop 8 and similar laws from other states is NOT restricting any privileges of its citizens. They are the law that define legal marriage, not one that restrict a certain group. So the definition happens to be between a man and a women. Thats perfectly legal. Its not banning or abridging gay marriage, it simply do not recognize it.

Since marriage has become a part of the law which benefits those who are willing to go through with it, it becomes a civil privilege. If a specified law deprives certain individuals from their right to practice because they belong to a certain group, that is restricting privileges of its citizens. By defining marriage using the religious regulation, it ignores both Atheists and gays. That is a restriction.

If religion is a coherent argument, then keep marriage within a religious practice. If that's the case, then there should not be any legal benefit to marry. It should be treated like baptism. If the government is unwilling to discontinue marriage as a legal benefit, then it should not rely on religious regulations. The religious definition is out-dated.

Deuteronomy 7:3-4
3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

Even if that may not be a passage directed to racial differentiations, it still concludes to one and one thing only; the bible asks that no one is to marry someone with a different belief system. Shall we now restrict those from marrying if they do not share similar religious views?

http://www.gotquestions.org/interracial-marriage.html

[Darkphantom]

The Last Reminisce

Darkphantom

The Last Reminisce

The first rule of debate:
Foul language to prove your point NEVER works.

But Trolling and bigotry do.

But he proves points. You basically attack his because you can't come up with a logical response to his.

CoConutsForAll

To have intelligent debates, not pointless insult hurling.

If you to pander and accept known trolls and there satirical works as valid positions Even as opposition views even you've been when informed about them begin inauthentic your not taking logic or this debate or the topic material seriously.

[The Last Reminisce]

Darkphantom

The Last Reminisce

Darkphantom

The Last Reminisce

The first rule of debate:
Foul language to prove your point NEVER works.

But Trolling and bigotry do.

But he proves points. You basically attack his because you can't come up with a logical response to his.

If you to pander and accept known trolls and there satirical works as valid positions Even as opposition views even you've been when informed about them begin inauthentic your not taking logic or this debate or the topic material seriously.

He can be both funny and serious. It's one of the reason why he is well known.
I don't even take you seriously! You're too much fun to not take seriously.

[Akira Fudoh]

Darkphantom

The Last Reminisce

Darkphantom

The Last Reminisce

The first rule of debate:
Foul language to prove your point NEVER works.

But Trolling and bigotry do.

But he proves points. You basically attack his because you can't come up with a logical response to his.

CoConutsForAll

To have intelligent debates, not pointless insult hurling.

If you to pander and accept known trolls and there satirical works as valid positions Even as opposition views even you've been when informed about them begin inauthentic your not taking logic or this debate or the topic material seriously.

I dont see him as a troll.

I myself have been accused of being a troll also.

so for me to listen to you and believe that he is a troll just cuz you say so would undermine my own intelligence.. and credibility.

[CoConutsForAll]

Darkphantom

The Last Reminisce

Darkphantom

The Last Reminisce

The first rule of debate:
Foul language to prove your point NEVER works.

But Trolling and bigotry do.

But he proves points. You basically attack his because you can't come up with a logical response to his.

CoConutsForAll

To have intelligent debates, not pointless insult hurling.

If you to pander and accept known trolls and there satirical works as valid positions Even as opposition views even you've been when informed about them begin inauthentic your not taking logic or this debate or the topic material seriously.

Known trolls in the eyes of other people. As I have said before I do not consider him troll like everyone else does. Why? Because he has gone from being troll to actually being semi-intelligent. Did I consider him troll at some point? Yes. Did that opinion change? Yes. So do I consider him a troll? No. Once again people of the ED consider him a troll and he's well known under that title. However, that's people in the ED who are not me. I am me. You are you. Do I like Octane? No. Do I like you? No. Am I still entitled to my opinion over a subject of debate? Yes. Well there you have it. Please keep calling me ignorant and stupid all you like. It really isn't going to change a thing nor do I think other people in the ED really care. Do I take topics I post on seriously? Yes. Do you take things a step to far with your hatred for Octane? Yes. Other than that, if you really wanna act as smart as you sound, then get back on the original topic like a smart person would. So I'll see you there when that happens.