"What gives a minority voice the right to usurp the will of majority?"




The Constitution

Under what terms?

Under the system of Representative Republic matters subject to vote are by concenssus of the Majority and not the other way around.

If I was into hard core bestiality should I have the right to be romping in the petting zoos after dark?

There are people into that flavor of lustful pursuit and even those convinced they love their four legged friends (five depending on which way one swings in the barn yard). Now you or me would be thinking (assuming some semblance of normalcy) that those people are deviants and a minority of the population.

What you are saying is exactly what I am presenting. I am not accusing gay people of deviance. What I am saying is what next? Bestial people get to marry their animals because when that minority demands their rights we have to accept their lifestyles in the open even though you or I know it is a deviance? Then again is it?

Granted what I may be presenting is a fallacy of the slippery slope but history has vindicated my beliefs. The constitution only goes so far as an excuse to fall back on. It also spells out "Vote by the majority." So far the majority has not accepted the concept and all the few of the Gay community wanting this are succeeding in doing is alienating a lot of those of us who would otherwise be sympathetic if they were not so militant.

I'm not trying to be a Grand Richard (meaning a big DI*K about this) so don't get me wrong. In my evaluation of this issue from my perspective is that a minority of the population is trying to use equal rights to get what they want when equal rights does not apply. Marriage is (much like a driver's license) a privilege more than a right in a church where marriages are typically conducted. It is a right otherwise but there are small limitations to it comparatively. One of them is that marriage is between a man and woman by all definition and now along comes a few people not happy with that so they want to force changes down our throat for the sake of change? I really would like to see a rational explanation for the justification of Gay Marriage outside of waving the constitution in my face because most Americans do not even know what it says. I would like to see hard reason more than heart felt political diatribes as to how bad and evil us heterosexuals are because we will not accept the concept of gay marriage. I know gay people who could care less about marriage. That unto itself tears the ideal of it in half for me when members of the same community wanting gay marriage show apathy or lack of sympathy towards the movement.

I think this is fuzzy logic. If we use your logic, why should something like owning guns be legal? Certainly the constitution spells out a right to bear arms, but what's next? My neighbor might want a tank, or my other neighbor might want a battle ship. Yes, this is just as absurd as your argument.

A few reasons why beastiality would not be accepted: (1) it does not take place within the context of two consenting adults; (2) the courts have the ability to regulate obscenity; (3)history--if we look at previous supreme cout cases, especially with ones dealing with homosexuality and marriage, we don't see giant watershed moments where new rights are granted to a wide segment of the population. Indeed, if this was the case we would not be having this conversation in the first place. Let's take your logic here and apply to the real world. For a long time many states had laws restricting the marriage between whites and blacks (i.e. it was illegal to have interracial marriage). Using your logic, allowing two groups that were traditionally never allowed to marry would pave the way for a whole host of minorities to marry or openly practice their "deviance." But it's 40 years later and none of these things have happened!

Rather, what actually happens is that each group has to struggle to have their own cases. The gay marriage case is the supreme example of this. If someone wanted to practice beastiality in the open, they would have to have this same exact fight and because of the aformentioned reasons, they would not get very far.

As far a "vote by the majority"; this is indeed the case, but not even the majority can vote in laws that are unconstitutional.





Except that it's not. In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival..."



But now you are saying it is a right. If it is a right, according to the constitution that right cannot be taked away without due process and ALL citizens have equal protection under the laws.



Let's use your logic again and apply it to the real world. Many years ago by all definitions, African Americans were not citizens. They did not have the same rights as whites and were treated less than humans. Now, using your logic, African Americans should never have the same rights as whites because, for as long as there has been a written history, it was socially and culturally acceptable to deprive certain humans of certain rights.

But something happened, right? Culture changes. People become more tolerant and are more willing to change social definitions of what is and what is not acceptable.




One rational explanation without using the constitution would be that, as long as no one else can show substantial harm as a result of an action, to consenting adults ought to be allowed to do as they please. Nevertheless, this argument does not need to be made because we are a nation of laws. Whether or not the populace knows what is in the constitution is irrelevent. Ignorance is no excuse; if you break a law that you did not know was a law, you are still guilty.




Not really. All that says is that some people do not care if they get married or not.

I, personally, dont think its a great idea.

mainly becasue.........I dont think a gay couple should be allowed to adopt children. I think that it would be harder for a gay unmarried couple to adopt.
unless your like a celebrity.

Maybe his real name is Richard.

Hey, I would love to own a tank! Some people do. I can own a working Anti Aircraft or Anti Tank gun under Curio and Relic. in Arizona I can own a sub machine gun or a full blown machine gun. Your application of Fuzzy logic does not fly well.

You said: Except that it's not. In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

First of all WHEN was this case?

Also it does not define the context of Marriage but the fact that the Institution of Marriage is a basic Civil Right. It did nothing to change the past definition of Marrigae. Also this is California not Virginia. it has been in court here too and lost. Just because it is a basi civil right of man does not mean men can marry men.

You said: Ignorance is no excuse; if you break a law that you did not know was a law, you are still guilty.

That is such a loaded statement and I have had it used against me before. There is basic laws and there is everything else. That is just a way of trying to justify an overly complicated legal system not based on justice but drama. moving on.

you said: A few reasons why beastiality would not be accepted: (1) it does not take place within the context of two consenting adults;

Do you own pets? How many animals have you been around? Live on a farm or ranch? A female dog will clearly tell you she wants you to let her have it if you know the signs. A female horse will also display to you if she knows you are a male. All animals to some extent can consent if you know what behaviors to look for. I have been involved with animals all of my life and understand them far better than most people do. Read teh field notes of John C Lilly's research pertaining to an experiment where his assistant spent six months in close contact with a male dolphin. It actually DEMANDED sexual contact with her. Animal Intelligence is so misunderstood that it blows me away some times how we can look down our noses at everythign else and think we are so superior.


Now with the argument that equal protection under the law?
You already get that.

Marriage is still considered an institution.


Also let us cut out the PC crap.

Back in the 1930s blacks were still openly called Ni@@**s.
All the way into the 1980 I was taught that Negros were fighting for the rights to be considered American citizens and equals. Now we have to call black people Afro Americans? Please show me where the HELL Afro America is on the map. There is no shame for a Negro to be an American because if it was then my spick ass should be ashamed to be of Italian and Irish heritage. I should then be telling all Mexican, Guatemalan, and Honduran Americans they are all the same Latinos. Do you have any idea how pissed off a Guatemalan gets calling them a Mexican and Vice Versa? Why is it I can't just see a black man or Negro or whatever they choose to see themselves as as another American? They have to be Afro American? PU-LEASE! I hate that term with a flaming passion. That is Jessie Jackson tilted biased rainbow speak.


You said: One rational explanation without using the constitution would be that, as long as no one else can show substantial harm as a result of an action, to consenting adults ought to be allowed to do as they please. Nevertheless, this argument does not need to be made because we are a nation of laws. Whether or not the populace knows what is in the constitution is irrelevent. Ignorance is no excuse; if you break a law that you did not know was a law, you are still guilty.


Again this is trying to rationalize something that is an institution that has roots far deeper than our constitution and you are saying a hand full of people have the rights to force everyone else to accept the change when a vote was presented and they lost? That is selective ignorance of the system. Again, why should a minority voice be allowed to say mass opinion when it is clear that mass opinion is against it right now?

There has to be a concession that can be reached between both sides but again the 'all or nothing' attitude really puts me off.

You are correct here. I did not articulate my comparison very well. But it does not take much to see where I was going with it. Using your logic of worst-case scenario, people would be shooting their AAA and driving their tanks all over public place shooting their large caliber guns. Clearly, this is not the case.




This case was decided in 1967, but this is irrelevant since no other case has overturned it.



Actually, it did. As stated in the aforementioned post, legally, in the United States marriage was defined as two persons of the same race joining into a union. Since there were anti-miscegenation laws on the books in many states, this was indeed the legal definition of marriage.



I really don't feel like giving a ninth grade civics lesson here. I would have assumed you knew that when the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that it applied to all 50 states. I am not sure what "it" you are referring to. If the "it" is anti-miscegenation laws, it applies to all 50 states. If the "it" you are referring to gay marriage, that is irrelevant because we are discussing the U.S. Supreme Court, not any state Supreme Court.



First, this is very difficult to read because of your poor syntax. Please have the common courtesy to proof read your posts so that they make sense. I should also mention you have no argument against mine here.



I am assuming you are being facetious here. This can't be a serious argument as to why legalizing gay marriage would lead to bestiality? Can it?

I'll indulge you anyways. I own pets and have been around animals all my life. You fail to mention how any of this would equate to two consenting adults. Sure animals can show signs of wanting intimate behavior. My dog who is a male humps legs all the time. So what? This does not equate to two consenting adults. For one thing, is there a legal definition of what constitutes an adult animal? No. Argument over.


Here, I should also mention you fail to come up with any argument against points (2) and (3).



Please elaborate on this.



This is not a new term. I used it in the context of differentiating between whites and blacks. I will still use it. You need to get over yourself.




What don't you understand about laws that are passed that violate the constitution are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It doesn't matter if 51% or 99% of the populace voted something into law if it violates the constitution. The only course of action they would have is to amend the United States constitution. Come on, this basic high school level civics here.



One word: the constitution! The fact is we do not live in a simple majority rule governance system--and for good reason. People would be able to vote in whatever laws they wanted without paying attention to minority rights. That is why the constitution was specifically designed to protect minority rights in a majority rule setting.

Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. But throughout history marriage has been between a man and a woman, even if it was based more on property than love (in the ancient world). A man and a woman can have children together and propagate the human race so we all have a future. That seems right to me.

Excuse me, how exactly did the world become over populated? It certainly didn't become so by gays. There's no chance of the world ever loosing members because gays are allowed to marry.

Please, people, educate youselves. You can't even be gay with out the attraction in the first place. So straights aren't going to go over to the other side in droves... geezuz!

We keep talking about history, thankfully we had made changes over time or we'd all be sitting in the dark for pete sakes.

There's 13 people per sq. mile in the world and it's overpopulated? Just because here in america we consume every natural resource ad-infinitum, doesn't mean the world's on that pace. But what if everyone was gay, then we all die within 2 generations and bam, no more human race, sounds fun.

Oh and the world is not over populated until it's one hunderd percent covered in people? Good to know...

Please, not everyone will be gay, that will just never happen, don't know why you don't get that but never the less it will not happen. I won't waste anymore time on this, you can research yourself if you ever wanted to know.

Hey this is funny http://www.commondreams.org/video/2009/06/04-0

Hmmm where do all those pesky gays come from????? Get real man!!!!

They come from straight people, but shssssh, don't tell them that.

"pesky gays"

hahahaha

I meant no offence by that...just a bad word for the joke..

I know

it just made me laugh

I thought it was cute, myself. I got a giggle out of it.