Politics and Religion

You people are perpetual victims - CHANGE SUBJECT
dncphil 16 Reviews 313 reads
posted

The premise you go from is "the weatlthy control everything."  
You are perpetual "POOR ME."

As applied to gay rights I can only say one thing. Fucking quit crying.  Speilberg, Clooney, Katzenbach, Geffin, Bing, Streisand, Cher, Oprah, Disney.  That is just the begining of big money.  If money controls, you are in the cat birds seat and crying in your beer.

And that is the start of the list. True, they are not all gay, but they all support gay rights.  In one night alone - TONIGHT - Obama raised 15,000,000 from Hollywood.

Homosexuals may be a minority, but they have incredibly rich friends.  If money controls everything, they have nothing to worry about.  THe money from Hollywood is just a start.  Other pro-gay marraige include 80% of Silicon Valley. BILLIONS.

And you cry that money controls.  (Like your crying about Kock when you have Soros.  Your billionaire is good..  How many standards can you have.?)

As for whether someone should have a say in another's marraige, that is changing the subject.  WE WERE NOT TALKING THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE, and for once I won't get distracted, except to say should society have a say in whether you marry your mother.  If the principle is that one person has no say in another's marraige, the answer is "no."

The comparison to Roe, is that it was jammed on the people not by the ballot, but by the courts.  Maki a joke about cock, but it was still forced on the public that wasn't ready for it.  The reasoning that I use isn't crazy Phil, but Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  It is the most pro abortion justice in the history of the court saying that it was a mistake to do it by judicial fiat because it created anger and resentment.  

HEY PEA BRAIN - I AM PRO-CHOICE. I am not talking the merits, but the fall back of the court imposing something like that.

Posted By: willywonka4u
Snow, There's a difference between a minority and what Madison referred to as a "minority of the opulent". The wealthy control everything in this country. The only possible check on them is that we still decide things by democratic vote. A keen observer might notice that this has been attacked more lately than concentrations of wealth and power.

Phil, I think you confused what I mean by "minority". Homosexuals will always be a minority. The legalization of gay marriage effects primary just this group of people.

Comparisons to Roe doesn't make sense to me, for that reason. Had we fought against desegregation and Civil Rights on a state by state basis, it would still exist.

I don't particularly care if some Evangelical thinks gay marriage is "shoved down their throats". It's not like they're being forced to suck a cock. There is no logical reason why someone should have any say in someone else's marriage. Imagine how ludicrous it would be for me to say that I get to decide that Snow isn't allowed to marry some gal, because it violates my personal religious beliefs that are based on a book dating back to 4,000 years ago. It's fucking absurd.

This country should work to create more liberty and equality for it's citizens. There is no reason why we should have 2nd class citizens in the 21st century. I don't care how gay marriage is legalized, it simply is the right thing to do.

Snowman392107 reads

Obama has just come out in favor of Gay marriage.

No matter where you stand on the issue, he has just lost his re-election bid.

I wonder who will serve in the Romney cabinet.

53% of the American People now support gay marriage. That number isn't going to decrease with time.

I would be content with a national referendum on the issue and let the chips fall where they may. Not a sub issue, but a true referendum, state by state.

It is funny how so many people support gay marraige, but not one state has adopted it by popular vote.  In fact, when it came up before the New Jersey legislature, the opponents were willing to let the voters decide, but the proponents were against a popular vote.

Funny.  

Posted By: willywonka4u
53% of the American People now support gay marriage. That number isn't going to decrease with time.

I'm not sure what the merits are of having the majority vote on what the rights of minorities should be.

But regardless, the American People are quickly shifting on this issue. It's not going to turn around for supporters of discrimination.

Putting it on the ballot will give Evangelicals a lot of incentive to come out and vote. It's the reason why the GOP kept putting it on the ballot in the first place. To win elections. Democrats do the same thing by putting state increases in the minimum wage on the ballot.

I'm sure such measures will fail in the deep south, but if it is put on the ballot in New Jersey, I think it will probably win.

Snowman39381 reads

You said...

"I'm not sure what the merits are of having the majority vote on what the rights of minorities should be."

Funny how you don't feel that way when it comes to the 1%. Then, it is ok with you to seize property, use violence or whatever aganint this MINORITY group of individuals.

I like debating you, but your logic always winds up colliding with itself because of your class warfare stance. Makes you a little to easy to flush out. You need to work on that...


The question is whether it is popular, and you change it to political stategy to not have a popular vote.  You toss in "rights of minorities" which is a straw herring.  That is a subject of debate, but not a question of popularity.

The reason why it would be important for the pro-gay marraige forces is then they could say, "We put it to a vote and the people want......"   Without that, it will always be "they shoved it down our throats."

Also, you say that being on the ballot would energize the Evangelicals.  So?????? Wouldn't it energize the other side.  WIthin an hour of Obama's announcement he got an extra million dollars.

You are like the lefties who cry about the Koch brothers as if there were no Soros or Clooney or Speilberg or 100 other rich dems bundling UP TO A BILLION DOLLARS.  "Ohh, poor us.  The other side has people why care."

You imply that only one side would care, which you know is not true from demonstartions and riots.

Finally, I would refer you to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the most vocal pro-choice justice on the court.  She once said that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision for the nation.  HER REASONGING was before Roe the country was heading to legalization state by state.  had it gone that way, the vast majority of states would have accepted it and finally the nation would be ready.  However, having the court jam it down people's throats energize the right.

It is the same thing here.  Until at least some states elect it by popular support, it will never be able to be said that it was popupular.  It will remain a minority position forced by fiat on an unwilling public.
1

Posted By: willywonka4u
I'm not sure what the merits are of having the majority vote on what the rights of minorities should be.

But regardless, the American People are quickly shifting on this issue. It's not going to turn around for supporters of discrimination.

Putting it on the ballot will give Evangelicals a lot of incentive to come out and vote. It's the reason why the GOP kept putting it on the ballot in the first place. To win elections. Democrats do the same thing by putting state increases in the minimum wage on the ballot.

I'm sure such measures will fail in the deep south, but if it is put on the ballot in New Jersey, I think it will probably win.

Snow, There's a difference between a minority and what Madison referred to as a "minority of the opulent". The wealthy control everything in this country. The only possible check on them is that we still decide things by democratic vote. A keen observer might notice that this has been attacked more lately than concentrations of wealth and power.

Phil, I think you confused what I mean by "minority". Homosexuals will always be a minority. The legalization of gay marriage effects primary just this group of people.

Comparisons to Roe doesn't make sense to me, for that reason. Had we fought against desegregation and Civil Rights on a state by state basis, it would still exist.

I don't particularly care if some Evangelical thinks gay marriage is "shoved down their throats". It's not like they're being forced to suck a cock. There is no logical reason why someone should have any say in someone else's marriage. Imagine how ludicrous it would be for me to say that I get to decide that Snow isn't allowed to marry some gal, because it violates my personal religious beliefs that are based on a book dating back to 4,000 years ago. It's fucking absurd.

This country should work to create more liberty and equality for it's citizens. There is no reason why we should have 2nd class citizens in the 21st century. I don't care how gay marriage is legalized, it simply is the right thing to do.

The premise you go from is "the weatlthy control everything."  
You are perpetual "POOR ME."

As applied to gay rights I can only say one thing. Fucking quit crying.  Speilberg, Clooney, Katzenbach, Geffin, Bing, Streisand, Cher, Oprah, Disney.  That is just the begining of big money.  If money controls, you are in the cat birds seat and crying in your beer.

And that is the start of the list. True, they are not all gay, but they all support gay rights.  In one night alone - TONIGHT - Obama raised 15,000,000 from Hollywood.

Homosexuals may be a minority, but they have incredibly rich friends.  If money controls everything, they have nothing to worry about.  THe money from Hollywood is just a start.  Other pro-gay marraige include 80% of Silicon Valley. BILLIONS.

And you cry that money controls.  (Like your crying about Kock when you have Soros.  Your billionaire is good..  How many standards can you have.?)

As for whether someone should have a say in another's marraige, that is changing the subject.  WE WERE NOT TALKING THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE, and for once I won't get distracted, except to say should society have a say in whether you marry your mother.  If the principle is that one person has no say in another's marraige, the answer is "no."

The comparison to Roe, is that it was jammed on the people not by the ballot, but by the courts.  Maki a joke about cock, but it was still forced on the public that wasn't ready for it.  The reasoning that I use isn't crazy Phil, but Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  It is the most pro abortion justice in the history of the court saying that it was a mistake to do it by judicial fiat because it created anger and resentment.  

HEY PEA BRAIN - I AM PRO-CHOICE. I am not talking the merits, but the fall back of the court imposing something like that.

Posted By: willywonka4u
Snow, There's a difference between a minority and what Madison referred to as a "minority of the opulent". The wealthy control everything in this country. The only possible check on them is that we still decide things by democratic vote. A keen observer might notice that this has been attacked more lately than concentrations of wealth and power.

Phil, I think you confused what I mean by "minority". Homosexuals will always be a minority. The legalization of gay marriage effects primary just this group of people.

Comparisons to Roe doesn't make sense to me, for that reason. Had we fought against desegregation and Civil Rights on a state by state basis, it would still exist.

I don't particularly care if some Evangelical thinks gay marriage is "shoved down their throats". It's not like they're being forced to suck a cock. There is no logical reason why someone should have any say in someone else's marriage. Imagine how ludicrous it would be for me to say that I get to decide that Snow isn't allowed to marry some gal, because it violates my personal religious beliefs that are based on a book dating back to 4,000 years ago. It's fucking absurd.

This country should work to create more liberty and equality for it's citizens. There is no reason why we should have 2nd class citizens in the 21st century. I don't care how gay marriage is legalized, it simply is the right thing to do.

salonpas296 reads

Why now, when we have more pressing problems that need to be solved.

Snowman39457 reads

You are right, we do have a lot of more important issues to discuss.

However, this is politics and the point is to win. If you don;t win, you are powerless to try to implement what you really want.

Besides, with all the class warfare crap the Dems play, I think this is fair game for an election, agreed not what we should really be discussing, but still fair game.

-- Modified on 5/10/2012 7:03:36 AM

Register Now!