NYTimes: "Strong Support Found for Ban on Gay Marriage"

[RGBVideo]

Okay, were you just being a smartass or doesn't that sentence make sense at all?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

"Normal", WTF is that supposed to mean?

1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.

http://www.dictionary.com

So homosexuality is normal then.

[RGBVideo]

So homosexuality is normal then.

Good to see that even some people realize my obscure chain of logic.

[Drake Tungsten]

Okay, were you just being a smartass or doesn't that sentence make sense at all?

If you really weren't looking for a definition, then I'm going to go with the latter. I was being a smartass, though.

BTW, did you just change your name or something?

[RGBVideo]

BTW, did you just change your name or something?

Positive. One of the reasons was the fact that almost nobody was able to spell my old one correctly, it was too long, filled with vowels and didn't make any sense at all to most of the people at ACS.

[DanS]

You have to admit that this is a pretty high number of support for a constitutional amendment. I think the number would be much lower if the majority felt that its wishes would be respected by the courts, or indeed if the public felt that it was being consulted adequately on the matter. It's as if the debate is being closed well before middle America has come to a political decision on the issue.

The question of both slavery and segregation are instructive, but not in the way stated by many above. Both questions were resolved primarily through a political process (or a political process at the end of a bayonnet) and in both cases the wishes of the majority won the day.

There's really no shortcut for gay rights, IMO. You have to convince a majority of Americans that the position is correct. Going primarily through the courts will not lend the needed legitimacy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's really no shortcut for gay rights, IMO. You have to convince a majority of Americans that the position is correct. Going primarily through the courts will not lend the needed legitimacy.

Unfortunetly I believe you are right, Dan. The reason the abortion issue is so hotly contested, I believe, is because the courts ended the political discussion before the country had come to a democratic consensus (which probably would have ended up pro-abortion with some limitations, IMO). It has led to charges of the Imperial Judiciary, meaning that most people the people aren't being asked their opinion, which they feel they should in a democracy.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Pekka
No no wait.. is homosexuality illegal in the US???

It was in Texas (and some other states) until that SCOTUS ruling earlier in the year.

[DanS]

The reason the abortion issue is so hotly contested, I believe, is because the courts ended the political discussion before the country had come to a democratic consensus (which probably would have ended up pro-abortion with some limitations, IMO). It has led to charges of the Imperial Judiciary, meaning that most people the people aren't being asked their opinion, which they feel they should in a democracy.

I would agree with that thought. It's a settled issue in most other Western countries. Despite the fact that Americans are well to the right of these Western countries on the issue of abortion, we have the most liberal rules. Why is this the case? The courts intervened.

Or maybe we aren't to the right of these countries on the issue. We'll never know. Or we might know, if the courts overturn their earlier decisions.

[David Floyd]

Where's Ben Kenobi? He backed out of the last debate, let's see if he resurfaces here...

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Where's Ben Kenobi? He backed out of the last debate, let's see if he resurfaces here...

I'm proud of you Floyd... knowing your devout Christian beliefs, I'm surprised you are on my side of this debate. I guess it just goes to show that Libertarians really DO care about freedom... even if the economic aspects of that doctrine really aren't practical.

[David Floyd]

My religion is personal, and I believe that freedom is more important when it comes to how I deal with others. Therefore, if I have to choose between my religious beliefs and individual liberty as a basis for law, I'll choose individual liberty 100% of the time.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My religion is personal, and I believe that freedom is more important when it comes to how I deal with others. Therefore, if I have to choose between my religious beliefs and individual liberty as a basis for law, I'll choose individual liberty 100% of the time.

HEATHEN!

[David Floyd]

That individual liberty mantra, of course, includes economic freedom

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That individual liberty mantra, of course, includes economic freedom

see... this is why we need more political parties in this damn country. It seems too many people have views that conflict with each party. But the Demoncrats and the Repukes have polarized politics so that no matter what, at least one of the two wins... and corporate America controls both of the parties.

BWAHHHHHHHH I WANT A PARLIAMENTARY POLITICAL SYSTEM!!!