:thumbs up: New York

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, your entire argument revolves around social consequences.

No, my argument is that there is a purpose and a role for government.

Clearly, you know the health of your future marriage hinges on your future wife and yourself, not what other people do.

Indeed, but my concern for society involves the actions of others. If I'm paying for your healthcare then it stands to reason that I get to have a say in activities that you participate that are detrimental to your health.

So concerns about the sanctity of (your) marriage are meaningless. Instead, you're concerned with the sanctity of (OTHER PEOPLE'S!) marriages

That's like arguing that the sanctity of my private property has nothing to do with the sanctity of other people's private property, when quite oddly, the two are the same.

[Tupac Shakur]

Drake, you and BK should get married - you both have the same kind of love for tyrannical rule.

I know that you're ruled by your emotions and struggle to think logically, but this is pretty idiotic even judged on the MrFun curve...

edit: I do, however, enjoy the irony of people who argue that allowing gays to marry won't have any major effect on society becoming outraged when someone agrees with them and draws the logical conclusion that allowing gays to marry is an unimportant issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some of the founding Fathers warned against the tyranny of the majority, so they provided checks against such a thing from happening. But you being an ignorant jackass, you probably didn't know about this part of our history.

Yes, truly, because a government formed in rebellion over the whole issue of representation endorses legislation contrary to the will of the people. Tyranny of the majority is hardly the only form of tyranny.

[Ben Kenobi]

How is this supposed to make a lick of sense? Would your marriage be in any way degraded if homosexuals were married? I'd hope the strength and value of your future marriage is entirely predicated on the strength and value of the relationship you would have with your wife, not on the marriage status of your neighbors or those across the country, whether they be man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

Is the value of your private property impacted by the fact that there are laws that prevent other people from taking it away from you? Fr'nstance if there were a government that abolished private property would it change it's value?

You are right that things have intrinsic value, but they also have relative value too.

I believe that marriage between a man and a woman should remain as it is and that society should recognise and celebrate marriage between a man and a woman.

If the people of the state of NY had been asked the question, and decided in favour of gay marriage, then I would simply say that I disagree with the people of New York. I would also probably say that you can't have states passing marriage laws, because it breaks proportionality. This is a federal role. Is NY going to provide spousal immigration? How are the laws going to work?

[MrFun]

I know that you're ruled by your emotions and struggle to think logically, but this is pretty idiotic even judged on the MrFun curve...

No, my statement makes perfect sense. You fully support putting civil rights issues up for voting by a majority.

[MrFun]

Is the value of your private property impacted by the fact that there are laws that prevent other people from taking it away from you? Fr'nstance if there were a government that abolished private property would it change it's value?

You are right that things have intrinsic value, but they also have relative value too.

We should not have allowed blacks equal housing rights. Look at how property values have dropped!!

[MrFun]

No, my argument is that there is a purpose and a role for government.



Indeed, but my concern for society involves the actions of others. If I'm paying for your healthcare then it stands to reason that I get to have a say in activities that you participate that are detrimental to your health.



That's like arguing that the sanctity of my private property has nothing to do with the sanctity of other people's private property, when quite oddly, the two are the same.

Granting gays equal marriage rights will not stop straight people from marrying.

[Ben Kenobi]

We live in a representative democracy. Is there no end to how wrong you are about everything?

That does not vote on issues sacrosanct to the left. That strikes me as telling.

[Tupac Shakur]

You fully support putting civil rights issues up for voting by a majority.

Of course I do; that is how we got the Civil Rights Act, after all. The idiotic part of your comment was your contention that my respect for democracy makes me a lover of "tyrannical rule."

[Ben Kenobi]

Granting gays equal marriage rights will not stop straight people from marrying.

So if Texas were to pass a law saying that no one unless married within Texas was considered to be married, you'd be fine with this?

[MrFun]

I should have known that BK favors tyrannical rule, given his stance on other issues.

[Ben Kenobi]

We should not have allowed blacks equal housing rights. Look at how property values have dropped!!

Do you believe that civil right are a state matter?

[MrFun]

You fully support putting civil rights issues up for voting by a majority.

Of course I do; that is how we got the Civil Rights Act, after all. The idiotic part of your comment was your contention that my respect for democratic practice makes me a lover of "tyrannical rule."

Yep - my statement of "tyrannical rule" refers to a majority voting to suppress a minority group's rights. That is a form of tyrannical rule. Nothing idiotic about it.

[Tupac Shakur]

No one is voting to suppress the right of gays to marry (except maybe in California); no such right currently exists in most US states. The debate is over whether to create that right or not. Please, try to think a little before your next emotion-fueled outburst...

[Ben Kenobi]

I should have known that BK favors tyrannical rule, given his stance on other issues.

We all know that if the situation were reversed that Mr. Fun would be howling about how undemocratic is it for people to vote on issues surrounding their conscience. Unless of course their conscience agrees with Mr. Fun.

Mr. Fun, I've been seeing this game played out for years. Not once has it been put up to a binding vote in any jurisdiction. This tells me that the party that resists voter identification to pursue fraud also resists actual elections when at all possible. That favours undemocratic means of change, and yet has the temerity to cry and howl when they lose elections.

And you say I love tyranny?

I'm looking at Al Gore, whom you believe was robbed of an election saying that there needs to be fewer people on the planet. Presumably this is after he's had his 4.