So gay!!!

[Deleted member 365]

Is the country better off if our laws bend to the desires of the minority? If the majority of the American people don't support gay marriage, then doesn't Democracy end if judges or "the minority" overrule the desires of the majority? The majority has proven to be wrong at times. But which "side" will lead us astray more oft, the minority or the majority? What happens to our society and country if the laws do not represent the desires or ideals of the majority?

What did the Founding Fathers intend?

 

[One Brow]

Is the country better off if our laws bend to the desires of the minority? If the majority of the American people don't support gay marriage, then doesn't Democracy end if judges or "the minority" overrule the desires of the majority? The majority has proven to be wrong at times. But which "side" will lead us astray more oft, the minority or the majority? What happens to our society and country if the laws do not represent the desires or ideals of the majority?

What did the Founding Fathers intend?

Is the country better off if our laws bend to the desires of the minority? If the majority of the American people don't support interracial marriage, then doesn't Democracy end if judges or "the minority" overrule the desires of the majority? The majority has proven to be wrong at times. But which "side" will lead us astray more oft, the minority or the majority? What happens to our society and country if the laws do not represent the desires or ideals of the majority?

What did the Founding Fathers intend?

One word makes a big difference, eh? By the way, our Founding Fathers did intend the courts to overrule laws were unconstitutional, including those that oppressed religious minorities.

 

[Hopper]

Sorry, I did focus on the wrong thing.

No, the actual depth of the hole is not a pragmatic concern. The potential depth of the hole is a pragmatic conern.

OK, that's an answer to the question, Eric, thanks.

I'm curious how you got that out of this, which has no mention of homosexuals at all.

Obviously I got it from the CONTEXT of your statement, Eric, not merely the statement itself. You were addressing a statement about methods gays were trying to use to get the same civil rights protections afforded racial minorities.

That context does not change just because you only partially quote the statement being made. The sentence immediately following the part you quoted, for example, says: "An inborn, unchangeable fact, after all, could not be subject to moral disapproval."

 

[Hopper]

One word makes a big difference, eh? By the way, our Founding Fathers did intend the courts to overrule laws were unconstitutional, including those that oppressed religious minorities.

That's not so clear-cut, Eric, although that's the way the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution. For centuries since, many have argued (and still argue) that the founding fathers did NOT intend to give the Supreme Court the power to overrule duly-passed legislative enactments.

 

[chemdude1232]

Speaking in absolutes - probably not the best thing to do with respect to law, but whatever - the law enacted to allow homosexual marriage couldn't really "harm" the heterosexual majority per se, right? With that being said, I don't see how the law is bending to the minority position, seeing as how no one is harmed if it were to pass (or, conversely, not pass). So I don't see how (or why, really) the heterosexual majority could claim the end of democracy if homosexual marriage is allowed.

Or maybe I'm missing the point. Just my 2 cents, people.

 

[Hopper]

I don't see how the law is bending to the minority position...Or maybe I'm missing the point

Maybe you are missing part of the point, Chem. You have indicated before that you felt gays were only seeking the right to have their love for each other acknowledged, or sumthin like that, right?

Did you read Marcus's recent post, or go to the website he posted? His post says:

"Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!"

That's EXACTLY the kinda thang some gays want most.

 

[Gameface]

Is the country better off if our laws bend to the desires of the minority? If the majority of the American people don't support gay marriage, then doesn't Democracy end if judges or "the minority" overrule the desires of the majority? The majority has proven to be wrong at times. But which "side" will lead us astray more oft, the minority or the majority? What happens to our society and country if the laws do not represent the desires or ideals of the majority?

What did the Founding Fathers intend?

We are a nation founded on the concept of individual rights. Not rights granted to us by a vote of the majority, or through the benevolence of our government. Our rights are inalienable. They belong to each and every one of us as thinking and reasoning individuals. We are capable of making our own decisions and determining our own fate, therefore it is our privileged to do so. The "majority" does not posses the authority to take that away. They may have the ability to use force to take that away, but that does not mean they are justified in doing so. I have rights as a human being and I'll be damned if your vote takes that away from me. I would expect any person, homosexual or heterosexual, to feel exactly the same way.

 

[Hopper]

Here's a short excerpt from the site he posted:

"The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

•At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

•Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

•By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child

•In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!"

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Now they've got the kindergarten kids and the second-graders bein brain-washed without notifying parents all while withholding from parents the right to keep their kids away from this type of indoctrination.

ALL because gay marriage was declared legal in Massachusetts.

 

[One Brow]

Obviously I got it from the CONTEXT of your statement, Eric, not merely the statement itself. You were addressing a statement about methods gays were trying to use to get the same civil rights protections afforded racial minorities.

Specifically, I was addressing that notion of using the claim that homosexuality is genetic, pointing out that the logic is doing so to claim protected status was faulty, by pointing out that two other statuses, both protected tot he desired degree, included one that came from a genetic source and one that did not. You were the one who took that and tried to say it was a legal argument, in your misreading of the post.

That's not so clear-cut, Eric, although that's the way the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution. For centuries since, many have argued (and still argue) that the founding fathers did NOT intend to give the Supreme Court the power to overrule duly-passed legislative enactments.

Lots of people argue lots of things. That doesn't mean their arguments are sound.

"Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!"

That's EXACTLY the kinda thang some gays want most.

They have a right to no less. Schools should protray interracial marriages as being normal, despite what the parents think or believe. Sure, that's exactly what the miscegenists want, but that doesn't make it wrong nor oppressive.

Here's a short excerpt from the site he posted:

"The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

•At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Teachers often talked about their opposite-sex partners in school. Why not the same-sex?

•Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

Many 8th-grade health classes discuss sex, abstinence, condoms, etc. Girls can be impregnated at that age, after all. If you are going to discuss oposite-sex mechanics, why not same-sex mechanics?

•By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

It would be interesting to see what "strongly insisted" entails here.

•Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child

Why should there be such a duty?

•In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!"

I await to hear why this is a problem.

Now they've got the kindergarten kids and the second-graders bein brain-washed without notifying parents all while withholding from parents the right to keep their kids away from this type of indoctrination.

So, reading stories about homosexual couples is "brain-washing"? Seriously? How stupid is that?

 

[Hopper]

A few more little tidbits, eh, Chem:

•Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, ***** in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, ********** other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex

•Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.


•Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility. Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.


Good ole "Glisten" using taxpayer money to "educate" chillinz, eh?

 

[Hopper]

Specifically, I was addressing that notion of using the claim that homosexuality is genetic, pointing out that the logic is doing so to claim protected status was faulty, by pointing out that two other statuses, both protected tot he desired degree, included one that came from a genetic source and one that did not. You were the one who took that and tried to say it was a legal argument, in your misreading of the post.

OK, Eric, one more time: The argument you claimed was "illogical" was that gays were trying to get the same civils rights protections as racial minorities (religion was not even mentioned) by trying to fall within the same general class of having characteristics that were purportedly innate. That argument was not, and is not, illogical, even though the attempt by gays has failed, to date. Religion has nothing to do with the argument which you portrayed as "illogical." Your attempt to make it part of the argument you were trying to criticize was misplaced.

In effect, you were trying to blow down a straw man by suggesting that the argument you were criticizing was that "Gays can get the same civil rights protections as blacks ONLY IF homosexuality is innate." That was NOT the argument. Any insistence to the contrary is simply a resort to the "straw man" fallacy.

 

[Scat]

They have a right to no less. Schools should protray interracial marriages as being normal, despite what the parents think or believe. Sure, that's exactly what the miscegenists want, but that doesn't make it wrong nor oppressive.

There is a vast difference between not saying anything negative vs. having assemblies, introducing transvestites, handing out pamphlets, etc. They are not just treating gay marriage as if it is normal, they are essentially promoting it.

Here's a short excerpt from the site he posted:

"The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

•At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Teachers often talked about their opposite-sex partners in school. Why not the same-sex?

This is not just a teacher that casually mentions or talks about their partner. They are having school wide assemblies to introduce their partners and promote their lifestyle. When was the last time you've ever heard of a school assembly celebrating heterosexuality and had members of the community profess their love to their heterosexual partner on stage in front of the entire school? I'd argue that if a school did hold such an assembly school officials would be blasted for using the education system to promote an anti-gay agenda. I have to reiterate that they are basically promoting homosexuality.

Many 8th-grade health classes discuss sex, abstinence, condoms, etc. Girls can be impregnated at that age, after all. If you are going to discuss oposite-sex mechanics, why not same-sex mechanics?

I'd argue that sex mechanics shouldn't be taught in school at all. Go ahead and discuss pregnancy, abstinence and protection but the mechanics of it should not even be on the table, gay or straight.

It would be interesting to see what "strongly insisted" entails here.

Are you hinting that this parent got loud, verbal and abusive? I would too if the school told me I had no business in my child's "education".

•Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child

Why should there be such a duty?

If your child's school started teaching creationism I suspect that you would have a different take on what the school's duty is.

So, reading stories about homosexual couples is "brain-washing"? Seriously? How stupid is that?

Not so much brain washing as it is indoctrination.