Palin breaks with McCain on gay marriage

[Anewman]

Tried to light up a cigerette in a public place recently? That smoker would really like to be able to have one while enjoying his coffee sitting in the resturant. Do you have any problem taking his right away?

His right?

You are really going to turn this into a debate about second hand smoke?


Lots of things are unpopular and not all are unhealthy, I will never believe in writing laws based on popularity contests. PERIOD.

 

[ChrizJen]

Tried to light up a cigerette in a public place recently? That smoker would really like to be able to have one while enjoying his coffee sitting in the resturant. Do you have any problem taking his right away?

I do not have a problem with it, because it affects other people. My right to marry the person I love has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on anyone but myself and my partner.
Try again.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Well if you would like my feelings on Gay Marriage I'll be happy to give them to you.

I do not feel that the governement should sanction Gay Marriage, but now the kicker, I do not feel that the government should sanction Hetero Marriage either. Marriage is a religious sacrement and should be left to the churches to decide who they will marry or not.

What the government shoul be sactioning are civil unions, those civil unions should be the basis of the rights, benifits, and obligations currently afforded to the state recognized marriage. And those unions should be allowed between any two consenting adults.

That's my feelings, it puts me in a minority possition in the country, and even on the fringe of that particular minority.

This is not a fringe position at all. Tons of people (on all sides of the political map) hold this position.

But notice McCain and Palin are against this position too, because this position involves giving civil unions (hence equal legal and political rights) to gay couples. They are against ANY position that would give gay people equal rights to straight people even if the word marriage is not part of the equation.

 

[Master Mason]

Again, I disagree, that is not how things work, if it were, Kennedy would not have had to federalize the national guard to assist with segregation. You do not personally equate sexuality to race because it would not support your opinion. Denial of rights is denial of rights no matter how one may try to justify it.

Did you actually read my opinion, just curious because I support gay civil unions.

I do not equate race to sexuality, because they are different. Telling two men or women they can not marry is not the same to me as telling a white man and a black woman that they can not marry. One is based on race, one on sexuality.

 

[RickinNYC]

Did you actually read my opinion, just curious because I support gay civil unions.

I do not equate race to sexuality, because they are different. Telling two men or women they can not marry is not the same to me as telling a white man and a black woman that they can not marry. One is based on race, one on sexuality.

Well, you are born a particularly race just like you're born gay. Or do you refute that and it's a matter of choice?

 

[Master Mason]

His right?

You are really going to turn this into a debate about second hand smoke?


Lots of things are unpopular and not all are unhealthy, I will never believe in writing laws based on popularity contests. PERIOD.

No my point is not second hand smoke, my point is when the majority feel something is wrong they pass laws prohibiting it. Right wrong or indifferent, it is how things work.

 

[smartestnumber5]

And more than 50% of the population half a decade ago wanted to keep interracial marriage illegal. I suppose you feel that if it's what the people want, then it should stay that way.

I wish just once someone would have the you-know-what to stand up and say "YES--I do think that the majority had every right to ban interracial marriage. I think the courts were being activist when they struck that down. There is nothing wrong with banning interracial marriage so long as the majority supports the ban."

I swear on every single one of these threads I bring up Loving v. Virginia. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever has any person who is against gay marriage (or against courts finding laws which ban gay marriage unconstitutional) been able to tell me how they can reconcile their view on gay marriage and interracial marriage.

 

[RickinNYC]

I wish just once someone would have the you-know-what to stand up and say "YES--I do think that the majority had every right to ban interracial marriage. I think the courts were being activist when they struck that down. There is nothing wrong with banning interracial marriage so long as the majority supports the ban."

I swear on every single one of these threads I bring up Loving v. Virginia. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever has any person who is against gay marriage (or against courts finding laws which ban gay marriage unconstitutional) been able to tell me how they can reconcile their view on gay marriage and interracial marriage.

Master Mason just did.

 

[soupy11]

Well, you are born a particularly race just like you're born gay. Or do you refute that and it's a matter of choice?

Yeah I don't get this argument. Who would chose a tougher life of oppression, discrimination, intolerance and hardship? If it is a choice, how does that make any sense?


I can't believe in this day and age there are people who would argue that gay people choose to be so.

 

[Master Mason]

This is not a fringe position at all. Tons of people (on all sides of the political map) hold this position.

But notice McCain and Palin are against this position too, because this position involves giving civil unions (hence equal legal and political rights) to gay couples. They are against ANY position that would give gay people equal rights to straight people even if the word marriage is not part of the equation.

Yep your right, and if that was my most important issue, then I would be voting for Obama, but, it is not my most important issue.

Well, you are born a particularly race just like you're born gay. Or do you refute that and it's a matter of choice?

I don't think in todays society that anyone would "choose" to be gay, because it makes your life much more difficult. So, then one must either be born that way, or have something that causes them to develope in that manner. I don't know which it is, and I don't know if there is any evidence that suggests one over the other. In the end it doesn't matter to me really, if someone is gay then I don't have an issue with it.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Master Mason just did.

Ah I was reading from where I left off on this thread--I just got to that part.

WOW--I cannot believe that anyone is willing to say that.

I take it all back. I give MM a lot of credit--it takes a lot of guts to get up there and say there's nothing problematic about banning interracial marriage so long as there is a 50% majority supports it.

I wish more conservatives were that honest about their complete disregard for constitution rights. It would make elections a heck of a lot easier.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

No my point is not second hand smoke, my point is when the majority feel something is wrong they pass laws prohibiting it. Right wrong or indifferent, it is how things work.

Wrong to subject other people to harmful carcinogens is not the same as morally wrong (in some people's view) but harms no one, and in fact helps families.

 

[RickinNYC]

I don't think in todays society that anyone would "choose" to be gay, because it makes your life much more difficult. So, then one must either be born that way, or have something that causes them to develope in that manner. I don't know which it is, and I don't know if there is any evidence that suggests one over the other. In the end it doesn't matter to me really, if someone is gay then I don't have an issue with it.

Then pray tell, where do you find the inherent difference between Joe and I getting legally married/civil unioned and a black man/white woman or vice versa?

 

[Anewman]

No my point is not second hand smoke, my point is when the majority feel something is wrong they pass laws prohibiting it. Right wrong or indifferent, it is how things work.

That is how it may seem to you, but there plenty of UNPOPULAR laws. And plenty of popular laws that have been overturned(some cited in this thread).

Your assertion that if enough persons have the same opinion and vote on it should make a law, is not the way it works and I am glad.

If guns are unpopular here in CA, do you really think a proposition could ban them?

 

[Master Mason]

Ah I was reading from where I left off on this thread--I just got to that part.

WOW--I cannot believe that anyone is willing to say that.

I take it all back. I give MM a lot of credit--it takes a lot of guts to get up there and say there's nothing problematic about banning interracial marriage so long as there is a 50% majority supports it.

I wish more conservatives were that honest about their complete disregard for constitution rights. It would make elections a heck of a lot easier.[/QUOTE]

Actually I agree with the bolded part completely, it would make elections a lot easier if people would say what the mean and mean what they say.

If 50% of the people believed something and voted for it, then the candidates that shared their views would likely get their vote no?

 

[ChrizJen]

No my point is not second hand smoke, my point is when the majority feel something is wrong they pass laws prohibiting it. Right wrong or indifferent, it is how things work.

With a ban on smoking, it's not really an issue of the majority feeling something is wrong. It's a matter of the majority feeling that the smoker's right to smoke in a public place is infringing on the rights of the people around them to breathe healthy, less poluted air. When your rights begin to infringe on my health and well-being, then it becomes a matter of public opinion. When my rights have absolutely no bearing on you whatsoever, how is that subject to public scrutiny? You can feel what you want to feel about my relationship and my right to marry. But until it impacts your life or well-being in any way, you don't get a say in whether or not is should be legal.

 

[Master Mason]

That is how it may seem to you, but there plenty of UNPOPULAR laws. And plenty of popular laws that have been overturned(some cited in this thread).

Your assertion that if enough persons have the same opinion and vote on it should make a law, is not the way it works and I am glad.

If guns are unpopular here in CA, do you really think a proposition could ban them?

Not unless they could get a majority of a super majority of the states to agree. Guns are protected by the constitution.

 

[RickinNYC]

Anyway, back to the original topic at hand... Palin is an idiot.... AGAIN.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Guns are protected by the constitution.

What constitution?

It's clear that you don't believe in the constitution, else how could you have just given your okay to ban interracial marriage with a mere 50% voting majority?

 

[ChrizJen]

Anyway, back to the original topic at hand... Palin is an idiot.... AGAIN.

Thanks for keeping us on track...