The rights of the minority are not subject to a popular vote...

Thanks...for your STUPID response.

 

You use this comparison like guns are anywhere near regulated as cars.

 

LOL!! I know. Anyone who has operated, purchased or registered an automobile should know EXACTLY what you mean.

 

Proposition 8 clearly violated the rights of minorities by imposing the majority's private disapproval of gays but gun owners are not minorities whose rights have to be protected. The gun lobby and Second Amendment protect their right to bear arms and there is no comparison between gun rights and gay rights.

 

Read some history, start with the 1866 Harper's Weekly, January. Yeah, vigilante group enforcing gun control laws on blacks.

 

Only a fool would worship the status quo, we need to return to what the Founders' gave us or change that with an Amendment. Chipping away at our rights with layers and layers of laws is slowly turning our rights into privileges, that is unacceptable.

 

Here's a little quiz: I have a car that I don't have registered or insured, plated or titled, and I drive it almost every weekend in warm weather....and don't break the law. Tell me how can this be so?

Cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution by the way, give it a read sometime.

 

I love my sister, should I be allowed to marry her? or how about my own mother? how slippery do you want this slope? I would bet you would say "you don't care" just so you can have special rights that are afforded for a man and a woman. NO, men and men are not the SAME as a man and a woman. If it's all about love, then love them, but don't call what you want the same as what men and women share that no two men can share. It's not the same, plain and simple. Yes, today we have a corrupt moral compass controlling society to make everything "ok", simply because gaydom wants no boundries. I say BS, and homosexuality is absolutly abhorrent.

Now, because I feel as strongly about this as I do, go ahead with your "we want tollerance" BS, and start calling me names. It's hypocracy at it's finest.

 

li•cense
[lahy-suhns] noun, verb, li•censed, li•cens•ing.

noun
1. formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.

2. a certificate, tag, plate, etc., giving proof of such permission; official permit: a driver's license.

3. permission to do or not to do something.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/license?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir​

There is no right to marriage. For one (or two )to get married they must get a "marriage license," or must get "formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority." Anyone who argues that marriage is a "right" automatically loses the argument by definition. What the pro "gay marriage" "rights" activists want is FORCED government and societal acceptance. Acceptance is a privilege as is marriage.

 

When we allowed black people to vote, did we start allowing monkeys, and pet dogs to vote too?

You mean rights that are excluded from people specifically for the fact they're the same sex?

How so?

What are you saying here, two men could never be in love with each other the same way a man and a woman can be in love with each other?

Again, how so?

What boundaries are you talking about? Homosexuals simply want to be legally equal to a Heterosexual couple. Other than the sexuality, there's no difference between generic Same-Sex Couple A, and generic Straight-Couple B.

I Find bigotry abhorrent.

You're well within your rights to be a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, or a sexist. I have nothing against the idea of you wanting to strive for any of those factors. Though I do draw the line when you spout ignorance and want the rights of homosexuals limited because their opinion differs greatly from yours.

 

Well, there are some foolish people out here indeed.

I'm certain that more amendments are coming; that will likely take more than my lifetime.

There is a lot that the Founding Fathers did not and could not know. Some things do have to change, even be different than what they may have envisioned in their time.

Regulation of virtually every right exists. I will never see any need for someone to own any/every firearm or weapon they wish to possess. I will never think it is reasonable, right or good to place tools of death and destruction into just any citizen's hands... until they have been properly vetted overall.

Rights are granted, yes; yest those rights are and always have been regulated/limited BY LAW. Once we allow one person's freedoms/rights to tread on or seriously affect those of others... there MUST be some form of restriction or regulation.

If a layered approach is what's necessary... so be it. Even so, I'm not one who would say that laws never need elimination/revision or that new laws need not be created.

 

Nope! you lose the argument. Please review post #34.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ot-subject-popular-vote-4.html#post1062607537

As I have pointed out marriage is a privilege, and not a right. To say it is, or to say "marriage" is something it is not is spreading a lie, or propaganda!

If you have a legitimate point why would you spread propaganda? Why not just tell the truth?

I post real definitions to real words. If LEFTISTS had to actually use those real definitions with those real words they would have absolutely nothing to say. Really, what WOULD be their point? That "gay marriage" supporters DEMAND society grant them special privileges? Doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it...

 

Democrats didn't need monkeys and dogs, they just used the dead...

 

I owe you nothing. You can find whatever supporting evidence you need to make you feel better about your homosexuality, but It has never been right an never will be regardless of what law says or not says. You like to compare to black people's struggles, yet homosexuality is not a race, it's an act. You want deviency, then you get deviant behavior. Men and Men can't reproduce and homosexuality will never be the same as a man and a woman. It can't be by nature and it certainly is not endorsed by any religion that I know.

As expected, your tollerance pill must have worn off. You want "tollerance" as long as those around agree. But as soon as they disagree and do not endorse your detestable act , then here comes the typical sloganeering of the day! Exactly as I expected.

Here is a cookie, cry foul to someone else. "Tollerance', fantastic!!

 

What you are expressing in my view, is an abhorrant act that you want main stream to make you feel better about yourself. People want to be accepted, however that deviant act will never been seen as moral, just and completly accpeted. But, you are free to continue to name call all you want. That is expected from your crowd. They cry when you sipmly disagree. Shall I say, it's rather sissy!

 

The funny part is that the 2nd amendment does not even spell out gun ownership that well. It says that the government can not tell the people that they can't own and carry guns. It does not however say that you can own any and all guns. The government would technically be within it's authority to ban all guns except single shot derringers. Most of the constitution is like that, written in a way so that it can be interpreted multiple ways.

 

We disagree; and we must.

 

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?

 

Nice!! With no name calling...perfect. We disagree as we should.

 

I damn near shot water out of my nose after reading this bit. If you honestly believe you have to personally represent a group to argue for them, then you're completely out of touch.

Only time I've made a similarity between the two when you starting going on your tirade that allowing homosexuals to get married will cause people to marry their toasters or whatever nonsense you believe in.

By the way, homosexuality is not an act. It is no more a choice than your choice to be heterosexual.

So should we start barring people who are sterile because they can't reproduce?

1. Religion means (*)(*)(*)(*) when it comes to law.

2. Religion was written a time when people believed the sun revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth was flat.

Again, for the sake of saying the same thing over again in hopes you would actually understand my position. You are well within your rights to hate homosexuals, I just believe that your right to deny them marriage is stupid.

Hey Kettle?

Yes, Pancake?

I want you to meet my friend, Pot

He's black!

You want me to respect your right to homophobia but in the same breath you call homosexuality detestable? It is almost like you are acknowledge your basis for your homophobia comes from a place of fear, and ignorance but not only have you accepted it, you embraced it and demand people see your point of view. Your right to homophobia is just as sacred as someones right to be a homosexual, The end of the line is when you start restricting their rights for who they are.

If only you spelled "tolerance" correctly. I was hoping it was just a typo, but you have yet to spell it correctly once.

 

Yep. And what some can't seem to get into their thick, intransigent heads... is that ultimately THE PEOPLE (the government) will impose many restrictions that they don't even imagine 'today'... IF the carnage reaches certain levels and in certain ways. That is, the things that many are arguing today (though flawed) won't even be an argument at that point.

People are eventually going to grab a hold of SANITY and change this society; it is only a matter of time and circumstances.

 

Assault weapons bans, mandatory background checks, and 7 round magazines...

 

You can interpret that line to mean that the government can not tell the people that they can not own guns. It does not however say whether it means all guns, or some. Depending on how it is interpreted, the government could limit what guns can be owned without infringing on the right of the people to own guns in general. If you are only allowed to own one particular firearm, you are still allowed to own firearms, and the government has not prevented you from doing so. That is the secret of the constitution. It was purposely written in a way that allows the politicians to interpret it in any way convenient to them.

 

I'm now laughing..Tell you what, I'll spell tollerance correctly that day you know what it means. Fair enough?

Lastly, How can one be a homophobe, when he's not scared of homosexuals? I do not agree with the act any more than you agree that the sanctity of marriage is between a man and a woman and always has been. Has nothing to do with fear as much as you would like it to be. I just completely disagree with the entire act...that is all.

 

Actually, the right to keep and bear arms only prevents the government from disallowing ownership in general. It does not prevent background checks, or anything else not related directly to actual ownership. In fact, the government could pass a law that says a gun owner is only allowed one bullet each year, and they would still be within the bounds of the second amendment, since such a law would not be disallowing people from keeping and bearing arms.