This is the best speech on gay marriage

[baseline bum]

The Cons ution, way back then, was written to protect minorities?

Yes, for instance the first amendment was written to prevent the majority from legally silencing the voice of a minority viewpoint.

[rjv]

What relevance does time have? There is absolutely no importance as to WHEN the cause was taken up, or what it meant in the past, or if the devil himself invented it. The fact remains, it is what it is now.


and the idea of freedom, human rights, and equality was never defined in the first place, either. They were taken on by certain men, philosophers, groups, and governments and redefined to their liking, such as the men who wrote the Cons ution, or the French who wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This entire freedom/human rights thing is a byproduct of men like these. It was common for freedom to mean many things, such as being ruled by a monarchy or dictatorship, long before the humanist/revolutionists took it as their own.

your penchant for the back and forth such switching from relativism to existentialism and then to determinism is truly on a politician's level of wavering.

[admiralsnackbar]

Don't dodge.

You tried to say that sexuality is not a choice because 'who would choose to be demonized?'

Your logic was shown as flawed.


So, do you have anything further to say to prove sexuality is not a choice or do you admit defeat?

So am I understanding you right? You're trying to pass off the way I glossed over my point in the original post you replied to as the sum and substance of my position, even though I clarified it down the line?

EDIT -- you also dodged the question of why you think ideals change over time while elsewhere arguing that they are rock-solid in the present.

I don't know who you think you're fooling, compadre, but I hope you're enjoying yourself all the same.

[BacktoBasics]

Yes, for instance the first amendment was written to prevent the majority from silencing the voice of a minority viewpoint.

He doesn't get that. He thinks it was written purely from a democracy standpoint.

[MiamiHeat]

Wait. You're defending a temporal definition of a social structure while ascertaining that we've been better off by changing the definition of other temporal social structures?

I am sorry but I am...

[baseline bum]

[MiamiHeat]

Yes, for instance the first amendment was written to prevent the majority from legally silencing the voice of a minority viewpoint.

It was written to ensure FREEDOM to say whatever you want to say, believe in any god you want to, etc..


You interpret that as 'protecting minorities'

I interpret that as defining FREEDOM, the methods of a Free Country.

[ElNono]

I am sorry but I am...

[MiamiHeat]

He doesn't get that. He thinks it was written purely from a democracy standpoint.

It was written to ensure the peoples of this new nation, FREEDOM.

Freedom to live however you want to live, to say what you want to say, to believe in any religion you want to.

[baseline bum]

It was written to ensure FREEDOM to say whatever you want to say, believe in any god you want to, etc..


You interpret that as 'protecting minorities'

I interpret that as defining FREEDOM, the methods of a Free Country.

Of course it's protecting minority viewpoints. Majority viewpoints don't need protection in a nation where representatives are elected by popular vote.

[BacktoBasics]

It was written to ensure FREEDOM to say whatever you want to say, believe in any god you want to, etc..


You interpret that as 'protecting minorities'

I interpret that as defining FREEDOM, the methods of a Free Country.

Dude you're killing yourself. It was very specifically designed to protect minorities. He's not interpreting it wrong. Its the very foundation of its existence.

[MiamiHeat]

Dude you're killing yourself. It was very specifically designed to protect minorities. He's not interpreting it wrong. Its the very foundation of its existence.

I said he choose to interpret it differently than me.

For a free country to exist, it must define what FREEDOM IS, and create rules to ALLOW FOR FREEDOM to exist in the land.

If not, freedom cannot exist because people will abuse it. The preamble of the Bill of Rights says it quite clearly :

in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its ins ution.


That is why it was written. To define what Freedom is, and how a Free Country will operate - ensure the way of life of a free peoples.

They took a STANCE on what it means to be a FREE COUNTRY. I am sure glad they did.

I can imagine a B2B and baseline bum back in the 1700's, asking :

"Who are we to define what freedom is? You act as if it was yours to define"

[admiralsnackbar]

So do humans, ex-gays.

So now you're saying ex-gays go against natural law? By becoming straight, I presume? Do you see how this undermines your original position by suggesting that natural law can't be violated? Or that if it can, it occurs on an individual level when somebody goes against their essential nature, be they essentially gay or essentially straight?

Am I missing something? /shrug

[MiamiHeat]

Of course it's protecting minority viewpoints. Majority viewpoints don't need protection in a nation where representatives are elected by popular vote.

Well, BY CONSEQUENCE, it protects minorities.

However, if there were 2 equally large viewpoints, it protects each from each other. Free from persecution, free to do what you want, with the support of the government.

So while you choose to interpret it like that, it was written to ensure that FREEDOM can survive, minority or majority or equally large.

It is a WAY OF LIFE, a belief, not a mandate to protect minorities.

[MiamiHeat]

So now you're saying ex-gays go against natural law? By becoming straight, I presume? Do you see how this undermines your original position by suggesting that natural law can't be violated? Or that if it can, it occurs on an individual level when somebody goes against their essential nature, be they essentially gay or essentially straight?

Am I missing something? /shrug

Once again, where is your argument that gays have no choice in who they suck off?

[admiralsnackbar]

Well, BY CONSEQUENCE, it protects minorities.

However, if there were 2 equally large viewpoints, it protects each from each other. Free from persecution, free to do what you want, with the support of the government.

So while you choose to interpret it like that, it was written to ensure what FREEDOM can survive, minority or majority or equally large.

Kind of a back-pedal bonanza after inviting people to go to Cambodia if they disagreed with you, isn't it?

[admiralsnackbar]

Once again, where is your argument that gays have no choice in who they suck off?

The argument was that they have no choice who they're sexually attracted to, the same way as YOU have no choice who you're sexually attracted to. Choice implies reasoning. Capisce?

[MiamiHeat]

Kind of a back-pedal bonanza after inviting people to go to Cambodia if they disagreed with you, isn't it?

I don't see how that has anything to do with my comments.

It is a fact. If you can't abide by the decisions of the majority, why are you living in a democracy?

Are we to operate on the opinions of the MINORITY now, instead? Who's to say they are correct? Because you think so?

We operate the way we operate, like it or not. Tough .

[MiamiHeat]

The argument was that they have no choice who they're sexually attracted to, the same way as YOU have no choice who you're sexually attracted to. Choice implies reasoning. Capisce?

So sexual attraction automatically means they have no choice in who they get in bed with ?

Are you trying to say that?

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't see how that has anything to do with my comments.

It is a fact. If you don't like the decisions of the majority, why are you living in a democracy?

Are we to operate on the opinions of the MINORITY now, instead? Who's to say they are correct? Because you think so?

We operate the way we operate, like it or not. Tough .

I don't know about you, but I live in a representative republic.

[admiralsnackbar]

So sexual attraction automatically means they have no choice in who they get in bed with ?

Are you trying to say that?

No, I'm saying sexual attraction automatically means they have no control over who they're sexually attracted to. Are you suggesting you'd rather bone ugly chicks than hot ones?

[MiamiHeat]

You could argue we are a Democratic Republic, but in modern times, we are a democracy because it is now defined as a government which derives it's power from the people and is responsible and accountable for it's use of that power to the people.

[MiamiHeat]

No, I'm saying sexual attraction automatically means they have no control over who they're sexually attracted to.

Aha.

But they do have control over who they get in bed with.

Choice.

[MiamiHeat]

and really, you aren't helping the sexualist cause by implying they are hedonistic, primal sexual pervert's who can't control themselves.

and lastly, I really don't care about sexuals and their choices. I just don't want to redefine marriage.

[admiralsnackbar]

You could argue we are a Democratic Republic, but in modern times, we are a democracy because it is now defined as a government which derives it's power from the people and is responsible and accountable for it's use of that power to the people.

Duuuude... this is like watching the Tour de France in reverse. It's been real fun, but I'm gonna hang out with my girlfriend for awhile. You have fun, now.