>>263483
I've seen better trolls.

>>263485

Troll nothing, he was being funny.

>>263485
If you got trolled by that, you deserve to be euthanized.

>>263487
Haha, wow, this thread sure took a turn for the worse now, didn't it? I never said I was trolled, I said that person was attempting to troll. If you think he was just making "funny" jokes, apparently your sense of humor involves bestiality and is a lot different than mine.

>>263493

"I have no sense of humor."

>>263494
"I like sophomoric and tasteless jokes involving dog vaginas."

Whatever, I'm done here.

>>263493

Oh, so now you're the king of what's funny?

Fuck you, kid.

>>263496

I don't see what's wrong with joking about dog vaginas.

can you all just stop this crap right now.

one of the pillars of liberal thinking is that anything that does not interfere with someone else or someone Else's property is considered OK. they also have a high sensitivity for what they consider inequality be it true inequality or their own definition which tends to differ from the true meaning.

this is why they consider gay as something that is OK.

most of the liberals and conservatives agree that bestiality is usually cruelty to the animal getting fucked. this is why they view bestiality as wrong even though that to the conservative thinker it might seem on par.

conservatives on the other hand have a certain set of moral laws. even though some conservatives might agree that no one is getting hurt by a single couple having gay sex they believe a public acceptance of gay sex will lead to deterioration in one of their moral pillars and in turn to a deterioration in all of them. hence the "today it's gay sex tomorrow it's pedophilia" mentality.

there is also the conservative belief in a family, a structure of a father a mother and children, that comes into question here. they do not want anyone in their community to move away from their way of life.

the only solutions therefor are:
1) abandoning some of your beliefs for the sake of unity
2) segregation.

it is the basis of democracy that the losing side respects the will of the majority, something neither side appears to be willing to do here.

>>263501

The fuck are you even talking about?

>>263506
why conservatives and liberals disagree.

>>263506
I'm reading it as basically
1) Conservative and liberal thought approach this concept in entirely different ways due to the way they work
2) Their different approaches explains why their opinions on the topic are also vehemently different
3) Both sides need to shut up and realize that they can't always get their way in a democracy

>>263501

>conservatives on the other hand have a certain set of moral laws.

First, these nebulous "moral laws" don't trump the Constitution of the United States. The country is not set up as a straight democracy because in a straight democracy, the majority can oppress a minority. The Constitution is about preventing certain people from using the government as a way to take rights away from others.

Second, this statement implies that there are no moral laws for liberals, which is untrue. Conservatives and Liberals both have moral laws, they just value different things.

>they believe a public acceptance of gay sex will lead to deterioration in one of their moral pillars and in turn to a deterioration in all of them.

The judges decision exposes this lie for what it is. There is not legitimate reason to suggest that the public acceptance gay marriage will somehow stop heterosexuals from marrying.

One of the great hypocrisies of the current conservative movement that disgusts me right now is this line of rhetoric that apparently conservatives are for more freedom for individuals, but then use the government to oppress the freedoms of people that are different from them.

>>263514
there's poo poo on his pee pee

does anyone else find dividing people into "conservatives" and "liberals" hilariously lame?

>>263517
is "assholes" and "douchebags" better?

gas thread ban op

>>263501
lol dis thread

>>263519

It is a constitutional mixed democracy with a bill of rights.

>constitutional

There are limits to what the government can and cannot do, and a clearly-described structure for said government

>mixed democracy

People elect officials who vote, debate, and make laws for them, so we are, in that sense, a republic. Some states also have a referendum process, which is a feature of direct democracy, although we sadly do not have one on a national scale.

>Bill of Rights

This is key. There are rights that every citizen has, and they can't be taken away or infringed upon by the government. These rights should never be up for a vote by the public or by the Congress, and if they are, such vote ought to be invalidated.

Imagine if they held a nationwide vote on outlawing Islam after 9/11, or a vote banning all civilian firearm ownership after the Columbine shooting? Basic rights should not be up to the public to decide, because they are *inherent* and *essential* rights.

>>263527

Unless, of course, you could get enough representatives to add an amendment to the constitution, which is why the idea for an amendment banning Gay Marraige was being kicked around. However, amendments are notoriously hard to add, especially if they're an amendment that doesn't limit the power of the government, but instead the freedom of individual citizens.

>>263537

Exactly, and the difficulty of Amending the Constitution is deliberate. It's hard to have a foundation for a government if said foundation is always shifting with fads and popular fancies. It's easier to "change" the constitution through the courts, by changing the precedents and way rules are interpreted and applied (see "Commerce Clause").

>this thread
>no fun
>no discussion
>all of you shut up
Somebody call the whaaaambulance

  >This thread

Here's what I'd like to see...

>Government out of marriage entirely
>Civil unions with the same benefits as marriage allowed for gays
>Tax code rewritten to respect union contracts, be they marital or civil

One judge making a highly controversial decision isn't the way to bring about social change to get gays the same treatment as straights. I supported Prop 8, but I'd rather it didn't need to be written at all.

>>263698
>Supported Prop 8
>Wants government out of marriage

But Prop 8 was Government interference in marriage.

>>263701
not interference in REAL marriages

>>263701

Government was already infringing in marriage. Prop 8 was the backlash of people not liking the fact that the very idea of marriage was being redefined as a union between any two consenting adults rather than a union between one man and one woman.

I didn't want the government to redefine such an important social construct, so I supported legislation that cemented its definition. But I'd rather it remain outside the government's control entirely. The third option is definitely preferable in my book.

>>263702
That's entirely subjective.

>>263704
You act like marriage was always specifically defined as being between only one man and one woman. (it wasn't) And even if it did, how the hell would redefining it from one man and one woman to two consenting adults hurt anything?

>I didn't want the government to redefine such an important social construct, so I supported legislation that cemented its definition.

I mean seriously. Please explain this. I want to understand why "redefining marriage" to allow homosexuals to get hitched is such a bad thing.

I want to kiss you. I couldn't care less about prop 8.

>>263716
...That's weird. I was thinking about that incident just tonight.

>>263709
If the government can redefine marriage to allow gays to do it who knows what else they'll be redefining! Freedom = Slavery! 1984!!!

>>263704
Prop 8 was never about protecting marriage as a social construct. The real intention of Prop 8 was in the prevention of validating gay marriage, which while technically never intended...anyway. Convincing the population that they were somehow protecting marriage by invalidating gay marriage was what Prop 8 was all about, and it was paid for and campaigned for primarily by Mormons, who had their own agenda. A religious one, if you can believe that.

Any stance that they had for invalidating gay marriage has gone out the window with the big, bleeding hole in the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The part that defined marriage as between a man and a woman was deemed invalid and thrown out. Prop 8 was peanuts compared to the hole now gaping in DoMA.

To tell the truth, I could care less.
About anything ever.
Especially with Cali.
Fuck that state.

>>263729

>>263751
what did cali ever do to you?

>>263709

>You act like marriage was always specifically defined as being between only one man and one woman. (it wasn't)
>I want to understand why "redefining marriage" to allow homosexuals to get hitched is such a bad thing.

Make up your mind. Does marriage already include homosexuals or doesn't it?

I say it doesn't, but that's beside the point. Whether it does or doesn't shouldn't be the government's call. I mean, if they can redefine marriage without the people's approval, what else can they redefine?

>>263819

That's the thing: people have different definitions! We're in a period of cultural flux, and the old people, Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, and self-hating, closeted homophobes are trying to stop a tidal wave. It won't work, but they won't stop trying, and will hurt a lot of people in the meantime.

"Marriage does include homosexuals" in the sense that there are legally-recognized gay couples, people who believe that marriage merely requires two consenting adults of any sex, and that, even before the the first country recognized gay marriages, there were queer couples who'd loved each other and been together for decades.

>>263825

Funny how you only feel like arguing about the parts of my post that I say aren't significant. I'm not going to debate whether or not the "cultural tidal wave" you describe is happening or not. I know there are people who want marriage redefined, and maybe it will be. I don't like it, but it's possible. My point is that it shouldn't be up to the law makers and the judges. It's a social issue. Let's let society work it out and allow people to live the way in which they want to live.

>>263829
But the problem with this is the legal definition of marriage, not the social one. People can say they're married all they want, and society can accept that. But without a signed piece of paper, neither side has spousal privileges. Also, social stability can go fuck itself if it tries to stop social justice. But that last bit is pretty subjective.

>>263829

As long as we have state-recognized straight marriage, we need state-recognized gay marriage. Either abolish it or expand it.

>>263830

>the legal definition of marriage
>a signed piece of paper

Bingo. All marriage should be to the government is a contract between two adults. Two men can sign a contract as easily as a man and a woman. Rewrite the tax code and whatever else you need to so it respects any union contracts equally. Gay couples can call themselves married if that's what they want to do. Again, that's not the issue at hand.

I love you, dawg.
I love you too, bro.
Let's buttsex, dawg.
Alright bro, let's buttsex.

Ugh.

>>264096
Did you just 'ugh' your own comment? Because I don't find fratboys very attractive either.

  >Fox: What you've done is moved it to the federal courts, rather than letting the states decide.
>Ted Olson: Well, would you like it if people put Fox New's right to free speech up to a vote, and started censoring it till all the other states voted?

I love this man.

>>264178
You mean, like things were prior to Incorporation?

Ugh

  >>263834
I don't quite follow your line of thinking.
Most people when they protest the definition of marriage don't think that homosexuals should get the legal benefits provided by marriage. Or the recognition as a married couple.

If you want, call them Gay Married. Marriage as an institution has existed since man first married, and then married the other man. It has been defined, redefined, co-defined and reconciled across definitions since antiquity.

The definition of marriage in America has remained the same, albeit with a stipulation against polygamy, since the start. The TRADITION that thought that homosexual marriage was invalid was based on a tradition and a line of thought. It was wrong. Not specifically wrong in the sense denying civil rights is wrong, but wrong in that it was
>implying marriage is between a man and a woman only.
Nothing is being redefined here. The redefinement came with the Defense of Marriage act that forbade the possibility of same sex marriage, which was based on a convenient misinterpretation. There's nothing specifically forbidding it from happening.

Like it or not, it's marriage as marriage has been defined since the beginning of time. And I'm pretty certain those wiley bastards intended it to be this way since the beginning, or they would have said something against it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0813-gay-marriage-california-20100813,0,5087660.story