The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

[Phatscotty]

And all you have to do is stop trying to compare race to sexual preference.

All you have to do is stop trying to rationalize taking away unalienable rights to groups of people for any reason, which was the basis of our entire country and the principle of actual freedom is by definition.

Unalienable rights?

SOURCE?

Let's find out once and for all who is full of shit

p.s. Unalieanable rights are unalieanable because they come from God. You are saying God gave homosexuals the right to get married...... Anyone who thinks they are qualified enough to speak about the principle of freedom should know that, and if they don't, they are just completely full of shit and trying to push an agenda. You asked earlier which people were telling big fat lies, well there is another name to add to that list. AAFitz

p.s.s. Unalienable rights CANNOT be taken away. So it's clear you don't even know what unalienable means. you...are....totally....full...of...shit

pss... as explained before. The rights of humans were taken away. They were made slaves. They were very much unalienable rights in that they should not, and can not rightfully be taken away. Those rights were taken away nonetheless, and even your limited idea of a God could not possibly have condoned it.

Unalienable rights are taken away wrongly and have been since the constitution was written, but we fight to give them those rights, they were granted by our founding fathers. Every example I gave was an example of the majority and the government taking away those unalienable rights.

While your version of unalienable is based on your belief of your God, my definition of unalienable is based on a belief on a power that is beyond your definition of some specific God, and is that of Good and Right. Since as you said, there is zero proof of any God, I think suggesting God could not have granted the right of two humans to marry each other, is quite bold, to the point...of stretching the truth some would say....

So sir, you may want to consider adding yourself to that list instead, because suggesting that unalienable rights cannot, and never have been taken away, even for you....is nothing but a lie...and not a very good one.

Nice try though. I don't even blame you for losing your temper here. You are completely in a corner and what else were you going to do really....concede the obvious truth.

Again....SOURCE?

Slaves? WTF? your argument makes less and less sense. btw, The slaves were taken as slaves in Africa, by Europeans, ya stick! You grant Africans rights under the US constitution, before the Constitution was even drafted.... You are totally doing this on purpose. The Constitution is 100% what freed the slaves. What fucking planet do you live on mate?

Again, you assume I believe in God. You don't know what I believe, but listening to you assume what I believe is quite entertaining. My "version" of unalieanble rights? Have you ever read the Constitution? You are so lacking in your understanding and your history, you should not in anyway be trying to tackle this subject because you are makign a fool of yourself. You should do that in private, not here in public. This is like a college professor talking to an infant. Your definition? Well, I am not surprised you are trying to make up more new definitions here either. You just redefine as you go.....

Here is a free lesson. Rights granted my man can be taken away by man. Rights granted by God cannot be taken away by man. That is exactly what makes them unalieanble. There is no "well, my definition is..."

I have not come close to losing my temper. I have had a smile on my face all night! Whatever is going through your head is 180 degrees from reality. But that is normal for you. Anymore gems? Or would you like to share your source finally?

It's just a request for a source...back all that fantasy up please

[AAFitz]

And all you have to do is stop trying to compare race to sexual preference.

All you have to do is stop trying to rationalize taking away unalienable rights to groups of people for any reason, which was the basis of our entire country and the principle of actual freedom is by definition.

Unalienable rights?

SOURCE?

Let's find out once and for all who is full of shit

p.s. Unalieanable rights are unalieanable because they come from God. You are saying God gave homosexuals the right to get married...... Anyone who thinks they are qualified enough to speak about the principle of freedom should know that, and if they don't, they are just completely full of shit and trying to push an agenda. You asked earlier which people were telling big fat lies, well there is another name to add to that list. AAFitz

p.s.s. Unalienable rights CANNOT be taken away. So it's clear you don't even know what unalienable means. you...are....totally....full...of...shit

pss... as explained before. The rights of humans were taken away. They were made slaves. They were very much unalienable rights in that they should not, and can not rightfully be taken away. Those rights were taken away nonetheless, and even your limited idea of a God could not possibly have condoned it.

Unalienable rights are taken away wrongly and have been since the constitution was written, but we fight to give them those rights, they were granted by our founding fathers. Every example I gave was an example of the majority and the government taking away those unalienable rights.

While your version of unalienable is based on your belief of your God, my definition of unalienable is based on a belief on a power that is beyond your definition of some specific God, and is that of Good and Right. Since as you said, there is zero proof of any God, I think suggesting God could not have granted the right of two humans to marry each other, is quite bold, to the point...of stretching the truth some would say....

So sir, you may want to consider adding yourself to that list instead, because suggesting that unalienable rights cannot, and never have been taken away, even for you....is nothing but a lie...and not a very good one.

Nice try though. I don't even blame you for losing your temper here. You are completely in a corner and what else were you going to do really....concede the obvious truth.

Again....SOURCE?

Slaves? WTF? your argument makes less and less sense. btw, The slaves were taken as slaves in Africa, by Europeans, ya stick! You grant Africans rights under the US constitution, before the Constitution was even drafted.... You are totally doing this on purpose. The Constitution is 100% what freed the slaves. What fucking planet do you live on mate?

Again, you assume I believe in God. You don't know what I believe, but listening to you assume what I believe is quite entertaining. My "version" of unalieanble rights? Have you ever read the Constitution? You are so lacking in your understanding and your history, you should not in anyway be trying to tackle this subject because you are makign a fool of yourself. You should do that in private, not here in public. This is like a college professor talking to an infant. Your definition? Well, I am not surprised you are trying to make up more new definitions here either. You just redefine as you go.....

Here is a free lesson. Rights granted my man can be taken away by man. Rights granted by God cannot be taken away by man. That is exactly what makes them unalieanble. There is no "well, my definition is..."

I have not come close to losing my temper. I have had a smile on my face all night! Whatever is going through your head to make you think I lost me temper is 180 degrees from reality. But that is normal for you.

It is fun watching you completely lose it, and trying to be condescending while doing so. I do disagree with your college professor to an infant analogy and would more place me at an educated adult and you in the seventh grade or something, but if you think you're at the infant level, so be it. I also have no doubt you have a smile on your face, but that more brings us back to the insanity discussion, so I won't digress further.

Anyways, I do not assume anything, except that you said you believe that unalienable rights come from God, since you typed those exact words. So, those rights are 100% defined based on your definition of your God, or whatever God, you feel those unalienable rights were derived from. This is basic and obvious, and you are the one who cant see it. Now, since there are certainly different versions of God, with many different interpretations of His Rules, so too, must unalienable rights be defined by this belief. Further more, creator is not specifically a God, and one can very much define our creator, as the universe itself, opening up the discussion, well past what I suspect you are capable of understanding at this point.

I am simply stating what is obvious, that my/their/your unalienable rights, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, very much include the right of different races to marry, different sexes to vote, and the liberty of people to marry, among others of course.
By all means, type down all the rights that these three principles include, and which they do not though. Clearly you must think they are very simple concepts and are easily defined. And perhaps you really do have a perfect definition of liberty and the exact things it and the pursuit of happiness entail. Maybe the creator wrote it down?

I wonder if liberty could possibly include the liberty to marry another person, as other people are allowed to marry other people, or if somewhere in the idea of the pursuit of happiness, one could argue that being able to be socially recognized as married to ones chosen mate, could be considered....an unalienable right.

Feel free to disagree with the interpretation, but dont be so ridiculously stupid to say its impossible, because narrowly defining our rights, and liberties, is how they have been wrongfully held back from Americans throughout history...even though you dont somehow think they were.

Now, however I would suggest you just sit back, and relax, because I assure you, its you who are...let me quote here.... are possibly

makign a fool of yourself.

Its complicated stuff Scott, with some intensely debatable ideas and no ones expecting to get it on the first day. Im certainly not.

As always though, thanks for the laugh.

[Phatscotty]

Just asking for a source.....for the the third.

will it be strike 3?

[BigBallinStalin]

t is fun watching you completely lose it, and trying to be condescending while doing so. I do disagree with your college professor to an infant analogy and would more place me at an educated adult and you in the seventh grade or something, but if you think you're at the infant level, so be it. I also have no doubt you have a smile on your face, but that more brings us back to the insanity discussion, so I won't digress further.

I agree, AAFitz.

PS can be hilarious at times. I don't think he intends it, so that's a shame.

[jonesthecurl]

That BBS is a communist, of course. I mean, dude's got the word Stalin right in his name.

Yes, but that makes you a peanut butter cup - you've got the word "reece" right there in your name.

[BigBallinStalin]

[Frigidus]

Just asking for a source.....for the the third.

will it be strike 3?

Source of what?

[Phatscotty]

Another person who said "The majority of Americans.....same sex marriage"..... Colin Powell just said it on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, who let the lie slide.

Good Wolfie.

[GreecePwns]

Because the 50-some odd polls I posted before don't count for anything.

[Phatscotty]

Because the 50-some odd polls I posted before don't count for anything.

They count, but votes cast count more than telephone survey polls of likely to register voters count

[GreecePwns]

Like I said, only one of them comes in the time period where the chart claims gay marriage support was the majority. And it was North Carolina. What did you expect from North Carolina, Scotty? All the others are mostly from 2006 and earlier, and look where nationwide public opinion was according to the chart. Nothing shocking.

[Phatscotty]

Like I said, only one of them comes in the time period where the chart claims gay marriage support was the majority. And it was North Carolina. What did you expect from North Carolina, Scotty? All the others are mostly from 2006 and earlier, and look where nationwide public opinion was according to the chart. Nothing shocking.

Look at where the polling will be a few years from now too.... Yall dropped the ball, ya peaked, whatever you want to call it, it went over the top and there will be a backlash. You'll just have to trust me, I am pretty good at predicting trends.

Wait until it's official that Obama coming out for gay marriage was the beginning of his downfall and the reason for his November loss

[GreecePwns]

Prove that the pro-gay marriage movement has peaked. Have polls shown a decline in gay marriage support?

As an aside, how would you feel if all 50 states decided to allow gay marriage?

[Phatscotty]

Prove that the pro-gay marriage movement has peaked. Have polls shown a decline in gay marriage support?

As an aside, how would you feel if all 50 states decided to allow gay marriage?

The same way as I would feel if my state decided to allow gay marriage, and the same way if my state did not allow gay marriage.....

[Nola_Lifer]

Prove that the pro-gay marriage movement has peaked. Have polls shown a decline in gay marriage support?

As an aside, how would you feel if all 50 states decided to allow gay marriage?

The same way as I would feel if my state decided to allow gay marriage, and the same way if my state did not allow gay marriage.....

For someone who talks about freedom a lot you should care if gay marriage is legal or not. Unless, again, you are dodging the question to make yourself not seem like a bigot.

[Phatscotty]

Prove that the pro-gay marriage movement has peaked. Have polls shown a decline in gay marriage support?

As an aside, how would you feel if all 50 states decided to allow gay marriage?

The same way as I would feel if my state decided to allow gay marriage, and the same way if my state did not allow gay marriage.....

For someone who talks about freedom a lot you should care if gay marriage is legal or not. Unless, again, you are dodging the question to make yourself not seem like a bigot.

Try listening.... I care that people have a say in a vote. that is all

[Nola_Lifer]

Prove that the pro-gay marriage movement has peaked. Have polls shown a decline in gay marriage support?

As an aside, how would you feel if all 50 states decided to allow gay marriage?

The same way as I would feel if my state decided to allow gay marriage, and the same way if my state did not allow gay marriage.....

For someone who talks about freedom a lot you should care if gay marriage is legal or not. Unless, again, you are dodging the question to make yourself not seem like a bigot.

Dummy, try listening.... I care that people have a say in a vote. that is all

Once again you doge what is being said, was racial inequality voted on? And another thing since when does voting=freedom.

[BigBallinStalin]

Prove that the pro-gay marriage movement has peaked. Have polls shown a decline in gay marriage support?

As an aside, how would you feel if all 50 states decided to allow gay marriage?

The same way as I would feel if my state decided to allow gay marriage, and the same way if my state did not allow gay marriage.....

For someone who talks about freedom a lot you should care if gay marriage is legal or not. Unless, again, you are dodging the question to make yourself not seem like a bigot.

Dummy, try listening.... I care that people have a say in a vote. that is all

Once again you doge what is being said, was racial inequality voted on? And another thing since when does voting=freedom.

Whenever it leads to a likely, favorable result for PS.

[Woodruff]

Dummy, try listening.... I care that people have a say in a vote. that is all

Once again you doge what is being said, was racial inequality voted on? And another thing since when does voting=freedom.

Whenever it leads to a likely, favorable result for PS.

Bingo.

[Phatscotty]

And who said the majority opinion was necessarily the right one?

The majority of people voted for Mitt Romney, therefore he is the best candidate to represent the GOP, and Ron Paul is the 4th best because he came in 4th.

The majority voting for Romney does not mean he is the best candidate, but it does mean that he wins.

[Phatscotty]

Dummy, try listening.... I care that people have a say in a vote. that is all

Once again you doge what is being said, was racial inequality voted on? And another thing since when does voting=freedom.

Whenever it leads to a likely, favorable result for PS.

Bingo.

people having a say in how they live their lives and what laws they are going to pass and live under in no way resembles freedom.

If anything, it sounds like slavery!

damn you guys are backwards. Time to borrow one of your highly effective zombie lines, and this is the first time the line is not being abused or trolled, but....

Why do you hate democracy?

[Phatscotty]

Prove that the pro-gay marriage movement has peaked. Have polls shown a decline in gay marriage support?

As an aside, how would you feel if all 50 states decided to allow gay marriage?

The same way as I would feel if my state decided to allow gay marriage, and the same way if my state did not allow gay marriage.....

For someone who talks about freedom a lot you should care if gay marriage is legal or not. Unless, again, you are dodging the question to make yourself not seem like a bigot.

Try listening.... I care that people have a say in a vote. that is all

Once again you doge what is being said, was racial inequality voted on? And another thing since when does voting=freedom.

That was racism, and racism has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I dealt with the issue of voting and freedom in a response to the democracy haters.
Recognizing that marriage is between one man and one woman does not make me a bigot. Keep saying that crap though and attacking people who don't agree, because I am certain that in the long run these bully tactics and false guilt trips will be the movement's undoing. I think what we have now is just fine. If a state votes to change the definition of marriage, that is fine. I support that states decision, either way. If the state decides to recognize same sex marriage, then I support that. Oh but no, that's not good enough for bullies like you. I have held this from the very start. But you don't care about that, you need to release your own bigotry against me, in attacking me for not thinking like you do.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.

Have I ever shown animosity towards you or people like you? No. Have you and people like you shown animosity towards me? HELL YES! I will let the definition of bigotry speak for who are the bigots around here. Quick, redefine bigotry too!



However, this might shed some light into the questions you have

[GreecePwns]

Why do you hate democracy?

Have you read Plato at all? Are you aware of what problems a tyranny of the majority causes? Like the restriction on freedom of a minority group (or groups, depending on the issue)?

[Phatscotty]

Why do you hate democracy?

Have you read Plato at all? Are you aware of what problems a tyranny of the majority causes? Like the restriction on freedom of a minority group (or groups, depending on the issue)?

I am on Aristotle right now. Plato is next.

I am aware of the tyranny of the majority. I am also aware of the tyranny of the minority. The majority is not trying to push their beliefs on the minority. The minority is trying to push their beliefs on the majority. Tyranny of the majority does not apply. Tyranny of the minority does.

[GreecePwns]

There is no tyranny going on here. Nothing being done is an illegal taking of power. But you speak of democracy as the be all, end all on this issue when you know you wouldn't on certain other issues. Why would you only use the popular opinion argument in one issue and not the next? Why would anyone? It's hypocrisy on all sides.

Which is why this thread is unimportant. Popular opinion does not matter on any issue when deciding which path is truly the best, because it is manipulated by people in offices on K Street and Madison Avenue all the time. You claim that some have said the side you disagree with is in the majority and tried to prove otherwise. The proper response is, "so what? Whether or not popular opinion is on your side, popular opinion is wrong on this issue because X, Y and Z."