Is there too much division in America?

[SuBe]

All that proves is that gays have tried this before and been denied as well.

But isn't Denying it, well, having the Government use force to deny Liberty, unjust?

 

[kedrell]

There are organized Religion out there that reconize Homosexuality. They have Homosexuals in there church. They would be willing to marry a Homosexual couple. If that Religous organization preforms the Wedding ceremony, can it be called a Marriage then?

Those who adhere to that religion would be free to recognize it as such. No one else would have to though.

 

[kedrell]

But isn't Denying it, well, having the Government use force to deny Liberty, unjust?

Liberty is not infinite. The right to corrupt society's definitions of what is acceptable or not is not liberty, IMO.

 

[SuBe]

Those who adhere to that religion would be free to recognize it as such. No one else would have to though.

Just as no one else has to recognize it today. I see it as an issue of Individual Liberty vs Government Control.

 

[kedrell]

I don't see it that way. I see it as a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the population wishing to have a much larger control over society than they should really expect to have.

 

[SuBe]

Liberty is not infinite. The right to corrupt society's definitions of what is acceptable or not is not liberty, IMO.

For one, there is no "Right to corrupt Society's definitions". What we do have is the Prusuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

And, like I said before, two people doing something over here, that has no affect on two people's rights over there, should be allowed.

And, changing a definition of a word is not harming anyone or impeding upon anyone else's rights.

 

[Gilpesh]

I don't see it that way. I see it as a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the population wishing to have a much larger control over society than they should really expect to have.

Look out for those darn gays.... they want to put straight people in special camps...

 

[The Senator]

Those who adhere to that religion would be free to recognize it as such. No one else would have to though.

Employers would have to.

 

[The Senator]

I don't see it that way. I see it as a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the population wishing to have a much larger control over society than they should really expect to have.

Gay men and women make up 9% of the population. That's five points less than the entire African American population, and seven points more than the Jewish population.

 

[kedrell]

For one, there is no "Right to corrupt Society's definitions". What we do have is the Prusuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

And, like I said before, two people doing something over here, that has no affect on two people's rights over there, should be allowed.

And, changing a definition of a word is not harming anyone or impeding upon anyone else's rights.

It's altering society and I'm not going to support that kind of power in the hands of such an infinitesimally small group on the fringe. I also wouldn't support the Branch Davidians using political clout to redefine marriage as between any number of women and David Koresh.

 

[kedrell]

Employers would have to.

They would have to for the civil unions part of it. Not the marriage part.

 

[SuBe]

I don't see it that way. I see it as a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the population wishing to have a much larger control over society than they should really expect to have.

What is more dangerous to society? Reduction or refusal of Liberty, or letting Government control the lifestyle and behavior of that individual?

 

[kedrell]

Gay men and women make up 9% of the population. That's five points less than the entire African American population, and seven points more than the Jewish population.

That's a load of B.S. You're 1%, if that.

 

[kedrell]

What is more dangerous to society? Reduction or refusal of Liberty, or letting Government control the lifestyle and behavior of that individual?

Gov'ts not controlling their lifestyle simply by denying them a single word.

 

[Gilpesh]

Gov'ts not controlling their lifestyle simply by denying them a single word.

No... it is implying that those people are living wrong by not recognizing them with the same rights as other citizens.

 

[SuBe]

It's altering society and I'm not going to support that kind of power in the hands of such an infinitesimally small group on the fringe. I also wouldn't support the Branch Davidians using political clout to redefine marriage as between any number of women and David Koresh.

Cell used to mean the building block of an organism. Then, the word opened up to mean Cellular Phone. Now, Cellular Phones can do everything to play video games, send email, and surf the internet. Does that mean that we can't call an iPhone a cell phone? Should I call it something else?

Definitions of words change.

 

[kedrell]

No... it is implying that those people are living wrong by not recognizing them with the same rights as other citizens.

It does no such thing. Civil unions are every bit the equal of marriage under the law, or should be.

 

[kedrell]

Cell used to mean the building block of an organism. Then, the word opened up to mean Cellular Phone. Now, Cellular Phones can do everything to play video games, send email, and surf the internet. Does that mean that we can't call an iPhone a cell phone? Should I call it something else?

Definitions of words change.

If there's a good enough reason for them to change. I've yet to hear a good enough reason for this change though.

 

[EdRyder]

That's a load of B.S. You're 1%, if that.

Dude,..1 % percent would be only 3 million Americans.
Im pretty sure theres more than 1%.

 

[Gilpesh]

It does no such thing. Civil unions are every bit the equal of marriage under the law, or should be.

And the black bathrooms should be as clean as the white ones... oh wait. I forgot separate but equal was already thrown out as a reason to discriminate...

What's the new one? I've misplaced my recent Discriminator Monthlys...

 

[The Senator]

That's a load of B.S. You're 1%, if that.

Uh huh.

Which is why I, the political science major, who has spent a significant amount of time researching the demography of this country, presented that figure to you. Gays and lesbians make up approximately 9% of this country's population. Members of the transgendered community make up 3%.

I used ANES survey data compiled after the 2004 presidential election in my claim. The figures relayed there are also close to what I read in the book "Business Inside Out," which discusses why businesses should be a leading advocate of LGBT rights.

I suggest you do some research on this information. I'm sure there are more sources out there you can find which will actually give you facts instead of the ridiculous figure you have pulled out of your ass.

 

[SuBe]

If there's a good enough reason for them to change. I've yet to hear a good enough reason for this change though.

So, just because YOU haven't been conviced, society can't adjust?

 

[Franklin Richards]

Ok. ANES? Heh.


ANUS. Heh Heh...

 

[The Senator]

Dude,..1 % percent would be only 3 million Americans.
Im pretty sure theres more than 1%.

When you consider that the GLBT population the following cities: San Francisco (15%), New York (8%), Seattle (12.9%), Atlanta (12.8%), Minneapolis (12.5%) and Denver (8.2%)... I would definitely guarantee that the GLBT population makes up more than 1% of our overall population.

 

[The Senator]

Ok. ANES? Heh.


ANUS. Heh Heh...

American National Election Studies (ANES).