Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[amrtin77]

But there are other alternativ to christian marriage, its not like its the official one. You have civil marriage, too.

i know. as i said, the church doesnt have to marry anyone they dont want to. the state DOES. the state has to stay secular, ive given my reasons. they cant use religion as an excuse not to marry someone like a church can.

 

[Tipsy]

What? What truth are you talking about? Sex and marriage are different things, and one must not be married to have sexual relations. Likewise, one can be married without having sexual relations.

I am talking about the Roman Catholic truth. And good job cap'n obvious. Just because two things are in the same paragraph doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Who are you to tell someone that their sexual preferences are 'disgusting' and 'perverted'? That, my friend, is something called "opinion." Being so, please keep yourself from doing it. However, keep that opinion within your weekly Bible Study and away from the Court of Law.

Good job, telling me not to use my opinion and then using your own to counter my argument...

Disallowing two persons marriage based on the fact a religious belief deems is 'disgusting' is hilarious. My religious belief is that two obese persons enaging in sexual intercourse is disgusting. Lets ban them from marrying to protect that sanctity of marriage! Sound harsh? Well, that is exactly what you are saying. If you want to disallow homosexual couples from attending your church, than do so. You cannot disallow them from living and marrying in this country. For the reason of something called "liberty."

Why would you make a law to counter natural law? And I am saying something completely different. We should practice sex as it was naturally ment to be. Also, I don't see how a obese couple (if they are of the opposite sex) are going against natural law. Hrmm...So we can't stop gay couple from marrying? Oh Wait! Eleven states already did!

If you want to ban gay marriages because your religion opposes it, what about non-believers? Should they be allowed to marry? Surely their lifestyles are ultimately as 'disgusting and perverted' as a homosexual's. It isn't about the religion anymore. You are married by law. Most marriages these days couldn't give two shits about Christianity, and that is no basis to ban them.

They are not 'digusting and perverted', it is the homosexual activites they take part in taht is 'disgusting and perverted', I thought I repeated that enough to get it through heads. I also think gay marriage should be banned because it opposes natural law. If two males/females want something that isn't a marriage and they don't have gay sex, hey, let them go have their benefits, I believe in protecting the sanctity of marriage.

yes it does because your not only married by the church. i dont give a **** if a church gives you 100 dollars to get married. BUT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GIVES BENIFITS LIKE TAX CUTS FOR MARRIED COUPLES, YOU MUST BE SECULAR ABOUT IT

The church puts you in a contract with God, that is what you get from marrying in the church. Also, same thing as I said above about the gay couples.

BE, your a smart guy, i know you understand what im saying. why do you continue to say that religion should be allowed into the way our government runs?

I wish it were, but that isn't going to happen, gay marriage is against natural law.

and tipsy, no one gives a **** about what the church has to say. im not christian. nor do i follow any specific religion. there goes your whole argument.

Appearantly eleven states so far too, so i think it is no one gives a **** about what you say.

 

[The_Raven7]

I still wanna know how you think gay sex is disgusting and perverted.

 

[amrtin77]

I wish it were, but that isn't going to happen, gay marriage is against natural law.

tell me how we would benifit by allowing the church into the lawmaking process of our country. asfar as i can see its just trying to force people to follow religious beliefs.

Appearantly eleven states so far too, so i think it is no one gives a **** about what you say.

trust me, i know no one gives a **** about what i say. thats irrelevent. why should the church be allowed to force other people to do something for legal benifits? that defeats the whole purpose of freedom to choose religion. i dont want some ****ing religion having a say in lawmaking when religion has no proof backing it by default. the whole "faith" thing ruins any hope of proof.

I still wanna know how you think gay sex is disgusting and perverted.

everyone has their own prejudices, some dont like interracial marraiges, some think women shouldnt work, ect. its fine to think whatever you want. say whatever you want. the trick is not to allow the government to not discriminate based on this, and give everyone equal rights irregaurdless of your prejudices.

 

[Tipsy]

I still wanna know how you think gay sex is disgusting and perverted.

As I said before, sex by natural law is ment to be used for procreation. Also, the only way sex isn't a sin according to the Roman Catholic Church is that is must be procreative AND to show true love between a man and a woman, not infatuation. Thus, I think it is 'disgusting and perverted' because of this. I'll re-emphasize, I have nothing against homosexuals, just homosexual acts. If you are attracted to people of the same sex that is fine and dandy, but when you take action on this it is to me.

tell me how we would benifit by allowing the church into the lawmaking process of our country. asfar as i can see its just trying to force people to follow religious beliefs.

I believe it would make the United States a better place, but hey, as I said, it is not going to happen because of our Bill of Rights.

trust me, i know no one gives a **** about what i say. thats irrelevent. why should the church be allowed to force other people to do something for legal benifits? that defeats the whole purpose of freedom to choose religion. i dont want some ****ing religion having a say in lawmaking when religion has no proof backing it by default. the whole "faith" thing ruins any hope of proof

The majority of people in eleven states, maybe more, just they haven't voted on the matter yet, agree with me. Eleven states have all agreed to make gay marriage illegal. Also, it is not the church that is making people agree with them in this case. The government of those eleven states asked the people to vote to ammend the state's constitution to ban gay marriage. This isn't the church, it is the government of those eleven countries. But if you say that it is the church pressuring people to vote that way then I want to inform you that religion teaches us (religious people) many of our morals and values, so the church influences nearly everything we do.

Heres the proof if you want it:
"Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins.

In Oregon, the amendment passed by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

In the remaining states, the amendments passed with 60 percent of the vote or more, with the margin at a whopping 86 percent in Mississippi.

The push to amend state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage gained steam in May, after gay men and lesbians were granted the right to marry in Massachusetts, thanks to the state's Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals violated the state constitution.

In eight of the 11 states that voted Tuesday, the constitutional amendments contain additional language that opponents said could also ban civil unions and other legal protections for gay and lesbian people, though proponents in some of those states disputed those claims. The states are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah"

I believe that says it quite nicely.

when religion has no proof backing it by default. the whole "faith" thing ruins any hope of proof

Just quoting this again for reference.
This no proof thing has been argued in other threads, there are even two on the front page talking about it, if you wish to pursue this go to one of those.

everyone has their own prejudices, some dont like interracial marraiges, some think women shouldnt work, ect. its fine to think whatever you want. say whatever you want. the trick is not to allow the government to not discriminate based on this, and give everyone equal rights irregaurdless of your prejudices.

If this is the case, then the government is prejudice against people who murder others.
Note: This is an example, it should get the point across.

 

[Forged]

Does this give us the right to act immorally?

Morals are subjective, my morals are no doubt diffrent than yours. What makes your morals beter than mine?

But what wrong does it do if a religious institution give legal benefits to its user ?

The Unitarians marry gay people, why can't they give the same legal benefits as say a methodist church?

 

[amrtin77]

As I said before, sex by natural law is ment to be used for procreation. Also, the only way sex isn't a sin according to the Roman Catholic Church is that is must be procreative AND to show true love between a man and a woman, not infatuation. Thus, I think it is 'disgusting and perverted' because of this. I'll re-emphasize, I have nothing against homosexuals, just homosexual acts. If you are attracted to people of the same sex that is fine and dandy, but when you take action on this it is to me.

i dont care what the church said. im not a religious person. so why should i follow laws that have been created by a religion that i dont follow.

I believe it would make the United States a better place, but hey, as I said, it is not going to happen because of our Bill of Rights.

our government needs to stop being hypocritical. theres a reason we have freedom of religion. our laws are meant to better the lives of everyone, not a select few.

The majority of people in eleven states, maybe more, just they haven't voted on the matter yet, agree with me. Eleven states have all agreed to make gay marriage illegal. Also, it is not the church that is making people agree with them in this case. The government of those eleven states asked the people to vote to ammend the state's constitution to ban gay marriage. This isn't the church, it is the government of those eleven countries. But if you say that it is the church pressuring people to vote that way then I want to inform you that religion teaches us (religious people) many of our morals and values, so the church influences nearly everything we do.

it makes me sick that so many people are so blinded by their religion/homophobia.

tell me why we should ban them from marrying. theres no reason at all beyond "its disgusting" or "its against the church"

and both are unnacceptable when creating laws. no church should influence lawmaking unless the church provides REAL EVIDENCE of WHY the law should be passed like anyone else supporting a law. just because they are churches doesnt mean they shouldnt be held responsible for saying random bullshit and using it as "proof" ("GOD is the reason this is right/wrong." THAT ARGUMENT IS BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT, UNTIL OU CAN PROVE A GODS EXISTENCE)
Heres the proof if you want it:

"Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all approved anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins.

In Oregon, the amendment passed by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

In the remaining states, the amendments passed with 60 percent of the vote or more, with the margin at a whopping 86 percent in Mississippi.

The push to amend state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage gained steam in May, after gay men and lesbians were granted the right to marry in Massachusetts, thanks to the state's Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals violated the state constitution.

In eight of the 11 states that voted Tuesday, the constitutional amendments contain additional language that opponents said could also ban civil unions and other legal protections for gay and lesbian people, though proponents in some of those states disputed those claims. The states are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah"

I believe that says it quite nicely.

i know the facts. im saying that thses people are voting on changes to secular constitutions, using their religion and "thats icky" as a basis. there should be no arguing gay marraige. their is no argument beyond "its disgusting." so what if i get a bunch of people to find earrings disgusting? or find you disgusting? can we get rid of that too?

Just quoting this again for reference.
This no proof thing has been argued in other threads, there are even two on the front page talking about it, if you wish to pursue this go to one of those.

there is no proof of a gods existance. such a stupid argument doesnt deserve my time. even if some of what is said is historically accurate, that doesnt mean god exists. it means people were writing stuf down while they lived. you cant prove to me that god exists any more than i can prove i have an invisible monkey that is indetectable by ANYTHING in my room. its here right now, i swear. i have faith in it.

If this is the case, then the government is prejudice against people who murder others.
Note: This is an example, it should get the point across.

"life liberty and the persuit of happiness"

when you no longer allow someone their basic human rights that our government was formed on for no reason, we have a problem.

that would be denying them thier lives.


denying homosexuals the right to marry hurts their pursuit of happiness, yet doesnt even help anyone els4e. all it does is make it so that they cannot marry. and what would happen if they could marry? does it have a downside? or is it just "icky?"


im sick of this argument. you cant argue logically, you keep falling back on god, and god is not a worthy argument in a logical debate.




edit: theres forged wording things a bit better than i could.. :]

 

[Tipsy]

Morals are subjective, my morals are no doubt diffrent than yours. What makes your morals beter than mine?


The Unitarians marry gay people, why can't they give the same legal benefits as say a methodist church?

For both of these, I stated that I am arguing off my morals/values/beliefs in this case. What is right and what is wrong is in the eye of the beholder.

i dont care what the church said. im not a religious person. so why should i follow laws that have been created by a religion that i dont follow.

Because soon your government is going to be enforcing them. Democracy is just a monarchy of the many.

our government needs to stop being hypocritical. theres a reason we have freedom of religion. our laws are meant to better the lives of everyone, not a select few.

Unfortunately for you, you live in a country dominated by religious people, be it Muslim, Judaism, or Christianity. These groups normally vote for what will help them and their religion (normally is in there just because not everyone does). We vote for what our government does, directly, or indirectly. As I said above, democracy is a monarchy of the many, and anything can be ammended if the people will it.

it makes me sick that so many people are so blinded by their religion/homophobia.

To act like you, it makes me sick that so many people are blinded from seeing the wrong in homophobia.
Note: Insulting others with opinions never works.

tell me why we should ban them from marrying. theres no reason at all beyond "its disgusting" or "its against the church"

It all has to do with morals/values/beliefs, and unfortunately for you, what you believe isn't what the majority of Americans do.

and both are unnacceptable when creating laws. no church should influence lawmaking unless the church provides REAL EVIDENCE of WHY the law should be passed like anyone else supporting a law. just because they are churches doesnt mean they shouldnt be held responsible for saying random bullshit and using it as "proof" ("GOD is the reason this is right/wrong." THAT ARGUMENT IS BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT, UNTIL OU CAN PROVE A GODS EXISTENCE)
Heres the proof if you want it:

The church influences every law that religious people vote on because church teaches morals and values. There cannot and never will be a seperation of church and state because your religion effects who you are immensely.

("GOD is the reason this is right/wrong." THAT ARGUMENT IS BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT, UNTIL OU CAN PROVE A GODS EXISTENCE)

That is a matter of opinion.

i know the facts. im saying that thses people are voting on changes to secular constitutions, using their religion and "thats icky" as a basis. there should be no arguing gay marraige. their is no argument beyond "its disgusting." so what if i get a bunch of people to find earrings disgusting? or find you disgusting? can we get rid of that too?

Anything that the majority of Americans vote for will happen. If enough Americans vote for it, yeah, I probably could be found disgusting and kicked out of the country. That is how our government works.

there is no proof of a gods existance. such a stupid argument doesnt deserve my time. even if some of what is said is historically accurate, that doesnt mean god exists. it means people were writing stuf down while they lived. you cant prove to me that god exists any more than i can prove i have an invisible monkey that is indetectable by ANYTHING in my room. its here right now, i swear. i have faith in it.

To act liek you again, there is no proof God doesn't exist. Such a stupid argument doesn't deserve my time. If you can't prove to me he doesn't exist. Your argument is nothing but your opinion, and by now you should have figured out so is mine. My argument is based on my morals/values/beliefs and that influences what I think about this topic.

"life liberty and the persuit of happiness"

when you no longer allow someone their basic human rights that our government was formed on for no reason, we have a problem.

that would be denying them thier lives.


denying homosexuals the right to marry hurts their pursuit of happiness, yet doesnt even help anyone els4e. all it does is make it so that they cannot marry. and what would happen if they could marry? does it have a downside? or is it just "icky?"


im sick of this argument. you cant argue logically, you keep falling back on god, and god is not a worthy argument in a logical debate.

Thats what you get for living in a democracy.
And to act like you:
I'm sick of this argument. You can't argue logically, you keep falling back on your opinion, and your opinion is not a worthy argument in a logical debate.

If you are sick of it, then don't post. If you are trying to debate about something that cannot be proven right or wrong then you should know that you are going to get opinions. For all you known some people may find that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as wrong. If I tell you that I like chocolate cake, you can't tell me I don't.

 

[amrtin77]

For both of these, I stated that I am arguing off my morals/values/beliefs in this case. What is right and what is wrong is in the eye of the beholder.

exactly, so how can you say your morals should be put into law and his shouldnt?

Because soon your government is going to be enforcing them. Democracy is just a monarchy of the many.

the majority does not have the right to oppress the inority

Unfortunately for you, you live in a country dominated by religious people, be it Muslim, Judaism, or Christianity. These groups normally vote for what will help them and their religion (normally is in there just because not everyone does). We vote for what our government does, directly, or indirectly. As I said above, democracy is a monarchy of the many, and anything can be ammended if the people will it.

as i said, the majority cannot oppress the minority. the majority can decide what laws will pass and what laws will not pass, but they CANNOT say "this applies to STRAIGHT PEOPLE ONLY, gays cant get this benifit because they are gay." everyone or no one.

To act like you, it makes me sick that so many people are blinded from seeing the wrong in homophobia.
Note: Insulting others with opinions never works.

tell me why homophobia should be a reason to pass a law. and do you know what homophobia is, or did you just confuse me with a double negative or something?

It all has to do with morals/values/beliefs, and unfortunately for you, what you believe isn't what the majority of Americans do.

morals are too different between people to be put into law. what is best for everyone, or almost everyone is what were trying to accomplish. majority rules, because they know whats best for them, but that doesnt give them the right to oppress the minority.

The church influences every law that religious people vote on because church teaches morals and values. There cannot and never will be a seperation of church and state because your religion effects who you are immensely.

of course, but with marraige it is a DIRECT influence.

That is a matter of opinion.

your the one trying to tell me a supernatural entity that no one can ever see or communicate with in any way exists, and should be a governing force in our law system. i think your going out on a limb more than me when i say "prove it."

remember my monkey?

Anything that the majority of Americans vote for will happen. If enough Americans vote for it, yeah, I probably could be found disgusting and kicked out of the country. That is how our government works.

no. remember, the majority cannot oppress the minority. remember that whole slave problem we had back before the civil war.....

To act liek you again, there is no proof God doesn't exist. Such a stupid argument doesn't deserve my time. If you can't prove to me he doesn't exist. Your argument is nothing but your opinion, and by now you should have figured out so is mine. My argument is based on my morals/values/beliefs and that influences what I think about this topic.

no. im arguing logically. think cost/benifit. theres no ill effects by allowing homosexuals to marry. the benifit is we give people more freedoms.

Thats what you get for living in a democracy.
And to act like you:
I'm sick of this argument. You can't argue logically, you keep falling back on your opinion, and your opinion is not a worthy argument in a logical debate.

i can argue logically. listen to me. leave god out of your arguments when it comes to government. ill say this once.

i have a invisible, undetectable monkey that resides in my room and leaves no trace of its existance except a book i wrote about it. i worship this monkey. i know it exists. i have faith in its existance. now 2 billion people believe my monkey exists. do you doubt the power of my monkey?

so if someone says "bullshit, theres no monkey there. prove to me theres a monkey or just shut the hell up" they are being illogical? i think its quite logical to assume something doesnt exist if there is no proof whatsoever of its existance, or of its probable existance.
[/quote]

If you are sick of it, then don't post. If you are trying to debate about something that cannot be proven right or wrong then you should know that you are going to get opinions. For all you known some people may find that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as wrong. If I tell you that I like chocolate cake, you can't tell me I don't.

our government is based on "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

of course some may find it wrong. but they should move out of this country as soon as possible.

i like our countries core values. "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" "seperation of church and state" "freedom of speech and religion"

i DONT like how we are starting to stray from these core values.


i have to go to sleep. i can continue this the next time i have spare time if you insist.

 

[Forged]

Because soon your government is going to be enforcing them. Democracy is just a monarchy of the many

I guess it is a good thing we live in a plutocracy and not a democracy then...

 

[Tipsy]

exactly, so how can you say your morals should be put into law and his shouldnt?

Never said they should, I just said that is way I support the ban. You are making assumptions from what I say.

the majority does not have the right to oppress the minority

Thats what you get for living in a democracy.

as i said, the majority cannot oppress the minority. the majority can decide what laws will pass and what laws will not pass, but they CANNOT say "this applies to STRAIGHT PEOPLE ONLY, gays cant get this benifit because they are gay." everyone or no one.

They can say that two men or two women can't get married, and oh wait, they already have.

tell me why homophobia should be a reason to pass a law. and do you know what homophobia is, or did you just confuse me with a double negative or something?

I think I just phrased that wrong.

m

orals are too different between people to be put into law. what is best for everyone, or almost everyone is what were trying to accomplish. majority rules, because they know whats best for them, but that doesnt give them the right to oppress the minority.

If a majority of the people have the same morals then probably will vote for a law that will reemphasize them. Also, you believing what is right is also your opinion.

your the one trying to tell me a supernatural entity that no one can ever see or communicate with in any way exists, and should be a governing force in our law system. i think your going out on a limb more than me when i say "prove it."

remember my monkey?

I don't think you can get this through your head. We BOTH are arguing off our OPINIONS. Please get it through your head that YOU ARE RIGHT IN YOUR MIND AND I AM RIGHT IN MINE. Two OPINIONS cannot be proven right or wrong. Remember my choclate cake? As for your monkey, it is almost the same as my choclate cake. If you have an invisible monkey thats good for you, I am not going to tell you it doesn't exist if I think it does or not. Everything you have talked about comes from your MORALS AND VALUES. Also, I never say prove it, I always prove that I am right when I can. In this case I cannot because it is an OPINION.

no. remember, the majority cannot oppress the minority. remember that whole slave problem we had back before the civil war.....

If enough people voted for it slavery could be reinstituted.

no. im arguing logically. think cost/benifit. theres no ill effects by allowing homosexuals to marry. the benifit is we give people more freedoms.

No, your arguing with you're own opinions and think it is logic.

i can argue logically. listen to me. leave god out of your arguments when it comes to government. ill say this once.

Once again you mean off of your opinion.

i have a invisible, undetectable monkey that resides in my room and leaves no trace of its existance except a book i wrote about it. i worship this monkey. i know it exists. i have faith in its existance. now 2 billion people believe my monkey exists. do you doubt the power of my monkey?

As I said, it doesn't matter if your monkey says he can shoot lightning out his ass, if you believe he is there then I will respect that.

so if someone says "bullshit, theres no monkey there. prove to me theres a monkey or just shut the hell up" they are being illogical? i think its quite logical to assume something doesnt exist if there is no proof whatsoever of its existance, or of its probable existance.

Only problem is that God can be nearly proven by philosophy, I don't think your monkey can, no offense to your monkey god.

i DONT like how we are starting to stray from these core values.

Opinion, not logic.

i like our countries core values. "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" "seperation of church and state" "freedom of speech and religion"

As I said, there never will be and never can be seperation between church and state as long as religion exists.

To sum everything up:
-You can't get it through your head that we are both arguing about opinions
-You can't get it through your head that you can't prove that you are right or that I am right.
-You won't stop whining and bitching about taking God out of the argument even though what I am taught by him influences my morals/values/beliefs
-You won't stop whining and bitching that you think your opinion is logic
-You can't get it through your head that democracy isn't always fair
-You can't get it through your head that religion influences every religious person even the slightest bit and therefore influences every single thing that person does, including who and what laws they vote for
-Stop trying to prove that I am wrong and you are right even though it cannot be proven
-Remember, I cannot prove that I am right and you are wrong either, because if you can remember a few lines up, they are both opinions
-Morals will effect every law just as religion does
-People have different opinions than you do, thats life, get used to it
-You can't get it through your head that all I have been doing it poking in you thinking your opinion is logic
-Thank you, come again

Edit: Sorry if that was a bit harsh, I get cranky when I'm tired.

 

[The_Raven7]

As I said before, sex by natural law is ment to be used for procreation. Also, the only way sex isn't a sin according to the Roman Catholic Church is that is must be procreative AND to show true love between a man and a woman, not infatuation. Thus, I think it is 'disgusting and perverted' because of this. I'll re-emphasize, I have nothing against homosexuals, just homosexual acts. If you are attracted to people of the same sex that is fine and dandy, but when you take action on this it is to me.

okay wait, so them having sex is affecting you? Cry me a river and please give me a reason other than "OMG IT'S NOT THE DEFINITION!"

 

[Forged]

If enough people voted for it slavery could be reinstituted.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume you haven't taken Govt. Would I be correct in that assumption?

 

[Tipsy]

okay wait, so them having sex is affecting you? Cry me a river and please give me a reason other than "OMG IT'S NOT THE DEFINITION!"

The reason is it is my opinion, and from the ranting above you should see that quite easily.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume you haven't taken Govt. Would I be correct in that assumption?

I neve said it would be likely, but through a chain of events in a democracy anything can happen. For somethings it may take completely drastic actions such as destroying the principles this country was founded under, but yes, it is possible. Also, you took government in 7th and 11th grade where I live, so no, i've actually taken it twice.

If you want an actual way to destroy the democracy we live under today through actual legal processes read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

As I said, anything is possibly in a democracy, it just may not be likely.

 

[Forged]

We don't live in a democracy, and the supreme court would never uphold something so blatantlly against the constituion and bill of rights.

 

[Tipsy]

We don't live in a democracy, and the supreme court would never uphold something so blatantlly against the constituion and bill of rights.

Thats where the "if the people supported it" and "the majority of people support it" (Meaning there is also a majority in the Supreme Court, and in other bodies of the government, majority everywhere) comes in. I never said that it is likely, but it can happen. Our system only works as well as the people in it.

Also, I do believe we live in a democracy, it describes our system quite well:
"Democracy:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
1 b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary privileges"

Btw, here is the definition of you "plutocracy":
"1 : government by the wealthy
2 : a controlling class of the wealthy"

Regardless if this is true or not, it would still be a government of the many, just the man wealthy people.

Edit: To respond to the post below this because I don't like doing 1 or 2 liners:

I was responding to:

If enough people voted for it slavery could be reinstituted.
Forge Responds:
I am going to go out on a limb and assume you haven't taken Govt. Would I be correct in that assumption?

I said that is was unlikely, but yet Forge pushes it with subtle insults to me, not my argument. It is possible, note the keywords in my sentences.

 

[Laharl]

Yes, but we mustn't allow the majority to completely trample the minority.

 

[Lights]

Why would you make a law to counter natural law? And I am saying something completely different. We should practice sex as it was naturally ment to be. Also, I don't see how a obese couple (if they are of the opposite sex) are going against natural law. Hrmm...So we can't stop gay couple from marrying? Oh Wait! Eleven states already did!

As I have said, and as you have said (Even saying it was "obvious"), sexual intercourse has NOTHING to do with marriage. What you are suggesting is banning homosexual couples from having sexual relations, period. Which, I might add, is downright religious extremism and a hilarious joke. Let's ban cussing, too!

They are not 'digusting and perverted', it is the homosexual activites they take part in taht is 'disgusting and perverted', I thought I repeated that enough to get it through heads. I also think gay marriage should be banned because it opposes natural law. If two males/females want something that isn't a marriage and they don't have gay sex, hey, let them go have their benefits, I believe in protecting the sanctity of marriage.
.

There is a natural law against gay marriage now? I hadn't heard. I am supposing there is a natural law against masturbation and using protection, too, right?


What is this cherished 'sanctity'? Two barely legal teens forced to be married to support a child? A whore who marries an old rich man to get his left-overs? A man who beats his wife and frightens her from letting anyone know about it? This is fine by you, but allowing two consenting, mature, and same-sex adults from having a sexual marriage is beyond your reasoning? Please.

For both of these, I stated that I am arguing off my morals/values/beliefs in this case. What is right and what is wrong is in the eye of the beholder.

So your entire basis of argument is to disallow two peoples marriage because, in your 'eyes', it is morally wrong and you believe you should have the authority to say that they cannot (and some garbage about violating a natural law, which is totally irrelevant)? You find nothing wrong with this?

 

[Forged]

You are incorrect, we live in a democratic republic.

and

Meaning there is also a majority in the Supreme Court, and in other bodies of the government, majority everywhere

The supreme court would not be doing their job if they upheld that law, they are there as a form of control, to strike down laws that go against the constituion.

 

[B~E]

So your entire basis of argument is to disallow two peoples marriage because, in your 'eyes', it is morally wrong and you believe you should have the authority to say that they cannot (and some garbage about violating a natural law, which is totally irrelevant)? You find nothing wrong with this?

Actualy, his entire argument will start to gain a lot of weight when you'll realise that his views are shared by obiviously a huge number of citizen. As it was explicitly explain, its democracy.

What is this cherished 'sanctity'? Two barely legal teens forced to be married to support a child? A whore who marries an old rich man to get his left-overs? A man who beats his wife and frightens her from letting anyone know about it? This is fine by you, but allowing two consenting, mature, and same-sex adults from having a sexual marriage is beyond your reasoning? Please.

Even if it goes wrong in certain cases, at least it doesn't enter in conflict against the very religious bases of the institution, unlike homosexual marriage.
Its not because sometime couples turns awry that we should discredit the whole thing, Plus, everything you described, people beating eachother, people getting married to get oney from the other one, all those scenarios, are has likely to happen in an homosexual couple anyway.