The Official Election Results Victory Thread!!

• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;554662 wrote:There are many instances in our history where a simple majority or even a large majority vote would have/did result in great injustices.

  True. ObamaKare for example.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;554662 wrote:Here's the thing, would we allow minorities to be denied marriage? If not then why do we allow it with gays?

  
  Because we as a society (or the 30 states in particular) have defined marriage along the lines of gender (1 male & 1 female), legal age, and relational status. Race has no bearing on the issue.
  

  I appreciate not wanting bureaucrats deciding everything for us but I don't share the same steadfast belief that anything the people vote for is correct.

  I don't believe that either, but I believe the process is correct.
  

  There are many instances in our history where a simple majority or even a large majority vote would have/did result in great injustices

  Very true. I don't believe someone being denied the legal status of "married" is a great injustice. To me it's more of a technicality. There are about a thousand other things that make me and my wife married besides the technical legal status. But I know we disagree on that.
• I Wear Pants

  There is more to marriage than the technical legal status of course. But if the legal status is so unimportant why bother denying it from gay people?
  
  What I was saying in regards to the race is that there have been times when blacks weren't allowed to marry whites, etc. This was obviously stopped because it wasn't the correct thing to be doing. Why do we then do the same thing with gay people?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Don't know why exactly this topic has morphed into another gay marriage thread -- but here's my take: I don't want government involved in the marriage process in any way, shape or form. No tax benefits for it, not approving it, nothing.
  
  However IF the government insists on providing benefits to those involved in male-female marriages, then it should provide equal benefits to gay couples who are consenting adults.
  
  And no, I don't buy the slippery slope argument of why not animals, etc. Marriage has traditionally been about two HUMAN consenting adults (at least in free countries) and has never been about more than that. So keep everything equal.
  
  Like I said, though, my preference would be to let it be an act that takes place outside the scope of government, with no government involvement whatsoever.
• jhay78

  

  Writerbuckeye;555103 wrote:Don't know why exactly this topic has morphed into another gay marriage thread -- .

  Cause I wanted to prove how right I am and how wrong IWP is
  

  but here's my take: I don't want government involved in the marriage process in any way, shape or form. No tax benefits for it, not approving it, nothing.
  
  However IF the government insists on providing benefits to those involved in male-female marriages, then it should provide equal benefits to gay couples who are consenting adults.
  
  And no, I don't buy the slippery slope argument of why not animals, etc. Marriage has traditionally been about two HUMAN consenting adults (at least in free countries) and has never been about more than that. So keep everything equal.
  Like I said, though, my preference would be to let it be an act that takes place outside the scope of government, with no government involvement whatsoever

  My sis and I are consenting adults. Just sayin. I think the government is involved in preventing that "marriage". My point was, the government is already involved in some ways in defining what makes a marriage. I'm OK with states (with the consent of a majority of its voters) choosing to further define that along gender lines.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  jhay78;555214 wrote:Cause I wanted to prove how right I am and how wrong IWP is
  
  
  
  My sis and I are consenting adults. Just sayin. I think the government is involved in preventing that "marriage". My point was, the government is already involved in some ways in defining what makes a marriage. I'm OK with states (with the consent of a majority of its voters) choosing to further define that along gender lines.

  
  You know what? I could care less if you wanted to marry your sister and neither should the government if you're both consenting. Such a union presents no danger to society at-large because even if the genes get all messed up, it's most likely only going to affect your offspring -- and I don't see it becoming some huge fad.
• Con_Alma

  Writerbuckeye;555103 wrote:...
  However IF the government insists on providing benefits to those involved in male-female marriages, then it should provide equal benefits to gay couples who are consenting adults.
  
  ....

  We could end this by eliminating all marriage benefits. I would be all for that.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Con_Alma;555988 wrote:We could end this by eliminating all marriage benefits. I would be all for that.

  
  www.fairtax.org will fix your need
• Devils Advocate

  

  Obama wins! Obama wins!In other news
  
• Devils Advocate

  

  QuakerOats;541231 wrote:Goes without saying, also. Then again it does need to be clarified becasue there are some municipalities allowing non-citizens to vote in local campaigns.
  
  So, any predictions from the group?
  
  I say the R's pick up 72 in the House and 9 in the senate.

  
  Wow, i dont even have to change this fucked up post.