GOP to back ban on gay marriage

[Guest MikeSC]

And besides, aren't those who oppose gay marriage "forcing their will" by being against it when IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM? Legalizing gay marriage only affects gay people. So unless the Pat Robertsons of the world are hiding something, this shouldn't be a concern.

 

The only thing everyone seems to agree on here is that it's a non-issue.

 

I bailed out of this discussion and then realized I shouldn't have. I can't just sit back and let all of the homophobic venom spew, especially when opposing gay marriage is A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME.

You are the one who advocates changing laws without actually participating in the legislative process. You seek a judicial end-around for all of this.

 

If you view criticism of it as an attack on you personally --- feel free to do so. You'll end up making an ass of yourself in the process.

-=Mike

...You haven't been attacked yet. You might do well to try and avoid trying to make this personal as you'll come off looking far worse than the people you HAVE attacked...

[Guest Paul H.]

Yeah let's have a referendum on this issue see who would win,really..

 

Don't compare the sruggle of Blacks to gays..PLEASE.No one is putting gays in seperate buses,or restaurants they do not have seperate drinking fountains or forced to pick cotton.

 

You can't compare the Gay movement to anything becuz they are fighting a bogus fight just to fight and make noise..

 

 

 

..My mistake i'd compare them to the femeninsts,starting shit up regurlarly for no reason.

 

You know what,I say if Gay marriage is legalized tommoroww we'd see even LESS homosexuals cuz that's exactly what this movement is:a disturbing fad.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Dude, just shut the fuck up already.

[Guest Paul H.]

And besides, aren't those who oppose gay marriage "forcing their will" by being against it when IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM? Legalizing gay marriage only affects gay people. So unless the Pat Robertsons of the world are hiding something, this shouldn't be a concern.

 

The only thing everyone seems to agree on here is that it's a non-issue.

 

I bailed out of this discussion and then realized I shouldn't have. I can't just sit back and let all of the homophobic venom spew, especially when opposing gay marriage is A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME.

You are a gay?

[Guest Paul H.]

Dude, just shut the fuck up already.

You have no argument.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Nor do you, and yet you keep posting.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Neither do you, dipshit.

 

Show me the missing link here..

 

Gay Marriage------>Polygamy and Bestiality.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Because really, THAT's what this is all about, right? Keeping these rights out of the hands of TOTAL screwballs that want to marry their goldfish, since two men or two women getting married and becoming homeowners/taxpayers/consumers leads to nothing but sin and degeneration.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Basically.

[Guest Loss]

You are the one who advocates changing laws without actually participating in the legislative process. You seek a judicial end-around for all of this.

 

If you view criticism of it as an attack on you personally --- feel free to do so. You'll end up making an ass of yourself in the process.

-=Mike

...You haven't been attacked yet. You might do well to try and avoid trying to make this personal as you'll come off looking far worse than the people you HAVE attacked...

I seek ANYTHING that results in being allowed the right to marry, even if I choose to never exercise it. The means justify the end. And as I have stated, this shouldn't be left in the hands of the judges. I agree with Special K on that. But I could deal more with it being put to popular vote and being rejected than I could an entire party uniformly supporting gay hate.

[Guest Loss]

Yeah let's have a referendum on this issue see who would win,really..

 

Don't compare the sruggle of Blacks to gays..PLEASE.No one is putting gays in seperate buses,or restaurants they do not have seperate drinking fountains or forced to pick cotton.

 

You can't compare the Gay movement to anything becuz they are fighting a bogus fight just to fight and make noise..

 

 

 

..My mistake i'd compare them to the femeninsts,starting shit up regurlarly for no reason.

 

You know what,I say if Gay marriage is legalized tommoroww we'd see even LESS homosexuals cuz that's exactly what this movement is:a disturbing fad.

If it's no big deal, let us get married.

 

And yes, I am "a gay". You best wash your hands and put on your safety goggles before I use my superpowers to convert you.

[Special K 0]

Don't forget the selfish hedonism that springs into action because people want to commit to a lifelong relationship.

 

And Paul H, while I agree that the struggle isn't to the same extent as the civil rights movement; if your lover who you'd been with for many years was dying, and you couldn't see he or she because the family didn't like you, you just might want to 'stir shit up for no reason'. And if you don't think that exact thing happened during the initial spread of AIDS, you're a fool.

 

I don't think you can make an argument that gay people can't at least get civil unions, yet they can't in many states.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'm going to try to get a little flowchart here then, to help illustrate this viewpoint for the folks like me who don't quite get it.

 

 

Current Day: No gay marriage. All is well

 

---->Gay civil unions are allowed

 

3 people get hitched at once thus SCREWING the government horribly.

 

I mean, I see the Point A and Point C here, but I fail to draw the conclusion that Gay Civil Unions is Point B.

[Guest MikeSC]

Neither do you, dipshit.

 

Show me the missing link here..

 

Gay Marriage------>Polygamy and Bestiality.

Polygamy: Our getting married doesn't hurt you. You shouldn't oppress us.

 

Bestiality: Our getting married doesn't hurt you. You shouldn't oppress us.

I seek ANYTHING that results in being allowed the right to marry, even if I choose to never exercise it.

Good for you. Make a case to the public at large. I, personally, could give two shits if gays marry. I do have a REAL problem, though, with them simply going to lawyers to get done what they couldn't done at the ballot box.

The means justify the end.

Nah, they REALLY don't. I put the concept of federalism WAY above your "right" (as if such a right even existed to begin with) to marry.

And as I have stated, this shouldn't be left in the hands of the judges. I agree with Special K on that. But I could deal more with it being put to popular vote and being rejected than I could an entire party uniformly supporting gay hate.

Except the Republicans don't do that. But, demonizing your opposition is significantly easier than winning a debate on its merits.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I tend to agree with the opinion that the government cannot force a church to marry anyone, however since we can legally be married by a judge, pretty much stripping any and all religious sentiment from the act itself, I don't see why a judge should not be able to perform marriage for a gay couple. Most of the folks in the government that want gay marriage banned are not doing it to "protect marriage" otherwise you would see them out there doing something more constructive related to marriage and keeping them together. Moreso, they are doing it because according to their god, homosexuality is wrong, so they have made it a life long mission to dehumanize gays as much as possible. The denial of marriage rights is just another step some are taking in order to keep the public view of homosexuals as less then equal, different, subhuman etc.....Their worst nightmare is for gays to be living side by side with the rest of us as "normal" law-abiding, citizens. And furthermore, I still haven't seen one single halfway decent argument against Civil Unions/full marital rights/benefits without the term "marriage"

[Guest Paul H.]

Neither do you, dipshit.

 

Show me the missing link here..

 

Gay Marriage------>Polygamy and Bestiality.

all the love for me..

 

this thread..

 

Gay marriage

 

throwup: comparing gays to the Black struggle..

 

No one can debate my point of Polygamists/Nambla wanting the same things.All sexual-related groups wanting things that skate up-hill.

 

Let's say I'm a polygamsist and I wanna marry me a second bride,my first wife has no problem with it ,second knows about the first one.Last time I checked we are all..

 

1.Consenting adults.

2.Backed by many people and movements proly even more than the gays.

3.Born into polygmay/lifestyle/culture/

 

So why can't we all get hicthes?

 

Remember it's part of my life so if i don't get what I want it's conidered DISCRIMINATION and equal to slavery&Jim Crow,so step lightly.

[Guest Loss]

Nor do I give a shit if polygamists have marriage rights. Who cares? Why DO you care? Heterosexual, two-person couples are STILL not affected.

 

One day, maybe we'll reach a point of maturity where we honestly don't give a shit what people do in their own time and we give them the legal means to do whatever they want. I hope I'm alive to see it.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Neither do you, dipshit.

 

Show me the missing link here..

 

Gay Marriage------>Polygamy and Bestiality.

Polygamy: Our getting married doesn't hurt you. You shouldn't oppress us.

 

Bestiality: Our getting married doesn't hurt you. You shouldn't oppress us.

Well, GOOD, then don't. Who gives a shit then? If you can show me a real honest detriment that giving gays civil unions will immediately cause this country that isn't some moral agenda, I'll say, "Ok, you've got a point maybe." but until then, it's slippery slope pessimism.

[Guest Loss]

But, demonizing your opposition is significantly easier than winning a debate on its merits.

              -=Mike

And it's also totally justified.

 

This goes far beyond winning a debate.

 

-- Loss, who sometimes wonders if you live in the real world if you just want things to happen so you can rub it in our faces here at TSM

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Thought you were the one who got his panties in a bunch over the "demonizing" and other mean things that go on in this folder?

 

I'll be preparing my football contest in the back if anyone needs me...

[NoCalMike 0]

Neither do you, dipshit.

 

Show me the missing link here..

 

Gay Marriage------>Polygamy and Bestiality.

all the love for me..

 

this thread..

 

Gay marriage

 

throwup: comparing gays to the Black struggle..

 

No one can debate my point of Polygamists/Nambla wanting the same things.All sexual-related groups wanting things that skate up-hill.

 

Let's say I'm a polygamsist and I wanna marry me a second bride,my first wife has no problem with it ,second knows about the first one.Last time I checked we are all..

 

1.Consenting adults.

2.Backed by many people and movements proly even more than the gays.

3.Born into polygmay/lifestyle/culture/

 

So why can't we all get hicthes?

 

Remember it's part of my life so if i don't get what I want it's conidered DISCRIMINATION and equal to slavery&Jim Crow,so step lightly.

No one is comparing one struggle to another. Can you read? The issue of which struggle is more and harder or more oppressive is as irrelevent as your opinion on homosexuality being a fad(which in fact if true would date as far back as that "prostitution" fad, lol).

 

The issue is discrimination and civil rights. When minorities wanted equal rights, I am sure there were the same filthy bigots making arguments such as "if we give a black man rights, does that mean I have to give my dog rights, what about a arangantang, does he gets rights too....." Some hogwash, different year.

[Guest MikeSC]

I tend to agree with the opinion that the government cannot force a church to marry anyone, however since we can legally be married by a judge, pretty much stripping any and all religious sentiment from the act itself, I don't see why a judge should not be able to perform marriage for a gay couple.

Because states should have the right to determine if they wish to allow it or not. Hell, my state allows you to buy beer almost anywhere, but not on Sunday. A lot of other states allow you to buy beer everywhere AND on Sunday. Others, you can buy it in a few places, and any day of the week.

 

Is anybody's "right" to buy beer affected by the differences in rules? If buying beer on Sunday is such a huge deal, move.

Most of the folks in the government that want gay marriage banned are not doing it to "protect marriage" otherwise you would see them out there doing something more constructive related to marriage and keeping them together.

You missed the flak Bush got for his marriage initiatives, huh?

Moreso, they are doing it because according to their god, homosexuality is wrong, so they have made it a life long mission to dehumanize gays as much as possible.

Yes, because Christians do nothing but hate and dehumanize gays.

 

Thank God you don't dehumanize those you disagree with.

The denial of marriage rights is just another step some are taking in order to keep the public view of homosexuals as less then equal, different, subhuman etc.

Again, thank God you don't do that.

Their worst nightmare is for gays to be living side by side with the rest of us as "normal" law-abiding, citizens. 

Actually, many of us have a real problem with courts, yet again, overstepping their bounds and making law.

And furthermore, I still haven't seen one single halfway decent argument against Civil Unions/full marital rights/benefits without the term "marriage"

If a state wishes to give it to them, good for them. If another state doesn't, good for them.

 

You seem to ignore that marriage doesn't begin to fall under a federal power of any sort.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Thought you were the one who got his panties in a bunch over the "demonizing" and other mean things that go on in this folder?

I have nothing against anyone who isn't setting out to actively hurt my life or treat me like a second class citizen. I don't understand why that's being considered such a radical attitude.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Ok then Mike, considering that you're in favor of states' rights in this case, you're opposed to a constitutional amendment then?

[Guest MikeSC]

Nor do I give a shit if polygamists have marriage rights. Who cares? Why DO you care? Heterosexual, two-person couples are STILL not affected.

I, personally, DON'T give a shit. I DO have a problem with the end-around of the SYSTEM.

 

You want marriage rights? Then make your fucking case to the voters. Don't bitch and moan at lawyers to do what you have failed, miserably, to do on your own.

One day, maybe we'll reach a point of maturity where we honestly don't give a shit what people do in their own time and we give them the legal means to do whatever they want. I hope I'm alive to see it.

Let me guess --- you oppose hate crime legislation, right?

And it's also totally justified.

Because a differing view from yours can't be held by a real human.

This goes far beyond winning a debate.

No, it goes to a total bastardization of the system in this country. If you cannot get your way through the ballot box --- that is YOUR problem.

 

And you CLEARLY don't think you can, as you do not support the possibility.

-- Loss, who sometimes wonders if you live in the real world if you just want things to happen so you can rub it in our faces here at TSM

If you think I live my life based on this board, you are just sad. But, hey, continue demonizing. God knows you aren't making your point worth a damn.

Well, GOOD, then don't. Who gives a shit then? If you can show me a real honest detriment that giving gays civil unions will immediately cause this country that isn't some moral agenda, I'll say, "Ok, you've got a point maybe." but until then, it's slippery slope pessimism.

And into the way-back machine:

"What could possibly go wrong with 'no-fault divorce'? It'll free women from unhappy marriages."

 

"But won't it cause people to get divorced for no reason, driving divorce rates through the roof and still screwing over women in the end?"

 

"That's just slippery-slope pessimism. No chance of that."

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

You seem to ignore that marriage doesn't begin to fall under a federal power of any sort.

-=Mike

I am forgetting that? I think YOU are forgetting that your man in the whitehouse who wants a constitutional amendment is forgetting that.

 

So what I take from your statement is that if states want to allow gay marriage, then they can do so, right?

[Guest MikeSC]

Thought you were the one who got his panties in a bunch over the "demonizing" and other mean things that go on in this folder?

I have nothing against anyone who isn't setting out to actively hurt my life or treat me like a second class citizen. I don't understand why that's being considered such a radical attitude.

And nobody is doing so here. If you live life as a "second-class citizen", that is by your own design.

Ok then Mike, considering that you're in favor of states' rights in this case, you're opposed to a constitutional amendment then?

Nope, it's the only way to make it a federalism issue. Marriage will be officially defined and states can choose to expand it if they so choose while others will not have to.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Except the Republicans don't do that. But, demonizing your opposition is significantly easier than winning a debate on its merits.

-=Mike

Oh, and the Republicans DEFINITELY do that. If you're a rich, white, straight male, it's the party for you. I don't see how it speaks to anyone else though ...

 

--Loss, who noticed that Mary Cheney didn't join her father on stage last night

[Guest MikeSC]

 

You seem to ignore that marriage doesn't begin to fall under a federal power of any sort.

                -=Mike

I am forgetting that? I think YOU are forgetting that your man in the whitehouse who wants a constitutional amendment is forgetting that.

 

Yes, you are forgetting that. And I've explained, repeatedly, why an Amendment is the only way to go with this --- but as usual, you prefer remaining blind. Que sera.

So what I take from your statement is that if states want to allow gay marriage, then they can do so, right?

Yup. And they could under the Amendment, too. The Amendment is to protect states who DON'T want to.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Except the Republicans don't do that. But, demonizing your opposition is significantly easier than winning a debate on its merits.

              -=Mike

Oh, and the Republicans DEFINITELY do that. If you're a rich, white, straight male, it's the party for you. I don't see how it speaks to anyone else though ...

 

Yup, you got a FIRM grasp on things.

 

Funny, the only person demonizing ANYBODY here --- is you.

--Loss, who noticed that Mary Cheney didn't join her father on stage last night

-=Mike

...Who doesn't give two shits what Mary Cheney does or doesn't do...