GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[Quantum Windbag]

The right to marry has nothing to do with children and never has.

The right to marry, and the reasons to marry, are two entirely different concepts.

Marriage is not a right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And you disagree with the Supreme Court that corporations have the right to free speech. You have to do better than an appeal to authority you do not agree with to convince me that marriage is a right, especially when laws against marrying cousins are Constitutional. Unless you want to argue that the state has an interest in regulating marriage because the purpose of marriage is to produce children, then all of those rules make at least some sense. even if they do not track with a modern understanding of genetics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many gay rights activists do you know that are not advocating for legal gay marriage?

Know personally? All of them advocate for same sex marriage, not gay marriage. Why is it you do not lesbians to get married?

But, just to prove that opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights. Unless you are willing to argue that queers are anti gay rights you are going to look a bit foolish arguing that opposition to SSM is opposition to gay rights.

“The campaign for marriage, never a broad-based movement among gay and lesbian activists, depended for its success on the courts. It was launched by a relatively small number of lawyers, not by a consensus of activists. It remains a project of litigation, though with the support of the major lesbian and gay organizations.” (Warner, The Trouble With Normal Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life, p. 85)
“First, marriage will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men. In fact, it will constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation. Second, attaining the right to marry will not transform our society from one that makes narrow, but dramatic, distinctions between those who are married and those who are not married to one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity. Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.” (Ettelbrick, “Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, p. 21 in Lesbian and Gay Marriage Private Commitments, Private Ceremonies, editor Suzanne Sherman.)

Gay and Lesbians Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

There are plenty of self hating groups for everything, self hating homosexuals, self hating Christians, self hating Jews, self hating Muslims, self-hating Americans...they do exist. They are slightly amusing, and slightly annoying. As for their statement, it doesn't matter what it does...if someone wanted to legislate so they could go nude to Congress or marry a frog I would support the principle of it.

Plus if they are so obsessed about image then I would recommend ending gay rights parades, its the greatest expression of the worst stereotypes of what it is to be gay (just start with the whole in the nude, looking sexual thing).

What does that have to with the question I answered? If you do not want the answer to questions I suggest you talk to NYCaribiner and get him to stop asking me things unless he knows the answer is agreeable to you. Until then, I am not the one here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And opposition to marriage between the races is also not opposition to their rights either.
Sure, right.
I find it amusing that anyone that has a brain and any knowledge of The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, would want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than do what the Founders intended the Constitution to stand for which IS TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO.
Gay marriage does not affct any straight couple negatively in any way.To a true conservative it is a non issue.
Here we have the deficit, the wars, health care crisis, energy crisis,education crisis and 137 other PRIORITIES and these clowns are focused on GAY MARRIAGE.
The pandering to the religous kooks is on. Bad news for conservatives.

Do you find it intellectually demeaning to argue points in an attempt to prove how ridiculous your position is?

Not that I think they are correct in their attempt to uphold DOMA, but I can realize that it is possible to actually look at this issue strictly from a fiscal standpoint, and argue that expanding the federal definition of marriage will add to the deficit, and probably result in an increase in taxes. If the only position you can see is that it is racist to oppose gay marriage, you shouldn't even be discussing the issue here, which is same sex marriage, not gay marriage.

You are an idiot. Where did I claim racism anywhere?
I stated fact and you run from it like a monkey on fire.
Same sex marriage, gay marriage: who gives a shit?
Why do you oppose 2 people of the same sex that love each other getting married?
Why? Why is that any of your business? Why fight something and oppose something that does not affect you IN ANY WAY?

First, you are the one that compared opposition to SSM as the equivalent of miscegenation. If that is not racism, I have never seen it in my life. I actually dealt with your so called fact, and you succeeded in ignoring it in your pretense that you are making some type of point.

 

[bodecea]

Do you find it intellectually demeaning to argue points in an attempt to prove how ridiculous your position is?

Not that I think they are correct in their attempt to uphold DOMA, but I can realize that it is possible to actually look at this issue strictly from a fiscal standpoint, and argue that expanding the federal definition of marriage will add to the deficit, and probably result in an increase in taxes. If the only position you can see is that it is racist to oppose gay marriage, you shouldn't even be discussing the issue here, which is same sex marriage, not gay marriage.

You are an idiot. Where did I claim racism anywhere?
I stated fact and you run from it like a monkey on fire.
Same sex marriage, gay marriage: who gives a shit?
Why do you oppose 2 people of the same sex that love each other getting married?
Why? Why is that any of your business? Why fight something and oppose something that does not affect you IN ANY WAY?

First, you are the one that compared opposition to SSM as the equivalent of miscegenation. If that is not racism, I have never seen it in my life. I actually dealt with your so called fact, and you succeeded in ignoring it in your pretense that you are making some type of point.

Are you so narrow minded that you think civil rights is only about race?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are an idiot. Where did I claim racism anywhere?
I stated fact and you run from it like a monkey on fire.
Same sex marriage, gay marriage: who gives a shit?
Why do you oppose 2 people of the same sex that love each other getting married?
Why? Why is that any of your business? Why fight something and oppose something that does not affect you IN ANY WAY?

First, you are the one that compared opposition to SSM as the equivalent of miscegenation. If that is not racism, I have never seen it in my life. I actually dealt with your so called fact, and you succeeded in ignoring it in your pretense that you are making some type of point.

Are you so narrow minded that you think civil rights is only about race?

I am not the one that brought up race in the thread, am I? In fact, I pointed out that rights are about individuals, not relationships.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Marriage is not a right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And you disagree with the Supreme Court that corporations have the right to free speech. You have to do better than an appeal to authority you do not agree with to convince me that marriage is a right, especially when laws against marrying cousins are Constitutional. Unless you want to argue that the state has an interest in regulating marriage because the purpose of marriage is to produce children, then all of those rules make at least some sense. even if they do not track with a modern understanding of genetics.

Plus, the Supreme Court has said a lot of stupid, boneheaded things in its history. Resorting to "the Supreme Court says" in a discussion about right and wrong, or how things should be, is another way of saying, "I have no fucking argument".

 

[gekaap]

Plus, the Supreme Court has said a lot of stupid, boneheaded things in its history. Resorting to "the Supreme Court says" in a discussion about right and wrong, or how things should be, is another way of saying, "I have no fucking argument".

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and the highest interpretive authority of our constitution and laws. If what the Supreme Court says on a legal matter does not suffice to make a legal argument, then nothing can.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Plus, the Supreme Court has said a lot of stupid, boneheaded things in its history. Resorting to "the Supreme Court says" in a discussion about right and wrong, or how things should be, is another way of saying, "I have no fucking argument".

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and the highest interpretive authority of our constitution and laws. If what the Supreme Court says on a legal matter does not suffice to make a legal argument, then nothing can.

Who's making a legal argument, idiot? There's no debate about what the law IS. The debate is about what the law SHOULD BE, which means "The Supreme Court says" is, as I said, just another way of saying, "I have no argument".

Furthermore, only sheep accept "the Supreme Court says" to mean "therefore, that is correct, and no more needs to be said", because as I've pointed out, the Supreme Court has said some massively stupid things in its past, and I believe every rational person in the country thanks God - pardon the expression - that the rest of the country didn't just shrug and accept that as the end of it.

 

[gekaap]

Who's making a legal argument, idiot? There's no debate about what the law IS. The debate is about what the law SHOULD BE, which means "The Supreme Court says" is, as I said, just another way of saying, "I have no argument".

Furthermore, only sheep accept "the Supreme Court says" to mean "therefore, that is correct, and no more needs to be said", because as I've pointed out, the Supreme Court has said some massively stupid things in its past, and I believe every rational person in the country thanks God - pardon the expression - that the rest of the country didn't just shrug and accept that as the end of it.

Listen, if you don't like the way our constitution says our law is, then that's your issue. I'd recommend looking for a new country in which to live, where the laws work more along the lines of what you're looking for. Because I don't see major changes to the constitution overriding decades to centuries of established constitutional case law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who's making a legal argument, idiot? There's no debate about what the law IS. The debate is about what the law SHOULD BE, which means "The Supreme Court says" is, as I said, just another way of saying, "I have no argument".

Furthermore, only sheep accept "the Supreme Court says" to mean "therefore, that is correct, and no more needs to be said", because as I've pointed out, the Supreme Court has said some massively stupid things in its past, and I believe every rational person in the country thanks God - pardon the expression - that the rest of the country didn't just shrug and accept that as the end of it.

Listen, if you don't like the way our constitution says our law is, then that's your issue. I'd recommend looking for a new country in which to live, where the laws work more along the lines of what you're looking for. Because I don't see major changes to the constitution overriding decades to centuries of established constitutional case law.

I hate to point out the obvious, but the Constitution doesn't say anything about the way our law is. What the Constitution spells out is the powers and limitations of the government. Congress actually says the way our law is, and they said that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

 

[gekaap]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the Constitution doesn't say anything about the way our law is. What the Constitution spells out is the powers and limitations of the government. Congress actually says the way our law is, and they said that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, ya know....

 

[bodecea]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the Constitution doesn't say anything about the way our law is. What the Constitution spells out is the powers and limitations of the government. Congress actually says the way our law is, and they said that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, ya know....

 

[Seawytch]

There is no right to get married, nor is there a right to access to contracts. In fact, I do not even have any idea what it is you mean by that. Contracts are regulated by law, enforced by law, and totally defined in terms of what is, and is not, legal, by law. Just because I think the government should not be involved in contracts, that does not mean I think they are not. I do not like the way the world works, but that is the way it works.

I'm afraid that is just not true. The Supreme Court has determined, on a number of occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. What legal basis is there to deny a fundamental right to gay and lesbian Americans? (Secular and reasonable person standards DO apply )

 

[Seawytch]

You have to do better than an appeal to authority you do not agree with to convince me that marriage is a right, especially when laws against marrying cousins are Constitutional. Unless you want to argue that the state has an interest in regulating marriage because the purpose of marriage is to produce children, then all of those rules make at least some sense. even if they do not track with a modern understanding of genetics.

When were close familial marriages challenged in court? Can you provide the rulings in those cases? It would seem that our marriage laws regarding close familial ties vary from state to state. Are there not even states where first cousins can legally marry?

An argument can be made for there being a societal harm in allowing people with close familial ties to marry (in the offspring they could, potentially, produce). What is the overriding societal harm in allowing gays and lesbians equal access to legal, civil marriage?

You can't argue that the state has an interest in regulating marriage for procreation because that is NOT a requirement of a legal, civil marriage contract. It is a complete Strawman.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do you find it intellectually demeaning to argue points in an attempt to prove how ridiculous your position is?

Not that I think they are correct in their attempt to uphold DOMA, but I can realize that it is possible to actually look at this issue strictly from a fiscal standpoint, and argue that expanding the federal definition of marriage will add to the deficit, and probably result in an increase in taxes. If the only position you can see is that it is racist to oppose gay marriage, you shouldn't even be discussing the issue here, which is same sex marriage, not gay marriage.

You are an idiot. Where did I claim racism anywhere?
I stated fact and you run from it like a monkey on fire.
Same sex marriage, gay marriage: who gives a shit?
Why do you oppose 2 people of the same sex that love each other getting married?
Why? Why is that any of your business? Why fight something and oppose something that does not affect you IN ANY WAY?

First, you are the one that compared opposition to SSM as the equivalent of miscegenation. If that is not racism, I have never seen it in my life. I actually dealt with your so called fact, and you succeeded in ignoring it in your pretense that you are making some type of point.

QW, if you do not know the definition of racism that is your problem. No, it is NOT racism.
It is DISCRIMINATION.
It is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor or against, a person or thing based on the GROUP, CLASS OR category to which that person belongs RATHER THAN ON INDIVIDUAL MERIT. Something that serves to differentiate, making fine distinctions with DISCRIMINATING JUDGEMENTS.
You favordiscrimination and I don't.
BTW, your argument about gays and lesbians are not discriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex is absurd.
Hate to inform you this late in the discussion QW but gays and lesbians FALL IN LOVE WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX. And what is wrong with love? Are you against them falling in live and being committed and getting married?
WHY?

 

[AmericanFirst]

It's so ludicrous to see Gingrich address this group about the sanctity of marriage. This man who has cheated on three wives.
How many wives has Trump had?

But that's what they do....do what THEY want while telling us what we are allowed to do.

All politicians do that.

 

[hipeter924]

You are an idiot. Where did I claim racism anywhere?
I stated fact and you run from it like a monkey on fire.
Same sex marriage, gay marriage: who gives a shit?
Why do you oppose 2 people of the same sex that love each other getting married?
Why? Why is that any of your business? Why fight something and oppose something that does not affect you IN ANY WAY?

First, you are the one that compared opposition to SSM as the equivalent of miscegenation. If that is not racism, I have never seen it in my life. I actually dealt with your so called fact, and you succeeded in ignoring it in your pretense that you are making some type of point.

QW, if you do not know the definition of racism that is your problem. No, it is NOT racism.
It is DISCRIMINATION.
It is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor or against, a person or thing based on the GROUP, CLASS OR category to which that person belongs RATHER THAN ON INDIVIDUAL MERIT. Something that serves to differentiate, making fine distinctions with DISCRIMINATING JUDGEMENTS.
You favordiscrimination and I don't.
BTW, your argument about gays and lesbians are not discriminated against because they can marry the opposite sex is absurd.
Hate to inform you this late in the discussion QW but gays and lesbians FALL IN LOVE WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX. And what is wrong with love? Are you against them falling in live and being committed and getting married?
WHY?

Having encountered an atheist forum with self hating homosexuals on it recently I am not surprised. He's probably a closet bisexual or homosexual, that hates everyone who came out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the Constitution doesn't say anything about the way our law is. What the Constitution spells out is the powers and limitations of the government. Congress actually says the way our law is, and they said that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, ya know....

Maybe you should read it sometime, you will then realize that, like I said, it says nothing about the actual laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no right to get married, nor is there a right to access to contracts. In fact, I do not even have any idea what it is you mean by that. Contracts are regulated by law, enforced by law, and totally defined in terms of what is, and is not, legal, by law. Just because I think the government should not be involved in contracts, that does not mean I think they are not. I do not like the way the world works, but that is the way it works.

I'm afraid that is just not true. The Supreme Court has determined, on a number of occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. What legal basis is there to deny a fundamental right to gay and lesbian Americans? (Secular and reasonable person standards DO apply )

What basis do we have to deny it to second cousins?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have to do better than an appeal to authority you do not agree with to convince me that marriage is a right, especially when laws against marrying cousins are Constitutional. Unless you want to argue that the state has an interest in regulating marriage because the purpose of marriage is to produce children, then all of those rules make at least some sense. even if they do not track with a modern understanding of genetics.

When were close familial marriages challenged in court? Can you provide the rulings in those cases? It would seem that our marriage laws regarding close familial ties vary from state to state. Are there not even states where first cousins can legally marry?

An argument can be made for there being a societal harm in allowing people with close familial ties to marry (in the offspring they could, potentially, produce). What is the overriding societal harm in allowing gays and lesbians equal access to legal, civil marriage?

You can't argue that the state has an interest in regulating marriage for procreation because that is NOT a requirement of a legal, civil marriage contract. It is a complete Strawman.

The laws exist, why should I prove they were never challenged?

If you are basing your argument on the fact that no cousins ever wanted to get married, and thus never challenged the laws that make that illegal, please feel free to provide some evidences. Either that, or prove that my assertion that states laws against incestuous marriages do not exist at all. I am not arguing a strawman, I am pointing out that the assertion that marriage laws have nothing to do with procreation is a flat out lie.