The Left Loses Ground...

[Skylar]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

[Bfgrn]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

Childish argument...

 

[Bfgrn]

On the contrary, we're not ones that are whining, you lefties are. As always, you coveting for what we got. You cant make it on your own, take it from us. You can't have marriage like ours, take ours away. You're never happy with what you got, you always want more from us. And what we resist, you call us all the names you call us racists, bigots, and what else not... We know your game.

No one is taking ANYTHING AWAY from you pea brain.

 

[Bfgrn]

Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government.

There's the problem right there. Government should not be defining it at all.

Of course government SHOULD. PLEASE explain how divorce would be handled without government laws and protections? HOW would shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids be handled?

 

[Bfgrn]

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

My laughter has reached uncontainable levels and my sides are now hurdling through the atmosphere at the light speed...

Maybe you should stop laughing...it is ironic that YOUR beliefs are the same as Hitler..

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) in Germany, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazis and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, (such as those from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, run by Jewish gay rights campaigner Magnus Hirschfeld) and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."

Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps

 

[TemplarKormac]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

Childish argument...

And your argument would be?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Polls show that the will of the majority of We the People is in favor of same-sex marriage, PoliticalSpice.

Then why you need courts to legalize it? Why don't you simply put it to a vote?

Get back to when there are national referendums so that it can be put to the vote.

You know that Constitution can be amended, right?

If you have majority, as you're so sure you do, why don't you just go for it?

Because the 14th Amendment already covers this. Everyone has a right to equal protection under the law. That covers gay marriage. No need for a referendum.

Next!

 

[NYcarbineer]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

Translation: Heterosexuals should be the only ones to get the cash and prizes.

TK hates gays.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So....what's your quibble?

Clearly it isn't the 10%, or the 20% that many are pushing....

What does that have to do with the principle of forcing folks to participate in events that they find objectionable?

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

There's absolutely no statistical bases for an claim that homosexuals make up more than 2% of the population, so why do queers keep claiming higher numbers?

Once you believe in small lie of 10%, it easier to accept bigger lie of 20%.

It's like federal government claims they need to take our right away to protect us. First they came after our privacy, then after speech, then search an seizure, they keep coming for guns, they'll not give up untill they got them all...

It was the Bush administration that took away your privacy and you applauded when they did so you only have yourself to blame.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

Childish argument...

And your argument would be?

The argument is, equal protection under the law for access to the cash and prizes, whatever they are.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

"Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist." - Masha Gessen.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

Marriage has constantly being redefined throughout the history of this nation. Your wife is no longer your property, interracial marriages are now legal, polygamy has been made illegal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Going back to the 'losing ground' theme of this thread, here's who's really losing ground:

 

[NYcarbineer]

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

"Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist." - Masha Gessen.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

Marriage has constantly being redefined throughout the history of this nation. Your wife is no longer your property, interracial marriages are now legal, polygamy has been made illegal.

Marriage was not defined as one man/one woman. It was redefined as one man/one woman.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government.

There's the problem right there. Government should not be defining it at all.

Of course government SHOULD. PLEASE explain how divorce would be handled without government laws and protections? HOW would shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids be handled?

That's your problem. You think government should be involved with everyone and everything--parsing out property, making children decide between one parent or the other, splitting families in two--when you have government defining marriage, then you will have it defining anything it wants in whatever way it wants, if it isn't doing so already.

The divorce by itself has done the damage. Government simply douses it with gasoline and lights the match to watch the family burn, figuratively speaking. If anything, the government should be doing something to promote the integrity of the family, not doing things to abet its disintegration.

Now, that was my rant.

You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government.

There's the problem right there. Government should not be defining it at all.

Of course government SHOULD. PLEASE explain how divorce would be handled without government laws and protections? HOW would shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids be handled?

That's your problem. You think government should be involved with everyone and everything--parsing out property, making children decide between one parent or the other, splitting families in two--when you have government defining marriage, then you will have it defining anything it wants in whatever way it wants, if it isn't doing so already.

The divorce by itself has done the damage. Government simply douses it with gasoline and lights the match to watch the family burn, figuratively speaking. If anything, the government should be doing something to promote the integrity of the family, not doing things to abet its disintegration.

Now, that was my rant.

You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.

Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals losing ground? No, liberals gaining ground:

Social liberals equal conservatives for first time in Gallup poll

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/gallup-poll-social-conservatives-social-liberals-118208.html#ixzz3bEiGQqhZ

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it.

You can't regulate something that doesn't have a legal definition!

A marriage contract is defined by law and yes, the government does get to change the law to suit changing circumstances. We don't live in the 18th century anymore and wives are no longer considered to be property.

 

[TemplarKormac]

False argument. I am straight and I am a Christian. Yet I was taught WE ARE ALL sinners. But you folks want to decide what sins are acceptable.

Spare me the high and mighty routine.

You have chosen who the sinners are. Yes, you have. Not only do you tack on whatever sins you deem they committed, you outright pick who is or isn't a sinner based on your political ideals. You are not God. You don't get to make judgements on who is sinful and who is not. You bastardize the Christian faith to somehow find a way to make gay marriage religiously acceptable.

It is really very simple. No one is asking you to embrace homosexuality. Just respect their civil rights.

Yet here you are, preaching the homosexual gospel.

I am respecting their civil rights. Yes, yes, right now. I am neither asking for them to be put in internment camps, or systematically executed, or have their property taken from them because of what they are. I am not asking for them to be mistreated in any shape, form, or fashion. But I am asking that if they want to be tolerated, accepted or respected, they must do the same likewise to those who have religious objections to furthering their way of life.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Gays want understanding yet fail to grant understanding to those who disagree with their lifestyles on religious grounds. There is no understanding, simply hostility. Simply, "my rights trump yours. Comply or be destroyed. Resistance is futile."

Now what of my civil rights? What of those Christians who run businesses? Do their civil rights go out the door as soon as a gay couple says, "cater our wedding?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.

Tell that to your conservative pals who want to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to narrowly define marriage.

 

[LoneLaugher]

False argument. I am straight and I am a Christian. Yet I was taught WE ARE ALL sinners. But you folks want to decide what sins are acceptable.

Spare me the high and mighty routine.

You have chosen who the sinners are. Yes, you have. Not only do you tack on whatever sins you deem they committed, you outright pick who is or isn't a sinner based on your political ideals. You are not God. You don't get to make judgements on who is sinful and who is not. You bastardize the Christian faith to somehow find a way to make gay marriage religiously acceptable.

It is really very simple. No one is asking you to embrace homosexuality. Just respect their civil rights.

Yet here you are, preaching the homosexual gospel.

I am respecting their civil rights. Yes, yes, right now. I am neither asking for them to be put in internment camps, or systematically executed, or have their property taken from them because of what they are. I am not asking for them to be mistreated in any shape, form, or fashion. But I am asking that if they want to be tolerated, accepted or respected, they must do the same likewise to those who have religious objections to furthering their way of life.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Gays want understanding yet fail to grant understanding to those who disagree with their lifestyles on religious grounds. There is no understanding, simply hostility. Simply, "my rights trump yours. Comply or be destroyed. Resistance is futile."

Now what of my civil rights? What of those Christians who run businesses? Do their civil rights go out the door as soon as a gay couple says, "cater our wedding?"

There was a time when I thought this joker was just being contrarian with this line of reasoning. I now know that he's entirely serious. He truly believes that his right to be a bigot should be protected in the same way as the rights of others to be treated equally and fairly are protected.

This idiot has made this argument dozens of times, now. He is not capable of rational thought on the issue.