FYI: A list of those who know nothing of Freedom

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: phantom309
What socialist benefit program does gay marriage fall under? What special rights and benefits are gay Americans asking for in regards to this issue? Be specific please.

Surely your question is rhetorical. What special rights and benefits do married couples receive? Specifically, they can't be forced to testify against each other, numerous health coverage benefits and protections, social security and military retirement death and survivorship benefits, income tax benefits, etc. I could list on for days.

If the rights are available to hetero couples, why not make them available to gay homo couples?

Or if the people are so opposed to socialist benefit programs, why not abolish hetero marriage rights altogether?

The reality is that most people are homophobes, or they are sheep following their homophobe ministers and preachers and friends.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: phantom309
What socialist benefit program does gay marriage fall under? What special rights and benefits are gay Americans asking for in regards to this issue? Be specific please.

Surely your question is rhetorical. What special rights and benefits do married couples receive? Specifically, they can't be forced to testify against each other, numerous health coverage benefits and protections, social security and military retirement death and survivorship benefits, income tax benefits, etc. I could list on for days.

If the rights are available to hetero couples, why not make them available to gay homo couples?

Or if the people are so opposed to socialist benefit programs, why not abolish hetero marriage rights altogether?

The reality is that most people are homophobes, or they are sheep following their homophobe ministers and preachers and friends.

Is it not possible that most of these people just feel it is wrong and evil? That doesn't necessarily fall under homophobe (meaning afraid of gay people) nor does it mean that they are sheep following their ministers or preachers or friends.

 

[Vic]

From my earlier post in this thread, editted for emphasis because some don't read:

It is about expanding the federal government's secular powers over marriage and expanding the coverage (and thus the cost) of socialist benefits programs that IMO should NOT exist in the first place.

If you are going to argue that they should be extended from hetero to homo couples under the rally cry of "bigotry" or "for freedom" then you cannot, without hypocracy, fail to argue that these same rights should be extended to everyone, married or not. Or removed from everyone. You can't have your cake and eat it too, much as you might want to.

But as your rally of freedom involves lynch mob-like attitudes against those who disagree with you, jpeyton, I won't hold my breath that you'll understand.

 

[EdfromCocoa]

The Bushies are pandering to their Christian base (aka the WASPs) but the Republicans are blindsided by the fact that this country is no longer all Christian (read white Portestants) but there are lots of Muslims (read Arab Americans), Hispanics, Asians, Africans, ...

The Republicans need to answer this question for the future existence of their party: What happens when an Arab American becomes President or an Hispanic or an Asian American?

It's time for Americans to wake up and realize that this country is becoming homogonized and that the Republicans will lose control as the royalty did during the French Revolution.

Ed

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Vic
From my earlier post in this thread, editted for emphasis because some don't read:

It is about expanding the federal government's secular powers over marriage and expanding the coverage (and thus the cost) of socialist benefits programs that IMO should NOT exist in the first place.

If you are going to argue that they should be extended from hetero to homo couples under the rally cry of "bigotry" or "for freedom" then you cannot, without hypocracy, fail to argue that these same rights should be extended to everyone, married or not. Or removed from everyone. You can't have your cake and eat it too, much as you might want to.

But as your rally of freedom involves lynch mob-like attitudes against those who disagree with you, jpeyton, I won't hold my breath that you'll understand.

Well as I am all for extending rights instead of taking them away, wouldn't giving homo couples these rights be an incremental step towards giving these rights to people universally?

As it stands, the homophobes want to keep the status quo, which is unconstitutional. If they don't want gay couples to have these rights, but want to remain constitutional, they should be protesting the existence of these rights altogether.

Gay marriage supporters are at least trying to do something instead of maintain the status quo.

Fingolfin, if they feel it is wrong and evil, I hope they die or are severely injured as a result of their bigotry. Then at least they'll know the definition of pain, which is what people who are treated like 2nd class citizens feel.

 

[Fingolfin269]

The Bushies are pandering to their Christian base (aka the WASPs) but the Republicans are blindsided by the fact that this country is no longer all Christian (read white Portestants) but there are lots of Muslims (read Arab Americans), Hispanics, Asians, Africans, ...

Wow, I didn't know that all hispanics, asians, and africans were not Christians! I can understand why a Muslim might be considered that way though.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Fingolfin, if they feel it is wrong and evil, I hope they die or are severely injured as a result of their bigotry. Then at least they'll know the definition of pain, which is what people who are treated like 2nd class citizens feel.

You cry for peace and understanding but obviously have no idea what either word means. I'm all for progressive thinking and change, certain people in the past had it right, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., but then of course there were other groups during that time who had a different idea of how to bring change that were not as effective.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Well as I am all for extending rights instead of taking them away, wouldn't giving homo couples these rights be an incremental step towards giving these rights to people universally?

As it stands, the homophobes want to keep the status quo, which is unconstitutional. If they don't want gay couples to have these rights, but want to remain constitutional, they should be protesting the existence of these rights altogether.

Gay marriage supporters are at least trying to do something instead of maintain the status quo.

Fingolfin, if they feel it is wrong and evil, I hope they die or are severely injured as a result of their bigotry. Then at least they'll know the definition of pain, which is what people who are treated like 2nd class citizens feel.

You're crack smoking.
First, you're using ad hominem in assuming that everyone who doesn't support same-sex marriage is a "homophobe". That's inaccurate and insulting.

Second, you're outright wrong that keeping the status quo is unconstitutional, as marriage is not in the federal constitution at all. As such, it falls under the 10th Amendment and goes to the individual states. Therefore, the current status quo IS constitutional. If you're going to insult people about your views, you might want to try to at least be somewhat informed, don't you think?

It is not necessarily admirable that you are trying to do something instead of maintaining the status quo. That's a knee-jerker mentality. Jumping off a cliff is doing something but that doesn't make it the right something.

And your "2nd class citizens" have the highest per capita income on Earth.

 

[jpeyton]

C'mon, who's kiddin' who? You guys hate gays as much as that bible-toting Nashif idiot who's getting the issue in the ballot in November. I hope Nashif takes it up the rear in November; how fitting for his homophobic a$$.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
C'mon, who's kiddin' who? You guys hate gays as much as that bible-toting Nashif idiot who's getting the issue in the ballot in November. I hope Nashif takes it up the rear in November; how fitting for his homophobic a$$.

You're kidding you. Basing your argument on prejudice and ad hominem, and without a shred of logic. While I feel no need to explain myself to your stupidity, I think you should know that I have no hatred towards homosexuals at all and (although I fear this cliche) I have several good friends who are homosexual. In fact, as a mortgage broker, one of my earliest successes was working to help gay couples buy homes when no one else would lend to them (only a few years ago).
If anything, I fear that the gays in this movement (and their hetero backers) may be moving too far too fast on this particular agenda, as has been evidenced thus far by their complete lack of respect for democratic due process, and for their need to insult as a "homophobe" or "bigot" everyone who questions their course of action. Such agendas are known to have a way of backfiring badly, and I feel for those you will wound with your lack of common sense.

Anyway, I'm done here, as it's pretty obvious that a logical debate with you will be impossible. If I continue, I will only be dragged down to your level and beaten with experience.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
C'mon, who's kiddin' who? You guys hate gays as much as that bible-toting Nashif idiot who's getting the issue in the ballot in November. I hope Nashif takes it up the rear in November; how fitting for his homophobic a$$.

This and your previous comment sound much like the very hatespeech you condem. If they had your point of view perhaps they would then be "activists."