Why are so many Republicans intolerant and hateful?

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: conjur
Wouldn't "sexual deviance" be something different from each person would consider normal? Such as...Male heterosexuals sexually abusing young boys?

No, it is not. For example, the example you have just given. It is deviant even if it is considered normal.

Uh, if it's normal it's not deviant. Have you considered checking with Merriam-Webster?

Try reading my sentence again.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: AbraxasWhich good? I was not referring to anyone's opinion of it, to anyone's "own private good".

The good.

What good? Show me this good. Prove to me this good is good.

You are immensely confused on this issue. You yourself must acknowledge that there is such a thing as good; otherwise no potential good can be "proved" to be good. I was making the very limited statement here that the government or anything else should be concerned with the good of people, without saying what that good is. Let us argue about what that good is but let us not say it is not good to bring it about.

Then demonstrate why this one is or other issues of moral diversity are not. Your logic so far holds that people will be good with proper legislation where you have yet to make this case.

My logic does no such thing, and I have not addressed this question fully except partly in one specific instance.

You seem to have the erroneous view that a person should always benefit others by helping them achieve what they think best.

That is not my position. My position is that you have no right to impose your personal version of the good on anyone else and that attempting to legislate your morality is doing just that.

You mean you aren't claiming to be defending the traditional view of marriage, love, and relationships?

I have not made any historical claims, although my claims may have been made in the past.

Your entire argument can be analyzed in a scientific manner and it fails. You ahve made no verifiable claims.

That is because I have not made any natural scientific claims either. So to make a scientific analysis of what I am saying would be ridiculous.

I am speaking to you. Are you or are you not arguing for the position that Christian law should be enforced through the legal system?

As I implied, I am making no such claims.

Influence is not the same as imposition. I can pressure you and argue with you and scream at you all I like, ultimately I cannot force any kind of behavior in you either through action or inaction. That is influence. What you are proposing is using legal force to wrestle people into your moral mold. This is imposition. I am am arguing against the latter of the two, not the former.

All the influence the government makes is done by imposition, that is by legislation. Legislation is not talk, it is law. I am not concerned per se with constraining people to behave in a "moral" fasion, but I am concerned with influence - in this instance, of social values -, and government cannot exercise this influence or do anything apart from coercion (not necessarily coertion that could be interpreted as forcing people into a moral mode of course).

Once again, I note, you are talking in circles. You have not established what you consider to be good is actual good. You have yet to justify why it is the role of the government to pick from all views of the good, choose yours, legislate it, and then enforce it. Simply repeating that the government should enforce it because it is good and it is good because it is good is not an argument.

You asked me to explain why my views could result in certain government action. I was doing this, and did not justify my views as you did not ask. Hopefully I can make an outline of an argument before I leave for the weekend.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, ultimately we have to draw a line somewhere. We obviously cant cant have a society where anything goes. What our laws attempt to do is give everyone their own personal freedoms without trampling their individual rights as afforded by our constitution. By banning gay marriage, no one's rights under the constitution are being trampled. If you believe otherwise, please post your proof. Marriage is a social issue, not a constitutional one.

And while were at it, why not make beasiality legal? I mean really! Animals arent given rights under the constitution, are they?

Allow me to present......my proof. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Huh. A heterosexual couple can LEGALLY marry. A homosexual cannot LEGALLY marry.

Does that sound like equal rights under the law to you? It sure doesn't to me. Maybe you can explain how a law is allowed to join two people of one subsection of the country but not allowed to join two people of another subsection of the country?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, ultimately we have to draw a line somewhere. We obviously cant cant have a society where anything goes. What our laws attempt to do is give everyone their own personal freedoms without trampling their individual rights as afforded by our constitution. By banning gay marriage, no one's rights under the constitution are being trampled. If you believe otherwise, please post your proof. Marriage is a social issue, not a constitutional one.

And while were at it, why not make beasiality legal? I mean really! Animals arent given rights under the constitution, are they?

Senator Santorum, is that you????

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, ultimately we have to draw a line somewhere. We obviously cant cant have a society where anything goes. What our laws attempt to do is give everyone their own personal freedoms without trampling their individual rights as afforded by our constitution. By banning gay marriage, no one's rights under the constitution are being trampled. If you believe otherwise, please post your proof. Marriage is a social issue, not a constitutional one.

And while were at it, why not make beasiality legal? I mean really! Animals arent given rights under the constitution, are they?

Allow me to present......my proof. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Huh. A heterosexual couple can LEGALLY marry. A homosexual cannot LEGALLY marry.

Does that sound like equal rights under the law to you? It sure doesn't to me. Maybe you can explain how a law is allowed to join two people of one subsection of the country but not allowed to join two people of another subsection of the country?

Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: conjur
Wouldn't "sexual deviance" be something different from each person would consider normal? Such as...Male heterosexuals sexually abusing young boys?

No, it is not. For example, the example you have just given. It is deviant even if it is considered normal.

Uh, if it's normal it's not deviant. Have you considered checking with Merriam-Webster?

Try reading my sentence again.

Try answering my question again.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

NO ONE can marry more than one person, a minor, an immediate sibling, etc. legally. NO ONE.

Gays cannot get married. Or, are you proposing to further destroy the sanctity of marriage by having someone who's gay marry someone of the opposite sex for the sake of just being married? Isn't marriage about love and respect? That's what I was taught.

Therefore, gays are not allowed equal treatment under the law. That's unconstitutional.

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

I'm well aware of the destruction of American principles wreaked by this administration. I'm just trying to figure out why Republicans support such destruction.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: coolkatz321
Let me start off by saying that I am not gay, but I do have a problem with people who are against gay marriage.

Congratulations, you have an opinion on something. I'm sure you'd just as easily find people who have a problem with you having a problem with people who are against gay marriage. Such is life.

What's the big deal? I have seen all the Republicans completely against it, and they cite reasons which to me appear to be complete crap.

No, you have not seen "all republicans" completely against it, becasue there are many republicans who either a) support gay marriage, or b) couldn't care less.

Here's a little hint, those couple of hundred old, white guys in congress do *not* represent 100% of the republican party. I know, living in a little bubble with your TV as the only viewport out into the world may convince you otherwise, but you'll just have to trust me on this.

George Bush hates gays- you can try to deny this all you want, but it's pretty obvious to me. He doesn't want gays to adopt children, and then gives an even worse reason than that.

I'll be willing to bet that if you asked Bush and he honestly answered, you'd find out that he falls into that "Couldn't care less about gay marriage" category. What Bush *does* care about is support from his "base" - which does contain a good may staunch anti-gay-marriage opinions. Therefore, he makes token, yet practically weightless, hand-waving guestures that both satiates his troops, and sends people like you into a fury. But both groups of people are fools to believe he is passionate about his self-professed "convictions."

Consider the horrendous piece of legislation that is the Patriot Act. It's a horrible peice of legislation that grants the government rediculous powers over all of us. More people are adversly affected by this than would ever be by a Constiutional ban on gay marriage. Now, the Patriot Act is law. Ask yourself when was the last time you've seen the White House push for that amendment since the election. Hmm.. that gay-hatred runs real deep, doesn't it? :roll:

I saw Rick Santorum talk about gay marriage, an I felt it was pretty disgusting what he was saying.

He's a rather disgusting human being, what did you expect?

He claimed that the household wouldn't be a good one with two members of the same sex as parents. Well what about all the domestic abuse that happens in this country? Isn't it possible that a child could lead a perfectly normal life with 2 members of the same sex as parents?

Well sure it is. Again, who the hell cares what Sanitarium says?

I think Republicans need to give it up and stop all the hate.

I see more "hate" in your single post that I do in "The Republicans" (cue scary music.)

There's a reason Santorum trails by 20 points in the polls; people in PA are fed up with him. For a country that supposed to be known for freedom, we sure do like to limit it.

No we don't. Why doesn't the fact that he and his opinions both seem to be unpopular make you feel good?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: coolkatz321
Let me start off by saying that I am not gay, but I do have a problem with people who are against gay marriage. What's the big deal? I have seen all the Republicans completely against it, and they cite reasons which to me appear to be complete crap.

George Bush hates gays- you can try to deny this all you want, but it's pretty obvious to me. He doesn't want gays to adopt children, and then gives an even worse reason than that. I saw Rick Santorum talk about gay marriage, an I felt it was pretty disgusting what he was saying. He claimed that the household wouldn't be a good one with two members of the same sex as parents. Well what about all the domestic abuse that happens in this country? Isn't it possible that a child could lead a perfectly normal life with 2 members of the same sex as parents?

I think Republicans need to give it up and stop all the hate. There's a reason Santorum trails by 20 points in the polls; people in PA are fed up with him. For a country that supposed to be known for freedom, we sure do like to limit it.

One might say that taking a persons convictions and twisting them around to be equivilant to hate is a hateful act in itself.

 

[conjur]

Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Last time i check the government does not ask your sexual preference when you get married. The government concerns itself with everything i listed when it comes to marriage, gender, age, relation, multiple-marriage partners, previous marriage relation - and all those standards are applied to all.

BTW it was a clarification, what the poster said was not true.

Our legal system does view as male and female as being different and has allowed laws to stand that reflect that, selective service being a good example.

When it comes to government intrusion, how would the government know if someone's sexual orenitation - unless it was specfically asking? Seems to me that people on the left side of the political spectrum pushes for the government to ask that question of people - that i find much more intrusive.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

Actually your wrong.

They weren't mistakenly raided. The neighbor reported a that a robbery was going on and the police showed up at the home. Cops saw the guys committing soddom and arrested them - because it was illegal to do that in texas.

Just to be clear i think all soddom laws should be removed.

I"m not talking about beastiality, or child molesters - but at least polygemy has a history in our country - somethign that same-sex marriagge does not.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
How does standing up for the traditional view of marriage make one hateful and intolerant?

Making laws based on christianity is wrong. We are a secular nation and it is time we act like it. To many repubs supporting Christian laws over the rights of humanity. Religious laws will never be compatible with democracy. Religious law are full of bigotry and hate.

So you have no problem with Rape, Murder, and Robbery?


Oh yes...and lying. Thats ok to.

These things are not Christian laws! In fact the Bible makes no sense. Because according to the Bible if you can justify that it's God's will, then you can justify murder. Eye for and eye and all that!

Most morality in human nature actually <gasp> existed BEFORE christianity or Judaism. OMG (goodness, not god for that G), how can that be? Pay attention to the concept of evolution and look at the behavior of social animals. Humans are a social animal. In a pack of social animals it is not a good thing to kill other members of the pack, it's customary to protect the weaker members to a degree, pack members that have taken a mate usually do not mate with other members after that, and members of a pack would not steal from other members. It's not Christianity causing this behavior you twits, it's standard animalistic social behavior that has itself evolved into something more complex as humans themselves have evolved into something more complex. Stop trying to pull your religion into and and saying that everyone should follow your religion's laws.

Hell if everyone followed Christianity's laws, I'd be breaking the law by shaving my head(Leviticus 19:27), and I should be in trouble for wearing something that is 40% cotton, 60% polyester (Leviticus 19:19).

Look at non judeo christian societies and you will find plenty of wars, murder and human sacrifice.

Humans are very territorial...including possesions, land and mates.

We have a lust for blood.

Have you compared the 10 Commandments to the 5 Precepts of Buddhism? If you set aside the first 4 which govern people's relationship with God, you'll see the 5 Precepts match the rest almost exactly: don't lie, steal, kill, conduct sexual misconduct, and one that's even stricter: don't consume intoxicants.

You act like morality in the form of the 10 Commandments was a gift from God, rather self-evident truths of how to treat our fellow humans.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

Actually your wrong.

They weren't mistakenly raided. The neighbor reported a that a robbery was going on and the police showed up at the home. Cops saw the guys committing soddom and arrested them - because it was illegal to do that in texas.

Just to be clear i think all soddom laws should be removed.

I"m not talking about beastiality, or child molesters - but at least polygemy has a history in our country - somethign that same-sex marriagge does not.

Actually, I'm RIGHT

Note the reference to :
"officers entered an apartment in Houston, looking for what a neighbor had told them was a man with a gun "going crazy." Instead, they found the tenant, John Geddes Lawrence, having sex with Tyron Garner.

The person who called the police was convicted of filing a false report "

Sounds like a mistake to me.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

Actually your wrong.

They weren't mistakenly raided. The neighbor reported a that a robbery was going on and the police showed up at the home. Cops saw the guys committing soddom and arrested them - because it was illegal to do that in texas.

Just to be clear i think all soddom laws should be removed.

I"m not talking about beastiality, or child molesters - but at least polygemy has a history in our country - somethign that same-sex marriagge does not.

Actually, I'm RIGHT

Note the reference to :
"officers entered an apartment in Houston, looking for what a neighbor had told them was a man with a gun "going crazy." Instead, they found the tenant, John Geddes Lawrence, having sex with Tyron Garner.

The person who called the police was convicted of filing a false report "

Sounds like a mistake to me.

The correction was "mistakenly raided." They raided exactly what they intended too - they were just lied to about what was happening.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

Actually your wrong.

They weren't mistakenly raided. The neighbor reported a that a robbery was going on and the police showed up at the home. Cops saw the guys committing soddom and arrested them - because it was illegal to do that in texas.

Just to be clear i think all soddom laws should be removed.

I"m not talking about beastiality, or child molesters - but at least polygemy has a history in our country - somethign that same-sex marriagge does not.

Actually, I'm RIGHT

Note the reference to :
"officers entered an apartment in Houston, looking for what a neighbor had told them was a man with a gun "going crazy." Instead, they found the tenant, John Geddes Lawrence, having sex with Tyron Garner.

The person who called the police was convicted of filing a false report "

Sounds like a mistake to me.

The correction was "mistakenly raided." They raided exactly what they intended too - they were just lied to about what was happening.

And it wasn't a robbery. I can point out errors that are irrelevant to the topic too!!

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

What's perverse about it? Just because you don't think that it is appropriate doesn't make it perverted.

 

[techs]

The truth of this whole issue is that the younger generation has been polled time and time again and they are amazingly overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage.
It is an idea whose time will be here within 20 years.
So right now homophobes and those genuinely against it for religious and/or moral reasons are desperate to get legislation passed against it as soon as possible.
Hence the attempt to demonize and catastrophise the idea of gay marriage.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Actually they can marry, they just can't marry the same gender. NOr can they marry more then one person, nor marry blood realitives, nor people under a certian age, nor can they marry some one who is already married.

What a lame-ass retort. I've seen that before from several bigoted ATPN posters. Should have expected nothing more from you.

The gov't doesn't need to be in the business of legislating peoples' personal lives. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be for smaller government and less government intrusion?

When did the Republicans start supporting gov't intrusion like this?

Did I miss the memo?

Actually it's a relevant retort. If it is not relevant, I take it you support marriage to more than one spouse? Or to a relative? Or to a consenting minor? How could you NOT support those cases with your stance?

As far as Republican's supporting gov't intrusion...it started when GWB took office. I'm a Republican, but if you take a look at what he has legislated (it's all public record) he is definately NOT for smaller gov't, and he IS for intruding on our personal lives. Check the record yourself.

That is the same BS line they used to defend the texas law that was OVERTURNED dealing with the arrest of 2 gay men when their house was mistakenly raided by police. But what about beastiality, but what about multiple wives, but what about child molesters?

Actually your wrong.

They weren't mistakenly raided. The neighbor reported a that a robbery was going on and the police showed up at the home. Cops saw the guys committing soddom and arrested them - because it was illegal to do that in texas.

Just to be clear i think all soddom laws should be removed.

I"m not talking about beastiality, or child molesters - but at least polygemy has a history in our country - somethign that same-sex marriagge does not.

Actually, I'm RIGHT

Note the reference to :
"officers entered an apartment in Houston, looking for what a neighbor had told them was a man with a gun "going crazy." Instead, they found the tenant, John Geddes Lawrence, having sex with Tyron Garner.

The person who called the police was convicted of filing a false report "

Sounds like a mistake to me.

The correction was "mistakenly raided." They raided exactly what they intended too - they were just lied to about what was happening.

And it wasn't a robbery. I can point out errors that are irrelevant to the topic too!!

Granted.

i thought you were implying that the police were intentional raiding homosexuals - just because they were homosexual.

my bad.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

If YOU think it is perverse then feel free not to take part in it. Don't get married to someone of your same sex.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: conjur
Bigotry is now a "conviction" to be admired?

And perversion is now a constitutional right? to be admired?

Wait a second. Who said anything about perversion?

We're not talking about pedophiles (like Catholic priests or Republican Mayors of Spokane) or bigamists or the like)

Oh wait, you're probably one of those Bible-thumpers that thinks the Bible is the actual Word of G-d or some inane sh*t like that.

News Flash!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...y.asp?z=y&cds2Pid=5779&isbn=0060526556
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...nInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0060630353&itm=1

Now, take your high-horse, faux morality and stick it where the sun don't shine and keep your damn hypocritical religious beliefs out of MY government.