Why are so many Republicans intolerant and hateful?

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
What is wrong with "consenting adults" as being the definition of a couple? Other than siblings (as those are born out of physical and mental abuse and can result in genetic deformities in offspring)

What is the harm in allowing people to engage in the pursuit of happiness? Why do your bigoted opinions merit legislation restricting civil rights for a certain portion of the population?

Are you conceding that some limits should be put on siblings, even if they are the consenting age?

Uh, those limits are already in place and I'm not conceding anything.

Yes but those limits would change. You said so yourself that the requirement for marrige should be consenting adults - and thats it, even allowing for polygamy. As long as the people are "pursuing happiness"..its okay.

So which is it:

YOu allow marriage between consenting adults.

Or

You allow marriage between consenting adults, but with restrictions.

Polygamy has not a damn thing to do with same-sex marriage, stick to the topic at hand. I know you're at least smart enough to avoid many common logical fallacies.

It has to do with consenting adults and if/how you can limit what they do. At least polygamy has a history in our country.

You are missing the main point of discussion. A "gay marriage" amendment targets a specific group of individuals and takes away a right that heterosexual Americans are allowed to enjoy (at least in 50% of the marriages). Your arguments are based on logical fallacies because there isn't a single one of your "slippery slope" scenarios that are allowed to any groups.

It has already been established that all "People" (not only citizens) are to be subjected to the same laws. If there is a ban on marriage on one subset of society, that ban needs to be applied to all. Just as your strawman arguments on poligamy, beastiality and incestual relationships.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

You are missing the main point of discussion. A "gay marriage" amendment targets a specific group of individuals and takes away a right that heterosexual Americans are allowed to enjoy (at least in 50% of the marriages). Your arguments are based on logical fallacies because there isn't a single one of your "slippery slope" scenarios that are allowed to any groups.

It has already been established that all "People" (not only citizens) are to be subjected to the same laws. If there is a ban on marriage on one subset of society, that ban needs to be applied to all. Just as your strawman arguments on poligamy, beastiality and incestual relationships.

I have not missed the point. Conjur has said that consenting adults should be the requirement for marriage, considering we have a history of polygamy at least in part of the country, and there are groups who would like to see it return, it is a valid point.

I mean they are consenting, and they are adults.

He is asking to change the law, based on consenting adults - its quite simple how can we deny the above groups or couples on that princple?

You are wrong, there has never been a box on a marriage form saying "are you gay?". Marriage has not cared of ones sexual orenitation - at has concerned itself with gender, along with age, and relations - everything i have outlined before.

How come i had to register for selective services, and my sister didn't...hmmm...its because i am a male. That law doesn't seem to be applied equally to all does it? The goverment is allowed to make laws that draw on differences of the two genders. Marriage is one such set of laws.

 

[Abraxas]

Uh, why not allow polygamy/polygandry?

 

[metalstorm203]

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.

1) You can?t please all the people all of the time.
2) The world isn?t fair. It never will be.

It would be wise to make peace with these two concepts before your graduate from high school. Life will be a lot easier to deal with.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

What is wrong with "consenting adults" as being the definition of a couple? Other than siblings (as those are born out of physical and mental abuse and can result in genetic deformities in offspring)

Nothing...consenting adults should be free to pursue sexual pleasure or relationships as they see fit.

What is the harm in allowing people to engage in the pursuit of happiness? Why do your bigoted opinions merit legislation restricting civil rights for a certain portion of the population?

Marriage is not a requirement for the pursuit of happiness, nor is it a civil right...it is a state recognized civil union between two people, and in that union lies certain privileges and other applicable laws. The traditional understanding of marriage is a union between a man and a woman...but the traditional nuclear family is one of many scenarios that exists in America today. Why not take the term marriage out of the equation entirely, as it is no longer relevant to the legally binding union as recognized by the state.

Ideally, the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Regardless of sexual orientation or the nature of the relationship, a couple that chooses to share a household should have certain rights within that arrangement. Those who want to commerorate their civil union with a ceremony can then choose to celebrate as they see fit, whether it be in a church, in Las Vegas or on a beach.

I can think of numerous heterosexual couples who, while not legally married, share a household and income...I don't see how they are not being discriminated against any more then gays under the current understanding of marriage.

AH HA HA HA HA!!

Here it is.

Take the term "marriage" out of it.


What a joke.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
What is wrong with "consenting adults" as being the definition of a couple? Other than siblings (as those are born out of physical and mental abuse and can result in genetic deformities in offspring)

What is the harm in allowing people to engage in the pursuit of happiness? Why do your bigoted opinions merit legislation restricting civil rights for a certain portion of the population?

Are you conceding that some limits should be put on siblings, even if they are the consenting age?

Uh, those limits are already in place and I'm not conceding anything.

Yes but those limits would change. You said so yourself that the requirement for marrige should be consenting adults - and thats it, even allowing for polygamy. As long as the people are "pursuing happiness"..its okay.

So which is it:

YOu allow marriage between consenting adults.

Or

You allow marriage between consenting adults, but with restrictions.

I believe it's fairly obvious I support the former.

Like I said, I don't see the need for the gov't to legislate what happens between consenting adults.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
What is wrong with "consenting adults" as being the definition of a couple? Other than siblings (as those are born out of physical and mental abuse and can result in genetic deformities in offspring)

What is the harm in allowing people to engage in the pursuit of happiness? Why do your bigoted opinions merit legislation restricting civil rights for a certain portion of the population?

Are you conceding that some limits should be put on siblings, even if they are the consenting age?

Uh, those limits are already in place and I'm not conceding anything.

Yes but those limits would change. You said so yourself that the requirement for marrige should be consenting adults - and thats it, even allowing for polygamy. As long as the people are "pursuing happiness"..its okay.

So which is it:

YOu allow marriage between consenting adults.

Or

You allow marriage between consenting adults, but with restrictions.

I believe it's fairly obvious I support the former.

Like I said, I don't see the need for the gov't to legislate what happens between consenting adults.

So you would allow siblings to marry, and multlple marriages correct?

 

[busmaster11]

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.

Modern day republicans belong to the party of intolerance, and don't anyone start with that party of Lincoln BS... We all know its not the same since the 60's. The Christian right believe they are morally superior, and judge those who don't have the same demographic interests as they, because somehow they've convinced themselves they have God on their side.

As an evagelical myself, I find that to be as insulting to God as anything can possibly be... Judging your innner circle, ie yourself, your friends, your church. Love those outside of it. But if you must, judge the action, not the person.

 

[Starbuck1975]

AH HA HA HA HA!! Here it is. Take the term "marriage" out of it. What a joke.

Why is that a joke? The heterosexual nuclear family is one of many household arrangements in America, and not all couples or parents for that matter are raising children within the context of marriage.

Why shouldn't the government simply embrace any and all family units, and provide the rights and benefits inherent to a household, and leave the term marriage out of the equation...the state recognizing the civil union, with marriage saved for the ceremonial aspect.

This would also not prevent gays from getting married...instead, it would place all household scenarios on the same footing, and allow anyone who chooses to exchange the ceremonial vows of marriage as they see fit...not all marriages, or weddings, occur in a church...particularly as our society becomes more secular.

You dismiss this solution without providing any comments as to why you have a problem with it.

 

[conjur]

Because marriage is what it's called. A marriage is the union of two adults. You'd be ok if everything was called a "civil union" but have a problem with using marriage.

That's an illogical hangup on a word.


Get over it.

 

[thraashman]

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution first defines what it means to be an American citizen. It then goes on to state that no American citizen can be denied equal rights or privelege.

Because in this nation there are benefits to being married, the privelege part is what's wrong here. By denying gay couples the right to marry you are effectively denying them equal privelege and therefore violating their constitutioanl rights.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Easy answer.

The same reason so many Democrats are intolerant and hateful.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
What is wrong with "consenting adults" as being the definition of a couple? Other than siblings (as those are born out of physical and mental abuse and can result in genetic deformities in offspring)

What is the harm in allowing people to engage in the pursuit of happiness? Why do your bigoted opinions merit legislation restricting civil rights for a certain portion of the population?

Are you conceding that some limits should be put on siblings, even if they are the consenting age?

Uh, those limits are already in place and I'm not conceding anything.

Yes but those limits would change. You said so yourself that the requirement for marrige should be consenting adults - and thats it, even allowing for polygamy. As long as the people are "pursuing happiness"..its okay.

So which is it:

YOu allow marriage between consenting adults.

Or

You allow marriage between consenting adults, but with restrictions.

I believe it's fairly obvious I support the former.

Like I said, I don't see the need for the gov't to legislate what happens between consenting adults.

What two consenting adult do is one thing, but with marriage you are asking for government involvement - and they government has rules about marriage.

 

[conjur]

Same thing goes in this thread: you're an obtuse troll.


buh-bye.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
What is wrong with "consenting adults" as being the definition of a couple? Other than siblings (as those are born out of physical and mental abuse and can result in genetic deformities in offspring)

What is the harm in allowing people to engage in the pursuit of happiness? Why do your bigoted opinions merit legislation restricting civil rights for a certain portion of the population?

Are you conceding that some limits should be put on siblings, even if they are the consenting age?

Uh, those limits are already in place and I'm not conceding anything.

Yes but those limits would change. You said so yourself that the requirement for marrige should be consenting adults - and thats it, even allowing for polygamy. As long as the people are "pursuing happiness"..its okay.

So which is it:

YOu allow marriage between consenting adults.

Or

You allow marriage between consenting adults, but with restrictions.

I believe it's fairly obvious I support the former.

Like I said, I don't see the need for the gov't to legislate what happens between consenting adults.

What two consenting adult do is one thing, but with marriage you are asking for government involvement - and they government has rules about marriage.

Exactly right. In case you didn't see it from above :

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution first defines what it means to be an American citizen. It then goes on to state that no American citizen can be denied equal rights or privelege.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because marriage is what it's called. A marriage is the union of two adults. You'd be ok if everything was called a "civil union" but have a problem with using marriage.

Two heterosexual adults can choose to share a household and spend a lifetime together without getting married. The state recognizes the civil union between two people, not the ceremonial aspect.

That's an illogical hangup on a word.

No it's not...this is not just a gay issue, but rather extends to numerous scenarios that fall outside of the traditional nuclear family structure.

And that contention goes both ways...if it is just an illogical hang-up on a word, then why is there even a debate over it respective to homosexuals?

If it is just a word after all, there would be no debate.

Get over it.

There is nothing to get over...I don't care either way really...I see the civil unions for all approach as a suitable compromise for the issue, thereby making the legal and ceremonial aspects of the union distinct entities.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: conjur
What is wrong with "consenting adults" as being the definition of a couple? Other than siblings (as those are born out of physical and mental abuse and can result in genetic deformities in offspring)

What is the harm in allowing people to engage in the pursuit of happiness? Why do your bigoted opinions merit legislation restricting civil rights for a certain portion of the population?

Are you conceding that some limits should be put on siblings, even if they are the consenting age?

Uh, those limits are already in place and I'm not conceding anything.

Yes but those limits would change. You said so yourself that the requirement for marrige should be consenting adults - and thats it, even allowing for polygamy. As long as the people are "pursuing happiness"..its okay.

So which is it:

YOu allow marriage between consenting adults.

Or

You allow marriage between consenting adults, but with restrictions.

I believe it's fairly obvious I support the former.

Like I said, I don't see the need for the gov't to legislate what happens between consenting adults.

What two consenting adult do is one thing, but with marriage you are asking for government involvement - and they government has rules about marriage.

Exactly right. In case you didn't see it from above :

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution first defines what it means to be an American citizen. It then goes on to state that no American citizen can be denied equal rights or privelege.

There are limitations placed on marriage, but they are applied to all. The one that is in dispute is the issue of gender. Can the government require one of each gender for a marriage? As stated before the government can draw lines when it comes to gender, and it has been upheld in court.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

There are limitations placed on marriage, but they are applied to all. The one that is in dispute is the issue of gender. Can the government require one of each gender for a marriage? As stated before the government can draw lines when it comes to gender, and it has been upheld in court.

You mean like sex discrimination??

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shrumpage

There are limitations placed on marriage, but they are applied to all. The one that is in dispute is the issue of gender. Can the government require one of each gender for a marriage? As stated before the government can draw lines when it comes to gender, and it has been upheld in court.

You mean like sex discrimination??

No, he means Title IX. Oh, wait a minute. That doesn't work either.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shrumpage

There are limitations placed on marriage, but they are applied to all. The one that is in dispute is the issue of gender. Can the government require one of each gender for a marriage? As stated before the government can draw lines when it comes to gender, and it has been upheld in court.

You mean like sex discrimination??

No, he means Title IX. Oh, wait a minute. That doesn't work either.

Selective service....

laws concerning nudity...

 

[Pens1566]

There's no legal benefit from allowing a woman to bear her nipples. Gay marriage, some legal benefits.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: thraashman
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution first defines what it means to be an American citizen. It then goes on to state that no American citizen can be denied equal rights or privelege.

Because in this nation there are benefits to being married, the privelege part is what's wrong here. By denying gay couples the right to marry you are effectively denying them equal privelege and therefore violating their constitutioanl rights.

I honestly think that document is just seen as toilet paper to Repubs, cept for when it allows their corporations to have more rights then a human, they tear that piece off the roll.