Why Liberals are Fascists........

No, at most ONE of the people in a same sex marriage and a third party have the potential for procreation. The other member of the same sex marriage has no involvement and no legal relation to the child or obligations to the child.

 

So then we shouldn't allow infertile couples to marry.

 

Not good enough; procreation isn't the sole reason people get married, and I certainly don't recall having to sign a sworn statement that I would procreate. I know several couples who don't want children.

 

Two different issues. Why people marry and why the government chooses to license and regulate the relationship.

 

They aren't different. The problem is, is when the idea of Marriage came about, it was less of a 'because we want to', and more of 'lets join our families and estates to further our families assets'. Homosexual marriages weren't even considered at that point. Now we are at a point in our society where Marriage is less utilitarian and more emotional. Less about procreation, and more about 2 people deciding to be together forever.

Anyway, Gay people getting married doesn't do any harm to straight people or their marriages, and anyone arguing about the 'sanctity' of marriage hasn't looked at the divorce rates lately.

 

Notice how you didnt address a thing I said. Never denied that for people its about 2 people deciding to be together forever. Never claimed it did any harm. Never said it did anything to the sanctity of marriage, and never even suggested an alternate governmental interest in marriage.

 

Dix has historically been willing to make exceptions for hetrosexuals who cannot procreate "naturally", when it comes to how much he, and other gay haters, want to control the lives of gays.

It's a completely flawed and circular argument he seems to just continue making, and losing 95% of the time..........and the other 5%.......are the ones that just gave up amidst a revolving door of his argument

 

I and human civilization has encouraged or required all heterosexuals to marry, regardless of the individuals capacity to procreate. I dont write the rules.

???? In courts where it matters, the argument wins 95% of the time. Here on the forum, you people simply proclaim the argument is "losing".

 

Or when he realizes he can't win and gives up - like he did with me.

 

As you can see in the post above...he's now playing the "thats the way the law is" card...without any regard for how laws and "rules" actualy change with the morality of the times.

It's only a matter of time before same sex marriage is accepted as nothing special in most states...and I wouldn't expect people like Dix to just forget about their morals...but in the grand scheme of things, people like Dix are just going to be a pain for gays, and that's not good karma

 

Appropriate response to your baseless claim that the argument is losing 95% of the time, when it simply is not.

 

Sorry, dont know what you refer to. Point to the post if you have the nads to try and defend your arguments. I suspect I'll just point to where I directly addressed YOUR arguments, and you simply gave up.

 

What argument is losing 95% of the time?...

 

Do you even read your own posts?......I haven't seen one example of you successfully addressing any of his/her points, in such a way to assume any kind of victory

 

Ok, I think I can sum up the truth in a way all people viewing things reasonably can agree on.
Authoritarian leftists CAN be fascists, for example Stalinism.
But not all authoritarians are fascists, for example the Chinese government.
And not all leftists are authoritarian, most aren't. Libertarian leftists by definition are against authoritarianism.

Making blanket statements against your political opponents destroys constructive debate and dialogue. Judging by the OP's username he identifies more closely with his hate for his opponents than his actual political ideology - not a good thing. Reasonable people from both the left and right can agree with what I've said in this post, correct?

 

That Libhator knows nothing about politics and just spends his time making idiotic troll threads? Sure

 

This might be a good time for you to go back to page #1 and re-read the OP so as to refresh your mind as to why liberals are fascists. Come back to us when you can seriously debate and refute any of the claims that liberals are indeed fascists of the first order.

 

You are assuming tha anyone belonging to entire left side of the political spectrum is a fascist, correct?

 

Having a serious debate with you is impossible. All you ever do is post idiotic rhetoric and BS "facts" from gimmick sites.

and by the way. Jack Wheeler is as much a doctor as I am a gerbil. I've read his work before. Having read his rant about how homosexuality is a sin yet? Not a single fact in the entire thing.....

 

Fascist is so overused and misused and often as an epithet. Liberals are not fascists but Statists. For instance, they do not believe as much in nationalism or racism but are very autocratic but not necessarily believe in a dictator.

 

The ones that say marriage limited to heterosexuals is unconstitutional

 

Yep, no nads to be found. As I suspected.

 

The constitution doesn't contain the word "marriage"

 

Well played sir.

Libhater should try believing in this idea, "real people are individuals, not one-dimensional political stereotypes."

 

Libhater is an avowed supporter of current and former KKK members like David Duke, and the founder of Stormfront.........I'm sure nobody is dim enough to believe he knows what the word "tolerance" means