Public support solidly for gay marriage

Interesting that you would reference the NaMbla post with child as the root word. Can you say Freudian?

But seriously my point being is where does it stop/end? People see an intrusion on the institution of marriage. Couldn't someone who subscribes to the behavior of a NaMbla man or child claim he and his child sex partner have a civil right to marry too?

 

double post

 

I wasn't addressing you.

Are you tolerant of people's views who don't agree with you on gay marriage?

 

Why should these new "rights" be only for one alternative sexual preference? If you claim marriage is a right then it should be for all sexual preferences. If not then you don't believe in your new "rights" at all.

 

I believe in equality under the law, rather than discrimination based on sex.

 

Well, hell, that can be said of environmentalism.

 

Sure you can just like any other man or woman can marry each other.

Jack Johnson (black American) married several white women in the early 1900's. Just trying to assist in the discussion.

 

Non-whites are considered a suspect class and racial discrimination is against the law. Gays are not considered a suspect class.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want to have a civil union with someone of the same sex, by all means go for it. It just isn't marriage.

Co-opt some other word if you like.

 

I didn't assume you were addressing me. I was asking you to clarify the statement you made on the public forum. I was curious what you meant by it.

Now I'm wondering if you understand what tolerant means. Do you think anyone on this forum is trying to prevent or prohibit "people who don't agree" with us? Or maybe you meant to ask if folks were tolerant of your ideas or opinions... you think folks won't let them exist?

Contrast that to someone who advocates not allowing another person's legal marriage to exist. That's an example of not tolerating something.

I've been watching reaction to Obama's latest comment on gay marriage. I think the man has done horrible damage to this country and I'm hoping we can get rid of him this year. But I think his position towards gay marriage is a fascinating illustration of the word tolerant.

Obama does not think people of the same sex should marry. It's against his religion and he's clearly uncomfortable with the idea. He's certainly not going to advocate marriage to a gay couple and I think it's incorrect to say he's promoting gay marriage. But at the same time, he seems to recognize his opinion shouldn't be the deciding factor on their legal marriage should exist. So in his carefully worded statement he said "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married." They should be able to. Not that they should, that they should be able to. I don't like the guy's politics, but I am in awe of his command of the English language. He's an artist.

I think a big part of the problem we have with this issue is folks believe they have only two options. They either need to prevent someones marriage or endorse it. So many folks don't get that there is another option. Tolerance. Simply allowing another person to follow their own path, without endorsing or preventing them.​

 

I'll be with you on this if you'll agree that states that have forced it upon their citizens through legislation should rescind gay marriage and allow their citizenry the chance to vote on it.

 

There is no discrimination. You can call a homosexual union whatever you like, but it isn't a marriage.

 

The key is aggression; a truly free society is one without aggression against people or their property, either by irate neighbors, plutocrats, the state, whoever. (though 'plutocrats' and 'the state' is a bit of a tautology) Thus the central question, if we all agree that a free society is a valid ideal, (and those who don't, who believe that even those who do not harm others deserve to have their liberty taken from them, feel free to register your complaints), is whether a given group, by acting out their sexual preference, aggresses against another.

For most sexual groups this is not the case. Homosexuals do not harm anybody merely by being homosexuals and engaging in homosexual acts and/or relationships. Same for transsexuals and many other categories. But there are exceptions--a modicum of evidence shows, for example, that minors who engage in romantic and sexual relationships with pedophiles suffer mental scarring ranging from minor to very severe, and have recurrent psychological problems. Moreover, in such relationships the minor--being a minor--is not sufficiently capable of making an informed decision regarding sexual or romantic relations, leading to emotional and sexual exploitation. So pedophiles, merely by engaging in pedophiliac behavior, aggress against others--and thus should be censured and worked against.

If you could show research proving that homosexuals engaging in consenting same-sex relationships cause harm to others perhaps you would have a point, but there's no such research out there that hasn't been decisively debunked, so you don't. Just because something offends your sensibilities doesn't mean it is infringing on your natural rights, much less the supposed 'rights' the state says it grants you.

 

So you want to jump into another debate. Be careful what you wish for.

Of course the far left pro gay marriage crowd is trying to prevent the voice of people who don't agree with them. They want to circumvent the state law when they have clearly lost and enforce a federal law that overrides the will of the people.

That is by defintion intolerant.

I just proved the intolerance of the left on this issue by what they are demanding.

You don't really believe that do you? If it bothered him so much he did he tell the DOJ to drop legal support of defending the defense of marriage act or pushed for gay "rights" in the military? Neither of those moves are the moves of someone who is against gay marriage. That is taking an active role in stopping the support of a federal law he swore to uphold at best. How can you pretend that isn't activism?

Of course he is for the sole purpose of funds.

An artist? He's a hypocrite who has been on both sides of this issue. On pro gay marriage side twice. Playing with words does not make you smart. It makes you a politician. And if you think he personally came up with this wordsmith that's just plain sad.

Then do you support your version of tolerance for all sexual preferences or just ones you like? Please answer the question.

What you should be asking is why does one group throw the word "bigot" around as if they are not bigots themselves.

That was the point being addressed by me. Why have you not addressed it?

 

There is discrimination, whether a male wants to marry a male, or a female wants to marry a female, that is sexist discrimination which also is discriminatory based on sexual orientation.

 

Civil Unions are unconstitutional because separate is inherently unequal.

This is why Civil Unions in California was struck down.

Why are you so against the constitution?

 

...I agree but it won't be because of what you think...people are getting tired of the gays standing in the middle of town square CRYING about it and people will get tired of listening to it...so don't fool yourself, when you and your same-sex partner walk by with a big ol'smile as sooon as your back is to someone they will mutter "freaks"...so enjoy the marriage certificate when you get one because there will be a lot of resentment going along with it...call me whatever names you want, but it's the truth...I did a screenshot of a UPS tracking report and one of the tabs was the Polygamy topic...I had the whole company asking me what I was into and I explained the forums and debates...most people don't care about your gay agenda IN REAL LIFE, only the people that can only talk to people over the net are on your side...most are wow players...



Kabuki Joe

 

Weird how all the "public support for gay marriage" goes right down the tubes when "the public" is given a chance TO VOTE ON IT, ISN'T IT?

EVEN IN CALIFORNIA.

What a bullcrap "poll", absolutely DEBUNKED by every referendum ever taken on the question, in every stae it has been voted on: 33-0 AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.

Make up some more nonsense, with another Leftninny Liespeak "Poll"....

 

Are you insisting I am gay?

 

Its not a stretch at all. It simply exposes the lies the far left nut balls use when they claim to support equal rights for all people when it comes to marriage. Its a complete lie and so easily exposed as I just did once again. The far left supports SELECTIVE marriage rights just as the people on the other side of the argument that they claim are so vile. Its the very height of hypocrisy and stupidity.

 

What selective marriage rights? Allowing gay marriage would allow a straight person to marry the same sex as well.

 

Don't pay ol' Montoya much attention. He's elected himself spokesperson for all Americans, and if you disagree with him, you're un-American.

 

Hilarious stuff. Gay marriage has been voted down EVERY SINGLE TIME a vote has ever been held in this country. But hey, if it gets you off the subject of the economy, Obama's crushing debt and his continuing deficits, good for you I say.

 

Totally agree except I don't mutter.

 

...I always use "you" as in general...menaing...if something doesn't apply to you personally, then it isn't directed at you...



Kabuki Joe

 

Apparently you did not read what I wrote. The far left does not support "equal rights" for marriage for all people because they only select 2 adult couple homosexuals to be awarded this new "right" they invented. The far left supports SELECTIVE marriage rights just as the people on the other side of the argument that they claim are so vile. Its the very height of hypocrisy and stupidity.

Exactly what are you confused about?