We are Democrats .. and we're against gay marriage

[Zero Sum 305]

It's just very, very amusing is all.

For whatever my part in it, I am glad to contribute to your overall level of happiness then.

[^_^ 5,021]

For whatever my part in it, I am glad to contribute to your overall level of happiness then.

Thank you

[Zero Sum 305]

Thank you

YW

[Vi-Jay 218]

What? Homosexuals should not be afforded their civil rights? They should just hunker down and accept that they're being denied their civil rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution? What kind of an argument is that? Are you for real? The good news in all of this is that it matters none, not a first bit, whether or not you support same sex marriage. Your support or lack thereof is as irrelevant as it gets.

LGBT US citizens already have civil rights. Same as you and me.

The LGBT community wants a LGBT civil rights movement like the African American Civil Rights movement.

Again, read up on Mr. Dekoven and find out why he thinks SSM is important.

I will state;

Frankly, I am a bit conflicted.

On one hand, I know that LGBT's have suffered oppression and this should be corrected.

On the other, Dekoven and others in the same camp want more than an Oppression kill. Reparations, affirmative action, and educational funding are just 3 of the "wants" on their wish list.

Who will pay for that? I know who will pay for that.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Zero Sum 305]

If they could marry, you wouldn't be conflicted.

[Vi-Jay 218]

If they could marry, you wouldn't be conflicted.

I will do a little reading and give that some thought this weekend.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

LGBT US citizens already have civil rights. Same as you and me.

I got to marry my partner, most homosexual people in this country are not yet afforded that right. I just got lucky that I happened to marry my partner of a different race after Loving vs. Virginia. The equivalent ruling that will afford same sex couples their rights to marry is not that far off. You can take that to the bank.

[Peikko 1,575]

Relationships between family members are not frowned just because of the potential genetic suicide of interbreeding (which, if it goes on for generations IS a significant problem - just look at pedigree dogs if you are not getting that particular point) but more importantly because family members already have a relationship so the potential for abuse is enhanced. Again, remember that MOST abusive relationships of all kinds occur within families.

Now, while making marriage or sexual relations between consenting family members illegal is not necessarily the best way to prevent abusive relationships, it definitely should be recognized is a useful tool for preventing and punishing abuse. Of course, if one wants it to be legal for fathers to routinely have sex with their daughters and so forth, well sure, remove all legal restrictions and let's not worry about abuse at all.

[Danno 1,228]

It's funny how the mere mention of gays being unable to produce children brings the knee-jerk howls about how procreation is meaningless as some normal couples can have children either..... yet as soon as kissin cousins are mentioned, the automatic leep is made that the relationship would even produce offspring (Two brothers or female cousins for example).

In fact these same folks would never endorse any law prohibiting other cases where their mating and marriage would produce mental and physical deformities with near certainty, yet in this excuse of "we are thinking of the children" pops up quite handily.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's funny how the mere mention of gays being unable to produce children brings the knee-jerk howls about how procreation is meaningless as some normal couples can have children either..... yet as soon as kissin cousins are mentioned, the automatic leep is made that the relationship would even produce offspring (Two brothers or female cousins for example).

In fact these same folks would never endorse any law prohibiting other cases where their mating and marriage would produce mental and physical deformities with near certainty, yet in this excuse of "we are thinking of the children" pops up quite handily.

Danno, you really need to drop this silly argument. Gay marriage, incest and polyamory are not analogous. Get a new argument

[Zero Sum 305]

The concept of how these examples make the issues not equal does escape you, and it is noticed.

It's funny how the mere mention of gays being unable to produce children brings the knee-jerk howls about how procreation is meaningless as some normal couples can have children either..... yet as soon as kissin cousins are mentioned, the automatic leep is made that the relationship would even produce offspring (Two brothers or female cousins for example).

In fact these same folks would never endorse any law prohibiting other cases where their mating and marriage would produce mental and physical deformities with near certainty, yet in this excuse of "we are thinking of the children" pops up quite handily.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, you really need to drop this silly argument. Gay marriage, incest and polyamory are not analogous. Get a new argument

So far my "silly argument" beats your "non-argument", hands down.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So far my "silly argument" beats your "non-argument", hands down.

Perhaps it does so in your little bubble. In the real world - outside Uganda - it sure doesn't.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So far my "silly argument" beats your "non-argument", hands down.

To me, it seems more like talking to a wooden post, nothing sinks in and you're so set on your silly relativism that you can't see how absurd it is.

[Danno 1,228]

Perhaps it does so in your little bubble. In the real world - outside Uganda - it sure doesn't.

Come again with the "uganda" point, how does that fit in?