can someone explain to me why Gay marriage is an issue?

Why? ...Wait, actually, I'll save you the trouble Kreo...

Because they are the only ones who procreate/have anything to regulate, you will say.

So procreational ability is the sole reason marriage exists?

No procreational ability is not relevant, you will proceed to tell us.

??? But you said that marriage exists to regulate offspring, which is only going to happen if the couple can procreate. :/ So what about sterile/barren couples, why are they regulated when they have nothing to regulate?

You: because we don't know who is capable and who isn't.

Actually the couple may know prior to the marriage. The law can easily be changed to exclude them, if marriage is indeed JUST to regulate procreation.

You: ?

Fill in the blank. 'Cause all I see is special rights for heterosexuals simply for being heterosexual.

 

It seems to be the difference between "reduce", as opposed to eliminate, and "increase" as opposed to ensure, that you cant seem to grasp

Actually its why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states. No relevance in those 6 states. Very relevant in the other 44. Same argument thats been so succesful in dozens of court cases challenging the limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples.

 

Yeah it's hilarious that Dixon thinks anyone who disagrees with him is homosexual. He's done it to multiple people.

 

Cause it is the only way Santorum can connect with possible voters, since his history is the same as a big government progressive. He needs to show how his big government should be justified.

 

Santorum doesnt think homosexual marriages should be licensed and regulated by the government. Paul thinks the government needs to step in and license and regulate homosexual relationships that have never been licensed and regulated before. BIGGER government that Paul would need to justify

 

Paul doesn't want "big government", he believes in state's rights and leaving marriage as an issue for the states. Santorum favours passing a national Amendment to the Constitution to take that right away (and as the last rendition of the FMA stated, ban ANY recognition of same sex relationships, not even just marriage). Which would forcibly divorce all same sex couples who have any benefits anywhere in the US.

Don't tell me Santorum is more for small government than Paul.

 

Paul wants federal government out of marriage altogether. Your lie doesn't jive.

 

The empirical evidence does not support that conclusion. Because procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage. Even sterile couples or couples that hate children could get married. If marriage was really about children, it would be legally defined that way, and it is not.

It is a little hypocritical to complain about gays wanting "special rights" when the people complaining already have "special rights" of their own.

That is factually incorrect...not all opposite sex couples are capable of having children or even desire to have children. And the law has never made any kind of distinction between those that can and cannot have children.

 

Ahhh, so he was just saying that to pander to the gay vote. He doesnt mind government intervention if it can win him some votes. I think his comments about gays in his newsletters in the past probably more accurately reflect his views on homosexuals

 

What government intervention are you talking about?

What pandering are you talking about?

Getting government out of the way of EVERYONEs personal/private lives is a target towards the gay vote?

And those racist/homophobic articles in the newsletters have been proven to not have been written by Paul.

 

Weren't they about AIDS patients and personal responsibility?

 

No he advocates for the government to license and regulate homosexual relationships, to dictate by law the terms of those relationships, in order to get the gay vote.

His name was on the top of the page. It was his newsletter.

 

Yea we are still waiting for that empirical evidence that does not exist.
Procreation is not required for marriage it is true, the same way you are not required to drive even if you have a driver license.

If you can't drive because your hemorrhoid bothers you, and the other person can't drive because of bad vision it does not make that person equal to you.

 

Find that quote.

Here is mine

Is the only mention of where he says the government involvement would be. Enforcing CONTRACTS. Not regulate or license.

But they were NOT written by him. The only thing you can say about the newsletters is that he wasnt as involved as he should have been.

His actions speak louder than someone elses words.

 

He doesnt want government telling gays they cant marry. We can only presume his use of the term "marry" refers to the current version of marriage where it is both licensed and regulated.

 

No, that is YOUR presumption. He has stated he wants government out of marriage altogether several times.

 

So you are making the claim that the vast majority of marriage laws in this country require you to have children, be capable of having children, or at least claim to want children?

If not, then it would appear the empirical evidence DOES exist, eh?

Aw gee, you dont say. Well apparently you agree with my initial statement above then huh?

 

Im fully aware that his statement that he doesnt think government should tell gays they cant marry is purely for political purposes.

 

I think actually Ron Paul is one of the least insincere and most honest and consistent politicians out there. If he wanted to win the nomination he'd just flip-flop like Romney.

 

Seriously, how do you think getting the "gay vote" helps in a GOP primary?

 

You're correct... I don't agree with Paul on many things (especially with me being part of an ethnic minority), but I think he sticks by what he says he believes.

His and his son's views on the Civil Rights Act, turns me off to him almost completely.

 

So the law he authored and tried to pass in 2005 was just pandering too? Man, he is really selling out to get the gay vote huh?

 

Cause who wants to be seen as an individual when you can be looked at as part of a group? I mean, I love it when people blame me for what "white people" do. Just like I am sure you love the way establishment dems call all blacks stupid and need lower standards to achieve the same thing whites can do. Or if you were a private restaraunt owner, I am sure you would love to be forced to cater the KKK rally because the government made you to.

The civil rights act should have only taken out the racist jim crowe "seperate but equal" laws that were on the books. But it went further and forced private business owners to sell to people they didn't want. Now think about it todays terms, if there was a place that discriminated against a certain group of people, do you think that store would really stay in business for long with people that don't believe that way boycotting that store?

 

Say what you want, someone against the Civil Rights Act of 1964... won't ever be MY choice for U.S. President.