Homosexual marriage

Case in point, my friends. Case in point. See: "Big government phony conservative."

 

She was responding specifically to the suggestion that "marriage is for procreation." So YOU save the drama!

 

If the HOMOPHOBES who control the GOP suddenly have a change of heart and state their support for civil homosexual unions (marriage) it is certain that the overwhelming majority of 'Conservative-sheep' who oppose such unions will also support homosexual unions.

The single trait that conservative, Christian zealots have in common is their inability to think for themselves.

 

While I agree, I must also point out that they haven't necessarily a monopoly on that behavior.

 

Not true. Many opponents of gay marriage use that exact argument, which is why your "quote" above is a perfectly valid and logical rebuttal.

 

I see. Homophobe = anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda. You people have no clue how quickly you're becoming marginalized. Nobody believes the hype anymore.

 

I use the term homophobe in this instance as a synonym for bigot.

 

You, an Islamophobe, call us bigots?

 

Since the traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman there are no rights being violated in the first place. Any homosexual can marry a person of the opposite sex.

 

Homophobe is a made-up word and is meaningless.

 

Moreover, society has a right to define what marriage is and isn't. We can't just make it up as we go along. It seems to some that the shrill minority have more rights than everyone else. I have no problem with the fact that Massechussetes and New York allow gay marriage. But they have a BIG problem with the fact that in Idaho, marriage is and always will be between 1 man and 1 woman.

And I'm supposed to be the one that's intolerant?

Give me a break!

 

since the traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race, there are no rights being violated in the first place.

any black man can marry a person of the same race.


see where your argument fell apart?

 

Homosexuals are not a 'race'...

 

I agree whole heartedly man.

 

right. it's gender discrimination.

 

There was also a time when traditional marriage was between a man and woman of the SAME race. Interracial marriage in many US ststes was illegal. There were NO rights being violated then either.

To deny marraige between same sex ppeople is blantant discrimination and those who support such a ban are BIGOTS !

 

However, my primary issue with gay marriage is the financial incentive. In the USA, there are clear economic advantages to marriage (i.e. healthcare, taxes, inheritance). I believe that the gay community in the USA is exploiting the concept of civil liberties to gain economic advantage. My solution, as I have said before: eliminate all of the economic advantages to marriage and I have no problem at all with gay marriage. I agree that the theoretical concept of a religious document determining marriage at the secular level is incorrect. However, I must understand the basis of the argument before I agree to add more economic deadbeats and tax dodgers to the pile in the USA.

 

So you say that the government should not be in the bedroom? Why then does the state give special perks to sexual relationships? In fact, why discriminate against singles or polygamists? Why shoud the state have any say in a marriage?

 

You can vote for anyone you like as long as they are Democrats.

Thats a ridiculous argument.

 

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states. In other states it was simply frowned upon. But the bigotry inherent in telling different races they can't marry doesn't divest society of the right to have any say whatsoever in who marries who.

BTW, don't talk to me about interracial marriage, I married a white woman and drew the wrath of fellow Native Americans who thought I was diluting the purity of our race. But according to the whacky leftisphere, it's only bigotry if WHITE people object to interracial marriage.

I see you as the biggest bigot in this discussion.

 

How can that be when homosexual is not a gender either?

 

Ok then, give us a hint. Are they animal, mineral, or vegitable?

 

The 'Loving' case DID say rights were being violated. You are wrong.

'Same sex people' are not a race. Homosexual is not a sex. There can be no discrimination. You are trying to twist the meaning of discrimination for your own purposes.

 

I dunno...you tell me. No one seems to know what in the he!! they are. Frankly I think they are fetishists that want the world to recognize and condone their fetish by giving it special legal consideration.

 

the people being denied a basic civil right(a right defined by the supreme court in loving v virginia)are being denied that right because they are of the wrong gender.


this is pretty basic stuff here