Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

When have I ever not? Just because I support one liberal viewpoint doesn't mean I support them all. Don't be so sophomoric.

Don't worry. Polygamy will keep us locked in bitter debate for the next half century.

 

Only that part of the old guard opposed to legal equality for all citizens. And that part of the old guard has always existed, fighting equality for slaves, then for women, then for ex-slaves and now for LGBTs. You have to kind of pity those whose self-esteem rests entirely on being better than their perceived inferiors, and having the laws keep pulling that inferiority out from under them.

 

And just like I said, as progressives continue to warp society, they will need more and more exciting ways to change things so they can measure themselves up to their progressive idols. Thing is, the "noble" fights against slavery, womens rights, civil rights, etc will be long gone, and there will be very few marginalized groups left to become the self-proclaimed defenders of. That's why the frontiers will be pushed out further and further to pedophiles and polygamists. Dangerous and controversial new ways to advance social change.

 

You should blame the heterosexuals who keep having gay kids! (not that homosexuals don't have kids too... some in the closet some out)

 

No need to take offense, we just define normalcy differently. I define being normal for a man to be married to one women.

 

Did you know that Geese are naturally monogamous ... Homo sapiens are not.

 

So let me see if I have this right. You oppose legal equality for marriage and jobs, on the grounds that maybe someday someone will demand legal equality for something you fear, but nobody has ever asked for. Is that right?

You sound like some people I've heard who oppose private ownership of pistols, on the grounds that if we allow them, someday we will have to approve of suitcase nukes and poison gas!

- - - Updated - - -

Do you draw a distinction between normal and typical? Being right handed is normal, so is being left handed abnormal, or perverted, or such? Or do you regard being left handed as ALSO normal, but less typical?

(Incidentally, I appreciate your reference to Warren G. Harding. We don't hear much about him anymore.)

 

We (our secular Republic) do not govern based on your religious tenants. If you want to force people who hate each other to stay married, keep it to the church membership. (PS... Living in households where parents hate each other is no walk in the park for kids, either...)

 

I cant wait to tell my neighbor here in pennsylvania to jump for joy. For he is one step closer to being able to marry his favorite chicken. Oh joy.

 

Amazing! They have figured out a way for animals to consent! Why is this breakthrough not all over the news! Biased media I tell you...

 

A chicken is not a human being.

 

And going in through the out door is not normal.

 

That has nothing to do with a chicken. Heterosexuals go in the out door too. And it's none of your damn business what two adults do.

 

Isn't it funny that virtually every argument we hear against marriage equality is some variant of the "slippery slope" logical fallacy? So let me ask you this, were the previous civil rights movements "en vogue" at the time? Should we not had made that progress? Curious of your opinion.

 

Aww but for sure you would not deprive my neighbor love. You got yours let the man marry his chicken if it makes him happy.

 

Every proposed social change looks threatening to the conservatives. Name one that has fulfilled the imaginary threats. Mindless opposition is as stupid as mindless advocacy. Merits matter.

 

I really don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what they're called as long as they receive all the privileges I do in my hetero-marriage. However, there does appear to be two sets of people that the term "marriage" is important to. Those that really wished to be considered "married" (gays). That group and that desire, I understand. The other group that the term "marriage" is important to is the one you seem to belong to. That one, I don't understand.

So, perhaps you could tell us why you are opposed to gays actually being able to be recognized as "married". What's in it for you for them to not be able to make that claim?

 

14th amendment.

 

*sigh but it's been splained so many times... I really do not feel like splaining it over and over; well... OK here it goes:

The first thing is, why does Government recognize marriage at all? Is it because Love is good? No... is it because of tax breaks and benefits bestowed upon married couple... nope... why then?

It is because to maintain healthy society, a healthy family, capable of raising healthy children, is necessary. Simple, really, but this is not understood by most Liberals.

Now, one will argue raising kids in gay "family" is just as healthy as raising kids in real, one man-one woman family; yet most others will argue, there's no data to suggest that raising kids in gay "family" is any worse or better for the kids because there's not enough research and research up to date is inconclusive. So now, YOU tell me - if the research into the gay "family" raising kids is not yet conclusive, WTF are we doing, rushing into this thing, putting our kids at risk, because we still do not know if being raised by gays is good, bad or ugly for the kids?

 

"Putting our kids at risk."

Are you raising your kids with a person of the same sex in a homosexual relationship?

If not then other people's children aren't within your realm of influence.

 

Do you honestly not understand the difference between marrying a consenting adult and marrying a chicken? No wonder you're so confused about this.

 

One of the delightful details about today's PA ruling on same-sex marriage is that the District Court judge who made the ruling was endorsed for the federal bench by none other than Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum. Oops!

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/573561...ly-helped-advance-lgbt-rights-in-pennsylvania

Another fun fact about several of the recent rulings is that they cite SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/scalia-gay-marriage-idaho_n_5319857.html

Future rulings, though, might cite a statement from today's opinion by Jones:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...uality_decision_s_most_beautiful_passage.html

 

Are you telling me it's not my (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) business how other people raise/treat/abuse their children? Sounds like you do...

 

There is nothing abusive about two parents of the same gender raising a child by itself.

If there is abuse of course there needs to be someone to step in. However what you're suggesting is that gays not be allowed to have children. Which is ridiculous.

 

We don't know if it is ridiculous or not, there's not enough research on it and whatever research is already available is inconclusive.