Rhode Island legalizes Gay Marriage

That's easy. Pass an amendment to bar state and federal government from dictating the marriage rights of consenting adults; Hit them all at once, instead of one at a time.

 

A problem this country faces is the gross over stepping of the Federal government into issues that should be determined on the state level. This is one of those issues. I support homosexual marriage, but only on a state by state basis. Keep the Feds out of it.

 

Marriage should be taken out of government hands all together. States dictating marriage is no different than the federal government doing so. NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADULTS ARE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED.

It should not be left up to the government, and it should not be left up to the majority. If two, or more, in the case of polygamy, adults want to get married, it's no one else' business but their own.

 

"Liberty and justice for all" is a progressive idea? That's the only "agenda" gays have.

 

Oh really? I guess I missed that part of our "agenda". You really think that people like me want to see society in decline? Why? For what purpose?

 

Whatever.

 

You may not personally. But I asure you, when you get your way, you will temporarily enjoy a false status. Gays in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia found thenselves dead or in concentration camps and Gulags as they realized that they were used as a social destruction tool who after the destruction was wrought found themselves discarded with greater cruelty than they ever before experienced.

 

One more time- why do you think that gay people want to destroy society? What purpose would that serve? You claim that we wish to destroy society rather than become part of it. So tell me, what is the purpose? Why would we want to do that?

What you are bringing up is scapegoating- using a minority to gain power. We know a lot more about homosexuality now. It's not the scary unknown thing it used to be. It would be very difficult to use us in that way now. We have friends, families and numerous others who know who we are and love us. They are not going to abandon us for some political agenda. Those days are gone.

Once we have guys like this on our side, that kind of thing is over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMNs-me5MQI

If you wanna talk to that guy, be my guest. BTW- Tom is a friend of my team and marched with us in Chicago Pride last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Wingels

 

Not my problem if you do not understand history and refuse to try. "Tom" has surrendered to the false radical gay agenda. What we "know" about gay's is not the entirety of it, it is also what we are led to ignore through all the propaganda, that homosexuality is perverse and destructive.

 

Using terms with an 80's/90's sound, like "radical gay agenda" doesn't help you. It may once have been seen as a radical concept, but support for same-sex marriage has now stabilised over 50%, as well as polls showing that 65% of Americans consider homosexual relationships "morally acceptable" (see Gallup). In reality, the only agenda we have is being able to hold down a job and get married. Really not so radical.

 

Actually, there IS a difference between the states having their own rules of law vs. the Federal government dictating such laws. I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the state recognition of marriage being unnecessary, but they do so here we are. The point is that the states afford benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples while most still deny those same benefits to homosexual couples. That is unjust.

- - - Updated - - -

Then don't engage in homosexuality. Problem solved.

 

Bwahahahahahahaha...you funny man Hoss...

 

The single mother and grandmother raising their children/grandchildren are not a homosexual couple. They are both heterosexual. And Rhode Island just enacted legislation that makes a marriage between them illegal. No, homosexauls arent the only ones excluded from marriage. They are just the only ones you insist must be allowed to marry. So I'll ask again, why not marriage for any two consenting adults? Whats so special about homkosexuals that could possibly justify such preferential treatment? If limiting marriage to heterosexual couples because of their unique potential of procreation isnt acceptable, how is marriage limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples because of the potential of sex acceptable? ALL discrimination must meet constitutional requirements, not just discrimination that involves homosexuals.

 

Wow- that's sad that you have nothing else to say to defend your opinion.

 

The Nazi party used homosexuals and jews as excuses for murder and repression. The Nazi party loved to blame the excesses of 'liberals' and homosexuals' for the economic and social problems of Germany.

Which is eerily similar to the claims of the American Far right.

 

No they didn't. they were already banned from marrying.

oh look, your favorite strawman.

 

The Rhode Island legislation didn't change the situation of the grandmother and mother at all. The day before and the day after their situation was exactly the same.

What has changed is that Rhode Island will no longer discriminate against a couple for being of the same gender.

That is all- no matter how much you try to dance around and make it something else.

 

I made no claims of changed situations. But of course that's why you want to argue about that. Youre fond of arguments where no one is on the other side

 

But indeed you did

Your qoute:

"And Rhode Island just enacted legislation that makes a marriage between them illegal.

enacted that makes marriage between them illegal- right there you claimed a change of situation.

But like I said before- the Rhode Island did not just enact any such legislation- they enacted legislation that makes marriage between same gender couples just the same as marriage between different gender couples.

You raised the spurious issue of the grandmother and daughter, which were not affected by any such Rhode Island legislation. But then again you are fond of arguing the absurd.

 

You did not understand what I responded to. It was a joke.

 

You have no idea what the history of the rise of Nazi germany was about or who was involved, not to mention the political complexities od the Wiemer Republic. Read a fricking book.

 

Nope, just a change in the legislation.

 

equivocation is a pathetic debate tactic

 

Its all they have when they cant come up with another strawman.

 

I was talking about you