GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[Uncensored2008]

Name one instance, or one state, or one law, that denies heterosexuals the right to marry if they are incapable of having children together.

One.

Heterosexuals are denied same sex marriage and marriage to animals. The laws have nothing to do with sexual preference. Marriage laws are equally applied to all - which is what you ***** about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The right to marry has nothing to do with children and never has.

That you are a cretin lacking even rudimentary intellectual skills was already apparent, no need to try so hard to demonstrate this.

The right to marry, and the reasons to marry, are two entirely different concepts.

Marriage has developed among humans for the reasons I pointed out.

Feel free to hold your breath until you turn blue, in rebuttal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You should answer his question. Why were they permitted to marry?

Why wouldn't they be?

Are you honestly as stupid as you portray yourself to be?

Seriously?

How many times DID you vote for Barack Obama?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whoa. That's preposterous. The central premise of 'gay rights' is the recognition of gay relationships having equal status with heterosexual relationships.

It is? Gay rights is only about relationships, and not the actual individuals? That will surprise every civil rights activist I ever met that believed that the right of the individual is paramount.

How many gay rights activists do you know that are not advocating for legal gay marriage?

Know personally? All of them advocate for same sex marriage, not gay marriage. Why is it you do not lesbians to get married?

But, just to prove that opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights. Unless you are willing to argue that queers are anti gay rights you are going to look a bit foolish arguing that opposition to SSM is opposition to gay rights.

“The campaign for marriage, never a broad-based movement among gay and lesbian activists, depended for its success on the courts. It was launched by a relatively small number of lawyers, not by a consensus of activists. It remains a project of litigation, though with the support of the major lesbian and gay organizations.” (Warner, The Trouble With Normal Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life, p. 85)
“First, marriage will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men. In fact, it will constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation. Second, attaining the right to marry will not transform our society from one that makes narrow, but dramatic, distinctions between those who are married and those who are not married to one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity. Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.” (Ettelbrick, “Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, p. 21 in Lesbian and Gay Marriage Private Commitments, Private Ceremonies, editor Suzanne Sherman.)

Gay and Lesbians Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

 

[Nosmo King]

Name one instance, or one state, or one law, that denies heterosexuals the right to marry if they are incapable of having children together.

One.

Heterosexuals are denied same sex marriage and marriage to animals. The laws have nothing to do with sexual preference. Marriage laws are equally applied to all - which is what you ***** about.

The laws don't apply to all and that's why rather than participating in a legitimate debate, you have chosen to rant about IQ and intellectual capacity.

Seems we've plumbed the depths of your intellectual capacity. And we did it with an honest question.

As marriage has nothing to do with procreation, in so far as the state is concerned, why are sober, responsible gay Americans denied the right to access the legal protections afforded by the marriage contract?

As the state has nothing to do with sanctifying marriage, why are people claiming same sex marriage ruins the sanctity of the institution?

Your Freudian slip is showing, dear. You mentioned sex with animals. Are you in the Ricky Santorum camp? Is there something about gay Americans you just don't like?

So you feel, on the authority of your uncomfortable feelings toward your sane, sober and responsible fellow taxpayers who happen to be gay, you can stand in their way where civil laws and liberties are at stake?

I certainly hope not. For your sake.

Sure, we've plumbed the depths of your intellectual capacity. We could wipe it off the floor with a paper towel.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

The reason for marriage is that humans have developed the knowledge that it benefits stable societies if males take responsibility in the raising and support of their progeny. Marriage is the institution which has developed to support and promote that prospect. Stable families support free societies - which is precisely why the left attacks the nuclear family at every turn.

The right to marry has nothing to do with children and never has.

The right to marry, and the reasons to marry, are two entirely different concepts.

Marriage is not a right.

 

[Nosmo King]

The reason for marriage is that humans have developed the knowledge that it benefits stable societies if males take responsibility in the raising and support of their progeny. Marriage is the institution which has developed to support and promote that prospect. Stable families support free societies - which is precisely why the left attacks the nuclear family at every turn.

The right to marry has nothing to do with children and never has.

The right to marry, and the reasons to marry, are two entirely different concepts.

Marriage is not a right.

The protections afforded by contract law, particularly the access to those protections is a right. You cannot deny someone the legal authority to enter into a contract so long as that individual or individuals are not convicted felons and of the age of majority. It is and always should be a consensual contract, not forced or enacted by fraud.

If you take away access to the protections of contract law, your society grinds to a halt. No contracts can be then enforced in court because there is no real equal justice for those denied access to legal protections.

The gay community and Americans who believe in civil liberties and the freedoms America stands for want nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[bodecea]

Name one instance, or one state, or one law, that denies heterosexuals the right to marry if they are incapable of having children together.

One.

Heterosexuals are denied same sex marriage and marriage to animals. The laws have nothing to do with sexual preference. Marriage laws are equally applied to all - which is what you ***** about.

You're right...it's gender discrimination.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right to marry has nothing to do with children and never has.

The right to marry, and the reasons to marry, are two entirely different concepts.

Marriage is not a right.

The protections afforded by contract law, particularly the access to those protections is a right. You cannot deny someone the legal authority to enter into a contract so long as that individual or individuals are not convicted felons and of the age of majority. It is and always should be a consensual contract, not forced or enacted by fraud.

If you take away access to the protections of contract law, your society grinds to a halt. No contracts can be then enforced in court because there is no real equal justice for those denied access to legal protections.

The gay community and Americans who believe in civil liberties and the freedoms America stands for want nothing more, and nothing less.

You know what, I actually agree with you. That does not change the fact that marriage is not a right. Some states allow marriage for people younger than 18, yet no one will ever try to argue that everyone should be able to get married at 15. Some states restrict your ability to marry cousins, others do not. Some states even restrict marriage between cousins if they are only adopted.

Marriage is obviously not a right, no matter how you, or I, feel about the actual issues involved. Since I am simply pointing out the laws, and you are using emotion to sway me, and even assuming that I have some sort of objection to same sex marriage, maybe you should think about what it is that I am saying.

 

[Nosmo King]

Marriage is not a right.

The protections afforded by contract law, particularly the access to those protections is a right. You cannot deny someone the legal authority to enter into a contract so long as that individual or individuals are not convicted felons and of the age of majority. It is and always should be a consensual contract, not forced or enacted by fraud.

If you take away access to the protections of contract law, your society grinds to a halt. No contracts can be then enforced in court because there is no real equal justice for those denied access to legal protections.

The gay community and Americans who believe in civil liberties and the freedoms America stands for want nothing more, and nothing less.

You know what, I actually agree with you. That does not change the fact that marriage is not a right. Some states allow marriage for people younger than 18, yet no one will ever try to argue that everyone should be able to get married at 15. Some states restrict your ability to marry cousins, others do not. Some states even restrict marriage between cousins if they are only adopted.

Marriage is obviously not a right, no matter how you, or I, feel about the actual issues involved. Since I am simply pointing out the laws, and you are using emotion to sway me, and even assuming that I have some sort of objection to same sex marriage, maybe you should think about what it is that I am saying.

So marriage is unique in contract law? Any other contract can be entered into so long as the age and legal status of the parties is valid and the usual among contract conditions.

We agree that the access to contracts is a right.

But the access to this one unique contract is not a right.

How do you justify that?

 

[bodecea]

The reason for marriage is that humans have developed the knowledge that it benefits stable societies if males take responsibility in the raising and support of their progeny. Marriage is the institution which has developed to support and promote that prospect. Stable families support free societies - which is precisely why the left attacks the nuclear family at every turn.

The right to marry has nothing to do with children and never has.

The right to marry, and the reasons to marry, are two entirely different concepts.

Marriage is not a right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is not a right.

The protections afforded by contract law, particularly the access to those protections is a right. You cannot deny someone the legal authority to enter into a contract so long as that individual or individuals are not convicted felons and of the age of majority. It is and always should be a consensual contract, not forced or enacted by fraud.

If you take away access to the protections of contract law, your society grinds to a halt. No contracts can be then enforced in court because there is no real equal justice for those denied access to legal protections.

The gay community and Americans who believe in civil liberties and the freedoms America stands for want nothing more, and nothing less.

You know what, I actually agree with you. That does not change the fact that marriage is not a right. Some states allow marriage for people younger than 18, yet no one will ever try to argue that everyone should be able to get married at 15. Some states restrict your ability to marry cousins, others do not. Some states even restrict marriage between cousins if they are only adopted.

Marriage is obviously not a right, no matter how you, or I, feel about the actual issues involved. Since I am simply pointing out the laws, and you are using emotion to sway me, and even assuming that I have some sort of objection to same sex marriage, maybe you should think about what it is that I am saying.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

 

[hipeter924]

It is? Gay rights is only about relationships, and not the actual individuals? That will surprise every civil rights activist I ever met that believed that the right of the individual is paramount.

How many gay rights activists do you know that are not advocating for legal gay marriage?

Know personally? All of them advocate for same sex marriage, not gay marriage. Why is it you do not lesbians to get married?

But, just to prove that opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights. Unless you are willing to argue that queers are anti gay rights you are going to look a bit foolish arguing that opposition to SSM is opposition to gay rights.

“The campaign for marriage, never a broad-based movement among gay and lesbian activists, depended for its success on the courts. It was launched by a relatively small number of lawyers, not by a consensus of activists. It remains a project of litigation, though with the support of the major lesbian and gay organizations.” (Warner, The Trouble With Normal Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life, p. 85)
“First, marriage will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men. In fact, it will constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation. Second, attaining the right to marry will not transform our society from one that makes narrow, but dramatic, distinctions between those who are married and those who are not married to one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity. Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.” (Ettelbrick, “Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, p. 21 in Lesbian and Gay Marriage Private Commitments, Private Ceremonies, editor Suzanne Sherman.)

Gay and Lesbians Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

There are plenty of self hating groups for everything, self hating homosexuals, self hating Christians, self hating Jews, self hating Muslims, self-hating Americans...they do exist. They are slightly amusing, and slightly annoying. As for their statement, it doesn't matter what it does...if someone wanted to legislate so they could go nude to Congress or marry a frog I would support the principle of it.

Plus if they are so obsessed about image then I would recommend ending gay rights parades, its the greatest expression of the worst stereotypes of what it is to be gay (just start with the whole in the nude, looking sexual thing).

 

[gekaap]

No, but like it or not, the primary purpose of marriage IS the production and raising of children. That is also the primary interest that the state has in marriages.

That's the primary purpose for you. Who are you to try to enforce that position on other people? If I ever get married, I'm certainly NOT going to have children.

Also, considering your position as you present it here, you would have to agree that the state has a right to prohibit marriages that will not result in children. That would mean that those medically incapable of having children could not be married. It would also mean that the state would be justified in criminalizing the act of marriage without producing children. These are necessary conclusions from your arguments. And if you fancy yourself a conservative, then you should be disgusted with yourself and your arguments.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, but like it or not, the primary purpose of marriage IS the production and raising of children. That is also the primary interest that the state has in marriages.

That's the primary purpose for you. Who are you to try to enforce that position on other people? If I ever get married, I'm certainly NOT going to have children.

Also, considering your position as you present it here, you would have to agree that the state has a right to prohibit marriages that will not result in children. That would mean that those medically incapable of having children could not be married. It would also mean that the state would be justified in criminalizing the act of marriage without producing children. These are necessary conclusions from your arguments. And if you fancy yourself a conservative, then you should be disgusted with yourself and your arguments.

Actually, I wasn't speaking from personal opinion. I was speaking anthropologically. I don't have to "enforce" anything on anyone. The facts of human social interaction are what they are. No amount of struggling and arguing and semantics are going to change them.

No, I don't think the state has a right to restrict marriages that don't or can't result in children, because it has no vested interest in doing so. They do the state and society no harm; in fact, they bring some residual positive benefits with them. In addition, they are a statistically small group, and many of those childless couples go on to take in adopted and/or foster children whose biological parents cannot or will not care for them.

No, those are NOT necessary conclusions from my argument. The state has a vested interest in encouraging marriage, and the likelihood of children and their need for stable families are that vested interest. Again, you can argue this all you like, but I think if you look at history, you'll see that this IS the primary reason for state involvement in marriages.

Being a conservative has nothing to do with it, since - despite your obvious, and erroneous, opinion - "conservative" doesn't equal "anarchist". I believe in small, appropriate government, not no government.

Furthermore, stating WHY the government does something doesn't equal stating that it SHOULD.

 

[Gadawg73]

All this wasted time on gay marriage.
Why would anyone oppose 2 people that love each other getting married?
Why? What is wrong with it and how does it hurt ANYONE?

 

[Gadawg73]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

And opposition to marriage between the races is also not opposition to their rights either.
Sure, right.
I find it amusing that anyone that has a brain and any knowledge of The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, would want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than do what the Founders intended the Constitution to stand for which IS TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO.
Gay marriage does not affct any straight couple negatively in any way.To a true conservative it is a non issue.
Here we have the deficit, the wars, health care crisis, energy crisis,education crisis and 137 other PRIORITIES and these clowns are focused on GAY MARRIAGE.
The pandering to the religous kooks is on. Bad news for conservatives.

Do you find it intellectually demeaning to argue points in an attempt to prove how ridiculous your position is?

Not that I think they are correct in their attempt to uphold DOMA, but I can realize that it is possible to actually look at this issue strictly from a fiscal standpoint, and argue that expanding the federal definition of marriage will add to the deficit, and probably result in an increase in taxes. If the only position you can see is that it is racist to oppose gay marriage, you shouldn't even be discussing the issue here, which is same sex marriage, not gay marriage.

You are an idiot. Where did I claim racism anywhere?
I stated fact and you run from it like a monkey on fire.
Same sex marriage, gay marriage: who gives a shit?
Why do you oppose 2 people of the same sex that love each other getting married?
Why? Why is that any of your business? Why fight something and oppose something that does not affect you IN ANY WAY?

 

[Gadawg73]

So you are against ALL marriage because the divorce rate is 60% and it is destroyong"the institution of marriage?

In fact, divorce after children reach maturity is irrelevant to societal structure. The advantage for a free society is that males take care of their offspring. Once the offspring don't require intimate care, the need for a male figure declines.

Now I mention a "free society." Families and clans are vital to a free and functional republic but are detrimental to authoritarian systems where the goal is to project the state or supreme ruler as the only object of loyalty.

Both Marx and Lenin wrote on the problem of family loyalty and the impact this has on ensuring the absolute obedience of the ruled classes. Lenin went as far as to boast that given the children of the Soviet union at age 5, he could dissolve the family structure in a generation.

The goal of the left, to create an authoritarian state ruled under the iron fist of an autocratic group

See how absurd and without fact your entire argument is?
I am a southern, white, tobacco chewing, southern drawl speaking, deer hunting, bass fishing, beer and Jack Daniels drinking and former football playing straight 56 year old male.

Who no doubt believes that America is unjust and unfair, conditions which a federal government with vastly more power over the details of the lives of the subjects could rectify. Most likely you view the "Ozzy and Harriette" models of American culture the primary enemy to be vanquished at any and all costs.

Parents passing on their superstitions and prejudices to children is something that must be stopped, the federal government should step in and outlaw the teaching of creationism, even by private or homeschools. Claims that homosexuality is against god's plan is a hate crime and should carry a jail sentence.

You don't really support a Soviet style dictatorship, there just is too much freedom, we need to dial it back so that people understand that obedience isn't optional.

Am I about right?



But I'll bet families taking kids to Sunday school bothers you plenty.



Oooh, say something "conservative!" (Obama is god doesn't count!)

I want LESS GOVERNMENT and NO religous influences in government.

But you want more government to define the structure and meaning of marriage..

If you disagree move to Iran. They do it your way over there.

I thought anyone not supporting Obama was "Islamophobic?"

"But I'll bet families taking kids to Sunday school bothers you plenty"
That tells the entire story about who you are.
An insecure wimp questioning your own sexuality. I pity you. You are a disturbed individual. My prayers for you and your family.

 

[bodecea]

So you are against ALL marriage because the divorce rate is 60% and it is destroyong"the institution of marriage?

In fact, divorce after children reach maturity is irrelevant to societal structure. The advantage for a free society is that males take care of their offspring. Once the offspring don't require intimate care, the need for a male figure declines.

Now I mention a "free society." Families and clans are vital to a free and functional republic but are detrimental to authoritarian systems where the goal is to project the state or supreme ruler as the only object of loyalty.

Both Marx and Lenin wrote on the problem of family loyalty and the impact this has on ensuring the absolute obedience of the ruled classes. Lenin went as far as to boast that given the children of the Soviet union at age 5, he could dissolve the family structure in a generation.

The goal of the left, to create an authoritarian state ruled under the iron fist of an autocratic group



Who no doubt believes that America is unjust and unfair, conditions which a federal government with vastly more power over the details of the lives of the subjects could rectify. Most likely you view the "Ozzy and Harriette" models of American culture the primary enemy to be vanquished at any and all costs.

Parents passing on their superstitions and prejudices to children is something that must be stopped, the federal government should step in and outlaw the teaching of creationism, even by private or homeschools. Claims that homosexuality is against god's plan is a hate crime and should carry a jail sentence.

You don't really support a Soviet style dictatorship, there just is too much freedom, we need to dial it back so that people understand that obedience isn't optional.

Am I about right?



But I'll bet families taking kids to Sunday school bothers you plenty.



Oooh, say something "conservative!" (Obama is god doesn't count!)



But you want more government to define the structure and meaning of marriage..

If you disagree move to Iran. They do it your way over there.

I thought anyone not supporting Obama was "Islamophobic?"

"But I'll bet families taking kids to Sunday school bothers you plenty"
That tells the entire story about who you are.
An insecure wimp questioning your own sexuality. I pity you. You are a disturbed individual. My prayers for you and your family.

Maybe he's referring to families taking their kids to Sunday school where those child molesting ministers/priests are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The protections afforded by contract law, particularly the access to those protections is a right. You cannot deny someone the legal authority to enter into a contract so long as that individual or individuals are not convicted felons and of the age of majority. It is and always should be a consensual contract, not forced or enacted by fraud.

If you take away access to the protections of contract law, your society grinds to a halt. No contracts can be then enforced in court because there is no real equal justice for those denied access to legal protections.

The gay community and Americans who believe in civil liberties and the freedoms America stands for want nothing more, and nothing less.

You know what, I actually agree with you. That does not change the fact that marriage is not a right. Some states allow marriage for people younger than 18, yet no one will ever try to argue that everyone should be able to get married at 15. Some states restrict your ability to marry cousins, others do not. Some states even restrict marriage between cousins if they are only adopted.

Marriage is obviously not a right, no matter how you, or I, feel about the actual issues involved. Since I am simply pointing out the laws, and you are using emotion to sway me, and even assuming that I have some sort of objection to same sex marriage, maybe you should think about what it is that I am saying.

So marriage is unique in contract law? Any other contract can be entered into so long as the age and legal status of the parties is valid and the usual among contract conditions.

We agree that the access to contracts is a right.

But the access to this one unique contract is not a right.

How do you justify that?

I never agreed that access to contracts is a right. I agreed with you that people should be able to marry who they want to. Why is it that you refuse to actually deal with the points I am making?

There is no right to get married, nor is there a right to access to contracts. In fact, I do not even have any idea what it is you mean by that. Contracts are regulated by law, enforced by law, and totally defined in terms of what is, and is not, legal, by law. Just because I think the government should not be involved in contracts, that does not mean I think they are not. I do not like the way the world works, but that is the way it works.