GOP Senator Celebrates His Vote Against Gay Marriage By Attending Son's Gay Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So long as they hold that Article IV Sec 1 applies to marriages.

They will not. Full Faith and Credit is not part of the Obergefell ruling and it will not be a question that is beforethe court if Obergefell is revisited. But even if they did invoke FFC, it would still be discriminatory because some gay couples would have to leave their state to get married

 

[Couchpotato]

Tell all that to women in red states who can no longer get abortions or gays who fought for years to get the right to marry

Ok. Get them in the thread and they can read what I wrote. Or if Im having a conversation with one of them I'll tell them exactly what I posted. Their feelings have zero to do with what the law says. We have to stop expecting the SCOTUS to make rulings based on how they "feel about the issue" it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another example of the state of "journalism" today - "Pa. Rep. Glenn Thompson votes against same-sex marriage.."

Barely worth commenting on.

Because you can't contrive any idiot comments on it without embarrassing yourself.

 

[Couchpotato]

The will not. Full Faith and Credit is not part of the Obergefell ruling and it will not be a question that is beforethe court if Obergefell is revisited. But even if they did invoke FFC, it would still be discriminatory because some gay couples would have to leave their state to get married

I know it's not. Im saying they should change the ruling so that it is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can a gay man not marry a woman? Can a gay woman not marry a man? They are being treated exactly the same under the law, if your definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman.

Haha, so stupid and circular. Just mind numbing.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Can a gay man not marry a woman? Can a gay woman not marry a man? They are being treated exactly the same under the law,

Oh please,not that horseshit again

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

 

[Burgermeister]

Because you can't contrive any idiot comments on it without embarrassing yourself.

Correct. I leave the idiot comment contrivances to you. And yes, unlike you, I would be embarrassed to offer an idiot comment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Correct. I leave the idiot comment contrivances to you. And yes, unlike you, if I would be embarrassed to offer an idiot comment.

Cute whining.

Thanks for strengthening my point. I always love a good assistant.

 

[Lesh]

Ok. Get them in the thread and they can read what I wrote. Or if Im having a conversation with one of them I'll tell them exactly what I posted. Their feelings have zero to do with what the law says. We have to stop expecting the SCOTUS to make rulings based on how they "feel about the issue" it's a recipe for disaster.

So you’re saying “**** em” to women and gays

Ok then

 

[Burgermeister]

Cute whining.

Thanks for strengthening my point. I always love a good assistant.

Irony.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Irony.

More whining, still no points. Expected.

 

[Couchpotato]

Haha, so stupid and circular. Just mind numbing.

Cant argue the point. Got it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Pa. Rep. Glenn Thompson votes against same-sex marriage days after attending son's gay wedding

A Pennsylvania lawmaker is facing criticism for attending his gay son's wedding last week, just days after opposing a bill in the U.S. house that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law.

www.cbsnews.com

"A Pennsylvania lawmaker is facing criticism for attending his gay son's wedding last week, just days after opposing a bill in the U.S. house that would enshrine protections for same-sex marriage into federal law. Representative Glenn Thompson's office said in a statement that he and his wife were thrilled to attend the nuptials and are very happy to welcome a new son-in-law into the family. His office did not respond to a follow-up question about why he decided to vote against the measure."

So I guess the key to opposing same sex marriage is to just oppose it for everyone else but not your own family? Cool...Kinda makes for an awkward wedding knowing your Dad would have gladly voted to stop you from being married "legally" if Republicans ever had their wish....I am sure the weasel excuse given is:

"I am totally for gay marriage bro, I just don't want them to be federally protected...that's all"

I assume this is a case of a politician just doing what he thinks he has to do to get elected -- and for some reason, there are a lot of Republicans believing that the easiest way to remain in power is to oppose gay rights in any form it pops up...which is odd, because I keep hearing from the so-called Conservatives on this message board that "Bro, nobody is trying to take away rights from gays bro..." -- Seems once again, Conservatives are lying about their own positions....

This is just the typical republican absence of the basic human quality of empathy, on display.

He sucks it up and endorses his own son's gay marriage out of self interest.

But he has not a care for any other gay people getting married. They aren't his **** trophies, so he feels no compulsion to put their lives above his own personal desire for power. He doesn't draw the scorn of his wife, nor does he lose a relationship with a son , if they can't get gay married.

This isn't complicated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cant argue the point. Got it.

Your point destroyed itself. Specious and circular. I can just let it sit there and stink up the joint. And yes, that is a rebuttal, as you might know, if you had any grasp of logic.

 

[Couchpotato]

Oh please,not that horseshit again

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

If that's the definition of marriage, then what I said is correct. You dont get to redefine what something is in the law just because you dont like it. There's a process for that. It's called pass a new law defining marriage to be whatever it is you want it to be. If gay marriage is so very popular is should be an easy task.

 

[Couchpotato]

Your point destroyed itself. Specious and circular. I can just let it sit there and stink up the joint. And yes, that is a rebuttal, as you might know, if you had any grasp of logic.

Just say you have no argument to counter what I said, offer up something substantive or dont reply.

 

[Couchpotato]

So you’re saying “**** em” to women and gays

Ok then

Im saying just because you arent getting your way doesnt mean we just abandon the way our system works.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just say you have no argument to counter what I said, offer up something substantive or dont reply.

I already presented the rebuttal. Your argument was specious, circular, and useless. I quoted the bit that demonstrates this. You don't seem to understand what any of that means, which was pretty obvious by the fact that you posted the steaming, specious pile of shit in the first place.

my work is done.

 

[Couchpotato]

I already presented the rebuttal. Your argument was specious, circular, and useless. I quoted the bit that demonstrates this. You don't seem to understand what any of that means, which was pretty obvious by the fact that you posted the steaming, specious pile of shit in the first place.

my work is done.

Oh you got me. here You're argument is dumb. ZINGER....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If that's the definition of marriage, then what I said is correct. You dont get to redefine what something is in the law just because you dont like it. There's a process for that. It's called pass a new law defining marriage to be whatever it is you want it to be. If gay marriage is so very popular is should be an easy task.

That is hardly a valid rebuttle to the points that I made. It is however a demonstration of your grose insensitivity and callous disregard for the fact that gay people deserve the opportunity to marry for the same reasons as anyone else. There is no need for a law that defines the meaning of marriage. Each individual couple already has the ability to define what marriage means to them. However, telling gays that they can marry someone of the opposite sex takes that ability away from them in the cruelest of ways. That is stupid and infuriating