"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[GISMYS]

so may question is why gays? Why not polygamists? Incest, ect?

stop the stupid shit, ok buckwheat???

Polygamy is illegal. Incest is illegal. Being gay is not illegal.


Dimwit.

if sexual perversion is ok why not make incest and polygamists and sex with children and animals legal too??

 

[bendog]

Can't we go back to female slaves too? I mean we had a good thing going, and then we started thinking people should have a right to consent, or not. I think it clear the Founders had a different view, and we all know they were infallible.

 

[KevinWestern]

so may question is why gays? Why not polygamists? Incest, ect?

stop the stupid shit, ok buckwheat???

Polygamy is illegal. Incest is illegal. Being gay is not illegal.


Dimwit.

if sexual perversion is ok why not make incest and polygamists and sex with children and animals legal too??

Opposite sex incest - this creates children with horrible birth defects, and thus hurts a third party. Keep it illegal.

Sex with children? This obviously hurts/violates the child who's not old enough to consent. Keep it illegal.

Sex with animals? This hurts/violates the animal who cannot consent. Keep it illegal.

Polygamy between consenting adults hurts no one. Make it legal.

Same sex marriage between consenting adults hurts no one. Make it legal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given this and other similar threads, the partisan right is clearly afraid of HRC – and with good reason.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

so may question is why gays? Why not polygamists? Incest, ect?

stop the stupid shit, ok buckwheat???

Polygamy is illegal. Incest is illegal. Being gay is not illegal.


Dimwit.

if sexual perversion is ok why not make incest and polygamists and sex with children and animals legal too??

OY.

Let's not....

 

[Clement]

No, that isn't okay. The First Amendment was written as it is written specifically to prevent 75 Christians from voting in religious dogma which limits the freedom of the other 25 people. That is the very first rule in the US Constitution. That is why it was written.

That's a bunch of bullshit. It was written to keep the State from demanding that Baptists become Episcopalians. It wasn't intended to squelch the wishes of the voters, especially Christians.

you're half right. It was indeed to prevent the Anglican Church of England, or the Puritans who hated it, from being decalred the official religion and forcing other Christians to obey their mystical edicts on any of a variety of social issues.

The Protestant Episcopal Church was already autonomous from the CofE after the American Revolution since CofE clergy had to swear loyalty to the king - not a very workable situation.

 

[Clementine]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

I'm a stringent supporter of gay marriage, however I don't think it was right to fire the guy.

However, public opinion is a thing that companies need to be cognizant of, and if a figurehead is doing something that may generate negative opinion I suppose a company needs to protect itself - whether or not the public opinion is in "the right".

I mean, if a bartender in wrigleyville was publicly known to support the white sox (which is in it of itself not a "bad" thing), I think the owner aught to have the ability to terminate him if business suffers as a result - right?

Public opinion is just public opinion, and companies are bound to conform to it.

What's different here is that the guy didn't go public with his views. The left went over disclosure records of donors and used it to make trouble. They wanted to make an example of the guy. Most people might not have known or cared which private citizens donated money. If the guy was out there protesting and raising some noise, the company would have to decide if he was good for business, but the only reason it would be bad is because some will keep going after them and it's not necessarily the majority of people, just the loudest.

I don't like it that people expressing certain views are considered bad for business and it's all because the left will continue to attack anyone publicly if they don't agree with them. The company knew they were next in line to get harassed and they reacted accordingly.

I would rather that people keep freedom of speech unless a company has a specific agreement with their CEOs and employees. If not, they are out of line. It might backfire on them depending on who most of their customers are. The people ultimately decide which businesses thrive or not.

 

[bendog]

That's a bunch of bullshit. It was written to keep the State from demanding that Baptists become Episcopalians. It wasn't intended to squelch the wishes of the voters, especially Christians.

you're half right. It was indeed to prevent the Anglican Church of England, or the Puritans who hated it, from being decalred the official religion and forcing other Christians to obey their mystical edicts on any of a variety of social issues.

The Protestant Episcopal Church was already autonomous from the CofE after the American Revolution since CofE clergy had to swear loyalty to the king - not a very workable situation.

True, but meaningless to your original assertion.

 

[Howey]

What's different here is that the guy didn't go public with his views. The left went over disclosure records of donors and used it to make trouble. They wanted to make an example of the guy. Most people might not have known or cared which private citizens donated money.

So you're in favor of removing the transparency of political donations? Aren't things bad enough already?

How very unAmerican of you.

 

[KevinWestern]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

I'm a stringent supporter of gay marriage, however I don't think it was right to fire the guy.

However, public opinion is a thing that companies need to be cognizant of, and if a figurehead is doing something that may generate negative opinion I suppose a company needs to protect itself - whether or not the public opinion is in "the right".

I mean, if a bartender in wrigleyville was publicly known to support the white sox (which is in it of itself not a "bad" thing), I think the owner aught to have the ability to terminate him if business suffers as a result - right?

Public opinion is just public opinion, and companies are bound to conform to it.

What's different here is that the guy didn't go public with his views. The left went over disclosure records of donors and used it to make trouble. They wanted to make an example of the guy. Most people might not have known or cared which private citizens donated money. If the guy was out there protesting and raising some noise, the company would have to decide if he was good for business, but the only reason it would be bad is because some will keep going after them and it's not necessarily the majority of people, just the loudest.

I don't like it that people expressing certain views are considered bad for business and it's all because the left will continue to attack anyone publicly if they don't agree with them. The company knew they were next in line to get harassed and they reacted accordingly.

I would rather that people keep freedom of speech unless a company has a specific agreement with their CEOs and employees. If not, they are out of line. It might backfire on them depending on who most of their customers are. The people ultimately decide which businesses thrive or not.

Agree, it was dirty, but if it weren't for public opinion it wouldn't matter what they dug up. In 1950 they could have dug up that he did the same thing, but since the public largely sided with traditional marriage, it wouldn't have meant a thing.

You know?

 

[Clement]

you're half right. It was indeed to prevent the Anglican Church of England, or the Puritans who hated it, from being decalred the official religion and forcing other Christians to obey their mystical edicts on any of a variety of social issues.

The Protestant Episcopal Church was already autonomous from the CofE after the American Revolution since CofE clergy had to swear loyalty to the king - not a very workable situation.

True, but meaningless to your original assertion.

That's why I couldn't figure out why you brought it up. But, there you are.

 

[bodecea]

so may question is why gays? Why not polygamists? Incest, ect?

stop the stupid shit, ok buckwheat???

Polygamy is illegal. Incest is illegal. Being gay is not illegal.


Dimwit.

if sexual perversion is ok why not make incest and polygamists and sex with children and animals legal too??

So scary to see all these posters who do not know the difference between consent between adults and sex with children and animals. Very scary.

 

[bendog]

The Protestant Episcopal Church was already autonomous from the CofE after the American Revolution since CofE clergy had to swear loyalty to the king - not a very workable situation.

True, but meaningless to your original assertion.

That's why I couldn't figure out why you brought it up. But, there you are.

The reason I brought it up is your original post on the issue was overly restrictive

"That's a bunch of bullshit. It was written to keep the State from demanding that Baptists become Episcopalians. It wasn't intended to squelch the wishes of the voters, especially Christians.

The problem that the Gaystapo has had from the beginning is that NO LAW was ever written to prevent them from doing anything they wished, the State was just saying what it would recognize as marriage and what benefits it would offer to the institution long recognized to be the best way to raise children, who will eventually become citizens, soldiers, and taxpayers.

This makes perfect sense. Then the loony left gets involved, and nothing makes sense. "

It's true the dominant religion at the time was Anglican, but the Founders didn't really care what religion was dominant, so much as they didn't want any dominant rel as the state relgion.

 

[Pop23]

In what way am I misinterpreting the First Amendment?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress shall make no law based solely on small-minded bigoted religious bullshit. It doesn't only mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion. Passing a law based on religion which prohibits the freedom of a particular group of people who have not broken any other laws is not Constitutional.

Point out where the right to gay marriage is denied in the US Constitution.

I keep asking for someone to point out where it says, "equal, except ... " but no one can.

Are you talking public restrooms?

 

[Pop23]

Another RWr who can't see the difference between Murder and Stealing and Gay Marriage.

And as an added feature, a RWr that thinks that before the bible was written there were no restrictions on murder and stealing.

How about reading the drivel being posted by KNB before commenting? i am rebutting his direct statements, where he thinks the 1st amendment bans ANY law if it even has a sniff of a religious reasoning behind it.

I am attacking a line of logic, quite successfully I might add. So bugger off.

What is your reasoning for opposing gay marriage if not the Bible?

Because only the coupling between male/ female is required to move the species forward. Because that burden lies only on that coupling. Gay coupling does not produce offspring that the gay itself requires for care as they age, or taxes required for their social security.

 

[Political Junky]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

Or between a man and a lot of women.

 

[Pop23]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

Or between a man and a lot of women.

Which of course makes much more sense to make legal than same sex. It would likely create offspring that become taxpayers that would be available to care for others as they age, and their taxes would go into the social security pool. The same is not true of same sex coupling.

 

[deltex1]

What is the opposition to gay marriage? Please be succinct. Why is there so much outcry over gay marriage?

Do you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons? If so, then you need to be reminded that your religious beliefs are not US law. You are NOT allowed to pass laws defending your religious beliefs over all others. It is the very first national rule set by the First Amendment.

Do right-wing Republicans want to abolish the First Amendment of the US Constitution in order to favor their religious beliefs above all others?

You ask a question then go on a rant against what you assume is the answer. Typical libtard. For me it is not a religious objection. It is an objection to fags demanding what is not applicable to them...and rejecting other means to gain equal access to what they claim they are entitled to. They don't want the other means....they have to have it their way. They are a pain in my ass.

 

[Howey]

How about reading the drivel being posted by KNB before commenting? i am rebutting his direct statements, where he thinks the 1st amendment bans ANY law if it even has a sniff of a religious reasoning behind it.

I am attacking a line of logic, quite successfully I might add. So bugger off.

What is your reasoning for opposing gay marriage if not the Bible?

Because only the coupling between male/ female is required to move the species forward. Because that burden lies only on that coupling. Gay coupling does not produce offspring that the gay itself requires for care as they age, or taxes required for their social security.

How ignorant.

Many guys are parents. You don't need to have physical sex to be a father or mother to a child. Ask the thousands of children out there who were tossed into the gutters of life by their heterosexual parents only to be adopted by a loving gay couple.

Ask the thousands of children born in vitro to Lesbian parents.

 

[Pop23]

What is your reasoning for opposing gay marriage if not the Bible?

Because only the coupling between male/ female is required to move the species forward. Because that burden lies only on that coupling. Gay coupling does not produce offspring that the gay itself requires for care as they age, or taxes required for their social security.

How ignorant.

Many guys are parents. You don't need to have physical sex to be a father or mother to a child. Ask the thousands of children out there who were tossed into the gutters of life by their heterosexual parents only to be adopted by a loving gay couple.

Ask the thousands of children born in vitro to Lesbian parents.

Please kindly show a single child born from the sexual coupling of a male with a male or a female with another female.

You can try to make a medical procedure a marriage if you wish, but the truth is, no lesbian has ever given birth to a child that shares the DNA of her and her same sex partner.

You are not ignorant, you are silly.