Rubio goes on homophobic rant ending political career.

[The Rabbi]

Priests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.

The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.

Religion will be "Forcibly challenged" by the federal government and tyrants like you will cheer

Those are your silly words only, kid. You will be opposed constitutionally as you may oppose others constitutionally. You cry when you can't take what you dish. Social conservative Christian right wingers simply can't hang in the American way of debate and opposition.

You are a classic example.

I'm Jewish, and Sodomy is a sin for good reason. If individuals wish to practice it, that's fine, but the federal government shouldn't be promoting it

The Federal Government isn't "promoting sodomy".

Of course they are. How many "condom education programs to combat AIDS" have they rolled out?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does the fed govt promote sodomy in heterosexual marriage, yet the practice occurs.

Jroc, stay on track, please.

Your comments are becoming increasingly shrill.

Heterosexual marriage should be promoted, unlike you leftist who promote single parent homes, too many of which are subsidized and promoted by the federal government through our crony tax code.

So you're proposing that nobody gets tax breaks for children or only that married people get tax breaks for children? Should nobody get married tax breaks or should only heterosexuals get married tax breaks?

1. Nobody gets tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
2. Only married people get tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
3. Nobody get's married tax breaks: I'm good with that, go for it.
4. Only heterosexuals get married tax breaks: Nope, unconstitutional.

Strawman.

Absolutely no strawman but a good and complete analysis.

 

[Seawytch]

Priests of course may be forcibly challenged for homophobia.

The far right religious want to shut up their opponents. Won't happen.

Religion will be "Forcibly challenged" by the federal government and tyrants like you will cheer

Those are your silly words only, kid. You will be opposed constitutionally as you may oppose others constitutionally. You cry when you can't take what you dish. Social conservative Christian right wingers simply can't hang in the American way of debate and opposition.

You are a classic example.

I'm Jewish, and Sodomy is a sin for good reason. If individuals wish to practice it, that's fine, but the federal government shouldn't be promoting it

The Federal Government isn't "promoting sodomy".

Of course they are. How many "condom education programs to combat AIDS" have they rolled out?

Prevention isn't promotion.

How many condom education programs to combat syphilis, gonorrhea, unwanted pregnancies, etc. have "they rolled out"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Does the fed govt promote sodomy in heterosexual marriage, yet the practice occurs.

Jroc, stay on track, please.

Your comments are becoming increasingly shrill.

Heterosexual marriage should be promoted, unlike you leftist who promote single parent homes, too many of which are subsidized and promoted by the federal government through our crony tax code.

So you're proposing that nobody gets tax breaks for children or only that married people get tax breaks for children? Should nobody get married tax breaks or should only heterosexuals get married tax breaks?

1. Nobody gets tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
2. Only married people get tax breaks for children: I'm good with that, go for it.
3. Nobody get's married tax breaks: I'm good with that, go for it.
4. Only heterosexuals get married tax breaks: Nope, unconstitutional.

No one gets tax breaks for having children. You are such an ignoramus.

 

[ABikerSailor]

An interesting thing that people sometimes fail to realize is that yes, the Constitution is a clearly written document, but, as society changes, so too does that particular document via amendments. We once allowed slavery, but, because of that document and changing attitudes of the day, eventually it became illegal. At one time, alcohol was made illegal via Constitutional amendment, and then (again because of the changing ideas of the people), we made it legal again.

The Constitution is a living document, continually changing with the times, and yes, depending on what the country is doing and thinking at the time determines how we interpret it to match what is going on NOW.

It's not a static document.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No actgually the Constitutional approach is in the 10th Amendment that gives such power to the states and the people, not to unelected gay judges.

I can appreciate your position. States should be free to issue licenses to perform marriages to whomever the voters deem appropriate. But they can't discriminate.

I pointed to the Tax Code and the Social Security Act, the implication being Federal programs, but the concept also applies to the constitutionality of state actions and programs that are specifically designed to reward, punish or document marriage.

The United States Constitution takes liberal pains to specifically NOT name an 'American' as any white, male, Christian, property owner. If it had, it would not have lasted this long. It says ALL. All who were born here, and all who pass whatever the test dejour is to become and remain naturalized.
Even the weird ones.


We either extend ALL federal and state programs designed with marriage in mind to ALL 2-person partnerships wherein the participants are willing to enter in to a documented contract, or we extend them to none of the 2-person partnerships with documentation.

Anything else is UN-constitutional.

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm Jewish, and Sodomy is a sin for good reason. If individuals wish to practice it, that's fine, but the federal government shouldn't be promoting it

Nor should they discriminate against it. The government shouldn't recognize the difference... state or federal. ALL 2-person partnerships willing to document their love equal in the eyes of the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

No actgually the Constitutional approach is in the 10th Amendment that gives such power to the states and the people, not to unelected gay judges.

I can appreciate your position. States should be free to issue licenses to perform marriages to whomever the voters deem appropriate. But they can't discriminate.

I pointed to the Tax Code and the Social Security Act, the implication being Federal programs, but the concept applies to the constitutionality of state actions and programs that are specifically designed to reward, punish or document marriage also.

The United States Constitution takes liberal pains to specifically NOT name an 'American' as any white, male, Christian, property owner. If it had, it would not have lasted this long. It says ALL. All who were born here, and all who pass whatever the test dejour is to become and remain naturalized.
Even the weird ones.


We either extend ALL federal and state programs designed with marriage in mind to ALL 2-person partnerships wherein the participants are willing to enter in to a documented contract, or we extend them to none of the 2-person partnerships with documentation.

Anything else is UN-constitutional.

`​

Wrong. We do not extend them to 1st cousins in many states. We do not extend them to consanguinous people. We do not extend them to people married to others.
Your point is bullshit.

 

[AVG-JOE]

My point is on the right side of history.

I'm all too happy to agree to disagree with you on this one Rabbi

 

[Spare_change]

Anytime someone says something negative about homosexuality or the gay rights agenda, no matter how factual or logical it may be, you guys scream "homophobic," "bigoted," etc., etc. Do you know what "homophobic" means? Do you really think that Rubio is "homophobic"?

We've already seen what happens here when people try to get you guys to engage in a rational, factual, logical discussion on the gay rights agenda: you engage in lots of name-calling, won't budge from your talking points, and won't address contrary facts and counter arguments.

When he calls gay marriage dangerous, in a fearful way, he is expressing an irrational fear of homosexuals.

Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals.

Given that is not what he said .... the rest of your commentary becomes irrelevant ... but, I would guess, you're probably used to that, huh?

 

[JoeB131]

I prefer the lessons from 2014.

That you can win off year elections when you are only really contesting sparsely populated, backwater states where most americans don't live?

And only because you had the lowest voter turnout in 70 years?

What do you do if the voters show up again?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm glad Marco Rubio said this. Please, I hope that more GOP candidates say this kind of stuff. Because the crazy-assed stuff that wins an Elephant the nomination will lose him the GE, because in the GE, that stuff is a poison pill.

So, Sen. Rubio, you just keep on talking. I'm cool with that.

Keep thinking that. I guess he struck a nerve.

From what the SJW's are doing in general, the progressive playbook is known to everyone.

Not with me. I'm not gay, but I am acutely aware that the more hateful stuff Righties like Rubio say, the more they hurt the GOP in the GE. Or have you Righties learned absolutely nothing from 2012?

What did Rubio say that was "hateful"?

Calling gay marriage a clear and present danger.

This is exactly what he said idiot. Can't you read?


"Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”


- See more at: Marco Rubio Gay Rights A Real And Present Danger To Freedom Right Wing Watch

Oh, so I said he called gay marriage 'a clear and present danger' and Rubio actually called it a 'real and present danger'.

I apologize for not using the more definitive word 'real' to describe the danger.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anytime someone says something negative about homosexuality or the gay rights agenda, no matter how factual or logical it may be, you guys scream "homophobic," "bigoted," etc., etc. Do you know what "homophobic" means? Do you really think that Rubio is "homophobic"?

We've already seen what happens here when people try to get you guys to engage in a rational, factual, logical discussion on the gay rights agenda: you engage in lots of name-calling, won't budge from your talking points, and won't address contrary facts and counter arguments.

When he calls gay marriage dangerous, in a fearful way, he is expressing an irrational fear of homosexuals.

Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals.

Given that is not what he said .... the rest of your commentary becomes irrelevant ... but, I would guess, you're probably used to that, huh?

I think to sane people 'dangerous' is synonymous to 'real and present danger'. What do you the demented object to?

 

[CMike]

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

Rubio was spot on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anytime someone says something negative about homosexuality or the gay rights agenda, no matter how factual or logical it may be, you guys scream "homophobic," "bigoted," etc., etc. Do you know what "homophobic" means? Do you really think that Rubio is "homophobic"?

We've already seen what happens here when people try to get you guys to engage in a rational, factual, logical discussion on the gay rights agenda: you engage in lots of name-calling, won't budge from your talking points, and won't address contrary facts and counter arguments.

When he calls gay marriage dangerous, in a fearful way, he is expressing an irrational fear of homosexuals.

Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals.

Given that is not what he said .... the rest of your commentary becomes irrelevant ... but, I would guess, you're probably used to that, huh?

So Rubio does not consider gay marriage dangerous?

Good, he agrees with me.

 

[CMike]

I'm glad Marco Rubio said this. Please, I hope that more GOP candidates say this kind of stuff. Because the crazy-assed stuff that wins an Elephant the nomination will lose him the GE, because in the GE, that stuff is a poison pill.

So, Sen. Rubio, you just keep on talking. I'm cool with that.

I agree.

Rubio was right on target.

Gay marriage is not Tikun Olam.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

Rubio was spot on.

When did 'equal protection under the law' disappear from the Constitution?

Be specific with the date, please.

 

[CMike]

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

During a previous CBN interview, Rubio criticized gay marriage supporters for trying to sway the Supreme Court with “a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”

Rubio was spot on.

When did 'equal protection under the law' disappear from the Constitution?

Be specific with the date, please.

Your question is really weird. We are discussing what the law should be.

There are limits on freedoms.

You can't marry minor children.

You can't marry your mother.

You can't matter a person of the same sex (still in some states)

 

[JoeB131]

I don't agree with what Rubio said, but i don't see this as a deal killer.

Rubio can be a formidable candidate because he potentially peels working class voters and Hispanics away from the Democratic column.

He makes the GOP competititive in Ohio and Florida where they have to win up against the "Blue Wall".

And while i think the fight over the legality of gay marriage is probably a done deal, the fight over the social acceptance of gay marriage particularly as it applies to religious belief is not.

 

[CMike]

The ultra left wingers aren't going to vote for him anyway.