Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive'

[Nosmo King]

The guy who HOLDS the office today in a bigot, by your definition.


Barack Obama either opposes gay marriage or is a bald faced liar.


Call him a bigot...he HOLDS the office of President of the United States.

Obama: "Marriage is a matter of state law"

Holy crap, that's exactly what Perry said.

Please...end the hypocrisy.


​

[/CENTER]

I'm asking Li'l Ricky Santorum to explain what he finds so destructive.

Well why don't you ******* ask him yourself since I doubt Senator Santorum (to you, sonny) posts here?

Then if you happen to agree with Li'l Ricky that same sex marriage is "destructive" perhaps you would enlighten us as to why.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm asking Li'l Ricky Santorum to explain what he finds so destructive.

Well why don't you ******* ask him yourself since I doubt Senator Santorum (to you, sonny) posts here?

Then if you happen to agree with Li'l Ricky that same sex marriage is "destructive" perhaps you would enlighten us as to why.

Nothing would enlighten you.

 

[bodecea]

Homosxuals are allowed to marry anyone they love who is: 1) a member of the opposite sex, 2) not related to them, 3) over the age of consent.
Just like anyone else.
Fail.

So...it IS gender discrimination.

Get your head out of the carpet.
There is no discrimination. A member of the opposite sex can be a male or a female.
You lose this battle every single time. I am surprised you'd want to embarass yourself again.

Sorry, but it IS gender discrimination which is illegal in this country...despite what some like you would like.

 

[bodecea]

Do you understand WTF you're talking about?
The 10th Amendment states all powers not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states or the people. Marriage is clearly one of those powers, which is why states have regulated it.
Ans last I checked gays had exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry whom they love. Heterosexuals are.
As always, you are wrong.

I love four women equally...why am I not allowed to marry them all?

Go for it.

 

[bodecea]

Forget about the religious aspect? That would mean ignoring half of the issue. What does marriage even mean without religion? Why should you have to go through government to determine if you are married or now? It is because government can determine marriage that discrimination of policy results. This is as clear as day. If you remove the authority of government to define marriage, then we would not even be having this discussion.

When people talk about marriage rights, they are talking about benefits granted by government. These benefits should be granted through civil unions, not marriage licenses that try to control the social institution of marriage. Marriage and legal benefits should be completely separated. The issue is much bigger than you make it to be. This is about the validity of the marriage license altogether. As long as it exists it will always be discriminatory in nature. The marriage license attempts to regulate culture through government, and should be done away with.

Give me one good reason why government should be allowed to define marriage.

So....people have to have religion in order for their marriage to have meaning?

You misunderstand the question. Maybe spirituality would be a better word. For example, two atheists will not get married in any church. Putting aside legal and economic benefits, what exactly can government legitimately give them? Any other benefits would be of a strictly private and cultural matter.

I think you should focus on a more important question. What is one good reason why government should be allowed to define marriage? Why should government offer a marriage license in the first place?

Then you think the terms "marriage" and "married" should be eliminated from all government documentation and replaced with 'civil union'.

 

[bodecea]

The guy who HOLDS the office today in a bigot, by your definition.


Barack Obama either opposes gay marriage or is a bald faced liar.


Call him a bigot...he HOLDS the office of President of the United States.

Obama: "Marriage is a matter of state law"

Holy crap, that's exactly what Perry said.

Please...end the hypocrisy.


​

[/CENTER]

I'm asking Li'l Ricky Santorum to explain what he finds so destructive.

Well why don't you ******* ask him yourself since I doubt Senator Santorum (to you, sonny) posts here?

He's still Senator? Oh, poor Pennsylvania.

 

[bodecea]

Well why don't you ******* ask him yourself since I doubt Senator Santorum (to you, sonny) posts here?

Then if you happen to agree with Li'l Ricky that same sex marriage is "destructive" perhaps you would enlighten us as to why.

Nothing would enlighten you.

Gave up on answering him, didn't you?

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm asking Li'l Ricky Santorum to explain what he finds so destructive.

Well why don't you ******* ask him yourself since I doubt Senator Santorum (to you, sonny) posts here?

He's still Senator? Oh, poor Pennsylvania.

Nah! Li'l Ricky hasn't been a Senator since 2004 or so! Pennsylvanians scraped him from the soles of their shoes a long time ago.

 

[Nosmo King]

Then if you happen to agree with Li'l Ricky that same sex marriage is "destructive" perhaps you would enlighten us as to why.

Nothing would enlighten you.

Gave up on answering him, didn't you?

He ALWAYS does. But not before he says "go inspect a toilet". Logic frustrates him.

 

[ShackledNation]

So....people have to have religion in order for their marriage to have meaning?

You misunderstand the question. Maybe spirituality would be a better word. For example, two atheists will not get married in any church. Putting aside legal and economic benefits, what exactly can government legitimately give them? Any other benefits would be of a strictly private and cultural matter.

I think you should focus on a more important question. What is one good reason why government should be allowed to define marriage? Why should government offer a marriage license in the first place?

Then you think the terms "marriage" and "married" should be eliminated from all government documentation and replaced with 'civil union'.

I think, as stated before, that the marriage license should be replaced with the civil union and that governments, state or federal, should have no business defining what constitutes marriage. A civil union is purely legal and economic. Marriage, obviously, is not. Society gives marriage a different type of cultural and/or religious meaning.

The solution is to unlink the religious (or cultural) institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state. Let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union, or both.

 

[The Rabbi]

So...it IS gender discrimination.

Get your head out of the carpet.
There is no discrimination. A member of the opposite sex can be a male or a female.
You lose this battle every single time. I am surprised you'd want to embarass yourself again.

Sorry, but it IS gender discrimination which is illegal in this country...despite what some like you would like.

Gender discrimination? Really?
The law applies equally to men and women. So when laws apply equally that is called discimination?
Is this some new leftist definition? War is peace. Depression is prosperity. Obama is competent.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing would enlighten you.

Gave up on answering him, didn't you?

He ALWAYS does. But not before he says "go inspect a toilet". Logic frustrates him.

Actually your stupidity and lack of education frustrate me.
Please tell me who is telling people to go marry someone they dont like.

 

[bodecea]

You misunderstand the question. Maybe spirituality would be a better word. For example, two atheists will not get married in any church. Putting aside legal and economic benefits, what exactly can government legitimately give them? Any other benefits would be of a strictly private and cultural matter.

I think you should focus on a more important question. What is one good reason why government should be allowed to define marriage? Why should government offer a marriage license in the first place?

Then you think the terms "marriage" and "married" should be eliminated from all government documentation and replaced with 'civil union'.

I think, as stated before, that the marriage license should be replaced with the civil union and that governments, state or federal, should have no business defining what constitutes marriage. A civil union is purely legal and economic. Marriage, obviously, is not. Society gives marriage a different type of cultural and/or religious meaning.

The solution is to unlink the religious (or cultural) institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state. Let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union, or both.

So, you advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change all our laws so the word 'marriage' is removed from all legal statutes, etc.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gave up on answering him, didn't you?

He ALWAYS does. But not before he says "go inspect a toilet". Logic frustrates him.

Actually your stupidity and lack of education frustrate me.
Please tell me who is telling people to go marry someone they dont like.

you are telling us that, mullet head!

 

[The Rabbi]

He ALWAYS does. But not before he says "go inspect a toilet". Logic frustrates him.

Actually your stupidity and lack of education frustrate me.
Please tell me who is telling people to go marry someone they dont like.

you are telling us that, mullet head!

Please cite where I said, oh shit-for-brains.

 

[ShackledNation]

Then you think the terms "marriage" and "married" should be eliminated from all government documentation and replaced with 'civil union'.

I think, as stated before, that the marriage license should be replaced with the civil union and that governments, state or federal, should have no business defining what constitutes marriage. A civil union is purely legal and economic. Marriage, obviously, is not. Society gives marriage a different type of cultural and/or religious meaning.

The solution is to unlink the religious (or cultural) institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state. Let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union, or both.

So, you advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change all our laws so the word 'marriage' is removed from all legal statutes, etc.

No, I advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change our laws so government does not define marriage and so all couples can obtain equal benefits under the law.

 

[bodecea]

I think, as stated before, that the marriage license should be replaced with the civil union and that governments, state or federal, should have no business defining what constitutes marriage. A civil union is purely legal and economic. Marriage, obviously, is not. Society gives marriage a different type of cultural and/or religious meaning.

The solution is to unlink the religious (or cultural) institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state. Let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union, or both.

So, you advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change all our laws so the word 'marriage' is removed from all legal statutes, etc.

No, I advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change our laws so government does not define marriage and so all couples can obtain equal benefits under the law.

So, if government does not define marriage, that means removing the term "marriage" from all legel statutes, laws, etc. That's what you support.

 

[ShackledNation]

So, you advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change all our laws so the word 'marriage' is removed from all legal statutes, etc.

No, I advocate taking the time, money, and effort to change our laws so government does not define marriage and so all couples can obtain equal benefits under the law.

So, if government does not define marriage, that means removing the term "marriage" from all legel statutes, laws, etc. That's what you support.

That would be one consequence, yes. And you support allowing government to define marriage, giving it the power to control a religious and cultural practice.

 

[gautama]

Santorum: Perry marriage stance 'destructive' - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com

Rick Santorum’s identified a new way to boost his presidential prospects: attack Rick Perry for his position on gay marriage.

“When someone who is a serious candidate for president is doing things that will be destructive not just for the Republican Party, but for the country, I’m going to point that out any chance I get,” Santorum told POLITICO.

Late last month, Perry deferred to a states’ rights argument in declining to oppose New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the law was “their business, and that’s fine with me.” Though he backtracked slightly the following week, saying “it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” but that “obviously gay marriage is not fine with me,” Santorum isn’t satisfied.

The former Pennsylvania senator, whose own opposition to same-sex marriage is perhaps his best known policy position, was the first presidential contender to pounce on Perry’s comments.

I wonder if this is some of that "Small Government Conservatism" I've been hearing about?

The important thing is that both potential Presidential nominees for the rational Republicans are against FANTASY marriages that are not only immoral, and promote perversion ....... but violate the meaning of the English word "marriage".

 

[L.K.Eder]

was the pic of the pouting santorums posted already?