So why is Obama insulting 96.5% of Americans...

[rightwinger]

Conservatives might well pay a heavy price at the polls, but it would be because the nation as a whole is moving toward depravity and degeneracy. Decency is not tolerated in such a toxic atmosphere.

Decency is in tolerance rather than the depravity and degeneracy of those who bash gays.

If decency is tolerance should we be more tolerant of rapists? Or does your call for tolerance have limits based on your moral judgements?

Logical FAIL

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because gay people deserve equal treatment....

Doesn't matter what % of the population a group is, if they are being mistreated then the issue deserves the attention. It's really just that simple.

This is where you keep losing me. The simple truth is that tax laws are written in such a way that getting married actually has a negative impact on your taxes. That means that married people are treated unfairly because they have to pay higher taxes than two people who are not married. Yet, for some obscure reason, you want me to believe that not allowing people to be legally discriminated against treats them unfairly.

Want to run that one by your logic center again?

You being serious now? I honestly can't tell.

That is because you spend so much time trolling.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If that is what the majority of Americans want, put it to a vote. So far, out of nine states that have legalized same sex marriage only two have voted on it. The other seven have had it imposed either judicially or legislatively. See if that's what the majority wants. Put it to a vote.

Same with abortion?
Or do you just favor voting when you think you will win?

You think abortion will win an election? My guess is that it would be a hard sell, even in California.

Polls indicate that most Americans favor acess to abortions.
Do you still think marriage comes with a tax penalty?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The simple truth is that tax laws are written in such a way that getting married actually has a negative impact on your taxes.

Is this the sarcasm font?

No, it is the gross ignorance font I use for all discussions about serious issues. Google marriage penalty sometime, and then try to think for yourself.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The simple truth is that tax laws are written in such a way that getting married actually has a negative impact on your taxes.

Is this the sarcasm font?

No, it is the gross ignorance font I use for all discussions about serious issues. Google marriage penalty sometime, and then try to think for yourself.

Gross ignorance ... that explains it pretty well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A Pandora's box is fixing to be opened here. It was brought up that a widowed man could marry his son. So when he died the son wouldn't pay taxes on the estate. It could be done with a mother marrying her daughter. It couldn't fall under incest law, because they couldn't have a child, that's the primary reason incest isn't allowed. See what happens when you start changing the definition of things. It will be funny to see the outrage of the liberals when a billionaire passes billions in money and assests without a dime in taxes being collected, and just think you created the loop hole. Lol

Couldn't the same thing happen if a widowed man married his daughter?

I have known many people who married because of financial reasons. It doesn't mean that we should block those who marry for love

Not really. Since marriage is not, currently, a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny, states can easily restrict marriage in multiple ways. If the challengers of Prop 8 get a full win in court then marriage be a fundamental right, and all sorts of laws about marriage will be invalidated.

If you don't believe me read what Justice Kagan asked during oral arguments. Unless, of course, you want to argue that she is a closet right wing nutcase.

 

[Sallow]

Conservatives underestimate the impact of the gay vote.
Gays may be 3.5% of the population, but they have family, friends, neighbors and coworkers who look at them and say .......He or she is a good person....why can't they marry the person they love?

Conservatives are coming off as petty and cruel on this issue and they will pay a price at the polls

Hey without pettiness and cruelty..conservatives have nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How long has sex been legal in the U.S.?
That didn't send us down the slippery slope of legalizing rape.

How long have we allowed 18-year-olds to vote?
That didn't sending us spiraling down the path to allowing five-year-olds to vote.

Drawing the line between what is criminal and what harms no one is what laws do. It is absurd to oppose or favor a law because of what MAY come next.

So can we just move past the absurdities? Please?

How long have you lived with the brain damage?

There is a difference between a fake slippery slope where having legal sex makes rape legal and the real slippery slope where marriage being a fundamental right allows people to marry their relatives.

 

[rightwinger]

A Pandora's box is fixing to be opened here. It was brought up that a widowed man could marry his son. So when he died the son wouldn't pay taxes on the estate. It could be done with a mother marrying her daughter. It couldn't fall under incest law, because they couldn't have a child, that's the primary reason incest isn't allowed. See what happens when you start changing the definition of things. It will be funny to see the outrage of the liberals when a billionaire passes billions in money and assests without a dime in taxes being collected, and just think you created the loop hole. Lol

Couldn't the same thing happen if a widowed man married his daughter?

I have known many people who married because of financial reasons. It doesn't mean that we should block those who marry for love

Not really. Since marriage is not, currently, a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny, states can easily restrict marriage in multiple ways. If the challengers of Prop 8 get a full win in court then marriage be a fundamental right, and all sorts of laws about marriage will be invalidated.

If you don't believe me read what Justice Kagan asked during oral arguments. Unless, of course, you want to argue that she is a closet right wing nutcase.

If you wish to make a point....post it

Kagan asked alotof questions

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only objection to gays comes from the religious right. That is where the moral judgements come from. Most Americans are looking at homosexuality as something that causes no harm and think that Homosexuals should be allowed to marry the person they love

What I find interesting is that as Homosexuals are openly accepted in America, the God Hates Fags faction are becoming social outcasts

I love it when people speak in absolutes, when did Stalin become part of the religious right?

By the way, did you ever figure out when WBC had power?

When did Stalin become an American?

The WBC never had complete power. They split it with the WBA

Do me a favor, show me where this sentence uses the word American.

The only objection to gays comes from the religious right.

Once again, when did Stalin become part of the religious right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Decency is in tolerance rather than the depravity and degeneracy of those who bash gays.

If decency is tolerance should we be more tolerant of rapists? Or does your call for tolerance have limits based on your moral judgements?

Logical FAIL

I agree, his argument is a logical fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Same with abortion?
Or do you just favor voting when you think you will win?

You think abortion will win an election? My guess is that it would be a hard sell, even in California.

Polls indicate that most Americans favor acess to abortions.
Do you still think marriage comes with a tax penalty?

I indicate no such thing, most Americans actually approve of restrictions on abortion.

Let me google that for you

 

[rightwinger]

If decency is tolerance should we be more tolerant of rapists? Or does your call for tolerance have limits based on your moral judgements?

Logical FAIL

I agree, his argument is a logical fail.

I was going to reply to your point....but it is just not worthy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Couldn't the same thing happen if a widowed man married his daughter?

I have known many people who married because of financial reasons. It doesn't mean that we should block those who marry for love

Not really. Since marriage is not, currently, a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny, states can easily restrict marriage in multiple ways. If the challengers of Prop 8 get a full win in court then marriage be a fundamental right, and all sorts of laws about marriage will be invalidated.

If you don't believe me read what Justice Kagan asked during oral arguments. Unless, of course, you want to argue that she is a closet right wing nutcase.

If you wish to make a point....post it

Kagan asked alotof questions

I did make a point. If you wish to refute it, feel free.

 

[g5000]

So why is Obama insulting 96.5% of Americans...while courting 3.5% of Americans???

According to a Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.5% of American adults identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, while 0.3% are transgender—which would correspond to approximately 11.7 million Americans as of the 2010 Census.
LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Obama is so smart why other then campaign donations payback is this attention to gay issues?

Look at you! Wildly imagining 96.5% of Americans are on your gay-bashing team!

That's one of the craziest delusions EVAH!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

A Pandora's box is fixing to be opened here. It was brought up that a widowed man could marry his son. So when he died the son wouldn't pay taxes on the estate. It could be done with a mother marrying her daughter. It couldn't fall under incest law, because they couldn't have a child, that's the primary reason incest isn't allowed. See what happens when you start changing the definition of things. It will be funny to see the outrage of the liberals when a billionaire passes billions in money and assests without a dime in taxes being collected, and just think you created the loop hole. Lol

That's why the French have civil unions for such matters.

State laws on who in the family can marry who in the family will rule, and there is no similarity to hetero or homo marriage.

 

[g5000]

while courting 3.5% of Americans???

According to a Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.5% of American adults identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, while 0.3% are transgender—which would correspond to approximately 11.7 million Americans as of the 2010 Census.
LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Obama is so smart why other then campaign donations payback is this attention to gay issues?

Because gay people deserve equal treatment....

Doesn't matter what % of the population a group is, if they are being mistreated then the issue deserves the attention. It's really just that simple.

This is where you keep losing me. The simple truth is that tax laws are written in such a way that getting married actually has a negative impact on your taxes. That means that married people are treated unfairly because they have to pay higher taxes than two people who are not married. Yet, for some obscure reason, you want me to believe that not allowing people to be legally discriminated against treats them unfairly.

Want to run that one by your logic center again?

There are a thousand cash and prizes in the federal law which benefit married people, not just married tax returns. That you are ignorant of this suggests you either have a very bizarre case of selective awareness, or are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How long has sex been legal in the U.S.?
That didn't send us down the slippery slope of legalizing rape.

How long have we allowed 18-year-olds to vote?
That didn't sending us spiraling down the path to allowing five-year-olds to vote.

Drawing the line between what is criminal and what harms no one is what laws do. It is absurd to oppose or favor a law because of what MAY come next.

So can we just move past the absurdities? Please?

How long have you lived with the brain damage?

There is a difference between a fake slippery slope where having legal sex makes rape legal and the real slippery slope where marriage being a fundamental right allows people to marry their relatives.

Personal insults doen't mend your logical fallacies.

 

[g5000]

It's payback time for all those decades of hypocrisy, folks. You were just pretending you wanted government out of your lives, and yet invite it in ALLLLLLLLLLL the time. Every time you file a married tax return, you invite Uncle Sam into your marriage. Every time you take a deduction for your kids, you invite Uncle Sam into your bedroom. Every time you take a deduction for donating to charity, you invite Uncle Sam into your church. Every time you collect Social Security survivor benefits, you invite Uncle Sam into your marriage.

And your churches let Uncle Sam take them over a long time ago. But that wasn't good enough for you. No, you wanted them to be made dependent on federal money with this whole "faith based charity" crap. Now they can't live without that money. Uncle Sam OWNS your churches now. And now they have to hire the right kinds of people, and give them birth control, and do the stuff the government wants them to do or they will lose that money they have become addicted to. Well played, Uncle Sam!

If the light of God is gone from your church and your town, it is by your own doing, not the fags.

You have been one big happy pack of collectivist clams for decades. You invited the devil into your house and were happy to have him while it was working to your personal benefit, even if it was at the expense of others. Not exactly very Christian of you, was it.

You did this to yourselves. Even now, as the demise of your own making falls in on you, you STILL DEMAND IT for yourselves.

 

[healthmyths]

Katz, that's so extreme it goes into unreasonable. No one will ever accept bestiality as the norm, because animals cannot give consent. Incest has been proven to be genetically degenerating, so it will never be legalized either.

Homosexual marriage harms no one. Zero. Unless it negatively effects you in some way. And you'd be one.

But hey, you'd be given special concessions by liberals, who view minorities as special.

Current evidence would prove you wrong. Many enlightened countries already have legalized beastiality with Denmark having gone so far as legal animal brothels.
Animal brothels legal in Denmark | IceNews - Daily News

As far as incest does, really, get with the program. They can have sex without having children. Brazil, Russia, France, India, Sweden, Belgium, Portugal, The Netherlands and Japan have already legalized incest. Switzerland is considering legalizing incest as is Romania. Who are you to tell others who to love! With birth control and abortion the children of incestuous unions aren't even a consideration.

Once depravity is normalized, it goes all the way to the bottom of the barrel.

What about NAMBLA? Why are gays so against them??