We are Democrats .. and we're against gay marriage

[Zero Sum 305]

Maybe what they want is for people to learn that tolerance ain't so bad after all.

It would be cheaper by your logic, too.

[Vi-Jay 218]

They... all?

That's like saying all Republicans are racists.

Sorry.

I was typing fast 'cause my wife is giving me the "get the hell off VJ look".

I'm sneaking this reply, I got to go.

Maybe what they want is for people to learn that tolerance ain't so bad after all.

It would be cheaper by your logic, too.

Hey! You just used "they" too.

That's it, Later.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That makes me think you agree there is a possibility gay marriage could lead to a civil rights movement?

Furthermore, you think a gay civil rights movement would be a good thing?

Just asking, not baiting.

Perhaps I shouldn't be concerned 'bout the enormous cost to the country resulting from a gay civil rights movement?

Because if I don't like it, that makes me a pirate?

Now I never said you were a pirate, only that if you put financial considerations over moral considerations then you have the morals of one.

Seriously - it's a pretty poor reason to argue against it. So no, you shouldn't be concerned about the cost.

[Zero Sum 305]

Sorry.

I was typing fast 'cause my wife is giving me the "get the hell off VJ look".

I'm sneaking this reply, I got to go.

Hey! You just used "they" too.

That's it, Later.

No insult intended... but sometimes that generalization/lazyness is infectious.

Don't get sodomized by the wife over VJ. Not worth it!

[Danno 1,228]

OK.

You obviously didn't do any reading. The LGBT community makes no secret about the agenda.

So just sit back and watch the events unfold.

"watching events unfold" is the whole of most of these peoples opinion: They support gay marriage because it emotionally feels good.

When you get into specifics they simply refuse to have an honest debate.

For example, Danno is a bad guy for robbing Homos of the right to marry who they are inclined to want to spend their life with.

Yet they force the Bisexual to choose either a man or a women.

They force the polyish to live in the closed, causing the children of these family to grow up with a secret.

They KNow the rights of Homosexuals in this regard will clash with the traditional rights of many others, insisting that their current views on these issues be embraced by all.

It's way more complicated than two men playing husband and wife.

They cannot tolerate others veiws on these issues in fact, one need only read the posting on this topic and any similar one to understand the definition of Bigotry.

bigotry |ˈbigətrē|

noun

bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from bigot , reinforced by French bigoterie.

[Zero Sum 305]

Oh oh... there cometh the slippery slope

No, Danno. Its really simple: tolerance of gays doesn't mean they gheys will force anything onto anyone else. The only bigotry is that which is phobic and thus, prohibits by virtue of law.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"watching events unfold" is the whole of most of these peoples opinion: They support gay marriage because it emotionally feels good.

When you get into specifics they simply refuse to have an honest debate.

For example, Danno is a bad guy for robbing Homos of the right to marry who they are inclined to want to spend their life with.

Yet they force the Bisexual to choose either a man or a women.

They force the polyish to live in the closed, causing the children of these family to grow up with a secret.

They KNow the rights of Homosexuals in this regard will clash with the traditional rights of many others, insisting that their current views on these issues be embraced by all.

It's way more complicated than two men playing husband and wife.

They cannot tolerate others veiws on these issues in fact, one need only read the posting on this topic and any similar one to understand the definition of Bigotry.

bigotry |ˈbigətrē|

noun

bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from bigot , reinforced by French bigoterie.

Yes Danno - this argument has been tried before and it was a fail. You're a bigot if you're intolerant of bigots. Brilliant. Here's another word you might want to acquaint yourself with:

Delusion (plural delusions)

A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.

The state of being deluded or misled.

That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief.

Edited May 19, 2011 by fishdude

[sandinista! 1,816]

and some who are christians aren't nasty at all, they just dont believe in gay marriage!

and some who are not even christians do not accept gay marriage...

and some who are democrats do not accept gay marriage... so whats ur point?

but it is nasty to impose your beliefs onto other people and deny them the ability to do something as innocuous as marriage, simply because their sexual orientation is different from yours. and it's nasty to butt into something that has ** all to do with you, and treat people like sub-humans because of their sexual orientation. do you not believe in atheist marriage, or jewish marriage, or buddhist marriage either because you're not any of those things? how on earth is it any of yr danm business if two gay people want to get married?

[Danno 1,228]

but it is nasty to impose your beliefs onto other people and deny them the ability to do something as innocuous as marriage, simply because their sexual orientation is different from yours. and it's nasty to butt into something that has ** all to do with you, and treat people like sub-humans because of their sexual orientation. do you not believe in atheist marriage, or jewish marriage, or buddhist marriage either because you're not any of those things? how on earth is it any of yr danm business if two gay people want to get married?

Why are you so stuck on religious concepts of only 2 people in a marriage.... why impose those limitations on others simply because you think thats what a marriage is?

Isn't it nasty to butt into something that has nothing to do with you?

If you don't want to marry several people... don't do it, why do you push your beliefs on others?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Why are you so stuck on religious concepts of only 2 people in a marriage.... why impose those limitations on others simply because you think thats what a marriage is?

Isn't it nasty to butt into something that has nothing to do with you?

If you don't want to marry several people... don't do it, why do you push your beliefs on others?

I didn't realize you were into group sex too.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Why are you so stuck on religious concepts of only 2 people in a marriage.... why impose those limitations on others simply because you think thats what a marriage is?

Isn't it nasty to butt into something that has nothing to do with you?

If you don't want to marry several people... don't do it, why do you push your beliefs on others?

i couldnt care less how many people are involved in a marriage, it's none of my business. the "two people" in my comment was not meant to be limiting to two people, just as a designation that it takes at least two people to get married. numbers concern me the same as the sexual orientation of the people involved in a marriage, ie not at all.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm not a Constitution expert. Paul would do a much better job of explaining why "Marriage" makes a difference.

I'm not a homophobe. I'm a lawyer-phobe.

Try to connect the dots.

Well, it's silly to argue "marriage" in regards to anything on a National level. Marriage is an institution of the state, not an institution of the Federal Government.

The only time Marriage becomes an issue on the Federal level is when it comes to taxes. That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on where you are financially (see: marriage tax penalty). However the difference usually isn't enough to fuss over really. It's all relative to the situation you're in though. Personally I don't think the tax code should change if you're married or not. All that should matter is whether or not you are combining incomes/taxes together or filing separately. Your 'social status' should not have an effect on what you pay/not pay. It's silly really.

Outside of that, on arguing the "civil rights" side of things, it has to be looked at like this. If Person A and Person B can go down to a GOVERNMENT office and file a piece of paper that entitles them to extra benefits for being together, then Person A and another Person A should be able to do the same. Whether it's called "marriage" or not is left up to debate. Personally, a lot of issues would be solved if you called all of them "Civil Contracts" instead. Essentially that's what they are to begin with. The religious types can keep "marriage" for themselves and get "married" in a church, but if the government is to recognize if, then they need to make sure that if "marriage" is not available, then a type of contract is available that entitles ALL couples to EQUAL BENEFITS (and penalties) under the law.

[Danno 1,228]

I didn't realize you were into group sex too.

You might be surprised.... or not.

[Danno 1,228]

i couldnt care less how many people are involved in a marriage, it's none of my business. the "two people" in my comment was not meant to be limiting to two people, just as a designation that it takes at least two people to get married. numbers concern me the same as the sexual orientation of the people involved in a marriage, ie not at all.

I'm glad you are consistent on that because so many people run their mouth but then they want to put limits on numbers of parties involved or age restrictions or family relations involved.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, it's silly to argue "marriage" in regards to anything on a National level. Marriage is an institution of the state, not an institution of the Federal Government.

If marriage is a basic right, it's protected under the Constitution. As such, this is a federal issue. Which is why the SCOTUS will eventually rule on this and put the states that feel they can infringe on an individual's basic right into their place.