Jon Stewart in High Form-

[speciallyblend]

That's perfectly fine. I agree that ultimately marriage should be between a man and a woman, but just like other situations where something should happen, I oppose the use of force to make it happen. Homosexuals can call themselves married all they want. It does me no harm. I'm not going to go out and promote it, nor will I protest it, because it's none of my business. It's none of my business what happens in anyone's bedroom but my own.

5 STAR winner for answer!!! Ron Paul 2012!!!

 

[teacherone]

How are gay people being oppressed? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. Is a guy who wants to marry his sister oppressed as well?

you're not really that dumb are you? blacks had exactly the same rights as everybody else in the segregated south too right? they got to drink out of drinking fountains and go to the toilet!

what was all that bitching about anyway?

 

[MichelleHeart]

As a queer, I don't feel nearly as oppressed as blacks in the 50's. The homosexual Left exaggerates. Whiny bunch, I'm telling ya. They piss me off.

 

[teacherone]

As a queer, I don't feel nearly as oppressed as blacks in the 50's. The homosexual Left exaggerates. Whiny bunch, I'm telling ya. They piss me off.

thanks for your personal opinion. as a straight married male i can only imagine what it would be like to be denied the legal and societal rights and protections of marriage afforded to others.

i'm sure i would feel oppressed if the tables were turned and a gay majority decided i was not allowed to marry the woman i love.

maybe you're not in a committed enough relationship yet to relate? +

 

[teacherone]

Originally Posted by BlackTerrel
Honestly I hate when people try to make this comparison. The two issues are not even close to the same thing.

How?

Notice the word "hate" here. clearly BlackTerrel has made his decision based on his irrational disgust for gays and has absolutely no logical reason for his wish to deny them the right to marry the partner they love and are attracted to, the right that all straights have.

he "hates" the comparison because he suffers cognitive dissonance when faced with the irrational emotionalism in his argument. facing the fact that his uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents fought for equal rights under the law and he in turn wishes to deny others those same rights is too much to handle. his emotions are triggered and he tries to escape the question instead of examining his own prejudices.

sad really.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Notice the word "hate" here. clearly BlackTerrel has made his decision based on his irrational disgust for gays and has absolutely no logical reason for his wish to deny them the right to marry the partner they love and are attracted to, the right that all straights have.

he "hates" the comparison because he suffers cognitive dissonance when faced with the irrational emotionalism in his argument. facing the fact that his uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents fought for equal rights under the law and he in turn wishes to deny others those same rights is too much to handle. his emotions are triggered and he tries to escape the question instead of examining his own prejudices.

sad really.

You've avoided this question a couple times now: should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His father? His mother?

 

[BenIsForRon]

You've avoided this question a couple times now: should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His father? His mother?

That's a different issue. If a guy has a child with his own mother or sister, it will likely have genetic defects.

 

[teacherone]

You've avoided this question a couple times now: should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His father? His mother?

yes, yes, yes.

none of my business. if two, three, four, ten consenting adults love each other and want to marry, let them.

does not affect my life whatsoever.

of course you're throwing a skanky red herring out there, because cases of incest are so rare.

what's your real agenda BlackTerrel? you decry other Ron Paulers for racism but you're homophobic. as long as we have a government each and every citizen should enjoy equal rights, recognition, and equality under the law.

 

[BlackTerrel]

what's your real agenda BlackTerrel? you decry other Ron Paulers for racism but you're homophobic. as long as we have a government each and every citizen should enjoy equal rights, recognition, and equality under the law.

I don't like equating one with the other as I do not see them at all alike.

For one just look at the history of race in this country and the history of sexuality in this country and they are two separate things. For two there is nothing abnormal with being white or black or Asian or whatever. It is the same thing. It is a normal state of being.

Being homosexual is abnormal. I see it the same as having a shoe fetish or a furry fetish or having a split personality or manic depressive or a million other psychological problems that people can have. I do not hate these people and I wish them the best - but don't try to convince me that it is normal.

Whether you believe in God (like I do) or you believe in evolution I think it is clear that homosexuality is not normal for a species that wants to procreate

 

[Met Income]

I don't like equating one with the other as I do not see them at all alike.

For one just look at the history of race in this country and the history of sexuality in this country and they are two separate things. For two there is nothing abnormal with being white or black or Asian or whatever. It is the same thing. It is a normal state of being.

Being homosexual is abnormal. I see it the same as having a shoe fetish or a furry fetish or having a split personality or manic depressive or a million other psychological problems that people can have. I do not hate these people and I wish them the best - but don't try to convince me that it is normal.

Whether you believe in God (like I do) or you believe in evolution I think it is clear that homosexuality is not normal for a species that wants to procreate

Dwarfs are abnormal, so let's take their rights away! Normal people, F YEAH!

Human beings are human beings.

 

[Met Income]

You've avoided this question a couple times now: should a man be allowed to marry his sister? His father? His mother?

It's not your concern. There's no reason to even debate it. Worry about yourself.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Dwarfs are abnormal, so let's take their rights away! Normal people, F YEAH!

Human beings are human beings.

We're going in circles. I don't support taking anyone's rights away.

 

[Met Income]

We're going in circles. I don't support taking anyone's rights away.

Except you don't want gays to be allowed to marry. If you're not taking anything away, let people do what they want as long as it does not affect you or your property.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Scraped from statements I have made in the past, my own Paulian take is to reject same-sex marriage, as follows:

I believe government should stay out of marriage, period. I oppose all government marriage licenses, and believe they should be replaced by traditional private contracts or common law arrangements. Let the church determine what marriage is, as they did for ages until a few decades ago. Marriage is a religious RITE, not a civil right, and while the state has improperly imposed itself with regard to heterosexual marriage, state power or intervention should not be further expanded to other alleged classes.

Neither should state power be used, as in the case of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to impose a definition of marriage across the nation. The DOMA law should be repealed, as the state should just stay out of this matter. Benefit, insurance and other support issues involved with alternate relationships should be resolved through private contract. Gays should be free to identify such a contractual bond as 'marriage' but people should also not be forced by the state to recognize it as such. Gays can do whatever they want and can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else. They can't make me personally accept what they do, and gay couples can do whatever they want.

I regard much rhetoric about 'rights' in politics to be illegitimate, and often simply a pretext for demanding group privileges or subsidies that increase overall state aggression, in a manner that comes at the expense of the real liberty rights of others. I support individual personal liberty in sexual matters, but oppose efforts to further expand group rights by using government to codify legitimacy or approval for behavior that remains highly disputed. Initiating force through laws that de-facto coerces people to accept behavior they see as immoral, is not the way to solve this or other social issues.

 

[Met Income]

Scraped from statements I have made in the past, my own Paulian take is to reject same-sex marriage, as follows:

I believe government should stay out of marriage, period. I oppose all government marriage licenses, and believe they should be replaced by traditional private contracts or common law arrangements. Let the church determine what marriage is, as they did for ages until a few decades ago. Marriage is a religious RITE, not a civil right, and while the state has improperly imposed itself with regard to heterosexual marriage, state power or intervention should not be further expanded to other alleged classes.

Neither should state power be used, as in the case of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to impose a definition of marriage across the nation. The DOMA law should be repealed, as the state should just stay out of this matter. Benefit, insurance and other support issues involved with alternate relationships should be resolved through private contract. Gays should be free to identify such a contractual bond as 'marriage' but people should also not be forced by the state to recognize it as such. Gays can do whatever they want and can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on someone else. They can't make me personally accept what they do, and gay couples can do whatever they want.

I regard much rhetoric about 'rights' in politics to be illegitimate, and often simply a pretext for demanding group privileges or subsidies that increase overall state aggression, in a manner that comes at the expense of the real liberty rights of others. I support individual personal liberty in sexual matters, but oppose efforts to further expand group rights by using government to codify legitimacy or approval for behavior that remains highly disputed. Initiating force through laws that de-facto coerces people to accept behavior they see as immoral, is not the way to solve this or other social issues.

Gays aren't imposing anything on anyone else when they marry. If straights are recognized by the State, then gays should as well. Until it's equal, it's not logical or moral.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Gays aren't imposing anything on anyone else when they marry. If straights are recognized by the State, then gays should as well. Until it's equal, it's not logical or moral.

Liberty is what is more logical/moral, not faux equality via state-mandated recognition. Group privileges and individual rights are very different things, and the appeals of same-sex marriage advocates fall in the former category. Whenever the (de-facto) social right 'imposes its views' on the social left, the right deny they are doing so. And whenever the social left 'imposes its views' on the social right, the left deny they are doing so. Code of the West.

This doesn't change the fact that the true movement towards INDIVIDUAL liberty should involve reducing state enforced recognition, not adding new categories of coerced recognition of GROUPS upon us. On this and other cultural matters, social conservatives should not reform the law to impose their values upon the left, nor social liberals use the law to impose their views upon the right.

 

[ChickenHawk]

I agree that the government should get of the marriage business now that it has become controversial. I am convinced that the majority of the people that advocate government sponsored gay marriage do not care much about the tax and health benefit issues or equal protection. What is going on here is a that people are looking for the government to put a stamp of approval on homosexuality that they can wave in the faces of those that believe it is immoral. Setting up a scenario where they can use the government as security blanket to make them feel better about themselves rather than deal with their psychological disorder.

 

[Met Income]

I agree that the government should get of the marriage business now that it has become controversial. I am convinced that the majority of the people that advocate government sponsored gay marriage do not care much about the tax and health benefit issues or equal protection. What is going on here is a that people are looking for the government to put a stamp of approval on homosexuality that they can wave in the faces of those that believe it is immoral. Setting up a scenario where they can use the government as security blanket to make them feel better about themselves rather than deal with their psychological disorder.

Well, straights are doing the same thing.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Well, straights are doing the same thing.

Except nobody (at least not that I've ever heard of) thinks heterosexuality is inherently immoral. Although I would agree that heterosexuals engaging in sexual immorality while conspicuously condemning gays are hypocrites

 

[Met Income]

Except nobody (at least not that I've ever heard of) thinks heterosexuality is inherently immoral. Although I would agree that heterosexuals engaging in sexual immorality while conspicuously condemning gays are hypocrites

Homosexuality is not immoral. You may not prefer it, but it's not immoral. Morality isn't determined by what other people think. People used to think the world was flat, that doesn't mean it was right.