Gay Marriage/Gay Rights/Etc.

[JustinC939]

The tea party along with many conservatives like to try and pass themselves off as believing in less government and more freedom, pro constitution, blah blah blah. Yet these clowns really want more government and want to criminalize gay marriage, homosexual acts, and furthermore to deny them rights that they're entitled to by the constitution.

I know that not every tea bagger, and not every right winger is anti-gay, but the fact remains that a large percentage of them are anti-gay, and anti-gay rights. And I wonder why does it bother them so much. Why is this such a hot button issue with the right?. It seems like every 6 months, the GOP in some part of the country is out there trying to pass an anti-gay law. What two consenting adults do with their lives shouldn't be the business of the government or anyone esle.

[Dutchcedar]

Tea baggers? Clowns?

Nice start.

Ever hear of the argument for civil unions?

Let's act like its all about rights and ask for redefining marriage when we all know that will cause a fight that can't be won right now in the usual way.

If, as you say, its all about the Tea Party and the GOP, who together don't have a majority anywhere, why can't the issue pass the smell test of a vote in any state?

And if, as you say, the issue shouldn't be "the business of the government or anyone esle", do gays want the government to redefine what a marriage is?

[Phopojijo]

Great start indeed.

Think for a second. What is the fight over? The redefinition of a word which if done provides the same rights to homosexuals as is provided to you without diminishing any of your rights.

For a fight about homosexuality... it's certainly ironic that it's the anti-homosexuals (doubly ironic that they'd be named "Tea Baggers", though obviously that's a generalization... just a funny one) but that stick their dicks in places where they shouldn't be.

Apart from the sentimental value of a word which you have no trademark over...

... what's the disadvantages of redefining marriage?

So far the only other negative that you said is that there will be hot debate... ... when you hotly debate it... for no legitimate listed reason. Great.

[Keven]

The tea party along with many conservatives like to try and pass themselves off as believing in less government and more freedom, pro constitution, blah blah blah. Yet these clowns really want more government and want to criminalize gay marriage, homosexual acts, and furthermore to deny them rights that they're entitled to by the constitution.

I don't associate myself with the Tea Party, but I know several people who do. Can you show me a Tea Party website where they come out against gay marriage, or want to criminalize homosexual acts? The Huffington Post and MSNBC have successfully portrayed the Tea Party as a group of redneck buffoons who hate gays and blacks - when I don't think that's the case. Sure, plenty of Tea Party members are probably against gay marriage and hate black people - but I don't think all of them are and I don't think it's fair to paint the whole movement as anti-gay when it's not a part of the platform anywhere. In the liberal community, the myth of what the Tea Party stands for has quickly outgrown what the actual Tea Party is.

Anyway, I have no problem with gay people. I have a lesbian family member who is actually fairly active in the LGBT community. My first preference would be some sort of civil union that awarded them all the legal rights of marriage. But, people have an attachment to the world marriage, and I guess civil unions and saying you have a "partner" as opposed to husband/wife does ghetto-ize them a bit. So, let them have it if it's so important to them. God knows it isn't important to me.

[Frank1946]

Tea baggers? Clowns?

Nice start.

Ever hear of the argument for civil unions?

Let's act like its all about rights and ask for redefining marriage when we all know that will cause a fight that can't be won right now in the usual way.

If, as you say, its all about the Tea Party and the GOP, who together don't have a majority anywhere, why can't the issue pass the smell test of a vote in any state?

And if, as you say, the issue shouldn't be "the business of the government or anyone esle", do gays want the government to redefine what a marriage is?

[kbohip]

The tea party along with many conservatives like to try and pass themselves off as believing in less government and more freedom, pro constitution, blah blah blah. Yet these clowns really want more government and want to criminalize gay marriage, homosexual acts, and furthermore to deny them rights that they're entitled to by the constitution.

I know that not every tea bagger, and not every right winger is anti-gay, but the fact remains that a large percentage of them are anti-gay, and anti-gay rights. And I wonder why does it bother them so much. Why is this such a hot button issue with the right?. It seems like every 6 months, the GOP in some part of the country is out there trying to pass an anti-gay law. What two consenting adults do with their lives shouldn't be the business of the government or anyone esle.

I know some Democrats who are the most racist, anti-gay people around. I guess this means ALL Democrats are racist, homophobes right Justin? Only in this lost country will people demonize a group of people who came together in the hopes of reforming our government to more closely match what the constitution stood for.

[JustinC939]

Tea baggers? Clowns?

Nice start.

Like you and others here have never referred to liberals, and democrats in derogatory manner... please... give me a break

I searched the word "libtard" and here's what came up libtard
I searched the word "dimorat" and here's what came up dimorat
There are many more I'm sure, but I can't think of all the liberal nicknames we have ATM.

Ever hear of the argument for civil unions?

yeah, but why does it have to be called a civil union when its between gay couples?

Let's act like its all about rights and ask for redefining marriage when we all know that will cause a fight that can't be won right now in the usual way.

But it's not about redefining marriage..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...w&ved=0CBwQkAE

If, as you say, its all about the Tea Party and the GOP, who together don't have a majority anywhere, why can't the issue pass the smell test of a vote in any state?

Actually, it can
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se..._United_States

Same-sex marriage is legal in three states as a result of court rulings and in two others—as well as the District of Columbia—through votes in their respective legislatures. As of February 2011, same-sex marriages were granted in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., along with Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon. Same-sex marriage licenses were available in California between June 16, 2008, and November 4, 2008.

It's not much. but it's a start, and MD could soon be added to that list
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/na...osition=recent

And if, as you say, the issue shouldn't be "the business of the government or anyone esle", do gays want the government to redefine what a marriage is?

Nobody is asking for a re-definition of marriage.

Great start indeed.

Think for a second. What is the fight over? The redefinition of a word which if done provides the same rights to homosexuals as is provided to you without diminishing any of your rights.

And how are same sex marriages diminishing my rights?
[quote=Phopojijo;4487486]
Would you like it if the validity of your marriage or any marriage was left up to majority rule?

I don't associate myself with the Tea Party, but I know several people who do. Can you show me a Tea Party website where they come out against gay marriage, or want to criminalize homosexual acts? The Huffington Post and MSNBC have successfully portrayed the Tea Party as a group of redneck buffoons who hate gays and blacks - when I don't think that's the case. Sure, plenty of Tea Party members are probably against gay marriage and hate black people - but I don't think all of them are and I don't think it's fair to paint the whole movement as anti-gay when it's not a part of the platform anywhere. In the liberal community, the myth of what the Tea Party stands for has quickly outgrown what the actual Tea Party is.

Anyway, I have no problem with gay people. I have a lesbian family member who is actually fairly active in the LGBT community. My first preference would be some sort of civil union that awarded them all the legal rights of marriage. But, people have an attachment to the world marriage, and I guess civil unions and saying you have a "partner" as opposed to husband/wife does ghetto-ize them a bit. So, let them have it if it's so important to them. God knows it isn't important to me.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110115/NEWS01/701169899

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...s_hate_gay.php

Here's one from the Tea Party in Erie County, Ohio
Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, any other type of Union is not marriage.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/31/...-boehner-ohio/


Sarah Palin Supports a ban on Gay Marriage

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...campdig21.html


Texas GOP tries to criminalize homosexuality?
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010...form-texas-gop


But for the record, I think some tea partiers have remained silent on the issue, and some have even come out in support. But I think these instances are merely exeptions and not the rule.

Even Glenn Beck in a kinda sorta way does not oppose gay marriage.
Glenn Beck - I don't think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008110048

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/05/te...rriage-ruling/

[Phopojijo]

Justin, wtf? I was responding to Dutch and his only reason being "It'll spark a hot debate".

It's like -- great Dutch, it'll spark a hot debate, with you, when you have no reason to debate it. But it'll be hot so they should learn not to fire you up... for no reason... when they would gain extra legal rights.

As for the Tea Party -- it depends... are you talking about the Libertarians who started it, or the Conservatives who abused it and now are often in the mass majority?

[JustinC939]

^^ ha ha sorry.

When you said "great start indeed" I assuemd that you were referring to my original post and thus replying to me.

[Phopojijo]

^^ ha ha sorry.

When you said "great start indeed" I assuemd that you were referring to my original post and thus replying to me.

Yeah... but you really should have read my post a bit better and noticed that some things I said really wouldn't make sense unless I was pro same-sex marriage.

I mean I know you're used to these guys posting but still.

[JustinC939]

Correct, but I read your post with the presumption that you were anti-gay marriage, and took your post as just that. But I only quoted the end of the post, and only skimmed the rest of your post.....
People here have done it to me in the rare occasion that I'll take the conservative side of an argument...
We're all human.

[AMDScooter]

^^^ I love the tendency of the left to attempt to "redefinition" words. Apparently from what's written above it's okey~dokey because "it won't hurt you". So that's the criteria you think works? Sure.. I'll play along for now. You know what else hurts no one? Leaving marriage alone and having a civil union. Same "logic" cuts both ways right?

[JustinC939]

^^^ I love the tendency of the left to attempt to "redefinition" words. Apparently from what's written above it's okey~dokey because "it won't hurt you". So that's the criteria you think works? Sure.. I'll play along for now. You know what else hurts no one? Leaving marriage alone and having a civil union. Same "logic" cuts both ways right?

Again, nobody is redefining anything.

And civil unions might offend those who would rather be married in the eyes of the law.
Try again

[AMDScooter]

Again, nobody is redefining anything.

You are simply being dishonest here. The definition is being changed and even Phopojijo is honest about that point.

Think for a second. What is the fight over? The redefinition of a word which if done provides the same rights to homosexuals as is provided to you without diminishing any of your rights.

And civil unions might offend those who would rather be married in the eyes of the law.
Try again

And marriage by something other than a man and a woman offends many of those whose religion marriage is a institution of.

No need for me to try again.. the "logic" failed the first time it was pitched as it only represents the possible harm it might cause of those looking to change the definition of marriage into consideration. As I said above.. the "logic" cuts both ways right? Apparently not.

[JustinC939]

You are simply being dishonest here. The definition is being changed and even Phopojijo is honest about that point.





And marriage by something other than a man and a woman offends many of those whose religion marriage is a institution of.

No need for me to try again.. the "logic" failed the first time it was pitched as it only represents the possible harm it might cause of those looking to change the definition of marriage into consideration. As I said above.. the "logic" cuts both ways right? Apparently not.

explain how anybody is changing the definition of marriage.
As for religious people getting offended. So what! You dont have a right to not get offended by what other people do in this country. And how is the right of any religious group to decide what's right for everybody else?