Talk Elections

will he even break 10%?

Will he even break 1%?

Too much.

i seriously think he'll get less than 100 gay votes.

Maybe less than 100 out of the closet gay votes.

Many closeted gays will vote for Santorum, some are trying to "cure" themselves.

-4.2%

Around 3 percent.

I think Bob's pretty much right.

Depends upon whether he comes out before the election or not.

It's when someone realizes they can't win on the issues that they result to this stuff. Time to grow up opedo.

I was gonna say the same thing.  As I have said before I think the man's bitter for being raped by a priest when he was a 12 year old altar boy.  I also think he loved it and he's trying to cure himself.

Precisely! 

You're another one. DownTheCenter's comments are perfectly justified after the BS that you post. You have a sick mind and it's because you don't agree with the guy that you feel the need to post disgusting stuff. Hope you enjoy Majority Leader Santorum!

I don't consider the man's homosexuality to be disgusting.  In fact it is one of the few things that would give me hope for him! 

In any case, can you imagine the kind of lame sex a religious like him would have with his baby-factory of a wife?  For his sake I hope he's gay!

Should I post another pic so you can cry to your history teacher about me?

This post sickens me.

First off to opedo, I never said homosexuality is disgusting. I said BL's comments are disgusting.

Now for BL, what you say is so outrageous, so immature that it needs to be addressed. When someone has so much hate for another person, especially when they don't even know the person on a personal level, they should look into the problem that they have. Even Alcon, no Santorum fan, says your post is disgusting.

As for your pictures that you post, that's another thing that is a cause for concern. You can be a really sick person, BL and with that sort of BS, one could call you a troll.

I never cried to my history teacher about you. 1) If you knew anything, the man you are referring to isn't even my history teacher and 2) I never discussed you with any teacher. I don't know why you refer to that but I have no knowledge of ever bringing you up to a teacher. I've brought the points you produce up to other people, yes, but I don't think I'd have any reason to discuss the stuff you say with the person you're probably referring to.

GirlGoneWild...I mean..MickDemocrat..I mean Bicardi

You really need to chill with this disgusting garbage.

No one has posted anything 'disgusting' on here - it is Santorum's hateful bigotry that is disgusting.  He deserves worse vilification than anyone's resort to on this board.

Oh gee I was only joking vilifying him.  Of course I'm going to vilify Santorum until he leaves office which is hopefully January 20, 2007.  Hopefully after that date he will be a lobbyist so he won't screw over millions of people, just a few hundred.   

In a fascinating twist of fate, Rick Santorum has an office in Northeast Penna. that is adjacent to and shares a wall with gay bar.

Only joking? So now we should go around saying that people we disagree with were raped by priests? Take your hate for the Catholic Church and Rick Santorum elsewhere.

And to opedo, yes what BL said was disgusting and only shows that he needs to have some problems addressed by a doctor. The stories he comes up with are absolutley sick. You might not see it because you also hate Santorum but any person with some sanity could tell that what he says is over the line. And he wonders why people call him names...

Sadly I think it's homegrown by his parents. And even sadder is there are millions of kids being brainwashed the same way.

I guess no one is allowed to be opposed to gay marriage anymore, Akno? No one should be able to say "I don't approve of a gay lifestyle?"

What exactly is the gay lifestyle? Snorting Cocaine and doing casual sex or something? This would be a shock to my gay friends, who are perfectly nice people. Many aren't even sexually attracted to men, just romantically - they just want to be able to someday be recognized as loving their partner.

Anyone who generalizes an entire group to one "lifestyle" is a blind fool who thinks that stereotyping poor behavior over an entire group is appropriate.

I assume, Phil, that is not what you meant to do. I hope, at least.

I do not mean what you stated. I think that just because I don't accept the idea of most gays that they should marry and some other things they do that I should be branded a gay hater or that I was brainwashed. 

Now just as you stated the generalization of gays is foolish, so is the generalization that someone like Santorum, who wants to preserve the insitution of mariage, is a gay hater. I'm tired of that. I'm also tired of hearing that Santorum was raped by a priest from some angry partisan who needs to seek some serious help. You don't say that about people.

I don't think people should be branded that way.

I honestly must tell you that I don't buy "preserving the institution of marriage" for a moment. You are uncomfortable around gay people and reflect that in your political atitude.

I have no problem with that, but the institution of marriage alone suggests that you believe letting gays in would hurt it. So, this truly is a result of you being uncomfortable - I personally think it would improve the institution of marriage.

I personally don't care. It doesn't hurt my life, and it improves theirs. It isn't going to stop me from getting married, nor anyone else. Saying that gays would ruin the institution of marriage is saying that their love is of an inferior quality to heterosexual love. End of story.

What IrishDemocrat says is foul and horrible, and he should be ashamed of himself, but I still do not believe for a moment that you find heterosexual love on the same level as homosexual love.

Excuse me, Alcon but don't tell me that I'm uncomfortable around anyone if you don't know me personally. I am for marriage being between a man and a woman. I don't think that means I am suddenly uncomfortable around a certain group of people. If that is the case, I guess all those who oppose gay marriage on your side are simply hiding their dislike for gays, right?

As for BL's comments, I don't know why you would tie that in with the way I feel about love. It has nothing to do with the subject. I stated that I am opposed to gay marriage. Don't like that? Too bad. I want you to comment on whether or not Kerry or Dean think gay love is on the same level of straight love because after all they are opposed to gay marriage too....or are you just targeting me because I'm a Republican and a Santorum fan, Alcon?

First of all, I may be crazy, but I thought you previously have said that you are uncomfortable around gay people. I may be thinking of someone else. I would not accuse someone of something like this without further proof. The fact that you believe maintaining the dictionary definition of marriage over giving happiness to millions of people who feel that their love is "wrong" shows that your priorities are not with the latter. That says something.

I truly do not care what Kerry or Dean think on the subject. I am not them. However, I personally do not see what the "sanctity of marriage" is. The religiousness of it? Do you not think gay marriages are holy marriages? Or their love, for that matter, is worth that sanctity?

Do you, out of curiosity, believe that homosexual and heterosexual love is on an equal level?

In any case, I really do not care whether you like Santorum. I am "targeting you" (if that is what you call replying to your post) because I disagree with it, not because you like some random senator.

I said I would be uncomfortable if a gay person came up to me and started hitting on me as would most people.

And don't you dare say I'm denying happiness to anyone. Gay people can have happiness. Don't even go there. This is where people like myself are portrayed as "gay haters" because of those comments.

If you don't care what Kerry or Dean (members of your party) think, then we will end this conversation. You say you don't care what their position is because you are not them? Well you're not me either, Alcon. You obviously want to attack me yet refuse to acknowledge that some your fellow Democrats are against gay marriage, too.

If you want to target me, target Dean and Kerry and every other anti-gay marriage Democrat, Alcon. Don't be a hypocrite.

That is not the quote I was thinking about. It was someone else. My apologies.


If people portray you that way because of my comments, shame on them. Hate and disagreement are two very different things. From my conversations with people who are gay, I have found that this is a sore spot, regardless of what you think - it is a completion, less so than happiness. This was poorly worded, but my meaning was the same.


You know me, Phil. Am I a party cheerleader? Really, because as far as I know, the only reason I am a Democrat is because my politics matches the party. Hell, I feel no deep love for my party or its members. I agree with them frequently, but there are a lot of people who I agree with and don't like.

Don't think I'm attacking you - I am not. I am trying to interpret what I see as your beliefs, and you are free to correct me. I have no desire to attack you, as it gives me no gain.

I'm not sure how not caring about what Dean or Kerry thinks of gay marriage is not acknowledging it. I do acknowledge it, in the same way I acknowledge that the capital of Iceland is Reykjavik and don't even remotely care. If they were on this message board, too, I would care, yet I don't.


There are many bad things I am, I am sure, but I am not a hypocrite. In fact, I'm not sure how if I was doing that it would be hypocritical since I'm not accusing you of not targeting some sort of group, but that is besides the point.

I disagree with their positions. If they were here, I would be having this same debate with them. And why would I not? You infer that I don't target Democrats because I agree with them - yet here I don't! What sort of political gain could I make from not attacking them? What sort of gain could I make from attacking you? I'm not a candidate for any office.

You are feeling personally attacked too easily here, I am afraid. I may be doing something I do not realize, but trying to understand your feelings on this is very different from what other people have done by attacking you and I am disappointed that you feel that I am doing the same thing.

I don't care that you are either. I'm not interested in changing your opinion, but rather in understanding them. I equally disagree with Kerry and Dean as I do with you because you all have the same belief. I can't understand how anyone could possibly see the same issue as differently because someone is in their own party. That is a stupid concept that only partisan idiots could agree with.


I understand that you think that, but my question is what you believe the sanctity of marriage is. I have never had anyone respond to this question - ever. Everyone always stops at your point. 60% of the population agrees with you, and this is the one issue I haven't been able to understand the opposition to. That is all I want to know - what you consider the sanctity of marriage to be.

I already apologized for saying that you are uncomfortable around them. I misremembered something that you had said, and am at fault for that. I really do apologize. I tried to find the post first to assure I was correct, but it has been buried.

I think that when you understand that I started that post not understanding your feeling towards gay people, the post will make a lot more sense, and again I truly do apologize for the mix-up. I do not want to demonize you, a person who I very much respect.

The sanctity of marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. I believe it is a gift from God because through marriage, the love shared by two individuals, new life is brought into this world.

Do you support civil unions?

Never actually made up my mind on this issue but I would lean towards being in favor of civil unions.

Although I disagree with you on gay marriage itself, I can understand that and even respect that.

Thank you very much. I apologize for sounding aggressive, which in retrospect I probably did. I've been talking with CARLHAYDEN too much. ;)

Alcon, traditionally, many denominations have taken this view of marriage, and, in all fairness to be a type of property contract.  Many people see the sole reason for marriage to be procreation.  It is biologically impossible for same sex couples to naturally procreate.

I do not see marriage as being for procreation, as there are many married couples with no children and many unmarried couples with them.

I really think marriage should be a contract of love, not a property/religious/whatever one.

In that case, why don't same sex couples have their own little ceremony and proclaim that they are "married?" Two gay people can truly love each other without getting married. That's why I get angry whenever I see a gay couple on TV saying "We just want to get married because of love. Love is all we want to share." No that's not the situation. Benefits, taxes...THAT'S the reason. That's why I'd consider being in favor of civil unions but not marriage.

I know I'm going to regret getting in to this, but if marriage between a man and woman is to bring in new life, then to do we need to further define marriages as just that?  Do we need to have fertility testing prior to marriage, and if either person is infertile, they can't be married?  Or couples that have no desire to have children?  Or, older people who may be past child-bearing age that want to be married? 

IMO, marriage should be a contract between two consenting people, no different than organizing a business or any other legally binding matter.  It is up to the individuals to define how that contract should be carried out.  And if they wish or desire a religious aspect to the execution of that contract (a church marriage), than that is their right. 

But those people should not have the right to impose their will, beliefs or desires on others who to wish to conduct their business differently.

<stepping off his soapbox>

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone!!!

Oh, and to get back to the topic on this thread, I think Santorum could pull 10% of the gay vote.  If there is more emphasis put on economic issues than social, the percentage could go higher.  I know I will NOT be voting for him, and I will be working with other organizations to get Rick out of office in 2006.

Well, of course it is for the benefits and taxes. That's what heterosexual marriage is for, too. The legal definition of marriage, I believe, should be seperate from personal definitions. Churches could not perform gay marriages if they so desired in my view; however, I do not think government marriage should be anything other than the taxes or whatnot. It is not the government's job to enforce moral standards.

But you just said that marriage is a contract of love. It looks like you left out the taxes and benefits in your earlier statements.

Honestly, I didn't really think about that. As someone who doesn't pay taxes, they are not in the front of my mind.

I think marriage should be a contract of love, yes. However, I think the government's definition of marriage should not have anything to do with love. The government works best as a cold, heartless machine.

I think that there should be givil unions for all :)

And churches can marry Bob Jones and his favorite pet rock Ty if they really wanted to.  But they could not apply for a civil union becuase Ty is not sentient.

I completley agree that the priest comment was over the line.

However Mr Santorum iis far from an innocent man.  His comments speak volumes.  He isn't about so called "preseving traaditional marriage".  The man has nothing but a pure & utter deep hatred for gays.  Just look at the guy's comments.  Comparing gays to beastitality.  THAT IS HATE.  If it wasn't hate & that he just opposed gay marriage, he would have said just that & not thrown in the beastiality crap into the mix.  Santorum gets villified as a gay hater not because that he opposes gay marriage, but because of his utter hate filled comments.

Santorum's comments were over the line but I really don't think he hates gay people. I hope that in one of the Senatorial debates in 2006 that someone asks Santorum "Do you hate gays?" so he can explain his full position. I truly believe that he is not a hateful man.

I think that his speeches where he compared gay marriage to a man marrying (and, inferred by that, copulating with) a turtle and other such scenarios were all uncalled for.  I can see his positions, but I am afraid that the man is not a reserved public speaker. I have a quote book which features a lot of truly questionable things Santorum has said that I got for Christmas. Some of it should never have come out of his mouth.

Just  look at what he said.  I know he is your hero and everything and you don't think he is capable of being full of hate, just look at the comments.  Those comments WERE AND ARE HATE

If he really hated gays, he would come out and say it. He speaks his mind. We already know that.

What I mainly have a problem with regards to Santorum is his blatent opposition to the right to privacy.  What he thinks about homosexuals may be hateful indeed, but he is entitled to think what he wants about them.   

Why can't you do that all the time? Your argument above was free of name calling and free of the disgusting stuff. Let's try to keep it that way. That's all I ask. I might disagree with your points but if we remain calm in our debate, we won't be at each other's throats all the time.

If he doesn't hate gays than why does he compare their lifestyle to beastiality??????????

Just look at what he has said about them.  You don'y have to come out & say I hate you about someone.  If you constantly talk bad about them, completley belittle their lifestyle and compare their lifestyle to barbaric practices, that pretty much shows you hate that person or group of people.  And thats exactly whan Santorum has said about gays.

Santorum blatantly and obviously hates homosexuals.

Santorum has been criticized about this for quite some time. The man speaks his mind. If he really hated gays, he would just say it.

Comparing their lifestyle to beastiality doesn't do that??

If Santorum really hated gays, he would come out and say it. He speaks his mind. I don't know how many times I have to say this to you, Smash.

Much like beastiality, homosexuality is disgustingly unnatural.

Many people find some heterosexual practices, even within a marriage, "disgustingly unnatural."

Much like beastiality, Southern culture is just disgusting.

So says a Pennsylvanian. Why does your sports arena in Philly have to have a jail?

Yeah, we have mini-electric chairs in our arenas :)

'Disgusting' is a purely subjective term, refering to personal taste, so I won't argue with that.  I find religious disgusting - to each his own, eh?

But why would you say 'unnatural'?  What do you mean by that?  What're your arguments?  Just your socialized disgust reaction?  In fact it isn't unnatural, and even if it were, why is that a criticism?  Is your argument that sperm should only go into a vagina for producing offspring?  In that case is homosexuality any more unnatural than masturbation?  What're your views on masturbation and wives giving husbands BJs?

I would describe those things as foreplay, within a marital relationship.  Even outside of marriage, these are part of the mating ritual and lead to procreation.

You can claim that, as part of biology, that reproduction is "natural," an evolutionary imperative, in fact.  A sizable part of the reasons, historically, for marriage, is to promote procreation, to encourage a "natural" act. 

A same sex relationship will not produce that result, as a natural act.  Artificial, perhaps, but not natural.

Homosexuality comes natural to homosexuals. The same way homosexuality happens to come naturally to some animals. BTW, only the most advanced species seem to have homosexuals.

Would you care to back up your statement with, oh, what are they called, oh, yes, facts.

A subgroup within a species, either through choice or by an inherited trait, is an evolutionary dead end.  In the human species, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally reproduce. 

Now that is a factual statement and is not is not a moral judgment.

I really could care less who is an evolutionary dead end and frankly can't see what it has to do with gay marriage.

An article was posted just a few days ago about homosexuality being observed in animals. It is especially known to occur among Zebras and even Dolphins. That I learned from the Discovery Channel, as a matter of fact I thought that was actually common knowledge. I also remember reading a few articles online about it.

But again, I stand by my statement that homosexuality comes natural to homosexuals. Just as heterosexuality comes naturally to heterosexuals.

And those animals that practice it exclusively will not reproduce; I am aware that it can occur in nature, but that isn't evidence that it's not a learned trait.  I will again ask you to show some factual information that sexual preference "comes naturally?"  I'll include heterosexuality in that.

You "statement" is not suffient proof.

Did you learn that you were attracted to the opposite sex, or did it just come to you?

Any species has an interest in continuing its existence as a species.  We really must include humans in that.

The state, an organization of humans, on that basic level, has an interest in promoting this continuation.  Sorry, but that the basic part of it.

There's plenty of heterosexual humans.


I've actually heard the theory that homosexuality is an evolutionary reaction to overpopulation.

I, frankly, have never been able to answer that question; I actually have posted that before.  I would note that if I feel a need to pass my genetics on, my options are limited.

Possibly, but it does occur in environments that are not overcrowded.

You can make the argument in populations which are overcrowded, a crowded, closed environment, that homosexuality is a reaction to it.  You can also make the argument that, in a society where there limited access to the opposite sex, it might be a reaction to that.

Those things don't explain the situation, nationally, in the United States.

Penguins are advanced species?

------

Sat Dec 25, 1:31 AM ET

TOKYO (AFP) - Researchers have found a number of same-sex pairs of penguins at aquariums in Japan, with an imbalance between the numbers of male and female birds suspected to be the cause, a report said.

A research group led by Keisuke Ueda, professor of behavioral ecology at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found about 20 same-sex pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos, Kyodo news agency said.

Penguins in captivity "may be more likely to form same-sex pairs" due to the difficulty of finding partners of the opposite sex because breeding facilities in Japan only have an average of 20 birds, the agency quoted Ueda as saying.

It is not known if the frequency of homosexuality is higher than in the wild, where telling the sexes apart is tough, he said.

Many of the gay male pairs and two of the female pairs were seen performing mounting behavior, it said.

Ueda was not available for comment on the report.

The nice thing about this, since the gay Penguins will not be able to reproduce, Darwin's theory will lead the way to the survival of the fittest . . . being straight Penguins . . . hence the term "natural."

I've also heard the same about Lesbianism and seagulls.

I have heard that rats, in overcrowding situations, will exibit homosexual activities, but I couldn't find the direct studies on the web.

I didn't just wake up one morning and say "Hmmn, i'm going to be a homo".

Although, I did admit to myself that I was gay on the 3rd of December, 2002.

When I realised I was almost 15 and not sexually attracted to even the hottest of females, I spent about three months just staring at breasts trying to feel something, or at legs or hair or especially faces, and got nothing. Not to go into to much detail, but a male thumb gets me more excited then a naked woman, and I'm not dissapointed there is no 'cure' :p

I didn't wake up one morning and decide I was going to be heterosexual either, because I have no idea what triggers sexual preference. 

Of course maybe something in those 15 years triggered your turn down that path.  Or possibly it was a number of factors.  I realize it's not a willful choice, but it still may be a choice at a subconscious level.

The problem is the word sanctity which is literally "saintliness or holiness". Their are no non-religious reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed, and therefore to disallow gay marriage would be to respect an establishment of religion, which as everyone knows is in violation of the first amendment. I understand that you are not comfortable around gays but did you ever stop to think that being hated and mocked by all makes them a bit uncomfortable. To amend the constitution to destroy marriage between them does not improve your quality of life, it only destroys theirs. Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

I agree with Dan. Homosexuality is not unnatural, merely unusual.

On another note, Santorum doesn't hate gays, he just let a stupid comment slip. As much as I hate the man, this has been overblown.

You'll note that I have not once raised a religious argument about this; I'll start there.

There are some non-religious reasons.

First, is the purely biological issue.  Procreation.  The nation state does have interest in increasing and maintaining population.  You won't have that happening, without technical support, in a same sex couple.  Sorry, I can't change that.

Second is the legal reason, which I'm surprised no one has raised.  We have an overburdened legal system.  We are effectively creating contracts.  Some of those contracts will terminate prior to the death of one of the parties.  That will create more court cases.  As a  corollary to that, we have substancial caselaw and statute on different sex marraige.  Those, because of biological difference, may not apply and we'll have to grow another system to habdle it.  Who gets the alimony, for example?

Third is the idea that families, in a traditional sense, do provide some stability for society.  A same sex couple in not going to look at the societal values, e.g. public education, in the same light as different sex couples.  The latter will have more of a stake is these societial values than the former.

Fourth is political.  I strongly oppose on a matter of principle that because MA permits it that PA should be forced to as well.

sterile people can't reproduced either and they can get married. irrelevant.


so we cover this in the marriage laws. lots of things cause legal troubles. that's why we have a system. it's not worth removing rights from a portion of the population


and what harm comes from this. List some actual problems that come from this "lack of stability in society" nonsense.


And if MA wants to permit interracial marriages, MS shouldn't be forced to as well.

I'm suprised no Republican has answered the original question. Come on Phil, tell me how gays love Santorum too, just as there are supposedly loads of Kerry voters who worship at his feet.

Don't tell me I am full of hate when you don't even know me. One of the main reasons why I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman is because of procreation.

So the elderly should not be able to marry??  Those that can't have kids should not be able to marry?

The next thing you know they'll be wanting to make birth control illegal again!

I don't approve of "the pill" but I would not call for it to be illegal.

It is not their fault that they cannot have children. They aren't doing something unnatural that prevents a life from coming into the world.

So your the judge on whats natural and whats unnatural??

Well when we look at this situation, Smash, wouldn't you agree that a man and a man or a woman and a woman don't have the ability to create a child?

Granted, but old people don't have that ability, sterile people don't have that ability.

You mentioned that its not the sterile person or the old person's fault that they can't have kids.  You know what its not the gay person's fault either, its not their fault that they happen to be gay. 

We don't really know if that's true, Smash.

'Fault' doesnt' enter into it because it is neither better nor worse than heterosexuality.  Additionally it is none of your business.

Not all of those who get married have children, furthermore, it should be viewed as a positive thing. Our planet is already overpopulated. I have probablly mentioned it before, but if everyone on earth consumed what the average american consumes, we would need four earths. It is essential that we keep our population stable. Allowing gays to marry does this. If they are not allowed to marry each other they will end up doing what Mcgreevey did and marrying someone anyway. Lets pretend for a sec that there is a lesbian couple and a gay couple, and that both couples want to get married. One gay guy and one lesbian marry. The other gay guy and the other lesbian marry. The two couples move in together with the gay guys in one room and the lesbians in another. They all get the benefits of marriage. Is this ok?

So you believe that gays should not marry because too many people are getting married and too many court cases resulting, maybe if the divorce rate were a tad lower we wouldn't have this problem. This issue will not go away once gay marriage is banned and I'm sorry but that seems like a weak reason. "too many people are getting married so it is ok to discriminate". They should be looked at the same and the marriages carried out in the same manner. There does not need to be a seperate system for gays and even if there does, which is highly doubt, why is the creation of more jobs is a bad thing.


Everyone is looking for stability in society. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary that gays be allowed to marry. I agree that gays and straights view things differently but allowing them to marry will not change their views on societal values (public education) enough to cause any problems.


What about the death penalty? Should it be illegal because TX permits it and MA feels that it should be forced to permit it as well?

Yes they can't have kids but this does not affect you in any way so it should not bother you. Yet for some reason seeing gays benefit from something really pisses you off because it gives them equal rights and you want to feel superior.

Yeah, that's it. I want to feel superior. Gays are suppressed in this country. They are not equal. Is that what you want to hear? I don't actually believe anything I just typed but at this point you guys are so convinced that people like myself and Santorum hate gays that maybe that will satisfy you.

Hey redefeat, how about abortion? You're Pro Life, right? Abortion doesn't directly affect you in anyway so why be Pro Life?

I used to have a lot of respect for you. However, now you come here and tell me that I hate people and want to feel superior. You should be ashamed of your comment.

I respect you too. You know a lot about politics and I don't want our disagreement on this issue to turn bitter but you have not provided a concrete explanation as to why gay marriage should be disallowed. The relationship between gays not being able to have kids and you is significantly weaker than the rrelationship between legalizing the murder of children and me. I could have been one of those children phil. It would have affected me then. The only way that gays not having kids could even possibly affect you is if you are the gay. And even then it only affects you in a positive way.

1.  The vast majority of different sex couples can reproduce.  Are you claiming the same think about the vast majority of same sex couples?

2.  You are not removing rights; you are creating are contractural rights.  They did not exist prior to creating.  How those will work will be complex.

3.  There have been profound changes when the family unit changes.  One was transition from the old-style extended or "farm family" beginning the 1910's, to the "nuclear family."  This created a new society and, in some ways spawned the need for new programs, such as Social Security and Welfare.  I'm not saying that these are wrong; I am saying they were changes needed because society changed.

Here is a simple point, can a man "marry" his widowed grandfather to get Social Security survivors benefits?

4.  Race is one of those "protected areas," rightly, by statute.  Sexual preference, and a few other things, are not.

Now, let's look at one that isn't, ago.  I went back to 1982, so the numbers might have changed, but the principle is still the same.  In liberal MA, someone below the age of 16 need both parental consent and court permission to marry.  In you neighboring state of KS, a 12 year old girl needed only parental consent.  Should a 12 year old girl, even if permitted to by her parents, been permitted to fly from Boston to Topeka, marry her boyfriend and then return to Boston?  My answer is that this would still violate the laws of MA.

Why should this be any different if it's a man and a boy and it it's legal in one state.  The states do have a role, established in caselaw (which the court addressed in the  "Loving Case," which overturned the VA ban interracial marriage).

I've referred to most of this in my response to opebigot and correct your grossest error.  :-)


You have missed the point entirely.  TX has the death penalty; MA does not.  I have no problem with this.  I would have a problem, the same problem, if TX said, "Since we have a death penalty, MA, you have to have one, too."

It would not bother me in the least if MA legislature, or any other state's legislature chooses to allow same sex marriage.   I do have a problem when the courts say, okay, because another state does this, you have to as well.

That why I support a Constitutional Amendment that would take this out the Federal Court's realm.  Now, that is a lot different from what you thought I said.

You claimed I was full of hate and wanted to feel superior. You have lost my respect.


This was a discussion about gay marriage. It affects me because I see marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I'm not going to apologize because I care about something that might not directly affect me and my life. Right now you are alive. Abortion did not directly affect you so according to your argument, you shouldn't care.

not really. there is a constitutional amendment banning the death penalty (8th) and it is still not out of the federal courts realm

I don't think gays love Santorum and you know I don't think that. You just want to be angry about something. You are angry that people in this state like the guy. Get over it. You're angry because he has some of the highest approval ratings in the state. Get over it. You're angry because he has the lowest disapproval ratings. Get over it.

You can be as sarcastic as you'd like, BRTD. You obviously don't know the state. There were a good amount of Gore supporters that liked Santorum and the same can be said about people who voted for Kerry in this election. You watch. When 2006 roles around and Santorum gets re-elected, I can't wait to hear your excuses. Then you might get Majority Leader Santorum. I can't wait.

Abortion affects thousands of people in a cruel and irreversable way each year. Gay marriage does not affect anyone in a negative way. It amazes me that you can compare the killing of a baby to marriage of two individuals of the same sex. I KNOW THAT YOU SEE MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. I HAVE KNOWN THAT FROM THE BEGINNING. WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IS WHY YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY A PIECE OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES SIMPLY BECAUSE THE THOUGHT OF THEM MARRYING IS UNPLEASANT. I KNOW I KNOW. THEY CAN'T PROCREATE AND THEREFORE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO CAN PROCREATE WILL BE IN MENTAL ANGUISH. OK FINE YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ME. IF THAT IS THE PRICE I HAVE TO PAY TO STAND UP FOR THE OPPRESSED SO BE IT. I DID NOT WANT TO OFFEND YOU BUT I GUESS SOMETIMES THE TRUTH HURTS

I wasn't comparing marriage to the killing of an innocent life. I was saying that abortion doesn't directly concern you since you decided to play the "Gay Marriage doesn't affect you" game.

And yet you continue to use this line that gays are oppressed. Are gays told by the government to drink at seperate water fountains? Is that the oppression you speak of? You're just an angry person like the rest of the anti-Santorum crowd. Someone like myself doesn't support gay marriage and suddenly I hate gays. I feel I am superior. That's not true at all but you'll never acknowledge that. You'll continue saying that I hate gays because I disagree with you. You're a joke.

No they do not drink at seperate water fountains but they do have seperate rights (marriage) which is precisely what I disagree with. Actually I am not all that angry. I am trying to carry out a rational conversation (I will try and refrain from anything that you might take offense to as you are obviously very sensative), and you back down and throw a temper tantrum. Calm down dude! You don't hate gays......better? Now tell me......what negative affects on society does non-traditional marriage (those that can not procreate) have and why does it warrent a constitutional amendment.

I'm obviously very sensitive or are you just throwing around BS claims that I feel superior to gays and think they should be suppressed?

Then you speak of a temper tantrum when you just finished up saying that you're "standing up to oppression" and "the truth hurts."

You never attempted to carry out a rational conversation. You made ridiculous claims because I disagree with you.

As for my position on gay marriage, if you didn't jump to conclusions you'd find out that I do not believe that constitutional amendment was necessary. I disagreed with Santorum and the President on that issue. As for how it would be a negative affect on society, I believe it opens up the posibility of all kinds of new marriages. I believe in traditional marriage and so does most of society. At some point you might have a forty year old man wanting to marry a sixteen year old because they're "in love." Marriage would lose it's seriousness if we begin to redefine it.

Wrong once again.  The 8th detemines if a pubishment for a crime is "cruel and unsual" and if fines or bails are "excessive."

The court has determined that, in some cases, death meets that requirement and in at least one case (with Justice Thomas in the majority) that a fine was excessive in a criminal case.  Here we are talking criminal cases, only about the role of a state legislature and indirectly the role of the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1.).

Alright Phil, since you obviously have no intention to make peace and you already have no respect for me, and since I have no way of regaining that respect ...... ah.....what the hell....

Me: Why do you oppose non-traditional marriage
You: I believe in traditional marriage and so does most of society

Me: What negative affects on society does non-traditional (those that can not procreate) marriage have
You: It will lead to old people marrying young people
Me: :o
You: Yeah you know. If gays marry then a two year old boy will marry a 65 year old transvestite rapist. It all makes sense.
Me: :o
You: Kind of like when women got the right to vote. Now look! Blacks can vote! What a disgrace! And now they can marry whites too!!! Damn liberals.

Phil I know I have pissed you off but lighten up man. You need to relax. Think about what you are saying, even though it is obvious that I don't think about what I am saying kind of like this sentence which is a run-on sentence I think because it has a lot of words which is usually gramatically wrong ;)

Point being think about the logic. If gays marry, it will not lead to people marrying inanimate objects. It will not lead to children marrying old people. Those that are getting married are both two consenting adults who are VERY serious about their relationship, perhaps more serious because it is probablly more difficult to find another partner with only a small fraction of the US being homosexual and all. Marriage will gain a higher meaning, not the other way around.

alright so i am side-tracking the debate. I could argue about the legality of the death penalty but that it is for a different thread ;)

If you want to argue w/ me about it go to the thread in the political debate forum. sorry for getting off topic.

The point is that it bothers you that PA is pressured into allowing gay marriage in the same way it bothers me that MA is forced to not allow gay marriage. Although i strongly support gay marriage I feel that each individual state should decide and that no state should be forced into either allowing or disallowing gay marriage. do you concur?

I don't need to lighten up. I went into this not minding debate. You decided to start the name calling.

I have stated my opinion and I would hope that you don't distort it.

He probably believes that MTV makes people gay.

You know Phil......your argument so far seems pretty consistent with one of Bush's famous arguments:

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."

and nothing more.......

I would object to a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit state legislatures from permitting it.  As to my own state, I'll reserve judgment, though I would still have those other objections.  

If NJ (next door)wanted to do that, I wouldn't object, provided it wasn't forced on PA.  I feel the same way about common law marriages, in reverse.  If we want to do it, which they did for a number of years, fine, but we shouldn't force that on NJ.

I gave you my reasons. You don't like them.

If we liked each others opinions this would not be a political debate

 
Alright I agree with you on that. I am confused though. Which constitutional amendment are you talking about when you say you support a Constitutional Amendment that would take this out the Federal Court's realm.

Well I stated my feelings are you're pretty much saying all I said was "I have a position and I'm right."

would you like to continue debating the issue phil or are you going to keep whining? I have an opinion. You have an opinion. We both believe or opinion is right. Lets debate the logic behind our opinions, instead of talking about how our feelings have been hurt

You have to be one of the biggest hypocrites. You'd flip out if anyone made a comment about gays but you were the first one to suggest that someone that doesn't support gay marriage hates gays, wants to see them surpressed, thinks they are superior, etc.

I don't think this debate will go any further.

I guess the answer is no....you do not want to continue debating and yes you do want to keep whining. Go ahead continue. Let me know when you are done so we can get back to talking about gay marriage.

Basically, I would support an amedment to the US Constitution something like this.  "Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to authorize marriages between people of the same sex."  I'm looking at the this as limitation on the Federal judiciary, not as a prohibition on same sex marriages. 

That does not prohibit a state constitutions from authorizing it nor would it prohibit statute from authorizing it.  It's more of a states rights position, though there are arguably good reasons why it might not be a good for a legislative enaction.