what percentage of the gay vote will Santorum get?

[Redefeatbush04]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 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.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

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?

[Redefeatbush04]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

[Redefeatbush04]

You said earlier that you didn't care that Kerry and Dean were anti-gay marriage but you attack me for having the same position.

 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.

Well I thought you kept ignoring it for that reason. You wouldn't address my point about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

 Are you that filled with hate? Tell me Phil, why should marriage be only between a man and a woman?

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?

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?

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.

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Redefeatbush04]

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

J. J. :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

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.

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

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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:
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:
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.

[Redefeatbush04]

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

J. J. :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

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.

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

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 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?

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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:
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:
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.

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.

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.......

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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:
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:
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.

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.

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

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

[Redefeatbush04]

 

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 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.

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.

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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:
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:
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.

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.

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

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

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

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.