what percentage of the gay vote will Santorum get?

[Redefeatbush04]

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

J. J. :

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?

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

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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.

[Redefeatbush04]

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.

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

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.

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

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Redefeatbush04]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[J. J.]

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

J. J. :

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?

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.).

[Redefeatbush04]

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.

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. :

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?

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?

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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.

[phk]

He probably believes that MTV makes people gay.

[Redefeatbush04]

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.

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.......

[J. J.]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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.

[Redefeatbush04]

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.

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

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."

[Redefeatbush04]

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.

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

[Keystone Phil]

  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.

[Redefeatbush04]

  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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.