Kids of Republicans pull parents to the left on gay marriage

[CountryClassSF]

If there's a "constitutional right" to marry anyone you want though, that's a slippery slope.  That is why I cannot understand why people can't support SSM without believing its a constitutionally guaranteed protection.

That's a different point. Indeed, many people support SSM without necessarily believing it is a Constitutional right. I wrestle with that issue myself, and at this point, focus on the right to travel issue. It is rather heavy lifting to find that the meaning of  the Constitution has evolved based on societal evolution on this particular issue, but the right to travel is rather well settled precedent now, although obviously not previously applied to this issue, but then the issue has only arisen as some states have legalized SSM, some having indeed done it by statute rather than judicial fiat to boot.

That I can understand.  If the court legalizes it federally under the situation where with DOMA being struck down, out-of-state marriages being recognized but in-state not creates an equal protection issue.

And I do know that some conservatives and libertarians support this view, but it doesn't get media coverage.

My prayer and hope is that there can be understanding amongst gay Republicans and others that opposition to SSM is not based on hatred.

And that  people can distinguish between individual discrimination vs ceremonial discrimination when it comes to service businesses

[AggregateDemand]

Who pray tell has ever posted the bolded bit, or any facsimile thereof? Anyway, I stipulate that certain other segments of the population face more real discrimination in real life than single gay men, and that is irrespective of what the law says. The law can only do so much as a practical, and prudential, matter.

Denial and rationalization in one post. Congrats.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you explain your position? I'm apt to defend it and probably agree with you but I haven't understood your points

[Torie]

Who pray tell has ever posted the bolded bit, or any facsimile thereof? Anyway, I stipulate that certain other segments of the population face more real discrimination in real life than single gay men, and that is irrespective of what the law says. The law can only do so much as a practical, and prudential, matter.

Denial and rationalization in one post. Congrats.

You're welcome. Is there any real need to be so abrasive about this all btw?  Have I treated you in that way at all?

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

If there's a "constitutional right" to marry anyone you want though, that's a slippery slope.  That is why I cannot understand why people can't support SSM without believing its a constitutionally guaranteed protection.

People are born gay. People aren't born polygamists.

[AggregateDemand]

Can you explain your position? I'm apt to defend it and probably agree with you but I haven't understood your points.

My position is that the SSM debate is the symptom of a much larger disease, but I'm not interested in treating symptoms anymore.

There is no equity in our system between married and single. The tax code is FUBAR and graduated rates are inherently flawed. People do not have equality of relationship contract, either. SSM does virtually nothing, other than re-establish stability so the House Ways and Means, Senate Finance Committee, and state legislators can get back to their usual task of designing an arcane system of rights and punishments based upon our relationship status.

To make matters worse, a bunch of numbskulls are running around the country in a fever, legally enslaving people via the remedy of specific performance, which generates incalculable ill-will between various American demographics, while stimulating reactionary backlash.

If we set out to fail, the societal outcome would probably be less damaging.

[pbrower2a]

I made the case on law and order -- that gay-bashing is a violent and inexcusable act, that a straight person can't reliably prove that he is straight to the satisfaction of an angry bigot, and that whatever reduces antipathy toward gays and lesbians reduces the possibility of violent crimes against real or imagined homosexuals.

Law and order is the first civil right; without it civil rights are pipe dreams.

I made this case to two different people, conservatives for different reasons. One is about as pure a free-enterprise advocate as is possible.  The other is a fundamentalist Christian.  

[SteveRogers]

Can you explain your position? I'm apt to defend it and probably agree with you but I haven't understood your points.

My position is that the SSM debate is the symptom of a much larger disease, but I'm not interested in treating symptoms anymore.

There is no equity in our system between married and single. The tax code is FUBAR and graduated rates are inherently flawed. People do not have equality of relationship contract, either. SSM does virtually nothing, other than re-establish stability so the House Ways and Means, Senate Finance Committee, and state legislators can get back to their usual task of designing an arcane system of rights and punishments based upon our relationship status.

To make matters worse, a bunch of numbskulls are running around the country in a fever, legally enslaving people via the remedy of specific performance, which generates incalculable ill-will between various American demographics, while stimulating reactionary backlash.

If we set out to fail, the societal outcome would probably be less damaging.

If you don't want to get married, then just don't get married.

[CountryClassSF]

I Just wish people could be a little more respectful.  When I was involved in gay-straight alliance in my high school (over a decade ago now! I'm ancient!), we focused on respect for people who are different. We focused on fostering an environment where no one is to be bullied. Now, we're seeing Christians being bullied -- or even gays who dissent being bullied (like the guys who met with Cruz).   That's frightening to me, and the main reason why I do not believe marriage should be redefined

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I won't.  But it's not that simple. Once SSM is imposed, why can't the battle then be declared over for the gay activists?  Why do the rest of us have to be forced to approve of or have it in our faces?

[Slander and/or Libel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I won't.  But it's not that simple. Once SSM is imposed, why can't the battle then be declared over for the gay activists?  Why do the rest of us have to be forced to approve of or have it in our faces?

In what way is it in your face?

I can't even understand how some people want to have on their tombstone, "Some people wanted to be happy. I fought like hell to make sure they couldn't."

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's on my face on TV, on the streets, in public spaces where any opposition expressed you run the risk of losing/not getting your job, being boycotted, or even receiving threats. The collectivists have created an environment where bullying is acceptable, just as long as its the Christians and gays w/ unorthodox views being ostracized and propagandized.

[Slander and/or Libel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's on my face on TV, on the streets, in public spaces where any opposition expressed you run the risk of losing/not getting your job, being boycotted, or even receiving threats. The collectivists have created an environment where bullying is acceptable, just as long as its the Christians and gays w/ unorthodox views being ostracized and propagandized.

When I got married, was it in your face?

If not, why was it in your face when my friend, who happens to be gay, got married?

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. But you had to mention it, so it is now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but you felt the need to mention it.

I'm talking about media portrayal, portrayals of opposition, and the intimidation factor

[King]

#SingleLivesMatter #PrayforAD

[Slander and/or Libel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. But you had to mention it, so it is now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but you felt the need to mention it.

I'm talking about media portrayal, portrayals of opposition, and the intimidation factor

I mentioned my own marriage too. It happened a while back. It wasn't in your face then. Now my mentioning that I'm married is shoving it in your face? Are you basically against all marriage now? Is my wearing a wedding ring tacitly shoving my nuptials down your throat?

[YaBoyNY]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. But you had to mention it, so it is now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but you felt the need to mention it.

I'm talking about media portrayal, portrayals of opposition, and the intimidation factor

When I met my girlfriend, I could swear we fell in love at first sight.

Is my straight relationship now in your face? Should we not be allowed to get married now because I put it "in your face"?

[CountryClassSF]

I am hurt by this subject and it is all I will say. The flaunting  life of some is something I am uncomfortable with

[Slander and/or Libel]

I am hurt by this subject and it is all I will say. The flaunting  life of some is something I am uncomfortable with

This is laughable.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We both know that is 100% different. There is a difference between doing it for this, and doing it for social status and media coverage and hurting Christians.

[Slander and/or Libel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We both know that is 100% different. There is a difference between doing it for this, and doing it for social status and media coverage and hurting Christians.

Give me an example of someone who got married to hurt Christians. Quick, don't think about it, just give me the first one that comes to your mind.

[King]

I am hurt by this subject and it is all I will say. The flaunting  life of some is something I am uncomfortable with

Lol. I guess you are a (drama) queen after all.

Perhaps you should go volunteer for a third world charity mission or enlist in the military to find some real sights to be hurt over, rather than the feeling of someone casually mentioning they have a spouse.

[CountryClassSF]

I have seen many  openly admit that they are all about making Christians feel hurt.  Our happiness and our feelings and our equality are meaningless

[AggregateDemand]

#SingleLivesMatter #PrayforAD

Don't pray for me, send money. Courting my fiance has cost tens of thousands in taxes alone. If we had run down to the JP on our first date, the government would have slashed my bill. Our relationship would be no different.

Reminds me of some debauched social custom you'd hear about in a Jane Austen novel. Congrats King. You may not have the wealth of the disgraceful landed aristocracy, but you have the apathy and the disdain for your fellow man.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I have seen many  openly admit that they are all about making Christians feel hurt.  Our happiness and our feelings and our equality are meaningless

Ok, so give me a link or something. You must have documented some of this. Shouldn't be hard.