So how did this guy get Re-elected?

[opebo]

How did this guy get Re-elected?

1) Religion
2) Anti-gay bigotry
3) Fear

Of course a small minority of those who voted for him were motivated by an accurate estimation of their economic interests.

[opebo]

The "anti gay" stuff is a pile of it.

Just because you don't want gay marriage crammed down your throat doesn't mean your anti gay.  Something you lefties can't seem to understand.  Too bad.  Continue to lose elections then.  Fine with me.

Religion?  Oh brother.  More of the Opedo paranoid obsession with Christianity. Being opposed to gay marriage is "anti-gay bigotry".  Contantly taking shots at Christians is what, Opedo?  Enlightened thinking?  You're the bigot.

How can one be 'bigoted' against an ideology? Particularly one that is blatantly against what I consider to be a decent life?  Hating religion is like hating communism or fascism - why wouldn't I hate the religious?  They're out to get me.

As for ramming things down your throat (hilarious image, that) - obviously you are an anti-gay bigot, because gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with you.  Other individual's marriage isn't your business, and the fact that you wish to make it so shows you're a freedom-hating religious. 

[opebo]

It's one thing to regulate someone else's behavior, and another to regulate your own behavior. Not recognizing gay marriage is the second

No, specifically barring same sex couples from marrying is to regulate the behaviour of others.  It has nothing whatever to do with your behaviour.

[opebo]

Same sex couples are not specifically barred from getting married. If there are two gay guys, and one decides to get married to a woman, he can do that. Anyone is allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex.

They are specifically barred from marrying one another.  That's none of your business.. or mine, or anyone elses.

[opebo]

Um, yes, it is the state's business what they sanction.

They are not specifically barred from marrying one another. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman.

The State - on your nosy behalf - is interfering in the marryin' of the homosexuals.  None of your business.

[opebo]

Um, no, it's not. It's not interfering with anything; all that's being regulated is the states own behavior.

No, the behaviour of individuals is being regulated, obviously.  One might just as well say that laws against murder are regulating the states behaviour against murderors, rather than the behaviour of murderers themselves.

[opebo]

The behavior of the state can be regulating the behavior of individuals, but it's not in this case.

Homosexuals are not getting arrested or punished for "getting married." The state is just not sanctioning gay marriage.

So it is penalizing them in a way that is different from imprisoning them - by costing them money, preventing them from having financial and medical benefits, as well as barring them from legal access to their deceased spouse.  Yes, the State is penalizing the behaviour of individuals, a behaviour that is no one else's business.  Unequal treatment before the law violates individual rights.  All to satisfy the sick interfering desires of you christian bigots.

[opebo]

Uh, no. They are not losing money or being denied medical benefits, and they don't have a spouse, so I don't know what they want access to.

The sick interfering desires of not interfering?

Partner then.

And obviously you are interfering - they want to get married, reasonable people think it is fine, and you religious want to prevent it.

[opebo]

So they want the state to do something, and not doing it is not interfering.

No, they want the state to stop doing something - which is interfereing with them by descrimination.  It is similar to the laws against people of different races marrying.

Anyway, perhaps a better question - to get past your pointless semantic nonsense, would be to ask - why do you think they should not get married?  That you think there should be any other consideration than the fact that they wish it reveals that you are a hateful bigot.  Its none of your business Philip. 

[opebo]

We just went through the difference between the state doing something and not doing something, moron. That's a pretty important distinction, and since you quit debating that point I'll assume you're either unable to grasp it or just BSing.

I went to bed.  But apparently just missed you falling to the level of ad hominem attack.  Darn.

Your distinction is completely unimportant.  In fact it is false.  The State is 'doing something' by arbitrarily enforcing a prejudicial type of 'marriage', in order to please the majority - hate-frenzied religious like yourself - and penalize the minority - nice gay people.

[opebo]

Your distinction is completely unimportant.  In fact it is false.  The State is 'doing something' by arbitrarily enforcing a prejudicial type of 'marriage', in order to please the majority - hate-frenzied religious like yourself - and penalize the minority - nice gay people.

No, it is not doing something. That is a fact.

As for ad hominem attacks, either quit accusing people of being 'sick bigots,' or shut up.

Yes, the government is defining marriage as something that fits a specific exclusionary religious population.  The government is discriminating, just as it did when it allowed people of the same race to marry, but not people of different races.

I don't consider 'sick bigot', when applied to your whole ilk - kith, kin, regional and religious identity - to be ad hominem.  Nothing personal against you Philip, all you Southern redneck religious nuts are sick bigots.

[opebo]

That's just the State's own definition of marriage. They aren't going around throwing people in jail who define it differently.

They're forcibly excluding them from a State service provided for others - it would be as if you were denied a driver's license because they disapprove of your destination.

[opebo]

No, that's interferance, because they'll pull you over and punish you for driving without a license.

The State's 'interference' in this matter is in favouring one group of people over another - similar to Jim Crow.

[opebo]

Uh, no. Every person has an equal opportunity to get married. Homosexuals just don't want to, because they're homosexuals.

No, marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them and deny them equal treatment.  There is no reason for marriage to be designed in this unfair way - the fact that it is traditional is perhaps the best argument against it, given this country's inhumane past.

[opebo]

Marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them?! LMAO! You're talking about a 5 thousand year old institution!

Just as I said - in its current form it is quite barbaric.

[opebo]

Uh, no. Every person has an equal opportunity to get married. Homosexuals just don't want to, because they're homosexuals.

No, marriage has been carefully fashioned in a way to exclude them and deny them equal treatment.  There is no reason for marriage to be designed in this unfair way - the fact that it is traditional is perhaps the best argument against it, given this country's inhumane past.

Wrong, there are historical incidents of gay marriage.

Interesting.  Well, in many ways the US is a worse and more puritannical country than it was in the past.

[opebo]

Please enumerate places where gay marriage flourished.

I doubt it was ever allowed to 'flourish' - too many of the wrong kind of people in every society I've ever heard of.

[opebo]

Texas is usually considered Southern these days.

Only by ignorant or stupid people.

Hahah!  So you're saying Texans consider themselves Southern and Southerners agree?