Where is the conservative outrage over this expense?

#26
#26
Sabanocchio said:
I suppose you know many animal/human couples?

I mean is that a serious issue that is relative to the discussion that needs to be addressed. Are human/goat couples upset that they are not allowed the freedom to wed?

All we need is a bunch of pissed off goats.
Click to expand...

Does the offense against civil liberty have to cause me or my loved ones personal emotional harm or injury before I speak against it?

How would we know how many humans wished to wed their goldfish - considering the harshly judgmental society in which we live? There could be thousands.

Recall that 25 years ago, the idea of a homosexual marriage was laughable, too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
tvolsfan said:
I just think gay marriage is fundamentally wrong. If you disagree, that's fine, but I can't stand people using arguments like "they're being denied freedom" while calling me a bigot, when those same people have no problem denying something to others that also has no effect on them.
Click to expand...

I think your opinion is a valid one and is worth discussion.

I personally have no problem with them marrying and do not see any real reason they should not. None of the arguments I have seen have any validity to them, but I'm open to hearing more.

I also do not think you are a bigot and that term is probably misplaced here.
 
#28
#28
tvolsfan said:
I just think gay marriage is fundamentally wrong. If you disagree, that's fine, but I can't stand people using arguments like "they're being denied freedom" while calling me a bigot, when those same people have no problem denying something to others that also has no effect on them.
Click to expand...
If memory serves me right, most of the folks on this forum that are fine with gay marriage are also fine with poly relationships as long as they are consenting adults.
 
#29
#29
Tenacious D said:
Does the offense against civil liberty have to cause me or my loved ones personal emotional harm or injury before I speak against it?

How would we know how many humans wished to wed their goldfish - considering the harshly judgmental society in which we live? There could be thousands.

Recall that 25 years ago, the idea of a homosexual marriage was laughable, too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
and i'm called a troll? wow
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
When uber right wing Clinton basher Bill McCollum hires this guy and has it blow up in his face because his exprt goes on vacation with a guy he found from rentboy.com, well, it just makes us moderates laugh.
Click to expand...

Almost as hysterical as the idea that we should be aware of, much less angry about, the incident in the OP.
 
#31
#31
Tenacious D said:
Does the offense against civil liberty have to cause me or my loved ones personal emotional harm or injury before I speak against it?
Click to expand...
No it does not.
How would we know how many humans wished to wed their goldfish - considering the harshly judgmental society in which we live? There could be thousands.
Click to expand...
But are there thousands? Do you know of even one situation where someone is being denied the right to marry a goldfish?
Recall that 25 years ago, the idea of a homosexual marriage was laughable, too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
SO what I think you are saying is that by allowing homosexuals to marry you open the possibility of parades and picketing for the right to marry a fish or a goat?

You honestly think that would follow?
 
#32
#32
666 said:
If memory serves me right, most of the folks on this forum that are fine with gay marriage are also fine with poly relationships as long as they are consenting adults.
Click to expand...
Very possible, especially considering this forum. From what I've heard from people around me, the view is different in a lot of cases.
 
#33
#33
kptvol said:
Almost as hysterical as the idea that we should be aware of, much less angry about, the incident in the OP.
Click to expand...

Does it not anger you that this guy was getting nude massages from a male prostitute and he's the guy in charge of defending the ban on the adoption of children by gays?
 
#35
#35
Sabanocchio said:
Does it not anger you that this guy was getting nude massages from a male prostitute and he's the guy in charge of defending the ban on the adoption of children by gays?
Click to expand...

So? This is LG trying to make us appear as hypocritically selective as he is because we haven't started threads on how much this guy sucks.
 
#36
#36
kptvol said:
So? This is LG trying to make us appear as hypocritically selective as he is because we haven't started threads on how much this guy sucks.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get what you are saying. That is a pretty ignorant deal, but maybe he worded it wrong.
 
#37
#37
666 said:
One thing is for sure, keep Tenacious away from your aquarium.
Click to expand...
haha.... no wonder goldfish don't last long when you get out of the carnival... they've heard tales of the mighty tenacious... his legend with the goldfish has grown over time.
 
#42
#42
the goat has no say in whether or not they get married. this is also why we don't allow children to marry. the same cannot be said for homosexuals.

and barney frank is a slimeball. that is all.
 
#43
#43
droski said:
the goat has no say in whether or not they get married. this is also why we don't allow children to marry. the same cannot be said for homosexuals.
Click to expand...


I am trying to understand your point, and your logic. Right now, your post reminds me of the logic of "She's a witch!!" because she weighs the same as a duck.
 
#44
#44
rjd970 said:
What is it with conservative politicians and what not always being involved in gay scandals? I mean everyone knows Barney Frank and the like are gay, is it the hypocrisy factor?
Click to expand...

To conservatives, character matters so when one of their own or a fraud gets caught there are consequences. Newt Gingrich was the architect of one of the most incredible political feats in US history. He was shown the door when his private sins became public.

Is there room to forgive? I hope there always will be for the truly repentant. But anything you allow, you passively endorse.


As for the OP- fallacy of limited alternatives. You don't have to choose between wrong and wrong.

There is a "right" answer there... like putting those kids with a stable traditional family. In spite of liberal attempts to prove otherwise, the traditional home headed by a married man and woman STILL does the best job of raising children. It is even more vital to give at risk kids the best statistical advantage possible.
 
#46
#46
Homosexual marriage is not now nor was it ever about equal rights. It is about seeking legitimacy. It is about demanding an endorsement from the unwilling. It is about IMPOSING a set of "morals" on those who disagree with them.

There are no "rights" and few privileges that homosexual couples cannot attain that legal marriage affords heterosexual couples.

Before a state endorses homosexual marriage, it should withdraw from the marriage business altogether. Lawyers can write up enforceable contracts between people similar to marriage and make them open to any two individuals who desire them... whether they are having sex with each other or not.

Homosexuals demand that gov't and those evil right wing Bible thumpers stay out of their bedroom then demand "equal rights" and claim victim status based on what they do in their bedrooms...
 
#47
#47
homosexual's don't get the mariatal estate tax exclusion, nor can they file joint taxes. it's also extremely hard to get control of your spouses health decisions. and what about hte cost issue? you get all these rights automatically because you are married. homosexuals must pay thousands in legal fees. legal marriage affords many rights that civil unions do not. arguing otherwise is silly.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
I am trying to understand your point, and your logic. Right now, your post reminds me of the logic of "She's a witch!!" because she weighs the same as a duck.
Click to expand...

i'm arguing comparing homosexual marriage to beastality is absurd.
 
#49
#49
FTR, marriage is NOT a "right". Marriage in the strict legal sense being discussed is a privileged contract created by various states primarily for the protection of women and especially children. The practical reason for this type of marriage does not and cannot apply to a homosexual couple.

Otherwise marriage is a religious ideal and rite that creates a volitional, spiritual, committed bond between a man and woman. To impose homosexual marriage on society in this sense would be a clear violation of the establishment clause of the USC.


BTW, it is pretty common that people do not actually know the difference between a right and a privilege. One fundamental difference is that rights are not created, they simply exist. Gov'ts may deny them or protect them but they can never create them.

As it applies here- there is no such thing as a "right" to marry. Marriage as far as the state is concerned is a standard legal contract and nothing more. States can and do restrict participation in contractual relationships based on the effective will of the governed (democratically).
 
#50
#50
then i suggest we not let people get married unless they have children. and homosexuals can be women so i'm not sure i'm seeing your protection of women argument. marriage may not be a right, but the fact remains that the gov't has given married people certain legal advantages and there is no valid reason to deny those to homosexuals. religion has no place in our legal system.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top