Santorum

#251
#251
volfanjustin said:
But that is a completely medical situation, you are trying to compare 2 different things.
Click to expand...

not at all. You're the one adding a reproductive requirement to marriage. Some straight couples have the same chance of reproducing as 2 men.
 
#252
#252
volfanjustin said:
You are comparing smoking to homosexuality? As I was told earlier when I mentioned abortion, I thought one was a choice and the other is not? Show me where gays have a right to marry.
Click to expand...

You're skirting the question.

What is so wrong with it that you want to deny them certain rights?
 
#256
#256
nbakerld said:
You're skirting the question.

What is so wrong with it that you want to deny them certain rights?
Click to expand...

It was a legitimate question for you.

Marriage is not protected by the Constitution, therefore let the states decide? You are a Paul supporter, you should be on board with that.
 
#258
#258
volfanjustin said:
It was a legitimate question for you.

Marriage is not protected by the Constitution, therefore let the states decide? You are a Paul supporter, you should be on board with that.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the legality of the issue, I'm talking about the principle of it. Why do you feel the need to deny them certain rights? What is the motivation?
 
#259
#259
nbakerld said:
I'm not talking about the legality of the issue, I'm talking about the principle of it. Why do you feel the need to deny them certain rights? What is the motivation?
Click to expand...

By sending this to the states for them to decide, I am not sure how I am denying them rights. Not sure how many more ways to say it, I believe marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. If we allow gays to marry why don't we allow family members, people to animals, multiple spouses, where does it end?
 
#260
#260
volfanjustin said:
Apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

only in your mind. Using reproduction as a requirement just opens up a discussion you don't want to have

volfanjustin said:
By sending this to the states for them to decide, I am not sure how I am denying them rights. Not sure how many more ways to say it, I believe marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. If we allow gays to marry why don't we allow family members, people to animals, multiple spouses, where does it end?
Click to expand...

would the states that vote against it be forced to accept married couples moving to their state? Or do you want to limit these couples from freely moving around the US?

and the slippery slope never works
 
#261
#261
volfanjustin said:
By sending this to the states for them to decide, I am not sure how I am denying them rights. Not sure how many more ways to say it, I believe marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. If we allow gays to marry why don't we allow family members, people to animals, multiple spouses, where does it end?
Click to expand...

Well people to animals is absurd since animals can't make the choice. I have no problem with letting consenting adults screw up their lives if they want to. If you wanna marry your cousin, go for it.

So the reason you oppose gay marriage is you fear a natural progression towards the acceptance of beastiality? If that is the case, your fight is not with homosexuality, it's with beastiality. This is like banning pistols cause people might want to eventually own Howitzers.

So if it came to your state, would you vote for gay marriage? Or is that response just more smoke and mirrors?
 
#262
#262
utvolpj said:
only in your mind. Using reproduction as a requirement just opens up a discussion you don't want to have



would the states that vote against it be forced to accept married couples moving to their state? Or do you want to limit these couples from freely moving around the US?

and the slippery slope never works
Click to expand...

You keep trying to compare 2 things that are completely opposite.

No they would not have to accept it, some of you don't seem to get that marriage is not protected. They can move where ever they would like to. If they don't like the laws in a certain state don't more there it's that simple.

It does work because so many who say that gay marriage is fine argue their point by saying "who are you to say who can get married and who can't" yet some of those same people want to get in the way of someone having multiple spouses or from incest.
 
#264
#264
lawgator1 said:
Doubting the issue will EVER be resolved. It is an unanswerable question.
Click to expand...

Probably the case, so moving on.

I challenge anybody to try and make good sense of this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWqls5KE5d8&[/youtube]

EDIT: Fixed the video
 
#265
#265
nbakerld said:
Well people to animals is absurd since animals can't make the choice. I have no problem with letting consenting adults screw up their lives if they want to. If you wanna marry your cousin, go for it.

So the reason you oppose gay marriage is you fear a natural progression towards the acceptance of beastiality? If that is the case, your fight is not with homosexuality, it's with beastiality. This is like banning pistols cause people might want to eventually own Howitzers.

So if it came to your state, would you vote for gay marriage? Or is that response just more smoke and mirrors?
Click to expand...

No thats not the only reason, it's just an example of where it could go and likely would go.

I am against it so I would vote against it, but if Tennessee as a state voted to allow it I could move if I would like, there is no law saying I have to live in a certain state, I am free to move to any state in the Union just as everyone else is.
 
#266
#266
volfanjustin said:
You keep trying to compare 2 things that are completely opposite.
Click to expand...

both are born without the right equipment to reproduce right? How are they opposite?

volfanjustin said:
No they would not have to accept it, some of you don't seem to get that marriage is not protected. They can move where ever they would like to. If they don't like the laws in a certain state don't more there it's that simple.
Click to expand...

so you remove even more rights from them? Hooray freedom!

volfanjustin said:
It does work because so many who say that gay marriage is fine argue their point by saying "who are you to say who can get married and who can't" yet some of those same people want to get in the way of someone having multiple spouses or from incest.
Click to expand...

if someone wants multiple wives or to marry their sister then go right ahead. Of course that also carries the requirement of consent (so your animal argument is completely invalid)
 
#267
#267
volfanjustin said:
No thats not the only reason, it's just an example of where it could go and likely would go.

I am against it so I would vote against it, but if Tennessee as a state voted to allow it I could move if I would like, there is no law saying I have to live in a certain state, I am free to move to any state in the Union just as everyone else is.
Click to expand...

LMAO

So you would move over this issue? I get your point about state's rights, and the idea of voting with your feet. I'm just asking if you would move over this?
 
#268
#268
nbakerld said:
LMAO

So you would move over this issue? I get your point about state's rights, and the idea of voting with your feet. I'm just asking if you would move over this?
Click to expand...

No I would not. Just pointing out that I could if I wanted and we are free to move to any state I want just as everyone else is.

Do you consider me and those that believe like me bigots?
 
#269
#269
Normally, I don't stray over to the politics forum ,because I'm not much into politics. But I saw that Santorum just swept 3 caucuses. Is he gaining ground on Romney? For all the political junkies to answer
 
#270
#270
volfanjustin said:
No I would not. Just pointing out that I could if I wanted and we are free to move to any state I want just as everyone else is.

Do you consider me and those that believe like me bigots?
Click to expand...


Ah, I get it now. You are against big or powerful federal government, but are okay with big and powerful state government. Gotcha'.
 
#271
#271
gordonr24 said:
Normally, I don't stray over to the politics forum ,because I'm not much into politics. But I saw that Santorum just swept 3 caucuses. Is he gaining ground on Romney? For all the political junkies to answer
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical. Romney still has by far the most money and best campaign organization, and Florida's really been the only big deal so far, which he won.
 
#273
#273
gordonr24 said:
Normally, I don't stray over to the politics forum ,because I'm not much into politics. But I saw that Santorum just swept 3 caucuses. Is he gaining ground on Romney? For all the political junkies to answer
Click to expand...

Santorum gained a lot of ground in the delegate count with his wins.
 
#274
#274
volfanjustin said:
No I would not. Just pointing out that I could if I wanted and we are free to move to any state I want just as everyone else is.

Do you consider me and those that believe like me bigots?
Click to expand...

It depends on the reasoning. If we're being honest here, the only reasoning you've really given me for your opposition is that you fear beastiality, and that leads me to believe you're irrational, not necessarily bigoted.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top