Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) Shows Us Exactly Why Republicans Suck

[Hoofbite]

Being black is not a behaviour. Sucking cock is. Can you tell the difference?

If you could somehow form some sort of connection between what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and how you are impacted by it, it might clear things up a bit.

 

[superpunk]

Being black is not a behaviour. Sucking cock is. Can you tell the difference?

Why, when bigots and homophobes discuss gay marriage - do they appear to be so concerned with the sexual acts of gays - rather than the love two people feel for each other that leads them to want to marry?

Very interesting.

 

[Hoofbite]

Why, when bigots and homophobes discuss gay marriage - do they appear to be so concerned with the sexual acts of gays - rather than the love two people feel for each other that leads them to want to marry?

Very interesting.

Any chance a celibate gay couple would get his approval? No cock sucking involved.

Although, celibacy is a rarity. Lets make it more real-world. How about a gay couple where one guy is paralyzed from the neck down and can't partake. Would they be alright?

 

[superpunk]

If you could somehow form some sort of connection between what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and how you are impacted by it, it might clear things up a bit.

Keep the government out of my life.

Keep the government in theirs.

 

[jnday]

If you could somehow form some sort of connection between what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home and how you are impacted by it, it might clear things up a bit.

What they do in their own homes is their business. Will their marriage be behind closed doors as well? I am a firm believer in each state making their own choice on the issue. I live in the bible belt and gay marriage will not happen in my state, period.
It is not even an issue here. If the residents of the state of Mississippi does not want
it to be legal, that is our business. We should and do have the right to make laws reflect what we define as socially acceptable behaviour.

 

[jnday]

Any chance a celibate gay couple would get his approval? No cock sucking involved.

Although, celibacy is a rarity. Lets make it more real-world. How about a gay couple where one guy is paralyzed from the neck down and can't partake. Would they be alright?

If you want to carry this thing in a silly direction, I can go that way too. If gay marriage is legal, what's next? A man and a dog joined in wedlock? A woman marrying an underaged child? The man may really love his dog and wants to show it. The woman wants to commit to the child. Where will
it end? Are you going to approach these situations with the same open mind that you approach gay marriage? If not, I am sure some silly bastard will label you as a bigot.

 

[jnday]

Keep the government out of my life.

Keep the government in theirs.

This is clearly an issue for the people to vote on, not for some lame ass congressman to force his beliefs on those that don't agree.

 

[junk]

If you want to carry this thing in a silly direction, I can go that way too. If gay marriage is legal, what's next? A man and a dog joined in wedlock? A woman marrying an underaged child? The man may really love his dog and wants to show it. The woman wants to commit to the child. Where will
it end? Are you going to approach these situations with the same open mind that you approach gay marriage? If not, I am sure some silly bastard will label you as a bigot.

Both are silly cases. Neither are consenting adults

 

[2233boys]

This is clearly an issue for the people to vote on, not for some lame ass congressman to force his beliefs on those that don't agree.

I really don't see why you or anyone else gets to decide if two consenting adults can get married.

 

[jeebus]

I really don't see why you or anyone else gets to decide if two consenting adults can get married.

They are allowed to get married, who are you to change the definition of marriage?

 

[jeebus]

I'll give you 20 reasons why I is important to American society to promote man and wife marriages, can you provide 2'for why it is important to promote man and man marriages?

 

[Hoofbite]

What they do in their own homes is their business. Will their marriage be behind closed doors as well? I am a firm believer in each state making their own choice on the issue. I live in the bible belt and gay marriage will not happen in my state, period.
It is not even an issue here. If the residents of the state of Mississippi does not want
it to be legal, that is our business. We should and do have the right to make laws reflect what we define as socially acceptable behaviour.

If it was would it make a difference? I'm not even sure what you meant by this. Gays can get married in their own home or that gays should have to keep their marriage to themselves in public?

As far as states deciding, I would agree if those states could provide a valid reason that didn't include religious doctrine. If they're voting based on a belief system they are imposing their religion onto other people, in which case the issue has evolved beyond the scope of just the state itself.

Furthermore, I don't see how those who oppose based on religion can even make a claim to the legal aspect. If marriage is a bond formed under the authority of God then the states themselves have no ground to regulate who is married or not, much less even issue marriage licenses to those they deem worthy.

If you are going to appeal to God, you have no business whatsoever asking the state to enforce any sort of law pertaining to the matter. First and foremost, God's authority isn't subject to the laws of man and therefore shouldn't be regulated by man. If anything, the issue should be left to the churches to decide. Secondly, asking the state to impose the will of your God is a clear violation of The Constitution.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'll give you 20 reasons why I is important to American society to promote man and wife marriages, can you provide 2'for why it is important to promote man and man marriages?

It isn't about promoting gay marriage itself. At least not from my perspective. To some extent its about defending equality but more so than that it's about keeping religious beliefs from being imposed on other people.

You could post all the opinions as to why one is better than the other all you want. Doesn't really do much. I don't think the onus is on supporters of gay marriage to prove why gays shouldn't be treated as lesser individuals. I think the onus is on the detractors to provide some sort of reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal without invoking their doctrine in the process.

 

[2233boys]

They are allowed to get married, who are you to change the definition of marriage?

What?

 

[jeebus]

What?

Gay men marry women all the time.

It is like saying poligamist are denied the same rights we are. No, they are given the same right to marriage anyone is, what they are denied is having multiple partners and calling them all marriage.

Gay people are given the same rights as everyone, what is denied everyone is gay marriage. And I am okay with the equality.

 

[jeebus]

It isn't about promoting gay marriage itself. At least not from my perspective. To some extent its about defending equality but more so than that it's about keeping religious beliefs from being imposed on other people.

You could post all the opinions as to why one is better than the other all you want. Doesn't really do much. I don't think the onus is on supporters of gay marriage to prove why gays shouldn't be treated as lesser individuals. I think the onus is on the detractors to provide some sort of reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal without invoking their doctrine in the process.

Because government funds should not be used to promote homosexuality.

Government funds absolutely should be used to promote the nuclear family.

One is the basis for all of society, the other is a perverted life style. No, the government should not be funding everything out of equality, some sh1t just shouldn't be there business (and I don't think families are one of those things, gay sex is).

 

[jeebus]

The onus is on us to prove why the government should not promote gay lifestyles? Otherwise they should promote it (like they do the nuclear family)...

Wtf world am I living in when this is the reasonable argument of the opposition and not from the morons (super) and weirdos (2233 and his anti man lifestyle).

 

[Hoofbite]

Because government funds should not be used to promote homosexuality.

Government funds absolutely should be used to promote the nuclear family.

So it's a spending issue?

Care to guess what the cost might be to allow gay marriage as opposed to not allowing it? Also, care to draw the line at which cost is more important than equal treatment.

One is the basis for all of society, the other is a perverted life style. No, the government should not be funding everything out of equality, some sh1t just shouldn't be there business (and I don't think families are one of those things, gay sex is).

How convenient. Families aren't subject to government policy but gay sex is. I must ask if you really believe that it is within the scope of the government to dictate sex be it straight or gay?

Secondly, aside from the likely backbone of your believing it, you still haven't laid out a rationale reason as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

You've laid out some idea of spending which is completely ignorant to the fact that gays pay taxes and more broadly, everyone likely pays for something they wish that they didn't. I know I do.

This on top of what you believe being nothing more than a personal position.

 

[Hoofbite]

The onus is on us to prove why the government should not promote gay lifestyles? Otherwise they should promote it (like they do the nuclear family)...

Wtf world am I living in when this is the reasonable argument of the opposition and not from the morons (super) and weirdos (2233 and his anti man lifestyle).

No, it's on you to explain why a subset of the population should be treated like lesser citizens than others. As I've stated, gay or not gay doesn't even really register to me. I don't care. What I do care about is equal treatment.

If you want to present it as a gay issue, have at it. I'm looking at the issue from a broader perspective in which a subset of the population isn't being afforded the same opportunities as others.

Can you do this?

 

[jeebus]

No, it's on you to explain why a subset of the population should be treated like lesser citizens than others. As I've stated, gay or not gay doesn't even really register to me. I don't care. What I do care about is equal treatment.

If you want to present it as a gay issue, have at it. I'm looking at the issue from a broader perspective in which a subset of the population isn't being afforded the same opportunities as others.

Can you do this?

They already have equal treatment. They are allowed the same rights under existing laws that you and I are. They are treated 100% equal this very second.

It is like claiming the legalization of drugs is an equality issue