Democrats. First Gay Marriage, then Pedophilia...

[pattersb]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



The point is that "normal" is in the eye of the beholder, but the concept of justice being blind shields it from the bias of "normal" versus "abnormal."

Well, there it is. I'm personally opposed to recognizing "gay marriage", (put in quotes because it is a preposterous proposition), because in effect it will "normalize" gay behavior.

traderNik cited that 20% of men, and I'd gather far,far,far more woman, have "gay" tendencies, and this number certainly wouldn't go down should the government legally recognize it. (Good god, men buy inflatable plastic dolls so they can stick their dicks into something)

Frankly, I don't give a hoot about who f*ks who, but I can only conclude the real objective of the proponents of gay marriage is to control the human population explosion.

I, being of sound body and mind, could NEVER equate a gay relationship with a heterosexual one. The thought sickens me.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You are certainly entitled to your bigotry, ignorance, and homophobic opinions...

Thanks for sharing...

p.s. Gay women just go to a sperm bank to get pregnant...so no worries about the population, there is plenty of sperm available for any woman to bear children...

p.p.s. I am even going to guess some gay men make deposits at those sperm banks.

(Forget the joke about withdrawals....)

Quote from pattersb:

Well, there it is. I'm personally opposed to recognizing "gay marriage", (put in quotes because it is a preposterous proposition), because in effect it will "normalize" gay behavior.

traderNik cited that 20% of men, and I'd gather far,far,far more woman, have "gay" tendencies, and this number certainly wouldn't go down should the government legally recognize it. (Good god, men buy inflatable plastic dolls so they can stick their dicks into something)

Frankly, I don't give a hoot about who f*ks who, but I can only conclude the real objective of the proponents of gay marriage is to control the human population explosion.

I, being of sound body and mind, could NEVER equate a gay relationship with a heterosexual one. The thought sickens me.

 

[piezoe]

Since it appears that Democrats are pushing gay marriage, I expect
their next move will be to alow adults to marry children and animals.

Why can't they see perverts for what they are?

Your reasoning is so impeccable, really extraordinary i would say. Were you perhaps educated at Harvard or Stanford? I am at a loss to think of any other possibility that could explain you rare talent to see through to the heart of a matter and reach such a logical conclusion. Have you perhaps considered volunteering as a speech writer for the Whitehouse? Surely they could use one such as you.

 

[Brandonf]

Quote from piezoe:

Since it appears that Democrats are pushing gay marriage, I expect
their next move will be to alow adults to marry children and animals.

Why can't they see perverts for what they are?

Let them keep pushing this stupid agenda because the more they do it the more they turn off their core blue collar union supporters and it brings out tons of religious voters. The dems still can't figure out why they can not win an election when "everyone" hates the current group of clowns and it is right in front of them.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Brandonf:

where do we draw the line

At the age of consent.

Honestly, it is so absurd to claim that allowing two consenting adults to make their own decisions which do not harm anyone else is going to lead to the public performance of child-rape on every streetcorner.

By invoking the word 'pedophilia' in relation to the issue of gay rights, you reveal yourself to be a narrow minded bigot. This is the classic tactic of the religious right, and it is so weak. The right need look no further to understand why they are losing this battle. The left is often criticized for accusing the right of being stupid. Can anyone fault the left in light of posts like the ones we see in this thread? There is no other word that can describe the lack of critical thinking that would lead to this kind of post.

The passage of time does indeed change the perception of what is and is not moral. Take female genital mutilation. This crime will soon be relegated to the history books. Same with the hanging of a young 16 year-old woman for the crime of having sex with a young 16 year-old man. That's called progress. The moral proscription against taking an innocent life will never fall. Nor will the condemnation of sex acts upon a child. Anyone who suggests that ending discrimination against gays will lead to the legalization of child rape is clearly thrashing about in the shallow end of the gene pool.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Brandonf:

Let them keep pushing this stupid agenda because the more they do it the more they turn off their core blue collar union supporters and it brings out tons of religious voters. The dems still can't figure out why they can not win an election when "everyone" hates the current group of clowns and it is right in front of them.

This is very enlighting. I had not thought of it before. The Republicans win because they can figure out what makes them win - and change their political agenda to get there. Democrats don't win because they stick to their principles.

It seems backwards to me. But hey, this politics thing is too complicated.

From the face of it, Republicans are pushing the gay marriage issue because it's a standard bait-and-switch con game. Same with abortion. They make promises but never deliver - they need to keep these issues alive to keep them in power. Democrats are just too stupid to play this game.

Do you prefer a party that is smarter than the people, or a party that is dumber than the people?

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from traderNik:

The right need look no further to understand why they are losing this battle.

A HUGELY inaccurate statement Nik. In the U.S. public opinion polls routinely show less than a third of respondents favoring gay marriage. In fact it's around 50/50 in most states as to creating a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
It's an issue with little political traction in America.

 

[piezoe]

Brandonf you have given me far too much credit for the "brilliant" boldface remarks in my post above. This is actually a quote from the thread originator, Version77. My humble contribution is found in the lightface type underneath Version77's incredible, and astounding analysis.

Piezoe

 

[Brandonf]

Quote from traderNik:



By invoking the word 'pedophilia' in relation to the issue of gay rights, you reveal yourself to be a narrow minded bigot.

Why does this have to become personal? I'm simply asking a question and have not stated my own opinion on the issue. I'm giving the argument that many on the right use and asking for some opinions to refute them that do not involve personal attacks. So far we have two concenting adults should be able to do whatever they want, fair enough but I do not think that will convince many people. For the record one of my best friends is gay, he has been in a relationship with his boyfriend for about 8 years now who he would like to "marry". I think it is great when two adults can find love in this world, but I do not know about marriage between homosexuals. I'm not really opposed to it, but I don't support it either and I think the democratic party are a bunch of idiots to keep letting it be brougth up at election time because it will always bring out the fundamentalsists and it really turns off their blue color voters as well. At any rate, I'm really not trying to stir up too many emotions, I was just hoping to have a conversation on a provacative matter without it turning into name calling. You can have an opinion that is not popular and just because you hold it does not make you a "narrow minded bigot". In my own experiance I think that a lot of open minded liberal democrats are in truth very much more the narrow minded bigots than the conservatives I know, and it seems that when they do not have a real reply to a valid question they attack the person asking rather than address the issue. Its rather weak.

Brandon

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

A HUGELY inaccurate statement Nik. In the U.S. public opinion polls routinely show less than a third of respondents favoring gay marriage. In fact it's around 50/50 in most states as to creating a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
It's an issue with little political traction in America.

I'll lift my ban on responding to your posts just for a second. I am not referring to the debate about granting homosexual couples the legal status of 'married' in the Christian sense. To tell the truth, I can understand how hard-core Christians don't want homosexual couples to be 'married'. CBC just had a piece on a pastor who said "Give them benefits, give them legal standing as a couple, just don't call them 'married' ". Their feelings are based in fear, and fear causes all sorts of weird behaviours. But at least I can understand and even sympathize.

Christians seem to conveniently forget that 50% of the marriages they make fail, doing irreparable harm to untold numbers of kids. How in the hell letting gays get married would increase those numbers is beyond me.

At any rate, I am talking about this garbage that Brandonf and the OP posted about how allowing gays to be recognized as married would lead to the legalization of infant rape, and more generally about the fanatical right's pathological fear of homosexuals. It makes me sick to my stomach to realize that people so willfully closed minded and confused must be accorded the same rights as the rest of us. But guess what? I will fight for their right to say what they want, as preposterous as it might be.