OT – Gay Marriage. Divisive or Non-Issue? Evolution or Intelligent Design?

[scaredyclassic]

I’d say gays are already over the hump of being accepted and as noted above it’s just a matter of some old people with fossilized attitudes dying out. Personally I recall kids in NYC in the 70s being way ahead of the curve in gay acceptance me included. Not bragging personally. It was just the city vibe and having so many gay friends some mightve thought me gay.

The next frontier is recognizing pedophiles as human beings not monsters and somehow integrating them into society while keeping children safe.

[Coronita]

Hmmm. what would ron paul do?

[ocrenter]

[quote=squat250]I’d say gays are already over the hump of being accepted and as noted above it’s just a matter of some old people with fossilized attitudes dying out. Personally I recall kids in NYC in the 70s being way ahead of the curve in gay acceptance me included. Not bragging personally. It was just the city vibe and having so many gay friends some mightve thought me gay.

The next frontier is recognizing pedophiles as human beings not monsters and somehow integrating them into society while keeping children safe.[/quote]

I have no problems saying it has took me a while to accept the gay marriage idea. Of course, the more genetic and evolutionary evidence helped push me into the pro category.

Have not seen any evolutionary evidence for pedophiles yet. My solution is chemical or surgical castration. You remove the driver of that desire, which is the testosterone, and these folks can be incorporated fully into society without any problems.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu]Hmmm. what would ron paul do?[/quote]

That is a trick question!!!

The government has NO business intruding in the issue of marriage.

[Coronita]

Note to politicians, to dance around this question. Just say, “What I think and believe is irrelevant…. The United States people should decide, by the way of their vote… I’ll do what the american people want, via the democratic process and leave the final decision up to the people of the united states…”

End of story..

[CDMA ENG]

Oh boy…

This one is going to get fun!

CE

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=jstoesz]The real question is, why should the government recognize marriage at all? All these tax savings make no sense to me.[/quote]
What tax savings are you referring to? AFAIK, there’s a marriage tax penalty, but I never heard of a tax saving. info on Marriage Penalty. You can also go here and try 2 scenarios, 1 is 2 single people making $100k each and then do another one where a married couple make $200k combine. Then tell me which couple pay more?[/quote]

Actually, all you have to do is look at the definition of “rich”… It’s $250k for a married couple or $200k for individuals..

[Coronita]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=flu]Hmmm. what would ron paul do?[/quote]

That is a trick question!!!

The government has NO business intruding in the issue of marriage.[/quote]

Ooooooooooooh, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaalllly????

Well, you know that’s interesting because according to Rand Paul, “that couldn’t be any gayer”….

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-says-didnt-think-obamas-views-could-235037656–abc-news-politics.html

And just in case the yahoo news story disappears…..

[quote]
Rand Paul Says He Didn’t Think Obama’s Views ‘Could Get Any Gayer’

Sen. Rand Paul mocked President Obama’s recent support of gay marriage on Friday, saying he didn’t think Obama’s views “could get any gayer.”

“The president recently weighed in on marriage and you know he said his views were evolving on marriage,” the Kentucky Republican said at Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting. “Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

The comments, which generated laughs, were made two days after Obama announced that he supported same-sex marriage, which he had previously opposed, while adding he thought the issue should be left up to the states to decide.

Paul was encouraging support for his father Ron Paul’s long-shot presidential campaign when the conversation turned to the news of the week.

“He said the biblical golden rule caused him to be for gay marriage,” Paul said. “I’m like what version of the Bible is he reading?”

Paul went on to say that he’s not preaching hateful dogma against people, but added that he didn’t believe people should give up on their traditions.

“Six thousand years of tradition” combined with “anthropological” evidence shows “there’s stability in the family unit,” he said.

“The family is really important and we shouldn’t just give up on it,” he said.

Paul spoke against abortion as well as same-sex marriage.

“I think we’re in a spiritual crisis as a country,” Paul said, “and I think you’re going to need leaders beyond your political leaders.”

Paul had been advertised as the coalition’s “special guest” for its 12th annual meeting of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a socially conservative group led by former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed.

[/quote]

Whoa… Whoa there now… Was I reading about Dr. Santorum? I swear…It sure sounds a lot like what Dr. Santorum would be campaigning on…But wait, no no…It’s correct…IT’S RAND PAUL…

Holy fvcking sh!t…..Dr. Little Rand Paul? Is that you? …Dr Ron? Tell me it ain’t so!!!!

So I’m confused…Because while at one point I was told by a Ron Paul expert that Ron Paul and his supporters would have left it up to the state and that the Pauls (plural) only cared about national issues of interest, on the other the hand, Little Rand Paul (LPR) decided that is was really worthwhile mentioning during a speech..

……So I’m perplexed because apparently Little Rand Paul (LPR) is a closet homophobe and probably so is Dr. Ron Paul (DRP)…

….So I guess Dr Ron and Little Rand Paul (DRP and LRP) really are backassward republican hypocrite politicians, just like every other politician afterall. I really wonder what DRP thinks and if it’s the same a LRP…

Let’s ask the Ron Paul expert on what Ron Paul would do??? Oh wait… oops….

[all]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN][quote=markmax33®]I will not be taking advantage of legalized gay marriage, but I have no objections.

I also have no plans to practice polygamy or incest, but I would not object to either. If consenting adults want to consider themselves married I say let them, regardless of their number, sexual orientation or their common ancestors.

[EDIT]
Dr. P approves.[/quote]
+1. Why just gay marriage? Why not open up marriage to all? Including polygamy, incest, and bi-sexual relationships. As long as they’re all consenting adults, they all should be legal.

I’d like to know how many people who support gay marriage also support polygamy? I’ll go first… I do.[/quote]

Are you volunteering to pay for the special education and all the medical bills of children born of incest??

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity%5B/quote%5D

Dr. P says the constitution guarantees pursuit of happiness. There is no exclusion for increased risk of producing intellectually challenged offsprings. (Personally, I would support an exclusion like that).

Also, what AN says. He’s Asian (A in AN is for Asian), thus smarter than us, and more importantly he agrees with me.

Alternatively, parents (all, not just incestuous) need to deposit $50K before a child is conceived. The money will be used to cover the cost of special education and medical bills if the parents are unable to do so. Parents with no $50K to deposit can have the pregnancy terminated or suspended until they prove their fitness.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=markmax33®]I will not be taking advantage of legalized gay marriage, but I have no objections.

I also have no plans to practice polygamy or incest, but I would not object to either. If consenting adults want to consider themselves married I say let them, regardless of their number, sexual orientation or their common ancestors.

[EDIT]
Dr. P approves.[/quote]
+1. Why just gay marriage? Why not open up marriage to all? Including polygamy, incest, and bi-sexual relationships. As long as they’re all consenting adults, they all should be legal.

I’d like to know how many people who support gay marriage also support polygamy? I’ll go first… I do.[/quote]

I do, but only if ALL first/prior spouses consent as well. Cheating (which is what a disapproving first spouse would call polygamy) is not a victimless act, so the people who would be most negatively affected are the ones who need to consent.

Regarding incestual marriages, we had two couples in my family (born in the 1800s) who married first cousins; neither couple had kids. They were very happy marriages that lasted until their deaths. That being said, I don’t think closely-related people should have children together. Also, there should be restrictions regarding parent-child or “old-young” incestual relationships. These relationships would be difficult for me to accept under any circumstance.

[briansd1]

If you’re familiar with schoolyard bullying tactics, calling someone gay or gayest is a put down. I’m sure plenty of nerds have been called gay for being good students.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]If you’re familiar with schoolyard bullying tactics, calling someone gay or gayest is a put down. I’m sure plenty of nerds have been called gay for being good students.[/quote]

Well, I know I think it’s just stupid. Stupid that this is a national issue. And stupid that LRP said anything despite all the rhetoric that he and DRP only care about “national” issues…Definitely should have kept his mouth shut…

See, politicians are all the same…

[ocrenter]

I’ve never liked Rand Paul. Especially with the way he simply “created” his own ophthomology board just because he had issues with the legit governing body. Flu, can you imagine going to an oncologist that reports he is board certified but it turns out the board was created and run by him.

The whole thing is so self serving. When he disagrees, the government is interfering. But when it serves him, suddenly the government should intrude.

[NotCranky]

Marriage is for the state to take control of families(apparently on behalf of women and children mostly)…and for people to comply with feelings born of some tradition. Which part is important as far as excluding homosexuals? Religion is coming into play to a degree that begs the question “where is the separation of church and state?” …or “hey my religion says that homosexuals can marry” “why is that goofy religious strain getting to control my life?”. I think people are correct to say that this is an equal rights issue.

[ctr70]

Gay Marriage = Non-issue. Should be legalized IMO.

I get so frustrated when the media & candidates waste so much time and energy on non-issues and get diverted off the real stuff that matters. Um Duh, can the candidates and the country talk about real sh*t that matters like the economy? Jobs? Quality of our schools?

[Author]

Posts