Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

Imax, there is a victim in gay marriage provided they have children. My best friend was married to a woman whose 2 best friends are lesbians. They have a daughter and she is a MESS because of all of the ridicule she's had to endure.

There is indeed bigotry in the world, not just the US, and the one thing that a majority of people can agree on being bigoted about is this: They all don't like homosexuality, en masse.

OK, and if there are no kids?

[Bannister]

@ Aldin,

Ahh, my bad.

Originally Posted by Bannister

Then you are a bigot.

Bannister

Saying that a gay man is just as bad as a murderer? That's enough for me.

Bannister

[Roland]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

OK, and if there are no kids?

Also, they aren't a mess because of having lesbian parents, but because of the children making fun of them for it. I have two 'uncles' who have raised a kid, and he is smart, successful, heterosexual, and on his way to making his own family.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Drumline3469

I found a better one for you... Who is the victim in prostitution?

No one! Which is why it is legal in Nevada, and should be in all states.

[Drumline3469]

Originally Posted by Bannister

@ Aldin,

Ahh, my bad.

Saying that a gay man is just as bad as a murderer? That's enough for me.

Bannister

It's cool. Just choose to ignore the last clause of that sentence like ignorant people do. All sin is the same. I'm just as bad as Charles Manson, who's just as bad as Harvey Milk, who's just as bad as little 4 year old Suzie down the street. If I roll around in dog poop, am I any better than a man who rolls around in Elephant poop? Poop is poop. Sin is sin. I am no better or worse than anyone in the world and THAT is what I was getting at. Thanks for your pathetic attempt to take me out of context.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Roland

The state gets the knowledge that it is treating all peoples equally, no matter race, religion, or sexual preference.

I say between two people because the state sees a marriage as between two persons, not two or more, if a time comes about, or hypothetically if laws were in place defining marriages between more than two people, along with the benefits gained from such a union, then I would support it as well.

Sounds like we more or less agree on the idea that churches should be able to put more restrictions on who it marries than whatever the requirements of government may be - so I'm going to let that part of the discussion fall by the wayside.

May I ask what benefit there is to the State in treating all people equally? Would that include minors? Felons? The mentally incompetant? (Please note that I am not making any equivalence between any of these groups and those who practise homosexuality - I am merely demonstrating that there are groups within the population that the State does not treat equally). And if the only benefit of the State recognizing marriage is to promote equality then why wouldn't the State support marriage between more than two people? Is there perhaps another benefit to the State of recognizing marriage?

~Aldin, at length

[Drumline3469]

Originally Posted by Roland

No one! Which is why it is legal in Nevada, and should be in all states.

Let's just legalize gay prostitution and call it even?

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Bannister

@ Aldin,

Ahh, my bad.

Saying that a gay man is just as bad as a murderer? That's enough for me.

Bannister

Gotcha. I was interpreting that through the concept that everyone sins and thus all would fall under that same moniker - in other words the 'lying' part of it caused it to be universal enough to fall out of bigotry.

~Aldin, still trying to catch up in between posts

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Drumline3469

It's cool. Just choose to ignore the last clause of that sentence like ignorant people do. All sin is the same. I'm just as bad as Charles Manson, who's just as bad as Harvey Milk, who's just as bad as little 4 year old Suzie down the street. If I roll around in dog poop, am I any better than a man who rolls around in Elephant poop? Poop is poop. Sin is sin. I am no better or worse than anyone in the world and THAT is what I was getting at. Thanks for your pathetic attempt to take me out of context.

Now, your just being a mean bigot.

Bannister

[Snotwalker 8000]

So should there be NO definition of marriage at all?

• Because simply by having a definition of marriage, you are by default excluding someone or something... which nowadays could, and probably would be, construed as discriminatory.
• But if there is no definition of marriage, then marriage, by default, loses all meaning...

SW8K....

[Drumline3469]

Originally Posted by Bannister

Now, your just being a mean bigot.

Bannister

That's what happens when you take people out of context just to try and make someone think you're right. You stick with what you know about homosexuals, I'll stick with what I know about homophones.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Sounds like we more or less agree on the idea that churches should be able to put more restrictions on who it marries than whatever the requirements of government may be - so I'm going to let that part of the discussion fall by the wayside.

May I ask what benefit there is to the State in treating all people equally? Would that include minors? Felons? The mentally incompetant? (Please note that I am not making any equivalence between any of these groups and those who practise homosexuality - I am merely demonstrating that there are groups within the population that the State does not treat equally). And if the only benefit of the State recognizing marriage is to promote equality then why wouldn't the State support marriage between more than two people? Is there perhaps another benefit to the State of recognizing marriage?

~Aldin, at length

The State gets nothing from recognizing marriage. It does recognize age in minors in that many younger persons do not have the education, or wisdom in order to make many important decisions for themselves, nor can they support themselves. Also, the decision to treat minors and such was a decision made by the government, and has changed throughout the years, and has no religious basis. Whereas the only argument against gay marriage are religious in nature.