U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-02-2015, 12:28 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,889,281 times
Reputation: 14285

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Here's why I "never replied to your points."
First off, others fought the unborn issues as for right now the constitution includes born, mainly because do we consider a certain term or conception when a baby has all of their rights?
Second off, you use the slippery slope argument that because we allow gay marriage (albeit civil unions) must mean we now must allow incestuous marriage too (others use polygamy in the place of incest.) The difference here is that unlike gay marriage or even polygamy a brother and sister or two cousins WITHOUT getting a visectamy or hysterectomy could have a more likely chance of having children born with congenital deformities thanks to recessive genes in the family bloodline. By comparison a gay couple cannot actually have children without a surrogate (sperm donor for lesbians or egg donor for gay men.) Family getting married would have to have protected sex or have a sexless marriage. YES, there are cases that recessive genes don't pop-up but it is a crap shot with a known issue rather than a possible with non-related people marrying. And before you bring it up, polygamy is illegal out of simplicity of spousal benefits.

I only have a problem with civil unions for gays because 1, not every state recognizes it and 2, they don't exactly get all the legal benefits a civil union between a man and a woman have.

So, you make a good case that marriage is a privilege allowed by your government and not a right.
If marriage were a right as stated, why do you wish to ask the government for the priviledge?
I don't get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2015, 12:46 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,417 posts, read 15,833,777 times
Reputation: 9903
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
So, you make a good case that marriage is a privilege allowed by your government and not a right.
If marriage were a right as stated, why do you wish to ask the government for the priviledge?
I don't get it.
I don't get why people use the slippery slope of allowing incestuous marriage or allowing polygamy in marriage when we allow gay marriage. Those issues aren't in question when we talk about gay marriage. People like OldGlory just move the goal posts and try to use the slippery slope to get people not to reply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 06:24 AM
 
37,112 posts, read 16,447,174 times
Reputation: 9987
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I don't get why people use the slippery slope of allowing incestuous marriage or allowing polygamy in marriage when we allow gay marriage. Those issues aren't in question when we talk about gay marriage. People like OldGlory just move the goal posts and try to use the slippery slope to get people not to reply.
Nope, if we are going to allow equal rights to marry it should be for everyone no matter who they are. It's not up to us to decide that if relatives of the opposite sex want to marry they can't because a deformity might result from a pregnancy. What about two males cousins or two female cousins that want to marry? It wouldn't be an issue then. It is you that keeps moving the goal posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 06:34 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,889,281 times
Reputation: 14285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
Nope, if we are going to allow equal rights to marry it should be for everyone no matter who they are. It's not up to us to decide that if relatives of the opposite sex want to marry they can't because a deformity might result from a pregnancy. What about two males cousins or two female cousins that want to marry? It wouldn't be an issue then. It is you that keeps moving the goal posts.


If it is a right, there is no qualifier.
Why do we have to ask our government for the privilege to be married, if it is in fact a right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Midwest
31,438 posts, read 19,671,437 times
Reputation: 7906
This Rolling Stone article pretty much sums up the problem with the tea party hijack of the GOP.

Quote:
This was supposed to be the election cycle that featured an inclusive new conservative vision, one that reflected the country's changing demographics and would make the Democrats work harder for everyone's vote. Instead, they're churning out the same old us-against-everybody narrative, filled with the same insulting bromides about how they have a monopoly on patriotism and are apparently the only people in America paying taxes.

If that's where this is going – if the Republican Party runs with someone like Walker instead of having the courage to tell their voters to stop calling the rest of us terrorists and traitors – then they deserve to lose again and lose badly. Forget about how offensive it is, that schtick doesn't work anymore, not even for them.


Read more: Scott Walker, God's Gift to the Democratic Party | Rolling Stone
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 05:50 PM
 
37,112 posts, read 16,447,174 times
Reputation: 9987
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
This Rolling Stone article pretty much sums up the problem with the tea party hijack of the GOP.





Read more: Scott Walker, God's Gift to the Democratic Party | Rolling Stone
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
The Teapary has hijacked the GOP? Hilarious! And just what does changing demographics have to do with anything? Aren't we all supposed to abide by our laws and Constitution regardless of our skin color and ethnic makeup?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Midwest
31,438 posts, read 19,671,437 times
Reputation: 7906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
The Teapary has hijacked the GOP? Hilarious! And just what does changing demographics have to do with anything? Aren't we all supposed to abide by our laws and Constitution regardless of our skin color and ethnic makeup?
Better hope there are enough elderly, white, angry men still alive to vote.

Last edited by jojajn; 03-02-2015 at 06:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 05:56 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,094,161 times
Reputation: 7282
BentBow, We do not ask the gov't for permission to marry. A license is not a yes/no question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 06:21 PM
 
37,112 posts, read 16,447,174 times
Reputation: 9987
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Better hope there are enough elderly, white, angry men still alive to vote.
Oh stop with this stupid nonsense and putting your racism up there for all to see. You didn't answer the question. Why is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 06:27 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 17,094,161 times
Reputation: 7282
OldGlory, 88% of Mitt's votes were white voters, with an electorate which was just 72% white. Facts are not racist.

Mitt Romney, white voters: The GOP candidate’s race-based, monochromatic campaign made him a loser.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:09 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top