TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

[tatic05]

I believe marriage is something that the government cannot tell you if you can be or not. Marriages are up to the churches and their clergy. I dont have an issue with people who choose to be gay (oh wait I said choose)and want to have some sort of civil union between the two. Let them have benefits from or for one another...I dont care. Churches decide not the Government.

 

[tatic05]

Who in the hell is trying to enlighten my children? I can't think of the last time I had a gay couple come knock on my door and inform me that being gay was socially acceptable. I have had religious nuts try to "enlighten me" by knocking on my door... sending me **** in the mail... handing me small bibles at the mall... and even condemning me from across the street with a megaphone for watching E.T. as a child.

They dont knock on my door but its on everything we see including INGO. You are informed that being gay is socially acceptable pretty much everyday, you just dont have people coming up to you and informing you of this.

I have been invited by gay people to join them on gay pride walks or to join or sign petitions for them quite abit now that I think about it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Who in the hell is trying to enlighten my children? I can't think of the last time I had a gay couple come knock on my door and inform me that being gay was socially acceptable. I have had religious nuts try to "enlighten me" by knocking on my door... sending me **** in the mail... handing me small bibles at the mall... and even condemning me from across the street with a megaphone for watching E.T. as a child.

I see you understand how the rest of us feel, having people with whom you have fundamental disagreements on moral issues telling you to shut up because your views don't agree with theirs. The fact that your morals don't agree with ours doesn't mean that neither of us has the right to advocate them to others.

 

[Manatee]

9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

Whoever convinced you that these numbers are correct could sell ice to Eskimos. Not even close.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

It is my understanding that men and women are pretty much exactly like they were (physically) a thousand years ago......Why do you feel the need for "change"? Did something happen biologically to change that? Did I miss something in Saint Darwin's Book? Are two men or two women now able to procreate?


Think for yourself and read a couple of anthropology and biology books along with some books on evolution....


I didn't even mention the dreaded "HB" word...You know...That real old book that y'all think all of the opponents to gay marriage base their arguments on...There really isn't a need to bring God into a debate when evolutionary science, historical record, and anthropolgical evidence destroys the whole "gay marriage" argument on it's own....

OK, I'll bite. I've read some things about Biology, Anthropology and Evolution. You can correct me, since I'm obviously not paying attention, because none of my readings in those disciplines would suggest evidence that precludes the validity of legal marriage between two people of the same sex.

 

[MisterChester]

It is my understanding that men and women are pretty much exactly like they were (physically) a thousand years ago......Why do you feel the need for "change"? Did something happen biologically to change that? Did I miss something in Saint Darwin's Book? Are two men or two women now able to procreate?

If not then why all of the need for "change"??? What exactly did all of those primitive societies get wrong (regarding men and women) that you feel the need to "fix" for them?

Are we truly at that enlightened age where this generation is so much wiser than the ones who came before that we need to redefine marriage because Lady Ga Ga says we should???

With all of the sex education we have now days you mean to tell me there are still people that don't know the physical difference in men and women and why there needs to be a "contract" or "treaty" between the two?

Remember....Just because Hollywood and Pop Stars tell you something is so does not mean it is so....There are enough sheeple in the world as it is...Think for yourself and read a couple of anthropology and biology books along with some books on evolution....Hopefully they will explain to you what a "dead end" (evolutionary speaking that is) that same sex relationships are......

It's a wedge issue used to keep Libertarians and Republicans from hanging out together....We fight enough as it is....

IMHO ofcourse....

The only real "change" is that there are more gay people coming out than any previous time. I would think the amount of gays in terms of a percentage of population hasn't varied much over time, but most of them feared for their lives of telling anybody. On a biological level, I truly believe that gay people were just born that way. To those that disagree I would ask "so you chose to be heterosexual? You were not born heterosexual?" My biggest question is why care so much about gays getting married? It is very unlikely that it'll impact your life in any way.

Famous celebrities are hardly right on any political issue, but I can give most of them credit here. Just because I agree with them on one issue doesn't make them my heroes.

If it were up to me, I would get government out of marriage and leave only one simple rule: "A marriage shall be between two consenting human persons of legal age." No one would force any religious institution to perform a marriage they don't want to administer. Who cares if they can't procreate? If procreation was the end all be all of marriage, then you're missing the point of marriage entirely. Procreation can happen whether or not there is a marriage so it cannot be exclusive to marriage, therefore procreation is irrelevant. It's a very common product of marriage, but not every heterosexual married couple will procreate by choice or health condition. Do you mean to deny marriage to those couples too?

In the end, technically speaking, a marriage is a very nice piece of paper with some government privileges. Why deny this for gay people? We can't give them civil unions, because separate is not equal. The 14th amendment also conflicts with anti-gay marriage laws. So why should we deny them that very nice piece of paper?

 

[lucky4034]

I see you understand how the rest of us feel, having people with whom you have fundamental disagreements on moral issues telling you to shut up because your views don't agree with theirs. The fact that your morals don't agree with ours doesn't mean that neither of us has the right to advocate them to others.

By allowing gays to get married.... what exactly is being forced upon you?

Marriage is a title... a title the government shouldn't recognize at all.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Did I miss something in Saint Darwin's Book?

I'm increasingly amazed that, although here we live in the "Age of Information", I seem to see more ignorance today than when I was young. Then I realize that (quite ironically in this instance) those who can best understand this phenomenon are those who really understand the mechanisms detailed in Mr. Darwin's book. AND I suspect those who are oblivious to that phenomenon aren't as familiar with that "HB" book as they may have us to believe.

 

[lucky4034]

You don't even have to go as far as to define what "marriage" is. Its nothing more than a self anointed title. If I want to call myself "King Lucky"... who cares? If I want to CLAIM that I am married to my pistol... who cares?

 

[lucky4034]

I see you understand how the rest of us feel, having people with whom you have fundamental disagreements on moral issues telling you to shut up because your views don't agree with theirs. The fact that your morals don't agree with ours doesn't mean that neither of us has the right to advocate them to others.

As long as you can recognize your hypocritical stance... you won't hear no jive from me.

 

[ViperJock]

I vote democrat because I refuse to vote for the LESSER of two evils.

Thats right baby! Go big or go home!

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If I want to CLAIM that I am married to my pistol... who cares?

King Lucky...........if I may....

Of course it obviously depends on the kind of pistol, doesn't it? Or was that a trick question?

 

[zippy23]

The only real "change" is that there are more gay people coming out than any previous time. I would think the amount of gays in terms of a percentage of population hasn't varied much over time, but most of them feared for their lives of telling anybody. On a biological level, I truly believe that gay people were just born that way. To those that disagree I would ask "so you chose to be heterosexual? You were not born heterosexual?" My biggest question is why care so much about gays getting married? It is very unlikely that it'll impact your life in any way.

Famous celebrities are hardly right on any political issue, but I can give most of them credit here. Just because I agree with them on one issue doesn't make them my heroes.

If it were up to me, I would get government out of marriage and leave only one simple rule: "A marriage shall be between two consenting human persons of legal age." No one would force any religious institution to perform a marriage they don't want to administer. Who cares if they can't procreate? If procreation was the end all be all of marriage, then you're missing the point of marriage entirely. Procreation can happen whether or not there is a marriage so it cannot be exclusive to marriage, therefore procreation is irrelevant. It's a very common product of marriage, but not every heterosexual married couple will procreate by choice or health condition. Do you mean to deny marriage to those couples too?

In the end, technically speaking, a marriage is a very nice piece of paper with some government privileges. Why deny this for gay people? We can't give them civil unions, because separate is not equal. The 14th amendment also conflicts with anti-gay marriage laws. So why should we deny them that very nice piece of paper?

Disagree 100%, there are way more gays today than 50 years ago, way more gay parents today than 50 years ago, raising children to "do what feels right" and that whole ideology. I choose to be heterosexual, yes i do not choose to do stuff with dudes. Responding to how i was born...i was born a male with parts different from females. so if males and females are born, with certain parts that go together to make more males and females, then you proved yourself wrong on the whole being born a certain way argument, since a man can choose to do stuff with another man or a woman, thats the CHOICE. you dont have a choice on being a male or a female. you do have a choice to do whatever you want with what you have. Here is the issue, a man and a man is not the same as a man and a woman. no one cares if they wanna live their life together. The issue is that you cant call a duck a chicken just cuz you want to.

You argument on procreation is off as well, since procreation is used as a point why men should be with women and not with other men. Thats a morality issue. Where did marriage come from? If you want gov't out of it then why do you post "one simple rule"?? WHERE DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT RULE??? Why cant 3 people get married if they all "love" each other or just want to have a 3 way marriage??? A union between a man and a woman is NOT EQUAL to a man and a man, because MEN ARE NOT WOMEN, how is this so difficult to understand? You can give them civil unions, you can give the same benefits that married people get, just define it as a civil union, because no matter what you say a man with a woman is not the same as a man with a man, the very definition of the two are different, the traditional definitions are different, the biological implications are different, every part of it is different.

So in your rule a Father and his 18 year old son is cool with you do get married?!?!??!???!?!?!?!!?!!?!!?!??!?!!?!???!?!?!???????!?!!?!!???!?!?!??!!???!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!

In the end, gov't has made marriage a piece of paper with privileges to get politicians votes. In the beginning it was a union between man and woman before God. Or if you dont believe in God then it still was a union between a man and a woman Just because a tiny portion of the population wants to redefine something does not mean it should happen. What about the gays that "turn" heterosexual? Would you not allow them to be that way since you believe they were born a certain way? Its a choice.

 

[Manatee]

Personally not in favor of gay marriage…but my mind might change over time. HOWEVER….

It certainly would make a lot more sense for Defense of Marriage advocates to have fewer divorces than 50+ %. It isn't the gays that are making a mockery of marriage. It's the heterosexuals.

(married for 43 years and counting)

 

[jamil]

I agree.

Don't like gay marriage? That's fine, don't get one. Government should not govern morality, it will fail eventually (18th amendment being a prime example).

A point of disagreement here. Our government can indeed govern morality, indefinitely. What it can't do is indefinitely prohibit an activity that most people want to do. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, not because it was a moral issue, but that even though most people said it was immoral, too many people drank it anyway.

According to the University of California, ~3.5% are LGBT. So most people aren't gay. The only reason why there's a hubub at all about 3.5% of the population is because pup culture supports it. Kinda like driving a Prius. Because of its political correctness, many people support it publicly because they don't want to be seen not supporting it.

I'm not making a judgement of gayness itself, just saying that it is mass popularity that makes the biggest impact if a law can withstand time or not. If somehow pop culture decided gayness was anathema, same with the Prius, people generally wouldn't care.

9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

Whoever convinced you that these numbers are correct could sell ice to Eskimos. Not even close.

Well not in the last decade anyway. I remember a time in the 90s when a lot of American wells were shut down because they cost more to operate than what they produced. But in the last 6 years especially, oil & gas EFTs have treated me pretty well. Exxon didn't make record "obscene" profits because more people were buying gas, but because speculation drove the price really, really, really high.

OK, I'll bite. I've read some things about Biology, Anthropology and Evolution. You can correct me, since I'm obviously not paying attention, because none of my readings in those disciplines would suggest evidence that precludes the validity of legal marriage between two people of the same sex.

It's not a matter of validity or not. What makes a marriage valid is that stupid piece of paper the state thinks it needs to issue for marriages. No, this issue is about morality, not validity. A number of people, probably more than half, still believe "gay marriage" is immoral. The pop culture machine is turning to the left though and fewer people are seeing it as immoral.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Personally not in favor of gay marriage…but my mind might change over time. HOWEVER….

It certainly would make a lot more sense for Defense of Marriage advocates to have fewer divorces than 50+ %. It isn't the gays that are making a mockery of marriage. It's the heterosexuals.

(married for 43 years and counting)

Yes, I agree.

Christians may not have re-defined marriage, but they seem to have re-defined the holy heck out of divorce. Once upon a time, you had to have a really darn good reason to get a divorce, and even then, you didn't always get it. Now I think they give away a free Duck Dynasty Chia-pet with each one, and you're the rare kid in your school if you don't have siblings with at least one different last name.

Also, I've been married for 32 years and counting (yes to a woman) with whom I've gone through thick and thin and will love for the rest of my life.

 

[metaldog]

I believe the spotted barn owl has more right to habitat than the homeless man on the street. (purple implied as needed)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

By allowing gays to get married.... what exactly is being forced upon you?

Marriage is a title... a title the government shouldn't recognize at all.

Find me a place in the last thousand years where a union between two men or two women was considered "Marriage." Show me a vital society where the union of two men or two women did anything to advance that society. Please point out the remarkable progress we'll make as a society if we re-define "marriage" from what it has been throughout history, to include homosexuality, or bestiality, or pederasty. Please point out how the war on marriage and the two-parent family has strengthened our nation both morally and fiscally.

I think I can make a good case that, beginning with Johnson's ill-advised "War on Poverty" in 1964 and continuing on through the "sexual revolution" and "women's liberation" movements, our government and the collectivists in our society have simultaneously eroded our values, but also weakened us culturally, spiritually, and intellectually. The movement to regularize homosexual unions as "marriage" would be unthinkable if we as a nation hadn't already been conditioned away from the family values our forefathers revered.

Since the 60s, American negroes gained societal acceptance (which they were due) at the cost of the dissolution of the families that created the conditions for their freedom. The rot that affected them through Welfare rules which drove fathers out of the homes of impoverished households has spread to all facets of our society and how has that helped us as a culture?

The sexual revolution created openness about sex that had been largely in the background until then; it also brought us promiscuous sexuality, rampant teen pregnancy, and an explosion of sexual diseases. Ditto for the drug culture, which largely remained in the background until the "enlightenment" of the late 60s and 70s, then broke out into an epidemic of drug abuse.
And, of course, the increases in pregnancies of unmarried women without the father supporting them led to the advancement of abortion as "birth control" and the ease of obtaining abortions has contributed to a general decrease in the feeling that life is "sacred" and not to be readily ended for convenience - whether it's the unborn, who have no advocates for their lives, or the elderly, who apparently aren't worth the cost of keeping alive, or just the faceless stranger on the street who is convenient to kill as part of a gang initiation.

Now homosexuals, to make themselves feel better about themselves, want all the rest of us to throw out our beliefs and moral teachings for their convenience, irregardless of the effects the suppression of our beliefs and of our right to own those beliefs have on the culture in which we live. Like most people I know, I'm willing to let people sin in their own way and let God sort it out, but I resent greatly being told that my beliefs, which are time-proven to be necessary for a healthy society, are "outdated" by a small minority which has yet to produce a comparable society for any appreciable length of time, and which, by all indications, is busily engaged in destroying the society in which I happen to live with their heedless hedonism and intolerance for anyone who dares disagree with them.

 

[jamil]

So the thread devolves into arguing 1/10th of the OP. Okay.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Since the 60s, American negroes gained societal acceptance (which they were due) at the cost of the dissolution of the families that created the conditions for their freedom.

Let me understand this. If black Americans did not gain "societal acceptance", then all their families would still be intact?