[Dave]

True.
But you make it sound like a malicious intent by Liberals!
The reality is a pursuit of Utopia where no one can do no wrong.
Basically their good intentions are the road to Hell.

Most of them do have some form of positive intent, but the objective consequences of their ideology, the fervor with which they pursue, and the hatred they have for their own people makes it impossible for me to see it as anything other than malicious.

[PBVBROOK]

You hold up, as an example, parents that gave their children broken homes and blended families.
I could go into how wrong that is for the children but that would just go over the forums head.

You have never posted an idea that "went over the forums (sic) head" but you have posted a great number that went over your own.

[DanDaMan]

True.
But you make it sound like a malicious intent by Liberals!
The reality is a pursuit of Utopia where no one can do no wrong.
Basically their good intentions are the road to Hell.

Most of them do have some form of positive intent, but the objective consequences of their ideology, the fervor with which they pursue, and the hatred they have for their own people makes it impossible for me to see it as anything other than malicious.

You need to watch the video by Sayet I posted above.
Watch it like I do... that Liberals are brain damaged and retarded and therefore have no malice!

[Invictus_88]

Hey, Dan.

Why did you float this issue if you've no intention to acknowledge people responding to your position?

Either answer, and discuss, or sod off.

[ninurta]

This explains my position on modern Liberals in America.

And what exactly does that have to do with gay marriage?

This isn't a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. Actually, its an issue that crosses the political spectrum from neocons like Dick Cheney to Modern Liberals such as Kerry, to Libertarians like Ron Paul. Though Ron Paul's stance is only for it for the same reason I am for it, it just isn't the government's place to be in the marriage buisness. that is between you and your lover.

Besides, that video is so old that its old, rusty and moldy.

Romance is not a private matter as it has social effects.

Just too questions:
1) Since when was it not a private matter?
2) What are the social affects? And why do they matter?

This is one of many reasons why nearly every known society has seen fit to regulate romance.

Yeah because we really need to mimic countries like Iran. When Iran is about equal when it comes to transgender rights to the USA, then you know that there is a problem and red flags should be raised.

When we start to regulate romance, what differentiates the USA from Iran? They do the same.

I will die in a war of expatriotism before i give up my rights to keep what me and my wife do a private matter. As for gays, I am sure they and lesbians would do the same.

I will disown my country as soon as it gives up the rights that are so basic, and starts acting like governments such as Iran. I will disown it so fast its not funny.

"Fairness" is only the concern of liberal psychopaths seeking to use such positive feeling buzzwords to mask their aggression against the traditional order of mankind. They will never be satisfied until they have destroyed everything and as such should simply be ignored.

Statements like these explain exactly your malfunction, and no they are not psychopaths, and in spite of your absolute refusal to accept this, they are people and just have different values and moral standards than you. So do we libertarians.

[]Romance is not a private matter as it has social effects. This is one of many reasons why nearly every known society has seen fit to regulate romance. "Fairness" is only the concern of liberal psychopaths seeking to use such positive feeling buzzwords to mask their aggression against the traditional order of mankind. They will never be satisfied until they have destroyed everything and as such should simply be ignored.[]
True.
But you make it sound like a malicious intent by Liberals!

Malicious intent by Liberals? What's with you and trashing liberals? And no its not true, it is a private matter. I am straight, but still, my romance is a private matter and i want to keep it that way. I am sure the men and they male boyfriends feel the same way, as their romance is a private matter as well. It wouldn't have any social effects if you people didn't hammer images into peoples heads of why they should (falsely) fear gays being allowed to marry.

Those social affects are: Hatred, murder, and so on. The kind of things we saw in Nazi Germany. But you said you were fascist, so that explains everything.

The reality is a pursuit of Utopia where no one can do no wrong.

No one is discussing Utopia. That's for the mythology section, Utopia does not and can not exist, we all know, but this is specifically about gay marriage.

Basically their good intentions are the road to Hell.

Hell is a mythological place that doesn't exist in my beliefs, so how does that fit into this debate?

Hey, Dan.

Why did you float this issue if you've no intention to acknowledge people responding to your position?

Either answer, and discuss, or sod off.

What else did you expect from the republicans to scream christian morals then have adulterous affairs in places like Argentina?

[PBVBROOK]

What else did you expect from the republicans to scream christian morals then have adulterous affairs in places like Argentina?

God that was a silly statement.

You want serious republicans to take you seriously and then you say some shit like this? I am a lefty and I am offended by such gratuitious insulting of people. Did you miss the classes where they talked about stereotyping?

I wish the right and left would stop name calling and start acting like adults. There are real problems here. This is serious stuff.

[sad59yearold]

Just because it's natural for a male and female to produce children doesn't mean that they should. By far the biggest harm done to children is done in 'natural' families. I know gay couples that have brought up children extremely well and the kids have ended up well rounded members of society. I know 'natural' parent couples I wouldn't trust to bring up a fly let alone a kid. I know kids from 'normal' families that are bigots of the worst kind. I think it all comes down to the people involved, not their sexual preferences.

[Icon]

This whole debate about blood donation is simply a red herring proposed by homophobes who have no real argument. It is absurd and unrelated to the issue at hand. You do not see them advocating banning from marriage those who ate meat in Great Britian during the 80's and they are also banned from giving blood. Or perhaps we should ban from marriage those who have hepetitis. They are banned from giving blood too.

At least 99% of the people with prostate cancer are men. We must ban men from donating blood!

[ninurta]

[]What else did you expect from the republicans to scream christian morals then have adulterous affairs in places like Argentina?[]

God that was a silly statement.

You want serious republicans to take you seriously and then you say some shit like this? I am a lefty and I am offended by such gratuitious insulting of people. Did you miss the classes where they talked about stereotyping?

I wish the right and left would stop name calling and start acting like adults. There are real problems here. This is serious stuff.

I was just speaking of the irony and hypocrisy of the people screaming about morals when it comes to gay marriage, my point wasn't stereotyping as it wasn't meant that all do that. My point was that it just seems like hypocrisy seems to be a epidemic in that area of politics.

Did we see Bill Clinton screaming "thou shall not....." about moral issues? Not to my knowledge, so I didn't care about his affair with Lewinski as he didn't make it my buisness by making other peoples actions his buisness. Though yeah I went a little far, I don't think its as bad as you are making it.

[]This whole debate about blood donation is simply a red herring proposed by homophobes who have no real argument. It is absurd and unrelated to the issue at hand. You do not see them advocating banning from marriage those who ate meat in Great Britian during the 80's and they are also banned from giving blood. Or perhaps we should ban from marriage those who have hepetitis. They are banned from giving blood too.[]

At least 99% of the people with prostate cancer are men. We must ban men from donating blood!

Can that be spread by blood?

[Icon]

Can that be spread by blood?

I'm not a doctor, but I know from experience volunteering at blood drives that the Red Cross won't take the blood of anyone who has had cancer in the last year or so.

[PBVBROOK]

Ok. I'll give you a pass on hypocracy. There is plenty to go around. But look.....

Tell me why you think that blood donation status has anything at all to do with marriage. Anything at all. It is as Icon and I have been saying nothing but a very poor red herring.

If one wants to oppose gay marriage because of their religious beliefs then fine. If they think that marriage is only for procreation and therefor gay marriage is wrong, fine. (Stupid but fine.)

But this entire "disease" branch of the debate is utterly stupid. Just stupid. If you or anyone else is afraid of homosexuality because you are worried about the spread of disease then gay marriage is the very best chance of stopping that. Pay attention!!!!!!!

People in comitted, monogamous relationships like marriage ARE AT NO RISK of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease through sexual transmission. None at all. This argues FOR gay marriage not against it. Honest question Ninurta. Do you not agree with this? And if not....why not?

[ninurta]

[]Can that be spread by blood?[]

I'm not a doctor, but I know from experience volunteering at blood drives that the Red Cross won't take the blood of anyone who has had cancer in the last year or so.

So I am assuming it can be. Alrighty.

Ok. I'll give you a pass on hypocracy. There is plenty to go around. But look.....

What hypocrisy?

Tell me why you think that blood donation status has anything at all to do with marriage. Anything at all. It is as Icon and I have been saying nothing but a very poor red herring.

I am just letting DDM argue it as far as he can drive it, it will run out of gas eventually. And to be honest with you, it has just as much to do with pizza than it does to marriage.

Though you missed that part of what I was saying. As I was only pressing DDM onward to the conclusion.

If one wants to oppose gay marriage because of their religious beliefs then fine. If they think that marriage is only for procreation and therefor gay marriage is wrong, fine. (Stupid but fine.)

Though I personally don't agree with their beliefs, I wouldn't call it stupid. I think it's wrong they want to make laws based on their beliefs, and yeah that part, pushing their beliefs on others, is pointless, but stupid? Its not smart but I wouldnt call it stupid.

But this entire "disease" branch of the debate is utterly stupid. Just stupid. If you or anyone else is afraid of homosexuality because you are worried about the spread of disease then gay marriage is the very best chance of stopping that. Pay attention!!!

I agree with you, and that is what I have been trying to get accross to DDM, so that is how this got into the blood donating discussion. Give him a break, its the only arguement he has against gay marriage.

People in comitted, monogamous relationships like marriage ARE AT NO RISK of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease through sexual transmission. None at all. This argues FOR gay marriage not against it. Honest question Ninurta. Do you not agree with this? And if not....why not?

Yeah, because you are just saying what I have already said. Though it hasn't gotten acrossed so I am letting this get in depth to get the point across. I have been for gay marriage long before i joined this forum. I honestly don't see why you are asking me this.