• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage

Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Bassman said:
You mean make the GOP become so Liberal that it's just an arm of the Dumbfuque Party? Where would there be any distinction then?
Click to expand...
Do you think the GOP is defined by one issue?
There is an entire landscape out there. Gay marriage is just one issue.
And regardless of your opinions above, the historic Republican stance on gay issues WILL cost them votes...

The thing that kills me about the issue is that the Republican stance often comes to contradicting the majority will within the party.
For example, when gays in the military was more recently a hot issue, polls showed a majority of Republicans felt the ban should be ended.
But the official party line held for the ban.
The official party platform caters to the more extreme, while arguing against the majority within their own party.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

rocket88 said:
Have you ever kissed your girlfriend in public? It should be different for gays because.....?

Do you actually know any gay people, or is your knowledge limited to TV movies?

Of all the gay people I know, not one of them tries to act "as gay as possible."
Click to expand...

It's different because homosexuality is abnormal - because it is NORMAL for a man and woman to be together, because 98% of the population is heterosexual...

I suppose anyone could show up to work in an Donald Duck suit as well and make the same argument you're attempting to make then say "well some employees at Disneyland dress up as Donald Duck."

May as well go to Saudi Arabia and crack a 40 oz bottle of beer and say "so what we drink this **** back home."

I'd bet anything that the majority of individuals that are for "civil unions" would be opposed to gays making out in public..
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

notquiteright said:
I can see where you'd say all the above, but everything has exceptions, exemptions, and exclusions.

But the Government does step in on contract law, does all the time, what is or isn't allowed in a contract, everything from credit to buildings. Civil law, common law, are functions of the Government. Who enforces civil law?
Click to expand...

Arbitrators step in - not the government.

A contract is de facto law - hence a contract. A contract is nothing more than an agreement between two (or more) individuals.

That's the best I can do trying to be brief and not complicate the idea of a contract.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

rocket88 said:
I thought you weren't a Republican.
Click to expand...

Not a "modern republican."

I don't like the present day language used to describe political affiliation. People use republican and liberal too loosely, I prefer preciseness when labels are thrown around.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Mr.Nick said:
It's different because homosexuality is abnormal - because it is NORMAL for a man and woman to be together, because 98% of the population is heterosexual...
Click to expand...

So it's not about personal freedom, it's about normal and abnormal?

I suppose anyone could show up to work in an Donald Duck suit as well and make the same argument you're attempting to make then say "well some employees at Disneyland dress up as Donald Duck."
Click to expand...

What you do on your spare time is not up to me. I think most people would get fired for wearing a Donald Duck suit, but there's no need for the government to step in. If you want to wear one, and your employer is OK with it, fine by me.

May as well go to Saudi Arabia and crack a 40 oz bottle of beer and say "so what we drink this **** back home."
Click to expand...

Well, that's actually illegal in Saudi Arabia, so it's not really the same thing.

I'd bet anything that the majority of individuals that are for "civil unions" would be opposed to gays making out in public..
Click to expand...

I personally don't like when anybody goes at it in public. There's a little kiss and then there's foreplay.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Mr.Nick said:
It's different because homosexuality is abnormal - because it is NORMAL for a man and woman to be together, because 98% of the population is heterosexual...
I suppose anyone could show up to work in an Donald Duck suit as well and make the same argument you're attempting to make then say "well some employees at Disneyland dress up as Donald Duck."
Click to expand...
"Normal" is such a loaded value judgment on the issue.
I've found that when people talk about homosexuality not being "normal", what they are typically relying on is their own moral values on the issue.

For example, if we examine a claim of "normal" based on statistics, we could equally say interracial couples are not "normal" in the U.S. due to how few of them there are. But most people accept such non-normal situations.


Mr.Nick said:
May as well go to Saudi Arabia and crack a 40 oz bottle of beer and say "so what we drink this **** back home."
Click to expand...
Interesting.
Such an analogy hints at prejudice and intolerance being the common thread.
I wouldn't think the intolerance in the middle east would be a good comparison on the issue, at least for those criticizing gays doing what straights do in public...

Mr.Nick said:
I'd bet anything that the majority of individuals that are for "civil unions" would be opposed to gays making out in public..
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "oppose"?
If you mean they would think negatively of it, then I personally see that as irrelevant. Such opinions don't keep me up at night.
We could talk for quite a while about the different ways that people are judged in public, but we're all entitled to an opinion.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Mr.Nick said:
Not a "modern republican."

I don't like the present day language used to describe political affiliation. People use republican and liberal too loosely, I prefer preciseness when labels are thrown around.
Click to expand...

If you're not a Republican, why do you care what they think about gays?
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

rocket88 said:
So it's not about personal freedom, it's about normal and abnormal?



What you do on your spare time is not up to me. I think most people would get fired for wearing a Donald Duck suit, but there's no need for the government to step in. If you want to wear one, and your employer is OK with it, fine by me.



Well, that's actually illegal in Saudi Arabia, so it's not really the same thing.



I personally don't like when anybody goes at it in public. There's a little kiss and then there's foreplay.
Click to expand...

If it really matters to you - I've gotten pretty "hot" with chicks in public (bars or private venues) and you want to know what happened? "security" told us to knock it off....

So why shouldn't those same rules apply to gays?

Gays probably have more liberty at gay bars than heterosexual people do at "normal bars."

I just don't want to see two guys at Denny's making out while I'm trying to eat my breakfast - but that is the type of crazy **** gays do...

That **** isn't progress it's disrespectful.... There is always a time and place for everything but gays don't understand that.

Funny how gay conservatives realize that but gay progressives don't.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Bassman said:
You mean the Conservative majority in the US, Dumb Canucklehead??
Click to expand...

There is no conservative majority, just another small arm of the GOP much like the Tea Party.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

rocket88 said:
If you're not a Republican, why do you care what they think about gays?
Click to expand...

I don't give a **** what republicans think....

As a matter of fact I dislike modern republicans as much as I dislike progressives - republicans only try to throw us libertarians off the ballot every cycle... RINO's hate libertarians...

I've been telling libertarians to run as democrats if they cant get the republican support they need... I don't really think it matters republican or democrat.. You run as a libertarian you're considered a nut, you run as a democrat or republican you make sense to either voting block despite the fact your ideas have never changed..
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Dragonfly said:
Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage <-- hahaha

Things could get real fun on the right over the next few years....
Click to expand...
Comments like these by Karl Rove do nothing but demonstrate to be how unprincipled he is as a human being. He just wants to win, period. He isn't motivated by some larger goal, some noble cause - just by winning. I honestly don't know if I can stand people like him more or if can't stand people who have horrible principles.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

mak2 said:
I thought the evangelicals would put the stop to Romney cause he is a cultist. I dont think they have the power they once did.
Click to expand...

The only time the GOP needs the evangelists is on voting day. After that their views don't matter one bit to them. You'd think that they would catch on.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

This will all be settled long before 2016. Probably this year. The Supreme Court is already on the case.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

MrLiberty said:
I think we are seeing the beginning of a split in the republican party, perhaps even a viable third party. My belief is you'll have the republican party which will be democrat lite, and then you'll have a true conservative party who stand on principle and believe in small government. Right now the repubs are in a shambles and don't know what to stand for.
Click to expand...
Yes. They are suposed to stand for following the rules no matter what.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

iguanaman said:
The only time the GOP needs the evangelists is on voting day. After that their views don't matter one bit to them. You'd think that they would catch on.
Click to expand...

I don't really like evangelists, however it is quite clear you have absolutely ZERO concept of Christianity given your comment.

We're all sinners - That is why Jesus was crucified (or allowed himself to be)..

There is no such thing as a mortal perfect being....

I find it amusing how the progressive atheists sit there an attempt to imply evangelicals should be perfect.... At least evangelicals at least try to be the best they can be and do everything in their power to avoid what casual people or secular individuals would call "pleasures."

Sorry, I had to get that out of my system...
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

mak2 said:
Sometimes I flaunt my hetro ness right out there in public.
Click to expand...

That's considered sexual assault.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Paschendale said:
This will all be settled long before 2016. Probably this year. The Supreme Court is already on the case.
Click to expand...

No....

If you think the SCOTUS even has the flipp'n authority to hear this case then the Tenth Amendment is garbage...

There is no Goddamn amendment that says ANYTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE hence the SCOTUS should stay the **** out of this issue.

If gay supporters want marriage then AMEND the ****ing Constitution instead of running to courts... Oh yeah, I forgot congress cannot and never could pass a "marriage" amendment...

**** half these clowns we have elected couldn't write a ****ing summery...
 
Last edited:
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Mr.Nick said:
I don't really like evangelists, however it is quite clear you have absolutely ZERO concept of Christianity given your comment.

We're all sinners - That is why Jesus was crucified (or allowed himself to be)..

There is no such thing as a mortal perfect being....

I find it amusing how the progressive atheists sit there an attempt to imply evangelicals should be perfect.... At least evangelicals at least try to be the best they can be and do everything in their power to avoid what casual people or secular individuals would call "pleasures."

Sorry, I had to get that out of my system...
Click to expand...

I never said they should be perfect, just not ignorant fools.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Mr.Nick said:
No....
If you think the SCOTUS even has the flipp'n authority to hear this case then the Tenth Amendment is garbage...
There is no Goddamn amendment that says ANYTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE hence the SCOTUS should stay the **** out of this issue.
Click to expand...
You need to revisit the 9th amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Furthermore, you can't make your argument unless you object to Loving v Virginia as well, which also infringed upon the states' rights to define marriage.
The only way Loving v Virginia had standing is by first acknowledging that marriage was a right, which was already established in other previous rulings.

Mr.Nick said:
If gay supporters want marriage then AMEND the ****ing Constitution instead of running to courts... Oh yeah, I forgot congress cannot and never could pass a "marriage" amendment...
**** half these clowns we have elected couldn't write a ****ing summery...
Click to expand...
I am curious how long it will take for Congress to pass the next amendment. The last attempt was the DOMA amendment attempt.
I think we won't see any amendments from Congress for a long time.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

foundit66 said:
You need to revisit the 9th amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Furthermore, you can't make your argument unless you object to Loving v Virginia as well, which also infringed upon the states' rights to define marriage.
The only way Loving v Virginia had standing is by first acknowledging that marriage was a right, which was already established in other previous rulings.


I am curious how long it will take for Congress to pass the next amendment. The last attempt was the DOMA amendment attempt.
I think we won't see any amendments from Congress for a long time.
Click to expand...

I think the last amendment that passed congress and was ratified by the states was the one that allowed 18 year olds to vote. That was 1971. I do not count the 27th amendment as that was passed by congress in 1789 and not ratified by the states until 1992. So the last recent proposed amendment that passed congress and was ratified by the states was the 26th. I, like you think there will probably be no more amendments that can pass congress. Congress has become way to polorized and you would need 2/3rd of both chambers to pass an amendment.

For any amendment on gay marriage to pass, you would need 290 members of the house and 67 senators voting for it. That will not happen, period.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

foundit66 said:
I am curious how long it will take for Congress to pass the next amendment. The last attempt was the DOMA amendment attempt.
I think we won't see any amendments from Congress for a long time.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking no DOMA amendment ever got past the planning stage. The last amendment tried was the ERA, and it failed. The SCOTUS just reinterpretted the Constitution to enable ERA anyway, making it superflous.

We're all the way down the false road the SCOTUS has led us to where the court is in charge of amending the Constitution and the people have no part in it.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

mak2 said:
Or maybe sexual insult.
Click to expand...

I don't think you got it.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

I didn't. I thought you were trying to make a funny.
ReformCollege said:
I don't think you got it.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

iguanaman said:
I never said they should be perfect, just not ignorant fools.
Click to expand...

Yeah well Jesus died on the cross so they can be "ignorant fools."

Ignorance is the notion that some believe evangelicals should shed their faith to be more "progressive."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom