• 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!

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

Thank God TN isn't a state with bigoted laws that respects human rights, equality and all that other wonderful stuff :peace

And yet - there is a medical danger in cousins having kids with physical/mental illnesses. Which is why most consistent states outright ban it. No such danger for gays. Can't reproduce - remember? Aren't you supposed to know this though? Aren't you studying to be a secretary at a doctor's office or something along those lines?
 
Gays want marriage officially recognized by the federal government - heterosexuals don't even get that, hence if gays can accomplish the feat - they're setting up a slippery slope based on mere precedence (an idea they don't understand)....

where is this coming from?

Polygamists and incest psychos will be the next in line to claim they're being "discriminated against.." of course the gays will be the first ones to discriminate against them.

Ah, okay. Got you now.
 
8 nights ago, we were all diverted off of I-80 at mile marker #173 with a Haz-Mat accident.
I later learned when I went north when truckers were forced south into a worse cluster****, it was because of horse-and-buggy state laws.
I got to Mill Hall, just west of Lock Haven, and pulled in for a needed RR stop and then a black raspberry sundae.
The two couples there helped me to find my way back to I-80.
The 4 girls serving ice cream had their religious bonnets but all was normal and quiet.
I passed one buggy with beautiful lights, it was at night.
hmmm well i dont know what the consensus is outside the state

but inside the state there are many jokes about how theres the cities Pittsburgh and philly and its Mississippi inbetween

i myself have been throughout the Northeast and live here all my life and i have to agree it is unique, you go to the tright mall and you will have every stereotype presnt lol
 
1.)The childhood argument is used against SSM often as well pointing out the fact that their sex isn't reproductive and is biologically wasted from a human reproduction standpoint.

2.) Why not allow incest couples to just have abortions if they are with child? There is an increased risk, but it's still just a risk and not a definite outcome.

3.) People are against incest because they are bigoted against sibling love. It disgusts them and they go based on their feelings. They are intolerant of that kind of relationship.

4.)If two consenting siblings love each other and want to wed who should stop them?

5.) What about a homosexual relationship between siblings? There is no problem with children there, why ban that?

6.)You like to toss around the word "fact" a lot. Please show me the solid, empirical "facts" regarding human rights and why SSM is a human right. Don't confuse your perspective or opinion with "fact" either.



Thank God TN isn't a state with bigoted laws that respects human rights, equality and all that other wonderful stuff :peace

1.) uhm again not even close to equal, not having kids which hetero choose to do sometimes is nothing like endangering kids to have deformities Are you serious. did you just compare couples not being able to and couples choosing not to have kids to risking deformities and bring a child into the world deformed? wow digs that totally fails it snot even close to the same or logical

2.) did you read my post, i basically already said this. but again it has nothing to do with gay rights

3.) yep this is possible and im sure there are but thats not why its illegal. again nothing to do with gay rights

4,) again you didnt read my post did you , i said if they want to fight to be allowed im fine with it but it has nothing to do with gay rights, what arent you getting

5.) see above

see the fact none of that is equal and NOBODY can marry their siblings, NOBODY

6.) sure no problem

see the court cases saying so its factually an equality issues, the courts made it so, no me, not my preservative, court cases and precedence
also in those court case they refer to human rights , human dignity, human liberties, fundamental human relationship
also when SCOTUS ruled 14 times that marriage is a right and it relates to these cases and when they ruled those things again many times the same verbiage was used: human rights , human dignity, human liberties, fundamental human relationship

also see the hundreds of human rights orgs that also deem it so, including the article i just posted to you in another thread about the UN putting more effort into the human rights of equal rights for gays..

now that makes it fact for an equality issue, no arguing that
if you want to say thats not good enough for a human rights issue, then id simply say then their are no factual human rights issues then and ill simple stick with all those rulings, laws, orgs and case precedence and you are free to go against them based on what ever you have.

what else you got? slipper slops fails comparisons to incest, polygamy, pedophilia all fail, too just like they did with interracial marriage which is also NOT a straw man no matter how many times you falsely deem it that and loving vs Virginia has been referenced in some of the previous mentions rulings.

let me know what else you got, you know ill gladly discuss anythign with you
 
Well, to be fair, it's the countryside where I picked up that particular first-hand impression, especially the entire area in and around Wilkes Barre. I'm not familiar with the tright mall.

lol that should of said right mall lol

and yes it can get real country real fast in places of pa.
 
Lol, I'm now getting a serious kick watching you do pirouettes. So you're saying that interracial marriage is legal as per the 14th, but it should not be legal as per the same amendment?

I'm exposing flaws that don't suit your argument....

You know and I know the Equal Protection clause can justify just about any beef you have...

If I was a dishonest communist I would used the same argument...

But my intent isn't politics it's merely bipartisan honesty on an issue...

I'm not anti-gay, I just expect that if Homosexuals (or any individual for that matter) should require a detailed amendment...

If that is too much to ask for..... I'm not the one with the problem.
 
well i sorta agree about the OP its a little over the top based on the content of the discussion the governed was having

but his statment is definitely wrong still, at lest he was tryign to clean it up from comparing it to child rape but he failed.
IF, as he claimed later, his statement was "gay marriage is illegal in PA at the moment, much like incestual marriage is illegal in PA at the moment"...

Then he said NOTHING wrong.
 
I'm exposing flaws that don't suit your argument....

You know and I know the Equal Protection clause can justify just about any beef you have...

If I was a dishonest communist I would used the same argument...

But my intent isn't politics it's merely bipartisan honesty on an issue...

I'm not anti-gay, I just expect that if Homosexuals (or any individual for that matter) should require a detailed amendment...

If that is too much to ask for..... I'm not the one with the problem.

Slow your roll there Nick or you'll run out of words. How did we go from the equal protection clause to communism? I asked if the state has a right to discriminate against interracial marriages. You have yet to answer it.
 
IF, as he claimed later, his statement was "gay marriage is illegal in PA at the moment, much like incestual marriage is illegal in PA at the moment"...

Then he said NOTHING wrong.

see i still disagree, one should simply know better not to even compare them in any way really
now the judgment of it can be over the top yes i agree 100% but one should no better especially a politician, especially one saying comparing it to child marriage was wrong.

just saying from a reality stand point thats the wrong move, id bet the farm and tractor after words his handlers were like? REALLY TOM? REALLY? lol

i know i would of smack my head as soon as he said it

but again be clear im not saying that justifies this amount of backlash
 
It's an odd analogy but makes sense from the fact that homosexuality is as abnormal as incest and not to mention the slippery slope gay marriage represents.... Hell, gay marriage by de facto discriminates against others in "taboo" relationships...

I don't think it takes a "conservative" to realize that... An intelligent person of any political affiliation (or no political affiliation at all) can see that...

I don't think "intelligent" was the word that you meant to use.
 
But my intent isn't politics it's merely bipartisan honesty on an issue...

you say this like you believe its true, its funny. all your posts prove otherwise, you use this as a curtain to hide behind when you are simply just not for equality.
 
see i still disagree, one should simply know better not to even compare them in any way really
now the judgment of it can be over the top yes i agree 100% but one should no better especially a politician, especially one saying comparing it to child marriage was wrong.

just saying from a reality stand point thats the wrong move, id bet the farm and tractor after words his handlers were like? REALLY TOM? REALLY? lol

i know i would of smack my head as soon as he said it

but again be clear im not saying that justifies this amount of backlash
Granted it was a statement which came fully loaded with multiple options for being taken out of context and misconstrued.

But still, it was not an incorrect comparison, and I find it kinda stupid that comparing the two things in this way got so much flak...both ARE illegal under PA law, and thus he was completely correct. Assuming you believe his statement after the fact, clarifying.
 
Granted it was a statement which came fully loaded with multiple options for being taken out of context and misconstrued.

But still, it was not an incorrect comparison, and I find it kinda stupid that comparing the two things in this way got so much flak...both ARE illegal under PA law, and thus he was completely correct. Assuming you believe his statement after the fact, clarifying.

well i agree the "flak" and its amount is the debatable part but its poor poor poor judgement

just the reality of media/politics today unfortunately
 
Slow your roll there Nick or you'll run out of words. How did we go from the equal protection clause to communism? I asked if the state has a right to discriminate against interracial marriages. You have yet to answer it.

The state(s) during the "Jim Crow era" (Jim Crow) was never a person by the way just a metaphor...

However in the era sodomy was against the law - lets not forget these were laws legislated by democrats and enforced by democrats... those are just facts... I'm not even attempting to portray republicans any better, however they certainly were back pre 1970 or so - at least in the south where republicans were an anomaly...

IMO, It would be dishonest for progressives or those of your ilk to portray non-progressives as biased against homosexual activity when my generation doesn't give a **** who ****s who just as long as their lifestyle isn't shoved down our throat.........

Homosexuality isn't a "right" however it's not a crime and to believe anyone who opposes such an act is a bigot or hate monger because they have their own personal opinions on the issue it absolutely off base - and to every extent makes you the bigot for judging their morals, ethics and opinion on the matter - even if they do find the act offensive en ought to even "hate."

All I expect out of you is mutual respect...

I could care less who people **** but others certainly do find the act more funky than I do but they have every right to have that position as you do yours...

Homosexuality is certainly not RIGHT and NOR is it wrong...

I have my own opinions on the issue and my personal opinions AND politics are a smorgasbord board of the aforementioned...

So as I have previously stated - amend the Constitution if you want gay marriage, if that isn't possible petition the state...

My opinion on the issue really means nothing because I really don't care - I'm not an activist because it's really not a constitutional issue - and as a libertarian the constitution mans everything.
 
I don't think "intelligent" was the word that you meant to use.

I don't even understand how you believe your personal opinion trumps constitutional law.
 
The state(s) during the "Jim Crow era" (Jim Crow) was never a person by the way just a metaphor...

However in the era sodomy was against the law - lets not forget these were laws legislated by democrats and enforced by democrats... those are just facts... I'm not even attempting to portray republicans any better, however they certainly were back pre 1970 or so - at least in the south where republicans were an anomaly...

IMO, It would be dishonest for progressives or those of your ilk to portray non-progressives as biased against homosexual activity when my generation doesn't give a **** who ****s who just as long as their lifestyle isn't shoved down our throat.........

Homosexuality isn't a "right" however it's not a crime and to believe anyone who opposes such an act is a bigot or hate monger because they have their own personal opinions on the issue it absolutely off base - and to every extent makes you the bigot for judging their morals, ethics and opinion on the matter - even if they do find the act offensive en ought to even "hate."

All I expect out of you is mutual respect...

I could care less who people **** but others certainly do find the act more funky than I do but they have every right to have that position as you do yours...

Homosexuality is certainly not RIGHT and NOR is it wrong...

I have my own opinions on the issue and my personal opinions AND politics are a smorgasbord board of the aforementioned...

So as I have previously stated - amend the Constitution if you want gay marriage, if that isn't possible petition the state...

My opinion on the issue really means nothing because I really don't care - I'm not an activist because it's really not a constitutional issue - and as a libertarian the constitution mans everything.

So - does the state - by the same morality under which it bans gay marriages have a right to ban interracial marriages? yes or no? Simple answer.
 
So - does the state - by the same morality under which it bans gay marriages have a right to ban interracial marriages? yes or no? Simple answer.

Interracial marriage = man + woman ( doesn't change the definition of marriage)

Gay Sham/Pretend "Marriage" (Not) = man + ?

Not comparable. Oil and Water.

BTW a father marrying his adult son (for tax purposes/sex too consenting adults heh) should be legal if gay sham/pretend "marriage" (Not) is legal
 
Interracial marriage = man + woman ( doesn't change the definition of marriage)

Where in the constitution is the definition of marriage stated?
 
Where in the constitution is the definition of marriage stated?

The notion that the definition of marriage = man + woman is the oldest notion of a tradition and definition of an institution in human history

Gay Math = 1 + 1 = 0
 
The notion that the definition of marriage = man + woman is the oldest notion of a tradition and definition of an institution in human history

Gay Math = 1 + 1 = 0

You didn't answer - I asked WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION is marriage defined?
 
It doesn't matter what this guy says, or what anyone says. The law and the constitution are quite clear. Same sex marriage will be a settled issue, nationally protected and recognized, and exactly the same as opposite sex marriage. And it will be settled soon. That's all there is to it.
 
You didn't answer - I asked WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION is marriage defined?

It doesn't need to be in The Constitution. By DESIGN, the Framers left social issues to be left to the state. All Founding Fathers believed homosexuality to be a deviant abomination. The concept of Gay Marriage was completely repulsive and alien to them.

Quick question:

How many Gay children can 2 gay men reproduce?
 
well i agree the "flak" and its amount is the debatable part but its poor poor poor judgement

just the reality of media/politics today unfortunately
IMO, that reality is more of an issue than the issue of gay marriage Then again, it probably negatively affects the gay marriage debate in many cases, so in away the two are related.


Edit: For example, I would almost guarantee you that the various conservative media outlets (especially the national radio talk show ones) will be talking about how the media (probably they'll say "the left wing media", or "the mainstream media") intentionally took his words out of context to forward their (the media's) agenda supporting gay marriage.

Then I bet the persons who want to believe that gay marriage is wrong will take that as proof they are being persecuted by the evil left-wing types, and it will shore up their belief that they are right (pun not intended until I realized it was there).

Which harms the gay marriage supporting side of the gay marriage debate.

Or something like that.
 
Last edited:
So - does the state - by the same morality under which it bans gay marriages have a right to ban interracial marriages? yes or no? Simple answer.

What sates are and the states that do are not entitled to their Tenth Amendment rights?

A better question to ask is why you feel so authoritarian on this issue?

several stats - you know this.

Why you have a problem with the Tenth Amendment? or are you a federalist sympathizer who believes the federal government is the end all and dictates civil liberties - that it's the federal government that allows us to have individual freedom??? You appear to be a collectivist that subscribes to that notion..

Maybe the general populace employs the local, county, state and federal government and we limit them -- they don't limit us.... Maybe when the Federal Government wants to make apont they send there COP SS storm troopers out?...
 
IMO, that reality is more of an issue than the issue of gay marriage Then again, it probably negatively affects the gay marriage debate in many cases, so in away the two are related.


Edit: For example, I would almost guarantee you that the various conservative media outlets (especially the national radio talk show ones) will be talking about how the media (probably they'll say "the left wing media", or "the mainstream media") intentionally took his words out of context to forward their (the media's) agenda supporting gay marriage.

Then I bet the persons who want to believe that gay marriage is wrong will take that as proof they are being persecuted by the evil left-wing types, and it will shore up their belief that they are right (pun not intended until I realized it was there).

Which harms the gay marriage supporting side of the gay marriage debate.

Or something like that.

all true on the surface IMO but meaningless to anybody honest and intelligent.

but you are spot on
 
Back
Top Bottom