Texas GOP party platform: You can pray the gay away!

[charby]

I just want to know why the misbehaving children problem is only posed to religious folk. That's why I asked what religion has to do with it. There's no reason to think that non-religious folk won't object to their children gay-marrying.

Why is being gay misbehaving? One would think a person becomes gay because that is the behavior that they are most comfortable with. Misbehaver would be a person who know they were gay but forced themselves into a heterosexual relationship.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Even still, that consequence rarely manifests in a single generation of inbreeding, and there are certainly easy ways to nullify it anyway.  (One or both already being sterile, or having themselves rendered permanently so.)  Thus, rather than a prohibition, a single, simple restriction could eliminate that argument entirely.

You need to spend more time on your Mendel. Ressesive genes can cause problems for one generation of breeding for unrelated pairings. Two children of two unrelated carriers of certain genes could certainly produce unhealthy stock in one generation.

But that's beside the point. I didn't think of modern medical advances that would make the question of inbreeding moot. You are correct that laws against incest could be altered in favor of mandatory sterilization for those who would participate in it.
I still think it's ewwy though. :barf:

[BlueStarLizzard]

What are you talking about? The part I quoted was a statement, not a question. Your argument is that gay marriage is inevitable based on your reading of social trends, so no one should fight it. I was pointing out that continued expansion of the .gov and further restrictions of rights are just as "inevitable" but we all still fight against them.

That's a complete non-sequitor, and actually contrary to your position. If you wanted to argue that there should be no legal recognition of marriage I'd disagree but understand and sympathize with that position. But you're seeking to expand the scope and involvement of .gov in these relationships.

because the GOP isn't socialist in conservative clothing.

Seriously, take the hint, ax the "social" from the political conservitive and we maybe could avoid that road.

People vote on the issues that affect them personally, and on the issues they see in day to day life. They get gay marriage, not balancing the federal budget.

Here's an idea, stop worrying about who other people are screwing and start worrying about all of us getting screwed.

[Perd Hapley]

Why is being gay misbehaving? One would think a person becomes gay because that is the behavior that they are most comfortable with. Misbehaver would be a person who know they were gay but forced themselves into a heterosexual relationship.

Now that was hilarious. You win one internet.

OK. Why are children getting "gay-married" against their parents' wishes a question just for religious folk? How about nonreligious people who object to such?

[BlueStarLizzard]

Now that was hilarious. You win one internet.

OK. Why are children getting "gay-married" against their parents' wishes a question just for religious folk? How about nonreligious people who object to such?

Again. A show of hands, where are these nonreligious folk who object to their children's gay marriages?

[Balog]

because the GOP isn't socialist in conservative clothing.

Seriously, take the hint, ax the "social" from the political conservitive and we maybe could avoid that road.

People vote on the issues that affect them personally, and on the issues they see in day to day life. They get gay marriage, not balancing the federal budget.

Here's an idea, stop worrying about who other people are screwing and start worrying about all of us getting screwed.

So your point is that both major parties are socialist, but that if neither party objected to gay marriage then we would have a chance to stop socialism.

[Perd Hapley]

Again. A show of hands, where are these nonreligious folk who object to their children's gay marriages?

It goes back to this:

For the folks who are standing on their religion grounds.

So, what if you had a sibling, son or daughter that was gay and wanted to get married to a person of the same sex. Would you support them or shun them?

I want to know why religion affects the above question. If a person is opposed to their kids getting married to the same sex, why does it matter whether their view is religious, or otherwise?

[charby]

I want to know why religion affects the above question. If a person is opposed to their kids getting married to the same sex, why does it matter whether their view is religious, or otherwise?

Well I guess we better toss out "my faith guides my life" that religious people tend to use to live their life. Toss it out forever more!

[Balog]

It goes back to this:


I want to know why religion affects the above question. If a person is opposed to their kids getting married to the same sex, why does it matter whether their view is religious, or otherwise?

Charby assumes that only those damn crazy WBC equivalent religious folks oppose gay marriage, and the only reason they do so is cause they just hate hate hate the gays so much.

[onions!]

Again. A show of hands, where are these nonreligious folk who object to their children's gay marriages?

Here!
Atheist here!Checking in.
No kids.Wouldn't want them to marry within their sex.
My reason?I wouldn't want my child to(potentially) suffer the stigma that goes with being gay.I wouldn't want my child to be associated with the filthy loud disgusting trash that shows up at rallys supporting gay rights.Basically I'd like my kid to be able to lead a healthy life with as little stress as possible.I believe that a hetero relationship,while absolutely not being being without problems,the kid would have a better chance to work thru those problems.Less social stigma.There are also(more I suspect)social workers used to dealing with hetero realationship problems.Easier to get trained help if needed.

You say that I have no say over my kids life?And that they should be free to live it as they see fit.Without my interruption.You'd be right.Doesn't make me wrong though either.

One of the things I've learned as I age is that your parents never stop being your parents.They just get older.Sometimes,if you listen,they still even know more than you.

Just my thoughts that no one asked for.

[onions!]

What the hell is that?

Really!!What is it???!?!?!

[charby]

Charby assumes that only those damn crazy WBC equivalent religious folks oppose gay marriage, and the only reason they do so is cause they just hate hate hate the gays so much.

So where the hell did you get that?

and yes there are people who hate gays in the name of religion (there are other religions that Christianity), more than the WBC crowd.

OTH->

Recent polls show that more are in support then oppose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.

Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in Post-ABC polling.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Oh, Balog, no one thinks you hate the gayz.

I, for one, think you're grossed out by men kissing men and just can't stand seeing it so you'll do anything in your power to make it stop.

Do you get a little barfy when you see gay men hold hands?
>:)

I also note that the lot of you whinging about gay marriage seem uber focused on the gay men, but ya'll don't say much about the lesbians.

I'm guess you don't find two woman getting it on nearly as gross as the men. It's hard to be grossed out by something that turns you on, isn't it?

[onions!]

Recent polls show that more are in support then oppose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

Not intending to muddle your point but quoting any on-line poll as fact seems to be informationally dangerous.(words fail me sometimes,I can't help it)
I remember the poll taken on a ferry in San Francisco that said unanimously that Al Gore had won."100% of Americans agree that Gore was robbed".
You know what I mean.

[charby]

Not intending to muddle your point but quoting any on-line poll as fact seems to be informationally dangerous.(words fail me sometimes,I can't help it)
I remember the poll taken on a ferry in San Francisco that said unanimously that Al Gore had won."100% of Americans agree that Gore was robbed".
You know what I mean.

I know what you mean.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Here!
Atheist here!Checking in.
No kids.Wouldn't want them to marry within their sex.
My reason?I wouldn't want my child to(potentially) suffer the stigma that goes with being gay.I wouldn't want my child to be associated with the filthy loud disgusting trash that shows up at rallys supporting gay rights.Basically I'd like my kid to be able to lead a healthy life with as little stress as possible.I believe that a hetero relationship,while absolutely not being being without problems,the kid would have a better chance to work thru those problems.Less social stigma.There are also(more I suspect)social workers used to dealing with hetero realationship problems.Easier to get trained help if needed.

You say that I have no say over my kids life?And that they should be free to live it as they see fit.Without my interruption.You'd be right.Doesn't make me wrong though either.

One of the things I've learned as I age is that your parents never stop being your parents.They just get older.Sometimes,if you listen,they still even know more than you.

Just my thoughts that no one asked for.

That sounds more like you'd prefer your kids to just not be gay.

I'm asking if your kid is gay, would you support them if they got married to their same sex partner?

Remember, the alternatives would be alone for the rest of their lives, living a lie and miserable with someone they don't love or being out and either in a succession of uncommited relationships or a commited relationship that is basically marriage without the paper work.

[onions!]

I, for one, think you're grossed out by men kissing men and just can't stand seeing it so you'll do anything in your power to make it stop.

Do you get a little barfy when you see gay men hold hands?
>:)

I also note that the lot of you whinging about gay marriage seem uber focused on the gay men, but ya'll don't say much about the lesbians.

I'm guess you don't find two woman getting it on nearly as gross as the men. It's hard to be grossed out by something that turns you on, isn't it?

If I could.
It's even worse when a couple of hairy bears start swapping spit.
Same difference.A reasonably attractive,gay,female is a waste.Not likely to reproduce in a manner I'd find appropriate.Test tubes and turkey basters aren't the way Mother Nature intended things to proceed.
I,for one,have never found two women getting it on to be attractive.Never wanted to join in either.
Broad brushes=

[Balog]

So where the hell did you get that?

and yes there are people who hate gays in the name of religion (there are other religions that Christianity), more than the WBC crowd.

OTH->

Recent polls show that more are in support then oppose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

I got that from the WBC pictures you posted earlier. And really, assuming that the opposition to gay marriage comes from hating gay people is the only way to make sense of a lot of your lines of reasoning.

I also note that polls consistently over-estimate how popular gay marriage is at the voting booth. Not to mention the regional differences.

[BlueStarLizzard]

If I could.
It's even worse when a couple of hairy bears start swapping spit.
Same difference.A reasonably attractive,gay,female is a waste.Not likely to reproduce in a manner I'd find appropriate.Test tubes and turkey basters aren't the way Mother Nature intended things to proceed.
I,for one,have never found two women getting it on to be attractive.Never wanted to join in either.
Broad brushes=

First of all, you, sir, are a minority admist hetrosexual males. I am impressed, actually. The whole "two chicks banging is so HAWT!" get's really old afterawhile.

Second, I hope you end up with a woman who desperatly wants children and you are infertal, so you end up having to decide weither to break her heart or suck it up and deal with "unnatural" children.
That comment actually ticks me off for the shear stupidity of it.

[onions!]

That sounds more like you'd prefer your kids to just not be gay.

I'm asking if your kid is gay, would you support them if they got married to their same sex partner?

Remember, the alternatives would be alone for the rest of their lives, living a lie and miserable with someone they don't love or being out and either in a succession of uncommited relationships or a commited relationship that is basically marriage without the paper work.

That's true.I'd rather banish any gayness that crops up.Exorcism,whatever.In reality I understand that all I could do would be to try and intill my morals into their little fleshy gorps and hope that enough stuck.

Eh.That's more complicated.The way I was raised being gay was a BAD THING.It ranked right with un-wed mothers,single moms,welfare recipients,and probably a few others I can't recall right now.IOWS,my judgement is colored by my own experiences.As is anyone elses.

That said,to try and answer the question?I'd hope,if the gay were the way,that my spawn would be smart and keep their head down and just try to live a healthy,moral life.I'd accept it better if my kid and partner would accept me and my thoughts/feelings.If the kids(mine and the +1)were of the strident harpy variety I'd say no.I wouldn't support them.

For some reason I think that a gay couple would be more likely to pose ultimatums(ie.You don't love my gay partner so you don't love me!) than the typical hetero crotchfruit.Might be wrong.Case by case.

[Balog]

Oh, Balog, no one thinks you hate the gayz.

I, for one, think you're grossed out by men kissing men and just can't stand seeing it so you'll do anything in your power to make it stop.

Do you get a little barfy when you see gay men hold hands?
>:)

I also note that the lot of you whinging about gay marriage seem uber focused on the gay men, but ya'll don't say much about the lesbians.

I'm guess you don't find two woman getting it on nearly as gross as the men. It's hard to be grossed out by something that turns you on, isn't it?

I choose to live in Seattle, a place that is vying with San Francisco for most gays per capita. When I worked in downtown I saw gay guys doing a lot more than holding hands on a daily basis. It doesn't bother me on a visceral or emotional level, not even a little bit. I'd wager a month's pay that if you asked any of my (many many many) gay co-workers and friends if I treated them badly or differently, or if they suspected that I thought badly of them, for their orientation that they'd all say no.

Has anyone in this thread even mentioned gender, aside from maybe Roo in his stats on disease transmission? You're projecting sweetie.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I choose to live in Seattle, a place that is vying with San Francisco for most gays per capita. When I worked in downtown I saw gay guys doing a lot more than holding hands on a daily basis. It doesn't bother me on a visceral or emotional level, not even a little bit. I'd wager a month's pay that if you asked any of my (many many many) gay co-workers and friends if I treated them badly or differently, or if they suspected that I thought badly of them, for their orientation that they'd all say no.

Has anyone in this thread even mentioned gender, aside from maybe Roo in his stats on disease transmission? You're projecting sweetie.

Then, seriously, what is it about a piece of paper with a WORD on it so bothersome?

What does the WORD change?

"marriage" is a word. As with a lot of high impact words it means a lot of diffrent things to a lot of diffrent people. You don't find that word invalid when used by people of other religion who don't swear before your god. You don't find that word invalid for hetrosexual couples who swear before NO god. You don't find it invalid for those who swear it to multiple people (and I'm talking in a historical context. I belive the Bible even has mention of men married to more then one woman at a time) You don't find it invalid when it's sworn to God (nuns are married to god)

So why does this one (of a GREAT many) definition get you in a lather?

[onions!]

Second, I hope you end up with a woman who desperatly wants children and you are infertal, so you end up having to decide weither to break her heart or suck it up and deal with "unnatural" children.
That comment actually ticks me off for the shear stupidity of it.

You assume that she'd want a test tube kid as opposed to just adopting a child(children)?
If I'm infertile(and I know I'm not)I'd be happier with an adopted child.
To get waaaaaay off topic a second(   ),what would you,as a woman,rather have?Some other mans child(not from a different relationship mind)?Or an adoptee?

A pound puppy or a test tube?I'm curious.

For myself,I'm a single 44 year old guy that won't date a woman with kids.The reasons aren't germane to the conversation except that I'm unlikely to match up with a woman that wants kids anyways.
As for being shearly stupid?   See my earlier comment about personal experiences.Mine are different than yours.My feelings and perspective are also different.

[BlueStarLizzard]

That's true.I'd rather banish any gayness that crops up.Exorcism,whatever.In reality I understand that all I could do would be to try and intill my morals into their little fleshy gorps and hope that enough stuck.

Eh.That's more complicated.The way I was raised being gay was a BAD THING.It ranked right with un-wed mothers,single moms,welfare recipients,and probably a few others I can't recall right now.IOWS,my judgement is colored by my own experiences.As is anyone elses.

That said,to try and answer the question?I'd hope,if the gay were the way,that my spawn would be smart and keep their head down and just try to live a healthy,moral life.I'd accept it better if my kid and partner would accept me and my thoughts/feelings.If the kids(mine and the +1)were of the strident harpy variety I'd say no.I wouldn't support them.

For some reason I think that a gay couple would be more likely to pose ultimatums(ie.You don't love my gay partner so you don't love me!) than the typical hetero crotchfruit.Might be wrong.Case by case.

The first issue of gay being bad isn't as much the norm anymore.

The second, well, talk to some of the resident parents around here. Gay, straight, doesn't matter. Those issues abound with all adult children, regardless of orientation.
In fact, the one most likely to pose such an ultimatiam is a daughter of any orientation. Seriously. That's a girl thing.

[Balog]

Then, seriously, what is it about a piece of paper with a WORD on it so bothersome?

What does the WORD change?

"marriage" is a word. As with a lot of high impact words it means a lot of diffrent things to a lot of diffrent people. You don't find that word invalid when used by people of other religion who don't swear before your god. You don't find that word invalid for hetrosexual couples who swear before NO god. You don't find it invalid for those who swear it to multiple people (and I'm talking in a historical context. I belive the Bible even has mention of men married to more then one woman at a time) You don't find it invalid when it's sworn to God (nuns are married to god)

So why does this one (of a GREAT many) definition get you in a lather?

I could care less about "the word" I care about the laws that govern us. I care about fed.gov social engineering, I care about the "unintended" consequences I foresee this having on liberty.

Seriously, have you actually read any of the arguments that I and others have advanced in this thread? Hundreds if not thousands of words explaining why I feel this is 1 unneeded and 2 a threat to liberty, and you still claim to not understand why I would object to it aside from an emotional response?

If you don't understand my position from all of the posts I have previously made in this and other threads, then I literally don't know what more I can do to convey my position.