Obama-Marriage Debate - Sparta, TN

Regardless of your beliefs regarding homosexuals, this issue highlights how short sighted and self serving the Obama administration really is. Consider the fact that we can't support everyone on Medicare (soon to be ObamaCare) and Social Security now. So how are you going to allow the gay population to enter into marital relationships making a surviving partner eligible for survivor and retirement benefits? Huge tax increases that's how. True to form, that is how the Democrats think. Just raise taxes to pay for whatever "feel good" issue draws popular support. Say what you want about the "rich" Republicans but I hope you are ready for the complete destruction of our economy Obama is driving this nation toward.

Supporting basic human rights and equality is never short-sighted.

Ok, so how long will it be until someone wants to marry their dog and we can make the pet eligible for Social Security? That's certainly no more deviant than homosexuality.

TTG wrote:

Ok, so how long will it be until someone wants to marry their dog and we can make the pet eligible for Social Security? That's certainly no more deviant than homosexuality.

When dogs become sentient and gain the ability to express abstract thought, political belief, and an understanding of consent, earning themselves protections under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Which will happen around the same time that that strawman you're building gets up and starts singing "If I Only Had A Brain".

Brain's workin quite well thank you, and thankfully I think Obama just sealed his soon to be concluded presidency's fate.

TTG wrote:

Brain's workin quite well thank you, and thankfully I think Obama just sealed his soon to be concluded presidency's fate.

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Out of curiosity, do you understand the quote you so skillfully copied and paste upon comment box? LOL

You created a strawman argument replacing gay marriage with bestiality, then attempted to tie that back into gay marriage. It also has some slippery-slope elements, but ultimately you're trying to substitute a totally different subject than what you're purportedly arguing against.

Oh nothing of the sort. I consider homosexuality on the same level as bestiality. You see I'm not a candy butt, beat around the bush liberal type. I'm more the old school kind of fellow, from a time when a man acted like one. You probably would not understand.

TTG wrote:

Oh nothing of the sort. I consider homosexuality on the same level as bestiality. You see I'm not a candy butt, beat around the bush liberal type. I'm more the old school kind of fellow, from a time when a man acted like one. You probably would not understand.

You're doing more to advance the cause of gay marriage than I could ever hope to. Every time someone like you says something hateful in this debate, the dogwhistle argument about "protecting traditional marriage" is shown to be just another cover for bigotry and hatred.
It's beautiful to watch you undermine your own belief system.

Oh and it's still a straw man argument, because you're attempting to replace the topic with another one, even if they are related in your mind.

I'll even make this more simple for you. You are twisting the argument by injecting the issues of bigotry and hatred. I have no hate for anyone. In fact I feel for anyone so mentally ill to be sexually attracted to ones own sex. I know they need mental health care and probably are in such denial as to refuse to see it. Your attempt to use vague references and innuendo, such as "straw man" to discredit hints at your desperation to justify deviant behavior.

TTG wrote:

I'll even make this more simple for you. You are twisting the argument by injecting the issues of bigotry and hatred. I have no hate for anyone. In fact I feel for anyone so mentally ill to be sexually attracted to ones own sex. I know they need mental health care and probably are in such denial as to refuse to see it. Your attempt to use vague references and innuendo, such as "straw man" to discredit hints at your desperation to justify deviant behavior.

May I ask what would constitute bigotry against gays if "homosexuals are mentally ill" does not qualify?

I'm pretty sure that saying homosexuals are mentally ill comes under the heading of "truth", whether you like it or not.

visitor wrote:

I'm pretty sure that saying homosexuals are mentally ill comes under the heading of "truth", whether you like it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_an...
Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon. Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality. As a result of such accumulated research, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences, opposing the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, claimed the conclusion that it was inaccurate, and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions that were based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples which consisted of patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.[1]

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.[3] Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

LOL..... You do spend a great deal of time researching homosexual activity don't you. All I can tell you is count me in with the "those that consider it a disorder." I think the fall election will show that the majority of U.S. voters find homosexual behavior indecent, offensive, and disgusting.

TTG wrote:

LOL..... You do spend a great deal of time researching homosexual activity don't you. All I can tell you is count me in with the "those that consider it a disorder." I think the fall election will show that the majority of U.S. voters find homosexual behavior indecent, offensive, and disgusting.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-...
"May 20, 2011
For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage
Republicans and older Americans remain opposed
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change."

Yeah, right... "most Americans" favor legal gay marriage..."

That is until they get to the voting booth...

Good thing no one is elected, no anything passed based on Polls.

Sparta wrote:

Yeah, right... "most Americans" favor legal gay marriage..."
That is until they get to the voting booth...
Good thing no one is elected, no anything passed based on Polls.

Good thing that basic human rights are not decided based on votes.

breakfast sandwich wrote:

<quoted text>
Good thing that basic human rights are not decided based on votes.

What about multiple wives/husbands? Do we allow that next? Chimps have been documented as being self aware do we allow zoo keepers to marry chimps? You can argue it all you want 31 states by the way of voting has shot down gay marrage. Your article appears to be a falsehood, remember people may accept that Odumbo is pres right now but in November in the voting both they will speak their true peace on the matter.