Google Santorum Debate - Utica, NY

Discuss the national Google Santorum debate in Utica, NY.

Have you googled Santorum?

Utica is laughing
Yes, and it's h...
 
17
Yes, and I'm ap...
 
10
Not yet
 
0
Comments
121 - 134 of 134 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Feb 3, 2012
 
some chick wrote:
If marriage is a cultural institution, then with our current culture being one that includes homosexual relationships, shouldn't gay marriage be included?
The purpose of marriage is to provide a home for children with their mom and dad; same sex couples can't produce children. That's why government has no vital interest in same sex marriage.

Same sex marriage would create new intrusive government regulation around marriage, wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries and higher taxes to pay for it all.

While there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; same sex marriage is still taboo. We don't have to radically change a fundamental social institution just to feel we are good people.
truth

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Feb 3, 2012
 
Don wrote:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n ytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marr iage-opponents-now-in-minority /
You're kidding right? A snapshot in time (poll) from a left-leaning network and published on a left leaning blog? That's what you are going to offer as evidence of support for same sex marriage in the US? That's very naive I think.

The factual evidence (not blog opinions or polls) that I've posted clearly shows what the opinion of the majority is. The part about how people feel when they can voice their opinion in the privacy of a voting booth is especially telling.
truth

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Feb 3, 2012
 
Don wrote:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n ytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marr iage-opponents-now-in-minority /
And again, what part of what I've stated is a lie?
some chick

Utica, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Feb 3, 2012
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The purpose of marriage is to provide a home for children with their mom and dad; same sex couples can't produce children. That's why government has no vital interest in same sex marriage.
Same sex marriage would create new intrusive government regulation around marriage, wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries and higher taxes to pay for it all.
While there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; same sex marriage is still taboo. We don't have to radically change a fundamental social institution just to feel we are good people.
Couldn't the same be said then for male and female couples who are unable to concieve then? I mean, these couples are same sex but can't produce children, so there for the government shouldn't show interest for them? Yes, homosexual. Couples cannot produce children, but they can adopt. This lessens the burden on funding programs for children who are orphaned or in the system.
I'm not sure though how entitlements for same sex couples is wasteful. If these people were straight they would get the entitlements no questions asked, so in a sense the money for these entitlements is there anyway. Also, I would be interested in hearing what kind of new intrusive govetnmnt it is you think would have to be created. I'm not really sure why any different system than what already exists would have to be put in place.
Gay Guy

Baldwinsville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Feb 4, 2012
 
some chick wrote:
<quoted text>
Couldn't the same be said then for male and female couples who are unable to concieve then? I mean, these couples are same sex but can't produce children, so there for the government shouldn't show interest for them? Yes, homosexual. Couples cannot produce children, but they can adopt. This lessens the burden on funding programs for children who are orphaned or in the system.
I'm not sure though how entitlements for same sex couples is wasteful. If these people were straight they would get the entitlements no questions asked, so in a sense the money for these entitlements is there anyway. Also, I would be interested in hearing what kind of new intrusive govetnmnt it is you think would have to be created. I'm not really sure why any different system than what already exists would have to be put in place.
He has no actual idea what he is talking about. He just copies and pastes the same post every few days. He says it's about children, that they should have a mom and dad, that next we'll go after the consent requirement and all come out as closet pedophiles..... really, he just thinks it's gross, but refuses to acknowledge his homophobia.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Feb 4, 2012
 
some chick wrote:
Couldn't the same be said then for male and female couples who are unable to concieve then? I mean, these couples are same sex but can't produce children, so there for the government shouldn't show interest for them? Yes, homosexual. Couples cannot produce children, but they can adopt. This lessens the burden on funding programs for children who are orphaned or in the system.
An infertile husband and wife can give an adopted child something no same sex couple can, a mother and father. Other than that, you might be right about infertile male/female couples since the government doesn't even bother to test for fertility.

.
some chick wrote:
I'm not sure though how entitlements for same sex couples is wasteful. If these people were straight they would get the entitlements no questions asked, so in a sense the money for these entitlements is there anyway.
Same sex couples aren't at risk of unintended pregnancy, nor do they benefit society by creating children without help from the opposite gender.

.
some chick wrote:
Also, I would be interested in hearing what kind of new intrusive govetnmnt it is you think would have to be created. I'm not really sure why any different system than what already exists would have to be put in place.
California introduced gay history for K-12 public schools after same sex marriage was tried. I anticipate more PC speech codes to suppress political opponents next.
some chick

Utica, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Feb 4, 2012
 
First, I like to thank you for you civility in your posts, and thank you for a healthy intelligent debate.
Brian_G wrote:
An infertile husband and wife can give an adopted child something no same sex couple can, a mother and father. Other than that, you might be right about infertile male/female couples since the government doesn't even bother to test for fertility.
I can understand your point here. Yes, it is true that homosexuals cannot have children together. As far as I know, no form of medical advancement at this point can change that. However, they can still have children by way of surrogate or even by lightening the load of children in foster care by adopting. Now, I realize that your statement mainly pertains to the fact that in a heterosexual family there is one male parent, "The Father" and one female parent "The Mother". Is it true that in a household with two male parents and a female child that certain things may be hard to relate to? Yes. I hardly could picture a male trying to empathize with their daughter who is going through menstruation for the first time or one of the two female moms trying to talk to their son about puberty. So with that I see where you are coming from. But I do not believe that this is enough to truly cause dysfunction for the child. I do believe (and have seen) that homosexual couples can provide their children with as much love and stability and life experience as heterosexuals. Which is why I feel firm in my belief that just because homosexuals cannot conceive, does not mean they cannot parent. And the world needs parents. A lot of them, because there are too many kids out there who don't have any.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex couples aren't at risk of unintended pregnancy, nor do they benefit society by creating children without help from the opposite gender.
I think a better question for me to have asked here is which entitlements are you referring to? Just because homosexuals cannot conceive doesn't mean they should be devoid of rights that /equal/ persons of heterosexual orientation get. Also, let's talk about children. No, let's talk about population. It's steadily rising. So much so that I believe that we can benefit from having couples who do not have children. Let me ask you this, would you rather have one married homosexual couple with no kids or one unmarried woman with twelve?
Brian_G wrote:
California introduced gay history for K-12 public schools after same sex marriage was tried. I anticipate more PC speech codes to suppress political opponents next.
I somewhat agree with this in a sense. I mean everyone is so up in arms about who says what and how it's said. To be honest I don't really get the whole PC thing sometimes. I mean a word is a word. It and it's power are defined by the meaning you as a person give it. I wouldn't exactly call PC speech codes an intrusive form of government though, I mean again what is head is dictated by the person who hears it and to ban speech or specific words would be a violation of our constitution. Also, I don't know specifically about California, but I don't see a problem with schools having a section of courses that teach about "Gay History (Civil rights and liberties movements)". I think it should be taught just like other historical occurrences, without bias as part of our cultural and American history.
some chick

Utica, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Feb 4, 2012
 
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage is a fundamental cultural institution, not a right. Some people never marry, marriage isn't for everyone.
Also, I notice you say a cultural institution and not religious institution. But doesn't our culture change and shift and reform itself? Our lows change according to society, so why can't our cultural formation?

Level 1

Since: Nov 11

Jacksonville, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Feb 4, 2012
 
I canít believe the urban dictionary definition: Thatís politics!!! This country is headed to Hell and back again if these are the leaders the people are choosing. Or no, the people's minds are sick too... That's just too deep!!!

enlighteningthemind.com

enlighteningthemind radio
Mike

Bettendorf, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Feb 12, 2012
 
Of course it's funny. It was funny too on google when every search of Michelle Obama, a chimp picture popped up. Of course they pussied out and took that down.

“...Strike one”

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Mar 1, 2012
 
Gay Guy wrote:
Santorum decided to make things personal when he said homosexuality was akin to bestiality, therefore he gets his comeuppance in the best way possible: humiliation via the one and only Mr. Dan Savage.(Besides, no one would even know who he is if it wasn't for the OFFICIAL definition. He should be grateful.)
Yes; it was what is known as 'Asking for it'. In fact, begging!!!
Sam

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Mar 1, 2012
 
To Educate One Hundred wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes; it was what is known as 'Asking for it'. In fact, begging!!!
Did you see that political ad Rick "put out" where Romney Santorumed Rick, and Rick gave it back to him? Rick said that Romney went "full throtle" on him. OUCH!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Mar 1, 2012
 
some chick wrote:
Also, I notice you say a cultural institution and not religious institution. But doesn't our culture change and shift and reform itself? Our lows change according to society, so why can't our cultural formation?
They do but even in this day of age people realize their is a difference between man and woman. Except bisexuals and homosexuals, they seem to have an orientation difference in this view. I wonder why that is?

I don't think it's right, the Left subsumes same sex marriage as gay right. Life is a gay right, marriage is for man and woman. I don't know what's wrong, let's all use common sense and work together.

Did you realize every gay you know was born of male/female union. Isn't that wonderful?

“...Strike one”

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
Mar 2, 2012
 
Sam wrote:
<quoted text> Did you see that political ad Rick "put out" where Romney Santorumed Rick, and Rick gave it back to him? Rick said that Romney went "full throtle" on him. OUCH!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Missed that, classic stuff eh?!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

79 Users are viewing the Utica Forum right now

Search the Utica Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Wetlands permit for Marcy Nanocenter site OK'd 1 hr SUNYIT Student 108
add a word drop a word (Aug '10) 2 hr UticaNY 5,584
WKTV's new broadcast desk 2 hr Danny 71
Jason Powles is FAT 2 hr Jack Spratt 17
Dunkin Donuts north genesee st 2 hr Money Bags 18
314 posts in two days no life no job no money ... (Jun '13) 2 hr Bob Oliveira cracky 34
aau basketball 3 hr Utica Sambo Tech Summit 4
Riggie is scared 3 hr PAC Lies and Riggies 20
Policelli twins transfering to ND for basketball. 3 hr Utica Sambo Tech Summit 38
Andrew Brindisi charged in April Hit and Run A... 3 hr Felons R YOU 38

Utica Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]