Obama-Marriage Debate - Somerset, KY

Discuss the national Obama-Marriage debate in Somerset, KY.

Are you with President Obama in supporting gay marriage?

Somerset is not with Obama on gay marriage
Not at all
 
92
Yes, all the way
 
65
I'm on the fence
 
1

Vote now in Somerset:

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1201 Jan 27, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, but many legal laws have unwritten moral laws as their foundation.
This is why the ten commandants are so prevalent thru out our legal courts/buildings, including the SCOTUS!
Yes and the state has a vested interest in Thou Shalt not kill. The state does not however have a valid legal reason to prevent two non-related consenting adults from entering into a legal contract.
Yeah

Butler, KY

#1202 Jan 27, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and the state has a vested interest in Thou Shalt not kill. The state does not however have a valid legal reason to prevent two non-related consenting adults from entering into a legal contract.
It is interesting to me how you qualifed this statement, but will cry foul whenever the exact same questions, are asked, regarding the inevitable circumstances that legalizing SSM will create.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1205 Jan 27, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to make my point that the whole homosexual/lesbian idea of marriage and family is a facade. You have to twist, and contort the natural husband-wife of things to produce a child. How does it feel to have to live a lie, and continually lie to yourself concerning what is Godly and natural, and what is ungodly and unnatural? Pathetic!
So I take it you cannot answer my criticisms of your posts. I pointed out several very urgent flaws in your argument that undermine anything else you have to say on the subject. You did not address any of them.

The thing is you are obviously ignorant on this subject. Your language betrays this fact. For example, your use of "homosexual/lesbian" reveals that you do not even understand the definitions of the words. A lesbian IS a homosexual.

Then you make another fallacy in stating that my example of gays raising kids is wrong because it is not the "natural" way. Define what the "natural" way is. Here, I'll help you:

The natural way to make babies is for sperm and egg to combine, then for the baby to be nurtured until it is ready to be born, then for it to be born. After that, it must be cared for by someone.

That's pretty much it. Nature does not give one squirt of pee how we accomplish this. The word you might have been struggling to remember is "traditional". Same-sex couples raising kids is not a traditional way of raising kids. True.

Why is that a problem? Explain.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1206 Jan 27, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
{I want a valid legal reason the state would have to prevent SSM.}
Give me a valid legal reason for states supporting SSM.
Everything the homosexual touches cost state and fed tax dollars.
Just the proliferation of HIV-aids alone cost state and fed tax payers untold millions.
You also must remember that there is never a civil law to engage in uncivil behavour.
Remember that Lincoln said that there are things that are legally right, but morally wrong.
You are trying to shift the qualifier from a moral point of view to a legal point of view.
You are talking about changing societal norms that have served mankind and our nation well since antiquity.
Your on a very slippery slope!
When you have to answer someone's question by reversing the question it is often a sign that you have nothing to say, unless the original question was flawed.

In this case you have nothing to say.

We extend special rights to people based on sexual preference every time we issue a marriage license. The only thing SSM would do is stop issuing those special rights based on sexual preference.

You guys are usually the first ones to cry foul when some group of people get a special right. But in this case you already have a special right and you are railing against the thought of not being special any more.

So I'll repeat the other poster's challenge:

Offer a strong legal argument against same-sex marriage.

Who cares if you don't like it. Give us a reason to oppose it that is consistent with the Constitutional principles that we all hold dear. Because right now you're on the side of the argument that is completely INCONSISTENT with those principles.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1207 Jan 27, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, but many legal laws have unwritten moral laws as their foundation.
This is why the ten commandants are so prevalent thru out our legal courts/buildings, including the SCOTUS!
The line between morals, ethics, and law is fuzzy. We make laws when certain behaviors violate our shared moral concerns.

Moral concerns have a universal equality. They are based on the idea of well being. They do not "come from" the 10 Commandments. You have that backwards. The 10 Commandments, or at least a handful of them, come from the human moral concept of well being. The rest are irrelevant to any moral discussion.

But that's an entirely different discussion.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1208 Jan 27, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
It is interesting to me how you qualifed this statement, but will cry foul whenever the exact same questions, are asked, regarding the inevitable circumstances that legalizing SSM will create.
The only thing that allowing SSM will create is equality under the law. It will give SS couples the 1400+ state and federal benefits that their hetrosexual counterparts enjoy currently. Benefits which may I remind you they pay for just do no get to enjoy. The time is coming in which the state will have to come up with a legal reason to prevent two non-related consenting adults from entering into a legal contract. You don't have a valid reason and guess what neither does the state.
Yeah

Butler, KY

#1209 Jan 27, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that allowing SSM will create is equality under the law. It will give SS couples the 1400+ state and federal benefits that their hetrosexual counterparts enjoy currently. Benefits which may I remind you they pay for just do no get to enjoy. The time is coming in which the state will have to come up with a legal reason to prevent two non-related consenting adults from entering into a legal contract. You don't have a valid reason and guess what neither does the state.
Why do you keep saying non-related? I don't see anyone else making that qualification.

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

#1210 Jan 27, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply the truth!
This child was given birth based entirely upon a host of homosexual lies, moral corruption, financial corruption, and a host of other corruptions all promulgated via lying homosexuals and the perversion they promote! This is one of the reasons the homosexuals try to get TVOSR to talk about other things! They don't like being exposed for what they really are! They support these monsters and what they did to this child!
In Luke 17:1-2 Jesus declares that “offenses will come,” but then adds,“but woe be to the one who cause offenses”.
In Matthew 18:1-10 we learn that Jesus particularly warns individuals of the dire consequences that will befall those who offend little children or young Christians!
As we consider this great atrocity that has been perpetrated against this child, we must naturally place the child's lifelong welfare and emotions first! Although when a person considers what really went on behind the scenes, one realizes that this child's future was never considered in terms of negative personal and emotional pain! As a individual looks at who the players were that, participated in this most Frankenstein of concepts, they become very aware of the fact that there were mainly four monsters involved in this lab experiment, that created this experimental child!
[1] The Elton John monster!
[2] The David Furnish monster!
[3] The Biological monster that provided the egg!
[4] The Surrogate monster that accepted the biological monsters egg!
Clearly this whole experiment that was hatched in Frankenstein's lab, was given birth based upon several personal interests at several different levels! It would be hard to identify who the chief monster was, given so many were involved! This child was clearly brought into this world based upon mans selfishness and greed! No thought, no love, no concern, no consideration for the well-being of this child was ever considered! Everyone involved got something, at the expense of the child, and with the exception of the child! Clearly the Biological and Surrogate monsters were well paid for their participation in this corrupt experiment! The other two monsters involvement was clearly driven via selfishness and corruption, driven by a desire to posses something that, because of the corrupt lifestyle both monsters have chosen to in-gauge in! God, by his wisdom and consideration for the well-being of all children has denied them! And now there is a child that one day will grow to become a very troubled and tortured soul, as the child comes too the true realization of how and why it was created, and the monsters involved in its creation! Many of whom will remain anonymous through out the child's lifetime! Jesus Christ said that there would be offenses and atrocities brought about by man and perpetrated upon children! He also said, God help the individuals that commits these offenses and atrocities against children! You may laugh and scoff and twist as you sit upon the sidelines of life! But some day there will be Godly justice for this child and the helpless! The eternal wheels of Gods justice may grind slowly, but they grind finely! There is also a fifth monster involved in this Frankenstein experiment! And its name is, Homosexual Ideology!
This will be my last reply to you, because you argue without substance, just filler, and you hope the propaganda deception will help you (by telling a lie, keep repeating it, and people will believe you).

Let's assume (since it honestly isn't the case) that Jesus and God do find homosexuality as a sin. The dire consequences of offenses are natural. If you think bashing gays, hating them, using force against them, and refusing to love them are the consequences the Bible talks about you, then you're not a true Christian. Just another deceiver who wants to use religion for evil.

Thank you for the discussion.
KELLERMAN

Huntsville, OH

#1211 Jan 27, 2013
You can't argue with these religious crack heads. they have had years of brain washing and the effects can't be reversed. it's to bad that these folks don't take all of this energy and go out in their communities and work for the betterment society. I don't understand why hating others take up so much of their time. The Gays will eventually have the same rights as others regardless of posts such as the ones on here. I would imagine that they would be doing the same toward Blacks if this was still a issue in the States and know being black has nothing to do with being gay, but the principle is the same that we are trying to prevent the happiness of others and her own selfish religious beliefs. one does need to realize that not all citizens are religious.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1212 Jan 28, 2013
Same sex marriage introduces a dangerous measure of gender segregation to marriage where previously it was always gender diverse. Keeping marriage male/female is standing on the side of integration, same sex marriage is gender apartheid marriage.
Pollster

Bristolville, OH

#1213 Jan 28, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you cannot answer my criticisms of your posts. I pointed out several very urgent flaws in your argument that undermine anything else you have to say on the subject. You did not address any of them.
The thing is you are obviously ignorant on this subject. Your language betrays this fact. For example, your use of "homosexual/lesbian" reveals that you do not even understand the definitions of the words. A lesbian IS a homosexual.
Then you make another fallacy in stating that my example of gays raising kids is wrong because it is not the "natural" way. Define what the "natural" way is. Here, I'll help you:
The natural way to make babies is for sperm and egg to combine, then for the baby to be nurtured until it is ready to be born, then for it to be born. After that, it must be cared for by someone.
That's pretty much it. Nature does not give one squirt of pee how we accomplish this. The word you might have been struggling to remember is "traditional". Same-sex couples raising kids is not a traditional way of raising kids. True.
Why is that a problem? Explain.
{Nature does not give one squirt of pee how we accomplish this.}

But a child created in this way would! What a terrible thing to live with knowing you were brought into the world for no other reason then to satisfy the selfish whim of two homosexuals. While all other children enjoy the natural child rearing of a father and mother. Pathetic!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1214 Jan 29, 2013
Same sex marriage would bring a new danger to the institutionalized; forced marriages. Keep marriage male/female and keep prison rape illegal.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1215 Jan 29, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep saying non-related? I don't see anyone else making that qualification.
Slippery Slope arguments are not going to help you. We are not talking about marrying your sister or brother here.

We are also not talking about men marrying camels. Why aren't you complaining about that?

Stick to the topic.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1216 Jan 29, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
{Nature does not give one squirt of pee how we accomplish this.}
But a child created in this way would! What a terrible thing to live with knowing you were brought into the world for no other reason then to satisfy the selfish whim of two homosexuals. While all other children enjoy the natural child rearing of a father and mother. Pathetic!
This is 100% pure bigoted ignorance right here.

Congratulations. We're talking about what's fair and ethical in a civil society and you're gay bashing.

Nice.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1217 Jan 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
Slippery Slope arguments are not going to help you.
We call it 'consequences', what happens next. I understand you prefer 'slippery slope', like first term abortion legalization leading to partial birth abortion and infanticide of children born in botched abortion.

Like slipper slope never happens, except the fall of Vietnam leading to the destruction of Laos, the killing fields of Cambodia, Pol Pot and revolution in Burma.

.
Yiago wrote:
We are not talking about marrying your sister or brother here.
That's marriage equality v2.

.
Yiago wrote:
We are also not talking about men marrying camels. Why aren't you complaining about that?
Marriage equality v3.

.
Yiago wrote:
Stick to the topic.
Same sex marriage would jeopardize people institutionalized in gender segregated facilities; bringing forced prison marriage where prison rape exists today. Stop same sex marriage before it hurts.
Yeah

Butler, KY

#1218 Jan 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Slippery Slope arguments are not going to help you. We are not talking about marrying your sister or brother here.
We are also not talking about men marrying camels. Why aren't you complaining about that?
Stick to the topic.
I guess you think the rule about smoking while pumping gas is slippery slope also.

What about washing you hands before you eat?

The fact is that once you open marriage to anything except one man and one woman, you destroy it. Because the moment that you open marriage to other pairings then you cannot close it to any pairing or group. Marriage will then hold no meaning at all.
I may agree with Kenny as far as the government having no business in marriage. But, I do not agree to using SSM as a means to dissolve the benefits of the married. If you want to take away marriage benefits then don't use the back door SSM path. Do it outright, in an open and transparent way.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1219 Jan 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We call it 'consequences', what happens next. I understand you prefer 'slippery slope', like first term abortion legalization leading to partial birth abortion and infanticide of children born in botched abortion.
Like slipper slope never happens, except the fall of Vietnam leading to the destruction of Laos, the killing fields of Cambodia, Pol Pot and revolution in Burma.
.
<quoted text>That's marriage equality v2.
.
<quoted text>Marriage equality v3.
.
<quoted text>Same sex marriage would jeopardize people institutionalized in gender segregated facilities; bringing forced prison marriage where prison rape exists today. Stop same sex marriage before it hurts.
When your argument rests on the possibility of prison inmates being forced into same sex marriages it is pretty safe to say you lose.

That is, if you weren't just trolling. Which you are.
Pollster

Bristolville, OH

#1220 Jan 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
This is 100% pure bigoted ignorance right here.
Congratulations. We're talking about what's fair and ethical in a civil society and you're gay bashing.
Nice.
There is nothing fair or ethical to a child brought into the world via a hatched contract between a homosexual and lesbian that are acquaintances to then be handed over to two homosexuals. Insane!

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

#1221 Jan 29, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing fair or ethical to a child brought into the world via a hatched contract between a homosexual and lesbian that are acquaintances to then be handed over to two homosexuals. Insane!
If you think love is biological, then you don't know the meaning of the word. And you show your ignorance by saying "homosexual and lesbian" - though you did spell those "big" words correctly. It's like saying "handicap person and person in a wheelchair".

Bigotry doesn't mean intelligence. lol!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1222 Jan 29, 2013
Pollster wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing fair or ethical to a child brought into the world via a hatched contract between a homosexual and lesbian that are acquaintances to then be handed over to two homosexuals. Insane!
The conversation is about marriage rights, not parenting.

And it doesn't really matter how a child comes into the world as long as it has a loving family.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
KY Senator Vows to End Somerset Gas Sales 57 min My 2 cents 50
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 1 hr Dickens1 22,787
Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr stray-cat 132,163
Independent Opportunities... (Nov '08) 2 hr Glenda Laboy 24
Somerset is wet, where are the new Restaurants? 2 hr My 2 cents 38
Whats Causes Gout? (Nov '08) 5 hr mr m 38
Phone Scammers 9 hr Haze Man 4
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]