PA Gov - Gay marriage is like marriage of brother and sister - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MTI · #16 10-04-2013, 01:20 PM

Back to the topic . . . why did the Governor feel it necessary to issue a statement after the interview?

Later Friday, Corbett issued a statement saying his "words were not intended to offend anyone" and apologizing if they did. His office said the interview was taped Monday.

He thought that homosexuals might have been offended for having their situation likened to incest?

Air&Road · #17 10-04-2013, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Larry, Larry, Larry . . . have governments been issuing licenses, with various social and economic benefits . . . under a federal Constitution which requires equal protection under the law . . . for thousands of years?

And, by the way . . . why are opponents to same sex marriages so quick to jump to bestiality? I mean, is there some epidemic of sex with animals that we should be concerned about? I thought you were smarter than that.

All your examples of the future evils of allowing same sex marriage are not new . . . they were trotted out when the issue of interracial marriage was being litigated . . . so where are you getting your tales of future woe from?

It's called precedent. Since long before the founding of the United States, it has been universally accepted that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Once that is broken the precedent is set for beastiality, incest and who knows what else.

Messing with time honored methods, definitions and traditions is a dangerous change of society.

Of course for progressives with low morals and questionable ethics, it is REALLY difficult for them to understand.

kerry · #18 10-04-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Well, at least there's a politician somewhere that will tell the truth regardless of the political consequences.

Along these lines, once you open up gay marriage, other conventional marriages will follow; brother/sister, marrying ones mare or ewe.... None of these are the marriage of a man and woman as is the correct definition of marriage. Where does it end?

I live near WY, lots of sheep there. I've driven thru Cheyenne a number of times but I've yet to see any ewes protesting at the state capitol for a right to marry. Maybe it's because it's the conservative west. Are you noticing an increase in mare and ewe political lobbying in your state? If you are, then I'd say your concern is legitimate.

davidmash · #19 10-04-2013, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

It's called precedent. Since long before the founding of the United States, it has been universally accepted that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Once that is broken the precedent is set for beastiality, incest and who knows what else.

Messing with time honored methods, definitions and traditions is a dangerous change of society.

Of course for progressives with low morals and questionable ethics, it is REALLY difficult for them to understand.

Now you are worried about precedent? What about the previous precedents that forbade interracial marriage? So you want to go back to the time when women were property? After all that tradition predates your modern version of marriage. Of course so long as it is a marriage between man and woman it's OK for them to be property right Larry?

You would not know morals and ethics if it came up and bit you on the ass. Hypocrisy and cowardice ... you have us all beat hands down.

MTI · #20 10-04-2013, 01:26 PM

You do know that precedent is not fate accompli right? That not every slope lacks a sufficient coefficient of drag to prevent downhill motion . . .

While I know that this may be against your personal beliefs, but I prefer to live in a dynamic world, rather than one mindlessly hamstrung by inflexible doctrine of humans who no longer exist and would have no comprehension of the world today. Yes, humans devised laws and rules, ethics and morals, however they also fashioned tribunals, courts and means by which change could be implemented.

Air&Road · #21 10-04-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

You do know that precedent is not fate accompli right? That not every slope lacks a sufficient coefficient of drag to prevent downhill motion . . .

While I know that this may be against your personal beliefs, but I prefer to live in a dynamic world, rather than one mindlessly hamstrung by inflexible doctrine of humans who no longer exist and would have no comprehension of the world today. Yes, humans devised laws and rules, ethics and morals, however they also fashioned tribunals, courts and means by which change could be implemented.

Like I wrote before. Some people have morals/ethics and some don't.

davidmash · #22 10-04-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Like I wrote before. Some people have morals/ethics and some don't.

Because depriving someone of equal rights under the COTUS because you hate them is a sign of morals and ethics? Pardon me while I laugh my ass off.

MTI · #23 10-04-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Like I wrote before. Some people have morals/ethics and some don't.

Yes, I see a clear example.

Larry, are gay American citizens covered by the Constitution? If so, is the government not duty bound to afford them the rights and privileges afforded to all citizens, under state and federal law? All states in the US recognize that homosexuality is not a criminal act, does not threaten the peace or security of the community, so how do you justify discrimination under the Constitution in obtaining a state issued license?

Air&Road · #24 10-04-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Yes, I see a clear example.

I'm glad to hear that you have a mirror nearby.

davidmash · #25 10-04-2013, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Yes, I see a clear example.

Larry, are gay American citizens covered by the Constitution?

He already answered that. He believes gay marriage and incest are the same so since incest is illegal and not covered, neither are gays.

MTI · #26 10-04-2013, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I'm glad to hear that you have a mirror nearby.

Oh snap, you so funny, dawg . . .

aklim · #27 10-04-2013, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Well, at least there's a politician somewhere that will tell the truth regardless of the political consequences.

Along these lines, once you open up gay marriage, other conventional marriages will follow; brother/sister, marrying ones mare or ewe.... None of these are the marriage of a man and woman as is the correct definition of marriage. Where does it end?

Explain the brother/sister thing and why.

Explain what the mare or ewe has to do to give consent

What definition? Your silly book? Convention based on procreation?

Perhaps when you MYOB it ends?

aklim · #28 10-04-2013, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Ignorance? Marriage has been defined as the joining of a man and woman for thousands of years. Maybe the ignorance lies with the people unable or unwilling to understand that.

For a long time, you didn't have a toilet either. WGAS about what it was for thousands of years? For thousands of years, women were treated unfairly too. Does it mean it has to continue?

aklim · #29 10-04-2013, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Interracial marriages don't fit into the equation. They are still the joining of a man and a woman. What is wrong with an interracial marriage besides your apparent racism causing you to think it is wrong?

I personally have no issue whatsoever with an interracial marriage, and find it insulting that you imply that I do.

It was thought to be an abomination by some who have said that for the longest time, white and black should not marry.