Gingrich to gay man: Vote for Obama - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33869476]Go live there and become an oil tycoon then[/QUOTE] Can't, not allowed. [editline]24th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ripple3000;33869473]:/ Undesirable by modern day consumer standards, colonialism is a passed age.[/QUOTE] The US wants it for it's oil.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33869522]Can't, not allowed. [editline]24th December 2011[/editline] The US wants it for it's oil.[/QUOTE] Also, we were talking about living space, not resources.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33868672]I don't think you should be benefited for being married.[/QUOTE] You wouldn't say that when you weren't allowed to visit your dying wife or husband in the hospital. Or decide whether or not it would be in their best interests to continue living life in a comatose state as a vegetable.

There is plenty of space to inhabit, we just need a more efficient energy source and newer, more efficient methods of storing energy at cheaper costs. That is the issue, crude polluting methods of energy.

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33869606]Also, we were talking about living space, not resources.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, okay.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33868277]you're trying to make it sound like a slippery slope but the issue is actually wicked fucking simple. children and animals can't sign marriage contracts because they are not adults; who are legally capable of consent - and two people are not one person. legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't open the door for polygamy any more than legalizing [i]opposite-sex[/i] marriage does.[/QUOTE] whoa hey what's wrong with polygamy anyway if all parties involved consent to it?

[QUOTE=TheHydra;33869807]whoa hey what's wrong with polygamy anyway if all parties involved consent to it?[/QUOTE] iunno, prolly nothin

brb, voting for obama

Wow, this strikes me as an incredibly honest thing to say and do. I admit that I don't agree with his policies, but you have to hold a certain amount of respect for a man that's at least willing to be honest about his beliefs, no matter how estranged they may be to your own. [editline]24th December 2011[/editline] And no, I am not gay. Yes, I will be voting for Obama.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33869272]But being married does not automatically ensure children, especially in a gay marriage.[/QUOTE] uhh okay? what's your point

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33870656]uhh okay? what's your point[/QUOTE] Read the thread and infer instead :)

I know this is the third time this has been addressed, but this is an ocean of stupid, there's enough room for another vessel. [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]- marriage is a convention, by definition, between a man and a woman. opponents of gay marriage often use historical precedent to support this by saying gay marriage (not gay partnerships) have never existed. this argument does not rest on a hatred for homosexuals, nor an inherent "asshole"ishness. it is commonly used in conjunction with supporting civil partnerships for gay couples which are given the same legal status under secular law as a marriage, but not considered a marriage by definition.[/QUOTE] Except this has been debunked so many times in the past it isn't even funny, and I'm sick of posting the copypasta detailing every single related word. You can prove, using etymological references and redundant dictionary citations, that the term "marriage" is inherently a heterosexual one. Until then, it ain't. (ooh, wait, I found [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1087690?p=29834527&viewfull=1#post29834527"]my version of the debunk[/URL]) [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]- religious reasoning - christianity, for instance, believes that christ defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. this is also not based on a hatred for gays, or on being evil. it is again a case of marriage having a definition.[/QUOTE] It's an excuse for assholery when parts of the bible are regularly dismissed for convenience or the error of the men passing down the book. People could dismiss this one, they choose not to. It's also downright evil for the people who take all of it at face value and thus worship and support a genocidal and malevolent entity. [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]- the above arguments are often supported by the "not just love" line. gay marriage proponents often suggest that for a marriage, "all you need is love". opponents may argue that if all you need is love, what is to stop a marriage between a man and a child, or a man and an animal, or multiple people. this is also based on logic, rather than on blind hatred.[/QUOTE] No, it's based on semantic dickfiddling to work around the fact that it's inherently illogical. If all you need is love, then all you need is love, but we don't consider children or animals capable of consenting to anything, which love would encompass. This is a false comparison that reveals an innate hatred in the person performing it, because it relies on an assumption that homosexuality is wrong to prove that homosexuality is wrong. [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]- gay marriage can also be opposed on grounds of its effect on children. opponents of gay marriage often also associate marriage as a social institution vital to producing children, as it would provide the most stable upbringing for a developing mind and body. they argue that there are potential ramifications for a same-sex couple therefore raising a child in terms of psychological development, and that insufficient evidence exists to prove that having two daddies and no mummy produces no adverse effects from having the dual gender influence of one mummy and one daddy.[/QUOTE] That's not how science works. There's a thing called burden of proof. Without a theoretical basis for assuming homosexual parents would be inferior (and there never was one, if you actually paid any attention to psychological journals), there was never any rational basis for assuming they would be. [QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33867953]there you go. there's arguments against gay marriage. none of them are based on bigotry, or being an asshole.[/QUOTE] Well, a couple are, and all of them are stupid, and the stupid ones are propagated by pricks who would rather be pricks than confront the irrational actions of their supporters. A few idiots in favor of an evil idea don't make the idea not evil, it just makes them outliers.

One thing people don't realize is, although arguments against Gay Marriage may have be formed in bigotry, that doesn't mean every single person who makes them is a bigot. Many of them are just recycling arguments that they've been told.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;33870941]One thing people don't realize is, although arguments against Gay Marriage may have be formed in bigotry, that doesn't mean every single person who makes them is a bigot. Many of them are just recycling arguments that they've been told.[/QUOTE] welcome to facepunch, where the intelligent come to die.

[QUOTE=SSBMX;33869307]Fuck children, the population is too damn high.[/QUOTE] The United States has a 0.963% growth rate, in other words our population won't double for 72 years. Population isn't remotely a problem.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33870733]Read the thread and infer instead :)[/QUOTE] are you joking

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33869339]29% of Earths surface is landmass, of that less then 0.1% of populated by humans.[/QUOTE] That is such bullshit.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33870656]uhh okay? what's your point[/QUOTE] the guy said that marriage benefits are there to make raising families easier but his point is that married couples aren't bound to raising a family so in his opinion that's a poor argument.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;33871139]the guy said that marriage benefits are there to make raising families easier but his point is that married couples aren't bound to raising a family so in his opinion that's a poor argument.[/QUOTE] are you joking

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;33866469]There is [b]no[/b] reason to oppose gay marriage besides being a bigot or an asshole. Then when you think about the fact this guy is running on "traditional" values and fucked around behind his dying wifes back? I mean, come on. How could you glaze over these facts and vote for this asshole?[/QUOTE] I'm gay and I obviously don't oppose gay marriage However I base the majority of my political opinions on other (more important IMO) issues. At this current time, I will not judge a vote on a president strictly for their views on social issues that will never gain ground in the current social climate, unless it is a large focus of their campaign. In which case I will probably be less likely to want to vote for them. Why? Because I know for a fact weather or not someone likes the idea of two guys getting married has no value on the actual political prowess and capability of being a good leader. And I know for a fact that in this current social climate, anything involving "hot button social issues" will never gain any ground on a federal level anyways, one way or another, just like it's been for the past 20 or so years (people still think gay marriage is a big deal apparently, and as such there's not going to be much progress on it in the whitehouse either). And because frankly, issues like enforcing gay marriage on a national level are the kinds of issues that I'd like to see addressed when we get our other more major issues sorted out as a country. It's one of those things that's just like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, where you gotta be able to eat and have shelter to survive before you can be a creative individual capable of genuine morality or problem solving.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33871421]are you joking[/QUOTE] note the part where I said that was his argument not saying I agree or anything that's two posts in a row I've had to break down for you need me to read anymore?

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;33871581]note the part where I said that was his argument not saying I agree or anything that's two posts in a row I've had to break down for you need me to read anymore?[/QUOTE] i've read the thread holy christ i know what the argument is the point is that while he only presented one reason, children (which is perfectly valid), there are endless others that have already been mentioned but were ignored.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33871622]i've read the thread holy christ i know what the argument is the point is that while he only presented one reason, children (which is perfectly valid), there are endless others that have already been mentioned but were ignored.[/QUOTE] show me another post addressing why married couples (read: all married couples, gay or straight) should get benefits, that was that guy's argument, he doesn't think anyone should get them.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33871622]i've read the thread holy christ i know what the argument is the point is that while he only presented one reason, children (which is perfectly valid), there are endless others that have already been mentioned but were ignored.[/QUOTE] Go on..? Why should some random couple get benefits for signing a piece of paper.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33871654]Go on..? Why should some couple get benefits for signing a piece of paper.[/QUOTE] Fixed, with the more important quesiton

[QUOTE=Ridge;33871757]Fixed, with the more important quesiton[/QUOTE] Random means any. I don't understand it means the same thing.

[QUOTE=ripple3000;33869416]Its not uninhabitable. Its undesirable, lets take Canada for example.[/QUOTE] really fucking cold I gotta say

[QUOTE=Ridge;33871757]Fixed, with the more important quesiton[/QUOTE] uh thats basically the definition of a legal contract [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] marriage is just a sort of legal contract [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] i dont understand why every thread about same-sex marriage gets inundated with "we should just get rid of marriage" arguments. even ignoring the complete and utter emptiness of the argument (if we just "got rid of marriage" a new, identical contract would almost immediately be created, circulated and reused and people would probably start casually calling that contract a "marriage contract"), the issue of gay marriage is one of equal rights. so if you wanna rail against the whole institution of marriage, first acknowledge that so long as we do have marriage, it should best be equal and then make your own damn "anti-marriage" thread instead of filling up same-sex marriage threads with yr. crap [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] hey there. i see you're still posting that same thing you always post. are you ok? you want a glass of water? no? ok. well me and the guys (no not naming names) been talkin' and we're sorta tired of your whole, uh, steez, so why don't you go post that thing over there, instead? okay? no you can still post it, just, like, not here. because, like, the dozens of threads in which we talk about equal rights for a minority is not exactly the place for your (think about it) tangential crusade against the ability for two people who want to live with each other and share their lives to create a binding contract which makes that process easier for them. i've piled up your stuff by the door, it's really great over there (not here), i think you'll like it over there (totally not here)

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33867621]So he's instantly lost, what, 7-10% of the electorate? Smooth.[/QUOTE] This makes perfect sense for him to say though. If he were to advocate gay rights, he'd undoubtedly upset many republicans whose votes also are a large proportion of the electorate, probably more than the part gay people take up. By smoothly talking his way out of that awkward question, he hasn't [I]lost[/I] any more respect from the gay community while simultaneously not upsetting the majority he is marketing his campaign towards.

[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;33872040] he hasn't [I]lost[/I] any more respect from the gay community[/QUOTE] lol i beg to differ. he virtually just said "you gays don't exist to me/my campaign"