Defending the Truth
Articles | Interviews | Politicians | Groups | Arcade | Experience | Donate
  Defending the Truth > Political Issues > Gay Marriage
Gavin Newsom - Marriage Hypocrite

Gay Marriage Debate and defend your political beliefs as to whether or not marriage should be only defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Reply
Page 7 of 13 < 123456 7 8910111213 >
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-20-2008, 06:52 PM   #61 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,695
Country:
Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Gary, did you learn how to give fuzzy facts from George Bush? Being a political figure who supports an individual's right to not be discriminated against has no connection to being a spokesperson for marriage.

WT did you learn to read??

If so read the article from the SF Chronicle I patiently posted for you.

Newsom is a self-appointed spokesman for the homosexual redefinition of marriage which he hopes will help give him a platform to run for CA Governor in 2010.

Incidentally, homosexuals are not discriminated against. They are subject to the same caveats re marriage as people with normal sexual drives.

[IMG][/IMG]

Doggone it darn right you betcha bless your heart maverick
Sponsored Links
Old 05-20-2008, 07:02 PM   #62 (permalink)
Congressional Representative
 
waitingtables's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Jersey
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,118
Country:
Points: 15,426, Level: 80
Points: 15,426, Level: 80 Points: 15,426, Level: 80 Points: 15,426, Level: 80
Level up: 16%, 424 Points needed
Level up: 16% Level up: 16% Level up: 16%
Activity: 66%
Activity: 66% Activity: 66% Activity: 66%
waitingtables is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
He is a supporter for the right to be married to the person of one's own choosing, without defining the commitment because of sexual orientation or gender. That does not make him a spokes person for marriage, he thinks the right to marry should be extended to same sex couples.


Quote:
Incidentally, homosexuals are not discriminated against. They are subject to the same caveats re marriage as people with normal sexual drives.


What the devil are you talking about? They are discriminated against every day that they cannot marry their partner legally.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to waitingtables For This Useful Post:
AlicornsPrayer (05-20-2008), CrazyFlamingos (05-20-2008), forester814 (05-20-2008)
Old 05-20-2008, 07:40 PM   #63 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,695
Country:
Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
He is a supporter for the right to be married to the person of one's own choosing, without defining the commitment because of sexual orientation or gender. That does not make him a spokes person for marriage, he thinks the right to marry should be extended to same sex couples.

Exactly!!! And he is basing the future of his political career on that cause!

That's why he is the self-appointed spokesman for homosexual marriage.

This despite the fact that he took such a callous disinterest in the failure of his own brief 3 year marriage.

How appropriate that such a dismal failure should become a representative for the homosexual agenda.



What the devil are you talking about? They are discriminated against every day that they cannot marry their partner legally.
Wrong.

Marriage is available to everyone on the same basis.

Are polygamists and pedophiles discriminated against?
[IMG][/IMG]

Doggone it darn right you betcha bless your heart maverick
Old 05-20-2008, 07:57 PM   #64 (permalink)
Congressional Representative
 
waitingtables's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Jersey
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,118
Country:
Points: 15,426, Level: 80
Points: 15,426, Level: 80 Points: 15,426, Level: 80 Points: 15,426, Level: 80
Level up: 16%, 424 Points needed
Level up: 16% Level up: 16% Level up: 16%
Activity: 66%
Activity: 66% Activity: 66% Activity: 66%
waitingtables is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Multiple partners is not the same as two people, and child molesters are criminals. Stop that, you are not that stupid.

And you have not backed up your position that Mayor Newsom is a spokesperson for marriage. He supports the right to not be discriminated against when committing to your partner.
The Following User Says Thank You to waitingtables For This Useful Post:
AlicornsPrayer (05-20-2008)
Old 05-20-2008, 08:31 PM   #65 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,695
Country:
Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Multiple partners is not the same as two people,

Homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual couples.

Who are you to deny the polygamists' right to pursue happiness?




and child molesters are criminals.

Only until the age of consent is lowered, and that wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.

Not so long ago homosexuals were criminals too.






Stop that, you are not that stupid.

And you have not backed up your position that Mayor Newsom is a spokesperson for marriage. He supports the right to not be discriminated against when committing to your partner.
Have you read the SF Chronicle piece I quoted extensively earlier in this thread?
[IMG][/IMG]

Doggone it darn right you betcha bless your heart maverick
Old 05-21-2008, 07:24 AM   #66 (permalink)
Congressional Representative
 
waitingtables's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Jersey
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,118
Country:
Points: 15,426, Level: 80
Points: 15,426, Level: 80 Points: 15,426, Level: 80 Points: 15,426, Level: 80
Level up: 16%, 424 Points needed
Level up: 16% Level up: 16% Level up: 16%
Activity: 66%
Activity: 66% Activity: 66% Activity: 66%
waitingtables is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Yes I read it Gary. Supporting the right of gays to marry doesn't make one the spokesperson. Even being an activist doesn't make one a spokesperson.

And child molesters aren't criminals because the age of consent is too high, they are criminals because they rape children. Big difference. And I said that two people have the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Not that a person has the right to marry 15 people. And I deny the polygamist's the right to abuse children or spouses, that is clearly not the same as two people marrying for love.
The Following User Says Thank You to waitingtables For This Useful Post:
AlicornsPrayer (05-21-2008)
Old 05-21-2008, 07:51 AM   #67 (permalink)
SIMPLETON
Premium Member
 
fxashun's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my skin
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,907
Country:
Points: 25,586, Level: 96
Points: 25,586, Level: 96 Points: 25,586, Level: 96 Points: 25,586, Level: 96
Level up: 24%, 764 Points needed
Level up: 24% Level up: 24% Level up: 24%
Activity: 14%
Activity: 14% Activity: 14% Activity: 14%
fxashun is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
And child molesters aren't criminals because the age of consent is too high, they are criminals because they rape children. Big difference.
Not necessarily. In Ga, they raised the legal age of consent from 14 tto 16 recently. I personally knew a few 15 year olds that would screw anything that moved. A 17 year old was arrested and given 10 years for getting head from a consenting 15 year old girl, an act that would have been totally legal months earlier. Not every person who has sex with some loose moralled 15 year old is a "child molester". It's just illegal. Just like when I do 90 in a 55 on an empty stretch of highway, it's just illegal, but inherently dangerous in a car built to do 160? I think not.
Old 05-21-2008, 08:18 AM   #68 (permalink)
Congressional Representative
 
waitingtables's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Jersey
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,118
Country:
Points: 15,426, Level: 80
Points: 15,426, Level: 80 Points: 15,426, Level: 80 Points: 15,426, Level: 80
Level up: 16%, 424 Points needed
Level up: 16% Level up: 16% Level up: 16%
Activity: 66%
Activity: 66% Activity: 66% Activity: 66%
waitingtables is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Statutory rape and child molestation are two very different things. And horny teenagers are not what I am referring to. Most children are molested at very young ages. By the time they are in their late teens, they are acting out because of their abuse. You are quite ignorant about these issues if you can lump those examples together like that.
The Following User Says Thank You to waitingtables For This Useful Post:
AlicornsPrayer (05-21-2008)
Old 05-21-2008, 08:38 AM   #69 (permalink)
SIMPLETON
Premium Member
 
fxashun's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my skin
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,907
Country:
Points: 25,586, Level: 96
Points: 25,586, Level: 96 Points: 25,586, Level: 96 Points: 25,586, Level: 96
Level up: 24%, 764 Points needed
Level up: 24% Level up: 24% Level up: 24%
Activity: 14%
Activity: 14% Activity: 14% Activity: 14%
fxashun is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Statutory rape and child molestation are two very different things. And horny teenagers are not what I am referring to. Most children are molested at very young ages. By the time they are in their late teens, they are acting out because of their abuse. You are quite ignorant about these issues if you can lump those examples together like that.
What is the difference? It would only be in the fringes, they can overlap quite easily.
Well if you are going to be technical, child molestation can be charged on much less than actual "rape" of a child. "Improper touching" has gotten some people falsely accused of "child molestation". And true crime should be prosecuted, but your willingness to forgo any resemblance of constitutional rights to prosecute people that have plenty of evidence to show innocence is scary.

You are the one that comes across as ignorant. Your blind hatred is obvious.

SB 470 - Crime Against Child, Statutory Rape - parole restrictions
(a) A person commits the offense of child molestation when
he or she does any immoral or indecent act to or in the
presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years
with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of
either the child or the person.

Sounds the same as statutory rape to me.
Last edited by fxashun; 05-21-2008 at 08:44 AM.
Old 05-21-2008, 08:39 AM   #70 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,995
Country:
Points: 50,861, Level: 100
Points: 50,861, Level: 100 Points: 50,861, Level: 100 Points: 50,861, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 99%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
Send a message via Yahoo to tristanrobin
tristanrobin is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun View Post
Your blind hatred is obvious.
omg
we're in upside-down-alice-in-wonderland world today, I see
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Conservatism: Self-centered mean-spiritedness fueled by ignorance and misguided self-importance.

Bigotry is a social disease.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. - David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."
Reply
Page 7 of 13 < 123456 7 8910111213 >

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 AM.

Defending the Truth - FAQ - Rules - Contact Us - Donate - Archive - Top

 Top Political Sites
Poltical Topsites 

Recommended Sites