If the point of marriage is to bring a stable environment to children the keep gays out is ludicrous. Gay couples can be just as good as hetero couples and there certainly is a great need for children to be fostered or adopted. Or is it that because many of those kids come from single parents or broken homes so they don’t deserve a stable environment?
People don’t need a license to procreate so that view of marriage is invalid. Marriage is a commitment that goes well beyond the desire to make babies and that is a valid reason to limit it to two people, what genitals they have is irrelevant.

I feel no need to make a case for gay marriage – the ones on here that constantly attack it are never going to accept what anyone else says because they are always right about everything so why waste the time.

That’s the argument that the gay community and the ACLU are making. It surprises no one that adDave is arguing for and endorsing both.

And if you’re not, adDave, why not explain why you’re bringing them up as topics? Is it because you can’t make a relevant argument for gay marriage, so you try to tear down the value of procreation and the importance that marriage has in stabilizing society for children?

What makes the majority of people who post here think they are unworthy of any recognition of their love?

So gay marriage is only about validation?

Question: are you also against civil unions?

You define “an institution that exists to encourage procreation within legal bonds”. Then polygamy should also be included, more women, more procreation, more children and people to raise them? Or a group marriage – multiple people of both sexes legally bound to procreate and raise their children together. Or marriages arranged specifically “to ensure the purity of the bloodlines”. Or forced marriages for girls as soon as they reach puberty, gives them a lot more years to procreate. If marriage in the eyes of the gov’t is just a license to procreate then it’s a pretty degrading institution and we should want no part of it.

You dont understand rights, or marriage.

Let me explain it this way. Do you understand that while you have the freedom of speech to say whatever you please, you dont have the right to force people to listen to you, or to give you a microphone, or to approve of what you say?

I already enjoy complete freedom of association. I can spend my life with whomever I want, hold a ceremony, make legal arrangements with that person. What I dont have is the right to force others to value my relationship.

You also are under the erroneous impression that marriage has anything to do with love — from a government standpoint. It doesnt. The government doesnt recognize and subsidize heterosexual marriages because the couples are in love. Indeed, many couples marry for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with love. Do you honestly think that the institution of marriage exists — that taxpayers cough up their hard earned dollars as a sort of grand wedding present?

Society encourages and subsidizes marriage because it benefits society. Look at the black community where 70% of children are born outside of wedlock and you will see that heterosexual marriage undeniably benefits society.

And I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but your claims to have a “right” to belong to an institution that exists to encourage procreation within legal bonds because you are in love too, is like claiming you are entitled to recieve a tax benefit given to people who drive hybrids because, even though you drive a hummer, youre just trying to get from A to B like everyone else.

Asking society to let gays marry is asking society to change the definition and purpose of marriage. That doesnt mean it cant be done, or shouldnt be done, it simply means gays need to get over the nonsensical, ridiculous, ignorant idea that they have a “right” to be treated as though theres no significant difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, and instead start pointing out how it would benefit society, albeit in a different way.

I just did point you to one.

Now put your money where your mouth is by going to that site and repeating that the persons who talked about enemies are “ignorant”, “hateful”, and “drooling”.

Short answer: Because we realize it’s not all about us.

Longer explanation: You have confused being selfish and always demanding that you get exactly what you want with having self-worth.

Like when Dave labels opponents of ghey marriage as hate-filled bigots, or conservatives as stupid and evil.

Sorry, but “I’m a liberal, which means I’m caring and kind and good, and you can trust me” :}

If you really gave a damn, you wouldn’t be a liberal. Liberals don’t care about results, only intentions.

NDT – I don’t recall where I ever said on here that the Left is any better at “reaching across the aisle”, respecting differences opinions etc. but since y’all seem to think you’re better than the Left I would expect you to act that way. Clearly many of you are unable to. And yes I have at times commented on it but I rarely visit left wing blogs so I really can’t point you to one. Sorry, but “I’m a liberal, which means I’m caring and kind and good, and you can trust me” :}

#22 Livewire – I enjoy your interpretations of my words. Someday you might get it right but that wouldn’t be as much fun.

Re: “ignorant voters” in many of the presidential races people have voted for a candidate for who/what he was but for who/what he wasn’t.
Carter won in part because he wasn’t a Republican, Reagan won because he wasn’t Carter (they could have run a dog against Carter and it would have won), Clinton won in part because of anti-Republican/Bush 1 sentiment which not only won him votes but split the traditionally Repub voters with many going third party. The Bush/Gore race was a different animal all together. Personally I would certainly classify the 2nd terms of Reagan, Clinton and Bush 2 the result of ignorant voters, but that’s just me

not blaming any one or playing a victim

Didn’t say that you were. The gay left, however, is engaged in exactly that.

As far as examples about the candidates, try reading something other than Free Republic and you would have all the examples you want.

So in other words, you can’t. One might have said so in the first place and eschewed obfuscation. What’s more, I’ve read exactly 2 posts on Free Republic, the most recent being about a year and a half ago. Probably much to the chagrin of other conservative bloggers, GP is the only one I read. Hell, I don’t even read NR as much as I would like.

But I do know that the liberals had to invent the “kill him” claim so they could cover up the fact that Comrade Obama ran a more negative campaign. I do know that liberals had to smear anyone who wouldn’t suck Obama’s cock as a “racist”. I do know that it was the liberals who worried if he was “black enough” or because he didn’t have “slave blood”. I do know that it was liberals who ran with the “Hussein” part. I do know that it was liberals who suggested that he had to have sold drugs because he’s black. I do know that it was a liberal who dubbed him the “Magic Negro”. I do know that it was the liberals who were all consumed with the color of his skin and still are. Guess when there’s no personal character to rely on, that’s all there is left.

Nowhere do we see bigot Dave chastising them for “ignorant hateful talk” and telling them to “get over it and be part of the solution”.

Wonder why that is? Could it be because bigot Dave is a hypocrite?

That’s odd; bigot Dave and the rest of the gay left are having no trouble screaming about “the enemy”. Here’s one example.