The religious right has been spouting this kind of BS for decades now. I won't be surprised if this remark comes back to bite him in the ass during next year's midterm elections.
Quit being fat-ophobic Plus he's technically right - incest may be "icky" but if it's between two consenting adults (and let's assume they aren't/aren't able to have kids) then under the "marriage is a constitutional right" argument how are they denied the right to marry? This is why the "equality for all" trademark that the gay movement is using is bunk - it's not about "equality for all", it's about "equality for gays" - nothing wrong with that, but they should just be honest - if they wanted to be fair they'd have to start campaigning for a right for a brother and sister to get married This is why I can't stand the militant gay rights activists - it's just a political correctness movement touting "equality" like a marketing slogan - bunch of crap
I already bites Republicans as a group. Eventually, they'll keep losing BIG... because they use dehumanization as a political tool. - - - Updated - - - If only a diet would cure 'homophobia'. (Sigh.)
So what if two 1st cousins, who didn't grow up together want to get married - if two people didn't grow up together than the psychological 'relative bond' doesn't exist so it's possible for them to be attracted - so why isn't the "equality for all (TM)" movement pushing to legalize 1st cousin marriage in the states that it isn't legal? Because it's no 'equality for all', it's just 'equality for gays' - the 'equality for all' trademarks is just a politically correct slogan
Correct! Now we know that the Governor of PA talks like an ignorant homophobe. (Not good for him or other Republicans politically; people hate dehumanizing BS... when they are decent, as most people are.)
Maybe you're onto something... (not). Go volunteer yourself to become one of the Governor's social advisers. (Please.)
I'm not the one who thinks that marriage should be a "Constitutional right" - my scenario above is why it'd be better for it to be a states' rights issue - ex. a brother and sister, etc could claim their "14th Amendment rights" are violated if a state isn't forced to grant them a marriage license - this is why making marriage a "constitutional right" is a dumb idea
Whatever. I PROMISE you that I will not EVER support the same homophobic ideas or personalities that you seem to.
if my brother and I want to get married so I can put my neices on my healthcare.... should I say it's gay rights being violated, or my incest rights? I mean, after all, if my brother and I are gay (which I would blame my parents for), doesn't the GAY part trump the INCEST part since we can't have kids anyways?
I can understand your point, even though you're trying to bait people. What if sex is completely out of the equation as far as marriage goes, and you and your brother decided to get "married" so that you can support him and have an orderly transfer of property? And honestly, From my understanding, lack of consummation of a marriage is still grounds for annulment in most states. And incest being the result of or cause of trauma in almost every single person that's ever engaged in it causes the illegality of it to make sense. The comparison is apples to pavement.
well, good... whenever his girls get old enough to get on their own insurance, my brother and I will simply just annul the marraige..... where do you pull that convenient "causes harm" lol.... Because I'm sure its from the same source that says gay sex "causes harm" too. you can't have it both ways here.... for the same reasons you argue for gay marraige, will be used to support incest marriage. Someone else thinking gay marraige is gross is never an acceptable reason for the progay crowd, so why should it be for the pro-incest crowd. the same reasons I oppose incest marraige, ... I oppose gay marriage.... it's economics.... not because it's gross, or because I hate them. you want to bang your sibling... go for it.... don't expect benefits for it whenever the country is already going bankrupt. you want to bang the same gender.... go for it.... don't expect benefits for it whenever the country is already going bankrupt. - - - Updated - - - it's like that person who gives away gum to a friend in a middle school class.... every moocher in the room has their hand out claiming it's not fair. Even when the gum runs out, there are still people wanting gum crying it's not fair because Jimmy got a piece....
you want to bang your sibling... go for it.... don't expect benefits for it whenever the country is already going bankrupt. you want to bang the same gender.... go for it.... don't expect benefits for it whenever the country is already going bankrupt. Well, the thing is that by saying that you admit that you are for discrimination based on sexual orientation. The group that says that incestual relationships are the result of extreme psychological trauma is the American Psycholoical Association. They do not say that homosexual relationship are the result of anything but being, you know, homosexual.
Okay. So tell me, how does saying that homosexuality is not a mental disorder put money in the pockets of the APA?
Now, can you tell me how many APA-funded studies have occurred since homosexuality was determined to not be a mental illness? And can you explain to me why it is not considered a mental illness, as per the APA's findings?
That is why his homophobic thinking is now attributable to his public speech. If he wants to be known as a homophobe, he isn't far from achieving the same.
