I think most everyone except the most ideologically blinded can see the reality that he is fabricating quotes.
The potential of procreation is why couples of the same sex and closely related couples have been excluded for thousands of years.
People aren't obligated to procreate and babies are not commodities. The cultural need to make a baby is one of the reasons there are so many unwanted and abused children; some people just don't make good parents.
Your 'perception' of reality is what causes you to express yourself as you do. Surely, don't EVEN begin to think that 'everyone' must somehow agree with you; you'd be VERY wrong.
I suppose it would take a study to 'prove' you or I right/wrong. Yet, in my experience that is what I have found. Even so, I respond accordingly. If people are poised to be 'intolerant', I've learned to express effects right back in their direction to mitigate things to some reasonable degree.
Studies dont change my mind, I make my own decisions I dont let someone else getting paid to come to a certain conclusion make them for me. I can be wrong and im wrong ALOT and when I realize im wrong, I apologize or change my attitude towards something. There are people that dont like gays for sure, just like theres people that dont like christians or jews or arabs or blacks or mexicans or yankees or rebels. No one group has an exclusive on having someone or some other group hating or disliking them. Some groups just make alot more noise about it and make wild claims that everyone and anyone that doesnt agree categorically down the line every single thing they demand they do are haters etc etc. I say Nonesene to that and that doesnt make them right either. Will a nice big study showing your wrong work for ya though ?
I see your point. But I've been around long enough to know that some 'outside' influences on my thoughts can be a very healthy thing. In any case, I'm certain I have not always been 'right' in what I think.
"Potential" of procreation doesnt equate with a requirement of procreation. And good or bad, they are the only ones obligated by law upon the birth of a child.
Nope. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. Same sex couples have only been prohibited since the early 1970s. - - - Updated - - - Potential of procreation is entirely irrelevant to who can marry. Nope. Repeatedly refuted
so you have no problems with brother/sisters marrying then? you know, since procreation is off the table for valid reasons....
"The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped." ~~ Hubert Humphrey A moral, decent society takes care of its children. If gay people want to adopt a child and give that child a loving home, why not let them? They're taking the burden off the taxpayer (choosing to pay over $200,000 to raise that child), and their family is planned -- not an accident. Do you think that a child is better off in a foster home or orphanage? Do you think that society is better off with that child in an orphanage?
No one is stopping them. Florida, the only state that had a prohibition against gays adopting, no longer has such a restriction. Grasping for the next strawman?
Hell, they even oppose brothers marrying brothers. When Rhode Island legalized gay marriage, they had to enact new restrictions prohibiting closely related couples of the same sex from marrying. Their previous law only banned men from marrying closely related women and women from marrying closely related men. Ironically, Rhode Island is the only state where sexual relations with closely related people isn't even against the law. But I agree with your point. It is the heights of hypocrisy to argue that marriage cant be limited to heterosexual couples as the only couples with the potential of procreation, because not all heterosexual couples actually procreate. But they don't bat an eye to exclude closely related couples, because of the potential of procreation.
All he has to do is show consistently, that he's not antipathetic toward gay people. If he cannot do that after what he said, I will assume that he is 'continuing' along with his homophobic agenda.
