Quote:

Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

I don't give a flying fig who those things are "advantageous" to -- we should be talking about those things because they really matter, because they have a vast impact on society as a whole. If talking about those things is a "disadvantage" to the Republican party, doesn't that just confirm that they're a bunch of self-serving <insert favourite invective here> that need to be tossed out?

Can you give me one, just one credible reason how Adam marrying Steve has any impact on you personally, let alone society as a whole?

I can sure do that for either of those three things mentioned above.

Legalizing prostitution, drug use, consentual incest, polygamy or beastiality have no personal effect on me or my family. But it'd be selfish in my view to only look at things that effect me directly. I oppose them because they are bad for society. If you don't value Judeu-Christian values that this country was founded on as much as I do, then it's understandable that we'd differ in this area. But to only look at how things effect me (or you for that matter) is wrong.

I certainly don't mind discussing gay marriage, but this thread was started complaining about the political motives of the gay marriage amendment. To that, I brought up two points and added a third:

1) Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history. Many of you bring up good reasons on why it should be changed (and to be honest, I'm not 100% against it but it comes across that way because I'm one of only two people taking this side now), but you have to admit that it's not the conservatives initiating the change. To say that marriage included gay couples prior to the Christian faith is flat out wrong too (attn: marriage existed prior to Christ.) To say that's it's radical to want to keep marriage as it's defined today means that all of society has been radical until this was brought up several years ago.

2) Republicans are initiating this amendment to time with the 06 elections, but they in no way started this ball of wax from rolling. To say that they started it because they suddenly in 2002 stopped issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is beyond silly.

3) Even thought the timing was political, we all know that Democrats not only would do the same thing, they ARE doing the same thing by raising issues their base feels strongly about. I argue that what constitutes a family is very vital to our society and most on my side agree with me. I assume that most of you argue that global warming is a bigger issue. Shouldn't the people we elect advance the issues we feel strongest about? To you it's just a silly (or bigoted) social issue, but social issues were enough to sway the 04 election because they were largely ignored by Democrats. It's what lost Ohio to Rebuplicans. I'd suggest continueing your arguements to try to sway people because if you ignore it, the same thing could happen.

Damn I wish I had more than 20 minutes a day online.. while we seem to disagree, you guys are much more fun to debate that some of the other sites I visit (even the ones where I'm in the majority).