PA governor criticized for comparing gay marriage to incest

[Paralogic]

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett drew fire on Friday when he compared gay marriage to incest only weeks after he apologized for a state legal filing comparing same-sex marriage to the marriage of children.

Link to article

He's a Republican.

 

[Anagram]

Adding to the reasons why he's one of only two incumbents who are actually underdogs next year.

 

[Paralogic]

Adding to the reasons why he's one of only two incumbents who are actually underdogs next year.

The purpose of the post was to offer more evidence why Republicans are not in touch with reality. Not political maneuvering.

 

[Anagram]

The purpose of the post was to offer more evidence why Republicans are not in touch with reality. Not political maneuvering.

Not really a good purpose considering the vast majority of republicans disagree with governor corbett's statement. The way it affects political maneuvering is pretty interesting. It probably cements Schwartz as the favorite here.

 

[Paralogic]

...considering the vast majority of republicans disagree with governor corbett's statement...

If they did, they would not vote Republican. Your statement is false.

 

[Anagram]

If they did, they would not vote Republican. Your statement is false.

How do you figure. Your statement is obviously false since I've voted Republican and vehemenantly disagree with Corbett's statement.

 

[Paralogic]

How do you figure. Your statement is obviously false since I've voted Republican and vehemenantly disagree with Corbett's statement.

That's the standard state of schizophrenia... people claiming to support A but acting to support B which is completely opposite to A they just claimed they support.

 

[Linc]

Since Virginia is now Repub, they are considered incumbent standards used with the Senate.
How can staunchly Repub be only slightly con?
Since perotista has a good Senate blogt, how about you do a Governor's blog.
I like helping with all the blogs.

Adding to the reasons why he's one of only two incumbents who are actually underdogs next year.

 

[Linc]

Do you know that Snyder-MI and Scott-FL are safe?
Dems need the same strategy Michael Steele employed in 2010.
Why do Repubs give him no credit?

How do you figure. Your statement is obviously false since I've voted Republican and vehemenantly disagree with Corbett's statement.

 

[Anagram]

Since Virginia is now Repub, they are considered incumbent standards used with the Senate.
How can staunchly Repub be only slightly con?
Since perotista has a good Senate blogt, how about you do a Governor's blog.
I like helping with all the blogs.

Good idea. Maybe I will. I don't count Virginia because its not an incumbent actually running. But if you want to go that way I think VA, PA, and ME are likely to switch at this point.

 

[Anagram]

Do you know that Snyder-MI and Scott-FL are safe?
Dems need thew same strategy Michael steele employed in 2010.
Why do Repubs give him no credit?

Snyder and Scott are about gossips at this point I'd say.

 

[Linc]

LePage is wily and Dems can't solidify behind one candidate, which is how LePage got in last time, a 3-way race.
I was in Maine last week for a funeral and it still might be 3-way.
And, the French-Canadian ancestry still votes for their own, and against their best interests.

Good idea. Maybe I will. I don't count Virginia because its not an incumbent actually running. But if you want to go that way I think VA, PA, and ME are likely to switch at this point.

 

[Anagram]

LePage is wily and Dems can't solidify behind one candidate, which is how LePage got in last time, a 3-way race.
I was in Maine last week for a funeral and it still might be 3-way.
And, the French-Canadian ancestry still votes for their own, and against their best interests.

The three way effect could certainly help LePage, but Michaud is the perfect candidate for the Democrats and Cutlers support is dropping. Unless Angus King endorses Cutler, I think Michaud is the favorite.

 

[Linc]

I want all citizens to vote, no whining from either party.
The House appears to be a daunting blog, but Perotista uses Sabato and Cook and others to do the Senate.
I'm more from the gut.
For instance, Senate Dems ran the table across the Canadian border last year 12-0.
This year, I see the pattern to watch as Senate Dems in mostly Red states, like Pryor;
along with several Senate Dems in purple states like Shaheen--NH and retired Levin in MI.

Good idea. Maybe I will. I don't count Virginia because its not an incumbent actually running. But if you want to go that way I think VA, PA, and ME are likely to switch at this point.

 

[chromium]

When did he become such an expert on incest?

 

[Anagram]

That's the standard state of schizophrenia... people claiming to support A but acting to support B which is completely opposite to A they just claimed they support.

Believe what you will. No one I've voted for believes homosexual marriage is even slightly similar to incestual marriage.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I see no reason why his statement ought to be controversial at all.

The idea of allowing a brother and sister to marry each other is not nearly as radical as the idea of allowing someone to “marry” someone of the same sex. This isn't to say that I am in favor of allowing incestuous marriages either, but I can see no rational reason why anyone should think that “gay marriage” ought to be more acceptable than incestuous marriage. An incestuous marriage, after all, would meet the definition and purpose of marriage, whereas “gay marriage” never will be anything but a sick mockery of marriage.

 

[Anagram]

I see no reason why his statement ought to be controversial at all.

The idea of allowing a brother and sister to marry each other is not nearly as radical as the idea of allowing someone to “marry” someone of the same sex. This isn't to say that I am in favor of allowing incestuous marriages either, but I can see no rational reason why anyone should think that “gay marriage” ought to be more acceptable than incestuous marriage. An incestuous marriage, after all, would meet the definition and purpose of marriage, whereas “gay marriage” never will be anything but a sick mockery of marriage.

I'd say gay marriage is less radical and ought to be more accepted because incestuous marriages resulting in children has high rates of birth defects, while gay marriages do not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'd say gay marriage is less radical and ought to be more accepted because incestuous marriages resulting in children has high rates of birth defects, while gay marriages do not.

What you have stated here may very well be a valid reason not to allow incestuous marriage, but it does nothing to address the underlying fact that “gay marriage” is a radical attempt to redefine just what marriage is, and what role it plays in society as a whole; in a manner that incestuous marriage would not. As such, “gay marriage” is an attack on the very foundation of a stable society.

 

[Linc]

My best friend has raised a son as his own from a first-cousin relation.
He has no birth defects, is smart, and is a great worker.
His birth Father is an alcoholic and so is he.
Biology and environment are not helping him with alcohol and we're worried about him.
He has so much to lose.

I'd say gay marriage is less radical and ought to be more accepted because incestuous marriages resulting in children has high rates of birth defects, while gay marriages do not.

 

[Anagram]

What you have stated here may very well be a valid reason not to allow incestuous marriage, but it does nothing to address the underlying fact that “gay marriage” is a radical attempt to redefine just what marriage is, and what role it plays in society as a whole; in a manner that incestuous marriage would not. As such, “gay marriage” is an attack on the very foundation of a stable society.

I don't see it that way, but I suppose we probably have a fundamental disagreement that can't really be argued there. I doubt that the allowing of gay marriage would change society much at all.

 

[roguenuke]

I see no reason why his statement ought to be controversial at all.

The idea of allowing a brother and sister to marry each other is not nearly as radical as the idea of allowing someone to “marry” someone of the same sex. This isn't to say that I am in favor of allowing incestuous marriages either, but I can see no rational reason why anyone should think that “gay marriage” ought to be more acceptable than incestuous marriage. An incestuous marriage, after all, would meet the definition and purpose of marriage, whereas “gay marriage” never will be anything but a sick mockery of marriage.

Since the main purpose of marriage, legally, is to set up a legal familial relationship within the law between two people, no, siblings getting married is not the same thing as same sex marriage. Siblings already are legally recognized as family. It would be redundant. And that is simply the most basic legal argument separating the two.

 

[roguenuke]

What you have stated here may very well be a valid reason not to allow incestuous marriage, but it does nothing to address the underlying fact that “gay marriage” is a radical attempt to redefine just what marriage is, and what role it plays in society as a whole; in a manner that incestuous marriage would not. As such, “gay marriage” is an attack on the very foundation of a stable society.

Marriage is defined in how it operates, not on the restrictions placed upon it.