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.
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.
...considering the vast majority of republicans disagree with governor corbett's statement...
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.
Adding to the reasons why he's one of only two incumbents who are actually underdogs next year.
How do you figure. Your statement is obviously false since I've voted Republican and vehemenantly disagree with Corbett's statement.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?