- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 2,926
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Force. Not promote.
Take away the super Bowl from Arizona. Oh wait, the NFL winks and nods at gay-bashing .
Promoting fairness has served as a legitimate basis for existing legislation. Just because equality makes your eyes burn when you see it does not mean that promoting its presence in our laws is purely an emotion plea. It's pragmatic.
First of all, unless you are a sociopath (which granted the official diagnosis has yet to come in) emotions are a part of life and of being human. You like to dismiss them as mush and pretend you don't have any, or that yours are somehow more legit, because your emotion of choice is anger and baseless insults. How does that play out for you in real life btw?
Promoting fairness has served as a legitimate basis for existing legislation. Just because equality makes your eyes burn when you see it does not mean that promoting its presence in our laws is purely an emotion plea. It's pragmatic.
Got a linky for that?
Any reason for that sort of wording ?
Take away the super Bowl from Arizona. Oh wait, the NFL winks and nods at gay-bashing .
Um...no. I just think that "fair" is a crappy way of writing legislature and running economy. It's subjective. What you think is "fair" is not going to be fair to someone else.
I would rather use rationality, science, and logic to predict and accept how things are, instead of forcing everyone to the oppression you personally think is best.
What is with the Far right and their burning desire to discriminate against people who don't think or act or look exactly the same way they do? Are they born with it, or do they develop that bigotry after years of training?
shouldn't let these dogs deny people equal rights at all they don't need to be left alone they need to be muzzled
The funny thing is that you guys claim to be the tolerant ones.
Fine. So why try and redefine a cultural term that's been in existence since time memorial all for the appeasement of a mere 1% or 2% of the population? I'm perfectly fine with civil unions defined as equal in standing as traditional marriage before the law and the government. The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and leave that to the churches / people.
No, in order to appease that mere 1% or 2% of the population we have to destroy the institution of marriage as well as traditional religions. Doesn't seem right to me.
I love it when right wing extremists try to claim they are tolerant. It is pretty funny how easily they buy their own bull****.
I love it when right wing extremists try to claim they are tolerant. It is pretty funny how easily they buy their own bull****.
2.) government has to be involved in marriage, otherwise who protects the rights of the contract
Government enforcing contracts extends to everything people have a contract towards. When people are arguing government should get out of the marriage business they are not referring to enforcement of private contracts. That much should be obvious.
thanks for that meaningless post that has no impact on anything i said :shrug:
1.)Except that it does have an impact on what you said, but believe whatever you want.
2.)I don't feel the need to say anything else on the matter.
thanks for that meaningless post that factually has no impact on anything i said lol:shrug:
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?