- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
1.)We? We is the vast majority of persons in this nation.
2.) Feel free to hide behind your own brand of hate and name calling.
3.) LOL, ya'll really crack me up.
That's interesting. I had no idea people who thought that states had rights or powers were hate-filled bigots. What an interesting sentiment from a "libertarian".
This is untrue. Others have rights as well.
Have you ever looked up why Goldwater voted against the CRA?
I'm simply stating a fact, the days of intolerance of minorities are over. Some just don't know it yet and time will take care of them. Like Steve Jobs said "Death is natures greatest invention...it makes way for the new."
translation: you have no quote of me saying that but you made it up in your head based on your subjective opinion and assumption.
thanks for proving me right and proving you made a false statement
facts win again
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true. When it is put on a ballot, it fails.1.) again that doesnt answer anything
who is we?
news flash
im straight
im chrisitian
and the majority of the country support equal rights for gays
so try again, who is we
2.) what hate?
3.) what name calling
4.) ok but nobody honest, educated and objective fall for your deflections and strawmen. maybe in your next post you will address the facts and answer the questions lol
dont forget why do you hate?
in this case I doubt it. the fact is you are intolerant of other people suggests it will never go away. so your comment applies to you as well. time will take care of people just like you as well. becareful about how you try to define hatred it can back fire on you.
gay people are pretty much going to do that on their own unless they have surrogates or in the case of lesbians insemination.
as Nietzsche said when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back.
No they wont be. Two men as a couple has been railed against since Christ times. Don't get your hopes up of total acceptance.Everyone dies, I'm simply stating a fact, the days of intolerance of minorities are over. Some just don't know it yet and time will take care of them. Like Steve Jobs said "Death is natures greatest invention...it makes way for the new." In a generation people will be shocked that we ever banned gay marriage.
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true. When it is put on a ballot, it fails.
How is gay marriage intolerant of other people? It has nothing to do with you unless you are gay. You need to look at yourself for a minute.
Because it is accurate, you cannot get government into the mix without control. Just fact.
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true. When it is put on a ballot, it fails.
way to not read my post. your intolerance of other peoples views is the same thing you are railing about. guess what people like you will die out as well.
you rail against intolerance but ignore your own. hence why I said. when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back.
actually it is you that needs to examine yourself before railing on other people about intolerance.
they sort of did. it happened in multiple states across the nation and many people supported and defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 women.
what is going to be interesting to see is how many of these pro-gay supports become pro-polygamist supporters when polygamists start pushing for the same rights.
since marriage now has no definition. they can very easily win the same lawsuits with the same arguments.
we will see who is intolerant then.
Then what is government involvement in marriage about?
1.)So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote?
2.) If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true.
3.) When it is put on a ballot, it fails.
No they wont be. Two men as a couple has been railed against since Christ times. Don't get your hopes up of total acceptance.
2.)And no, this is not akin to the civil rights movement. Nothing even close to the same.
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true.
When it is put on a ballot, it fails.
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true. When it is put on a ballot, it fails.
Not necessarily, the whole purpose of "contract, laws, protections, etc. (government)" is about control. To ensure an outcome that I contend the government has no Constitutional authority to enforce upon the populace. It has nothing to do with free to not have a legal marriage or not, it has to do with an unequal determination that also the government has no Constitutional authority to make. I have not missed anything, nor engaging in a Strawman (you may want to look up what that means.) By definition government interference into what is "legal marriage" for the purpose of protecting something is control.
Lots of things. But to just throw your hands up and call all "contracts, laws, protections" a means of "control" is just absurd.
Please tell me how this is a "civil right". Just because you wanna, don't make it a right.LOL....it would easily win on a national ballot. That aside, civil rights should never be put to a "popular vote"....this is one of the main reasons we have a Constitution.
I'll be honest that I used to think this pretty much.
But I do think that it's in society's best interests to have some contract that does cover all that marriage does for the protection of children, assets, inheritance, and many of the other things included in the marriage contract. With that said, it does not necessarily follow that the govt (state or fed) must offer benefits and tax options based on that contract.
People in the US are free to live together in any combinations they choose. If they want the legal benefits and privileges that come with marriage then they can (and should be allowed to) marry.
However I wouldnt care if people 'married' without a marriage license. That is a personal thing for every single couple. Perhaps all should just have to get the legal recognition thru the govt if that is what they desire? I dont care what you call it. Half of the objections to gay marriage is the use of the word 'marriage.' Stupid IMO.
Please tell me how this is a "civil right". Just because you wanna, don't make it a right.
, but I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely.
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?