disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
There's nothing that prevents gays from getting married. Civil unions have been around a long time, and the commitment shouldn't be any different if they're serious about it.
They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.
I freaking love you, man. Thanks for really distilling down exactly why the whole government interference in this subject thing is so offensive to me. It is NONE OF THE GUMMINT's BUSINESS who I marry. The only thing that matters is that I file my taxes and that I don't break any laws.
The fact that conservatives have gotten themselves into the middle of people's private business is...anti-conservative.
Well, I have always maintained that the term "social conservative" is an oxymoron.
KEEP GUBMINT OUT OF MY LIFE!*
*except marriage, government should totally decide what marriages are legally recognized. but only if they recognize the marriages *I* recognize. no homos, is what I mean.
Well, I have always maintained that the term "social conservative" is an oxymoron.
That is of course wrong as anyone can see in looking through the voting record - but yes, way off track and irrelevant to forum members reminiscing about their early days in the Democrat party.
There's nothing that prevents gays from getting married. Civil unions have been around a long time, and the commitment shouldn't be any different if they're serious about it.
They just insist on doing it in your face and forcing you to recognize it as MARRIAGE. It's like a gay parade; you always have those few that have to come out on their hands and knees with dog collars and leashes, or dressed up like Liza Minelli. They just want to get in your face about it.
These are universal truths persistent throughout human history regardless of time or culture, and no shallow political activist group is going to change that.
I don't because none of those are federal benefits.......
Everyone is treated equally....Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex just as I can.....
The appendix has been persistent throughout human history. Dosn't mean we can't do without it though.
You being the king of jackass assumptions and pointless insinuations, I thought I'd see what happens when its tossed your way.And that's a jackass assumption to make--because I'm pro equal rights and protection, I'm a Democrat....?? Why would you say something so stupid?
Good example, as no law can change what an appendix is either.
Don't you agree that whether or not something will "effect your marraige" is fairly irrelevant to a discussion on whether or not to recognize SSM?Yes it can. It can deffine an appendix as a Marraige if it so wishes.
And just like that law, it won't effect your marraige in the least.
Or you can just cut the whole darn thing out if you so wish.
Yes it can. It can deffine an appendix as a Marraige if it so wishes.
And just like that law, it won't effect your marraige in the least.
Right, and any such law does not change an appendix.
Any discussion of gay-marriage automatically precludes my marriage as I'm not gay, therefore so what if it doesn't affect my marriage. I'm effected by other people's marriages in other perfectly valid ways. I say gay-marriage does effect my marriage though symbolic interactionism, that changing the institution changes every marriage in that institution, but so what? Effecting me is not a requirement to support or oppose in any way.
Calling back to polygamy, maybe I wouldn't want to support it because of how Obama's UHC would raise my taxes to cover additional spouses. Maybe there are special rules which I think are harmful to the economy.
Maybe I could show how polygamy creates a step-parent dynamic within the lawfully married polygamist group and how this dynamic harms the children of that home is ways identical to step-parent couples typically do.
Maybe there's no problem with polygamy itself, but in it's modern context legalizing polygamy would give a harmful cultural force (sharia law) political influence I'd rather they didn't have.
It doesn't have to effect my marriage for me to oppose.
Now you're making a whole lot of assumptions.
There is a difference between stepfamilies and polygamous. Mainly in the fact that most stepfamilies don't live together. And, many of the step parents come into the family after the parents have split up, most likely having put some sort of strain on the children already.
You would be a lot closer in comparing polygamous marriage with those that have live-in extended families. This is how most of my family is. Almost every child in my family has lived with people that weren't their family members for an extended length of time (1 year or greater). My sister lives with me now to help me by watching the children when I have drill, and adding an extra income to the household. This is a lot closer to polygamy than stepfamily.
Also, there are plenty of people that used to argue, and some that still argue, that interracial relationships are harmful to the offspring of such relationships because it is hard for the children to find a place to belong. Now, I'm not saying I agree with this, but it was one of the popular arguments when interracial marriages were outlawed in almost half the states.
Standard anti-gay marriage tactic: change the subject.
Which is exactly the point.Right, and any such law does not change an appendix.
How?Any discussion of gay-marriage automatically precludes my marriage as I'm not gay, therefore so what if it doesn't affect my marriage. I'm effected by other people's marriages in other perfectly valid ways. I say gay-marriage does effect my marriage though symbolic interactionism, that changing the institution changes every marriage in that institution, but so what? Effecting me is not a requirement to support or oppose in any way.
Really?Calling back to polygamy, maybe I wouldn't want to support it because of how Obama's UHC would raise my taxes to cover additional spouses. Maybe there are special rules which I think are harmful to the economy.
This is bollox.Maybe I could show how polygamy creates a step-parent dynamic within the lawfully married polygamist group and how this dynamic harms the children of that home is ways identical to step-parent couples typically do.
Maybe there's no problem with polygamy itself, but in it's modern context legalizing polygamy would give a harmful cultural force (sharia law) political influence I'd rather they didn't have.
It doesn't have to effect my marriage for me to oppose.
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?