Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....ok so this is now lib vs. con, same olds tired childish meme of the board over and over that relegates me to wanting to stick to the flame zone, which is at least entertaining.
Kids games, partisanship is a disease.
Yeah, you're above that too... I've seen it all over the place...
yea, go ahead and show me where I say "republicans are bad and retarded and liberals are great" like all of these other morons do, I'll wait ringside.
It's being truthful. Gays want the legislation, you can't even be honest about that.
By the way, Mr. Judgmental, I am for civil unions for gays. I'm for civil unions for any consenting adult that wants to get married, even multiple people, i.e. 3 men, 1 woman, etc.. Are you?
You said "who's trying to legislate anything?"
As though nobody is out there trying to legislate against gay marriage. That's the part that was intentionally dishonest, because 1.5 seconds on google would have shown you different before posting the ignorance.
They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first. 'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
There are hundreds of bills slated relating to marriage, none of which solves the problem.Look above.You can try to play stupid, but I know you aren't. A Constitutional Amendment that would keep gays and lesbians from marrying is legislating an icky feeling. DOMA was legislating icky feelings.
Occam's razor solution. Then maybe the idiot legislators can try to focus on keeping us out of an economic depression.
Yeah, that'd be great. Instead the House is spending close to a million dollars defending DOMA. What's Todd Akin doing in his last days? Trying to get a "right to bully" provision put in the Defense Authorization bill.
Yeah, you're above that too... I've seen it all over the place...
yea, go ahead and show me where I say "republicans are bad and retarded and liberals are great" like all of these other morons do, I'll wait ringside.
You've done it in this very thread when referring to the 'they' out there who are bigoted for their beliefs and obviously go around calling gay people 'faggots', even though you were the only one to actually use the word in this thread.
The difference is that they are wrong. That is the difference. And I will be on the winning side, when all is said and done.
The kids are smarter than the bigots who try to demean people because of how they were born.
They think you are just as wrong. Again, you're no different than they are, pushing your morals on others. It's interesting that you see it as 'winning' though, what a sad world we live in.
Winning is having a Government that doesnt intentionally pit people against other people because of how they were born. If that's sad, you're on the evil side.
They can think I'm wrong all day, and consider themselves no different than me.
But there is one right, and one wrong.
You said "who's trying to legislate anything?"
As though nobody is out there trying to legislate against gay marriage. That's the part that was intentionally dishonest, because 1.5 seconds on google would have shown you different before posting the ignorance.
They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first. 'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
"Marriages" definition and meaning, as you call it, is frivolous so-as to not include gay couples also, as they are a factual and (should be) equal under the Law portion of our society.
It's called society waking up. It's great.
And the legislation out there is not just to ban them from marriage, but to prevent their civil union. Fact.
They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first. 'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first. 'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
And Equal Treatment under the law has a very specific meaning in our society. It means that citizens can expect equal treatment by the government unless the government can demonstrate a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups differently.
The meaning of Civil Marriage is a function of law, and polls show a majority of citizens now support equal treatment for same-sex couples and as a result those laws are changing. First they won in the court, then they won in the hearts and minds of the people as the issue was examined via public debate, then they won in the legislatures, and now they've won at the ballot box.
Just as society once defined "voter" to be white, male, landowner, that definition has evolved so that the right to choose rests with the individual and not the government, so is society changing so that the ability to Civilly Marry is moving towards resting with the individual and not the government. If an individual today thinks that "Voter" should mean white, male, landowner they are free to choose not to vote if they are female (Asian, or renter). If the individual feels that Civilly Marrying someone of the same sex is wrong, they are free to not Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.
>>>>
They think you are just as wrong. Again, you're no different than they are, pushing your morals on others. It's interesting that you see it as 'winning' though, what a sad world we live in.
Winning is having a Government that doesnt intentionally pit people against other people because of how they were born. If that's sad, you're on the evil side.
They can think I'm wrong all day, and consider themselves no different than me.
But there is one right, and one wrong.
Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day. I'm guessing you're an Obama fan, do you critisize him for pitting blacks against whites, poor against rich?
This argument could have been over years ago when it was all about 'civil rights' and 'equality under the law'. Civil unions could have been instituted and marriage left to the church, but that wasn't good enough. Gay groups were insistant on changing what marriage meant and shoving it down the throats of everyone, which is when I lost respect for their so called 'cause'. I did have empathy for them at one time, not so much anymore. Every gay person that I've talked about with this issue individually says that civil union isn't good enough, equality under the law isn't good enough. So then just be honest about what the true agenda is and be done with it already. Even if you change the definition of marriage, you cannot force a religious institution to bless it, you still will not change people's minds to accept it as normal. So perhaps there will be 'victory' and satisfaction, but because of the way they went about it, it will be a hollow one in my opinion. Making it legal, insisting it be called marriage will still not change the hearts and minds of those that thing it's wrong, it will not force acceptance.
If it's about equality and civil rights, pass civil union legislation and be done with it.
Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.
They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first. 'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
"Marriages" definition and meaning, as you call it, is frivolous so-as to not include gay couples also, as they are a factual and (should be) equal under the Law portion of our society.
It's called society waking up. It's great.
And the legislation out there is not just to ban them from marriage, but to prevent their civil union. Fact.
Their civil union should not be prevented, but that's not what they want. If that's really all they wanted, this could have been put to rest years ago.
Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.
Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.
For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.
That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.
There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".
>>>>
"Marriages" definition and meaning, as you call it, is frivolous so-as to not include gay couples also, as they are a factual and (should be) equal under the Law portion of our society.
It's called society waking up. It's great.
And the legislation out there is not just to ban them from marriage, but to prevent their civil union. Fact.
Their civil union should not be prevented, but that's not what they want. If that's really all they wanted, this could have been put to rest years ago.
Wrong, there are legislators that have proposed blocking civil unions.
Can't have your own facts.
Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.
Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.
For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.
That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.
There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".
>>>>
could you flesh out this theory by telling what the democratic party does to devide people?
Ask Clinton. His signature is on DOMA and DADT.why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?
Then our tax code needs drastically changed.
I can give you a million ways people are not 'treated equally under the law', and I am for changing every single one of them so that everybody is treated equally. That means equal taxation, equal service, equal entitlements, and on and on I could go. So if we want to open that bag of tricks, that's fine with me.
