Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[Terri4Trump]

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

Apples and Oranges.

I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.

Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.

America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.

But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.

 

[Blues Man]

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

Apples and Oranges.

I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.

Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.

America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.

But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.

Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned

 

[Terri4Trump]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned

Fuck the state. To the billions of people of different faiths who occupy the planet marriage is much much more.

Furthermore, you cannot just change the definition of a thing. Congress cannot pass a law saying that a hamburger is pizza. Well, they could pass the law, but it would not actually make a hamburger into pizza.

Marriage is what it is, the union of a man and a woman. If you want to have the union of two gays then call it what you will, but you cannot change the definition of something else that already exists.

And I have yet to go into the fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder, and that all this should not be codified into an institution in the first place.

 

[Blues Man]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned

Fuck the state. To the billions of people of different faiths who occupy the planet marriage is much much more.

Furthermore, you cannot just change the definition of a thing. Congress cannot pass a law saying that a hamburger is pizza. Well, they could pass the law, but it would not actually make a hamburger into pizza.

Marriage is what it is, the union of a man and a woman. If you want to have the union of two gays then call it what you will, but you cannot change the definition of something else that already exists.

And I have yet to go into the fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder, and that all this should not be codified into an institution in the first place.

We do not live in a theocracy.

If you want to live in a theocracy I suggest you move to Iran

And you're arguing semantics. FYI the definition of words are not static and they evolve along with the population and changes in common use

 

[Lysistrata]

Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?

Not really. There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......

What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?

You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does. The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.

Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?

The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?

Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.

who is "glorifying Gay Marriage"? You idiot. People are born with their sexual orientation. No one "recruits" anyone. Heterosexuals will seek out people of the opposite sex. Incidentally, PLEASE clean up heterosexuality. No more trumps or domestic abuse or child brides, rape, or disrespect.

I take it that the latest newspeak from limbaugh is "normative." Is this like "social justice warriors" or "virtue signalling"? There seems to be someone in a back room somewhere thinking this crap up and getting paid for it.

 

[Blues Man]

Not really. There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......

What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?

You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does. The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.

Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?

The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?

Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.

who is "glorifying Gay Marriage"? You idiot. People are born with their sexual orientation. No one "recruits" anyone. Heterosexuals will seek out people of the opposite sex. Incidentally, PLEASE clean up heterosexuality. No more trumps or domestic abuse or child brides, rape, or disrespect.

I take it that the latest newspeak from limbaugh is "normative." Is this like "social justice warriors" or "virtue signalling"? There seems to be someone in a back room somewhere thinking this crap up and getting paid for it.

There has always been about 10% of the population that is homosexual.

These people think it's something new when it's as old as humanity

 

[Lysistrata]

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

Apples and Oranges.

I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.

Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.

America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.

But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.

The "institution of marriage" has a dual meaning. A marriage is a marriage if a licence is procured and the couple exchanges vows in front of a legally qualified officiant. There is no perversion.The "sacred institution of marriage" is a matter of the various religious groups who hold sacred ceremonies according to their faith.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference

Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify. Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.

 

[Lysistrata]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference

Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify. Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.

Exactly what are the people who think like you, who you term "the rest of US," forced to change? Who is "the rest of us"?

I'm a run-of-the-mill, normal American. I'm not being forced to be anything. I have no reason to be offending by the wording on a marriage licence/certificate.

 

[Polishprince]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference

Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify. Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.

Really? I was under the impression that the "husband" in the gay marriage was the active member, and the "wife" was the wide receiver.

 

[Polishprince]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In addition:

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?

If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference

Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify. Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.

Exactly what are the people who think like you, who you term "the rest of US," forced to change? Who is "the rest of us"?

I'm a run-of-the-mill, normal American. I'm not being forced to be anything. I have no reason to be offending by the wording on a marriage licence/certificate.

Would you be offended if a state used the wording "bum buddy" instead of "spouse" on a gay marriage license?

Of course you would be. As a lib, you think it should be your way or the high way

 

[Bob Blaylock]

He was divorced twice you fucking moron

So you are against divorce?

Why the sudden hyperpuritanism from liberalism- especially after so many decades of insisting on easy, no-fault divorce laws? Sort of hypocritical, eh?

Orwell called it “Doublethink”.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?

Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.

I think the evidence is cleat and undeniable that that is a specific goal of the LGBpbiWTF/pedophile movement.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned

Marriage isn't defined by the state. It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.

 

[Blues Man]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned

Marriage isn't defined by the state. It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.

We don't live in a theocracy.
If you want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran.

Marriage is a legal contract there is nothing holy about it

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned

Marriage isn't defined by the state. It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.

We don't live in a theocracy.
If you want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran.

Marriage is a legal contract there is nothing holy about it

We are supposed to live in a Democracy but every time the people vote against homosexual marriage, the men in black robes overturn the Democratic process. Is that really the Democratic way? Of course not, but it is the Marxist way.

 

[Lysistrata]

Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned

Marriage isn't defined by the state. It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.

We don't live in a theocracy.
If you want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran.

Marriage is a legal contract there is nothing holy about it

We are supposed to live in a Democracy but every time the people vote against homosexual marriage, the men in black robes overturn the Democratic process. Is that really the Democratic way? Of course not, but it is the Marxist way.

No. It is the way of the United States Constitution, under which everyone's rights are secured. History shows us that majorities will dump on minorities, which is one of the chief reasons that the barrier of the Constitution is in place. Remember the assholes in Virginia who passed a law that a white person could not marry a black person (Loving v. Virginia).

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.

What exactly did I say about rights? I said that it is a civil rights issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.

Are men and women different?

Is that really your best shot ,Dude?

Don't need my best shot for this.



Are men and women different?

Let's recap slick! You first asked that in response to my trying to educate you on the issue of rights and made the distinction between marriage as a right in and of itself, as apposed to same sex marriage being a civil rights issue because one group had been arbitrarily barred form it. You did not have a single, intelligent comment on that issue. You just asked a stupid and irrelevant question as a pathetic red herring to get off the topic. And you keep asking it. Now, you answer this: What the fuck does thatquestion have to do with the points that I made?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?

Not really. There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......

What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?

You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does. The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.

Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?

The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?

Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.

The evolution of traditional role models have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I get where your coming from. Your so stupid that you think that there is a husband and a wife in same sex relationships where each fulfills the role of one gender or the others.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.

Government being involved in marriage, an institution directly rooted in religion, in the first place was the bad precedent.