Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
1. why do we need yet another thread on this, gramps?
2. this has already been discussed ad nauseum.
separate but equal isn't equal. you'll just have to get over it. just like people who made the same type of arguments about anti-miscegenation laws have had to get over it. (although as we see on this board, some of them still aren't over it).
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
1. why do we need yet another thread on this, gramps?
2. this has already been discussed ad nauseum.
separate but equal isn't equal. you'll just have to get over it. just like people who made the same type of arguments about anti-miscegenation laws have had to get over it. (although as we see on this board, some of them still aren't over it).
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
1. why do we need yet another thread on this, gramps?
2. this has already been discussed ad nauseum.
separate but equal isn't equal. you'll just have to get over it. just like people who made the same type of arguments about anti-miscegenation laws have had to get over it. (although as we see on this board, some of them still aren't over it).
I don't have to deal with it Jill. With all due respect Obamas new found personal opinion carries 0 weight. His word =/= law.
No I want gays to achieve their goals without trashing the values of others so people like you will stfu about it.
If you didnt see it as "trashing values" there wouldnt be a problem. Would it?
Nope I wouldn't. People can do whatever they want in this great country. Including gays. What you can't do IS REDEFINE AND FORCE that redefined definition on someone who has lived their entire life believing something else.
1. why do we need yet another thread on this, gramps?
2. this has already been discussed ad nauseum.
separate but equal isn't equal. you'll just have to get over it. just like people who made the same type of arguments about anti-miscegenation laws have had to get over it. (although as we see on this board, some of them still aren't over it).
I don't have to deal with it Jill. With all due respect Obamas new found personal opinion carries 0 weight. His word =/= law.
How many times is he going to formulate a 'core' of his beliefs? And why do they have to evolve? How many answers does he have to give?
All yesterday was is "OK I think Gays should be able to marry...NOW open up your wallets and give to my campaign..." Which happened to the tune of $1M
I don't have to deal with it Jill. With all due respect Obamas new found personal opinion carries 0 weight. His word =/= law.
How many times is he going to formulate a 'core' of his beliefs? And why do they have to evolve? How many answers does he have to give?
All yesterday was is "OK I think Gays should be able to marry...NOW open up your wallets and give to my campaign..." Which happened to the tune of $1M
What's really sad is A LOT of people believe Obama made this decision from his heart when it was forced upon him by demands from large donor groups.
I don't have to deal with it Jill. With all due respect Obamas new found personal opinion carries 0 weight. His word =/= law.
How many times is he going to formulate a 'core' of his beliefs? And why do they have to evolve? How many answers does he have to give?
All yesterday was is "OK I think Gays should be able to marry...NOW open up your wallets and give to my campaign..." Which happened to the tune of $1M
What's really sad is A LOT of people believe Obama made this decision from his heart when it was forced upon him by demands from large donor groups.
If you didnt see it as "trashing values" there wouldnt be a problem. Would it?
Nope I wouldn't. People can do whatever they want in this great country. Including gays. What you can't do IS REDEFINE AND FORCE that redefined definition on someone who has lived their entire life believing something else.
What? Heres the thing you dont seem to realize. YOU think the gays should do what you want them to do and everything would be swell. While the GAYS think you should accept what they want to do and everything would be swell.
How many times is he going to formulate a 'core' of his beliefs? And why do they have to evolve? How many answers does he have to give?
All yesterday was is "OK I think Gays should be able to marry...NOW open up your wallets and give to my campaign..." Which happened to the tune of $1M
What's really sad is A LOT of people believe Obama made this decision from his heart when it was forced upon him by demands from large donor groups.
Oh gawd, So now Obama was scarred that the gays would vote for Romney so he had to say he supported gay marriage? Where in the world does that make sense?
Obama took a stance that could hurt him more than help him. The gays are already with him. He faces alienating the independents that may disagree with his opinion.
Give the church back its word (marriage) and make the legal document a civil union.
everyone would be happy right?
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
How many times is he going to formulate a 'core' of his beliefs? And why do they have to evolve? How many answers does he have to give?
All yesterday was is "OK I think Gays should be able to marry...NOW open up your wallets and give to my campaign..." Which happened to the tune of $1M
What's really sad is A LOT of people believe Obama made this decision from his heart when it was forced upon him by demands from large donor groups.
Oh gawd, So now Obama was scarred that the gays would vote for Romney so he had to say he supported gay marriage? Where in the world does that make sense?
Obama took a stance that could hurt him more than help him. The gays are already with him. He faces alienating the independents that may disagree with his opinion.
Keep government out of 'marriage' except in the places where government belongs.. taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, inheritance, contracts, etc... Deem any union of 2 consenting adults (and subsequent families) as family units and treat everyone the same...
But do not force acceptance of others or by others in terms of choices that are made... people have the right to be with anyone they choose, love anyone they choose (consenting adults, not brother and sister and all that jazz)... but just as you have the freedom to do that, you also have the freedom to discriminate against the choices of others.. you have the right to discriminate (not accept) punks, criminals, and others who do not fit in to your realm of acceptable behavior.. and whether i agree of disagree, that choice in who to accept is personal... you have the freedom to be accepting just as you have the freedom to be bigoted or prejudiced... it may not be proper, it may not be nice, but such is the spectrum within a free society
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
That, and the homos want us to like them.
In my world, I against them because it's still state involvement in a private matter.
In the lolberal world, it's a matter of nothing more than semantics.
While true I wish civil unions would be embraced so we could put this issue behind us. It's damaging to both parties and fosters gridlock.
What's really sad is A LOT of people believe Obama made this decision from his heart when it was forced upon him by demands from large donor groups.
Oh gawd, So now Obama was scarred that the gays would vote for Romney so he had to say he supported gay marriage? Where in the world does that make sense?
Obama took a stance that could hurt him more than help him. The gays are already with him. He faces alienating the independents that may disagree with his opinion.
Let's keep the debate honest for once shall we. I never mentioned Romney or votes. I spoke to money. It is well known that several organized groups were refusing to donate to his superpac UNLESS he took a stand publicly
They can form their own legal contracts on such matters. It isn't the perogative of the state to dictate social matters of this kind. it is their role to enforce a contract and protect the participants from contract fraud.
Unless you think people are so fucking useless they need to be led by the hand in order to maintain such matters. i do not. But I dont hate people like statists do.
