Same-sex couples begin marrying

WinterBorn said:
No, you see yourself as "elite" but you really aren't. Thats why I called you "elitist".
I'm an elite investor
This idea that everyone who isn't making an income in the upper 6 figures is a failure is laughable. What is it you actually produce?
I never said everyone should or could, most conservatards here couldn't get in college

And your ideas are just as hateful as the neocons. They are simply willing to admit it.
Click to expand...
Your the one hating
 
WinterBorn said:
There are plenty of conservatives who have no problem with gay marriage. General Colin Powell comes to mind.

Plenty of conservatives are content with worrying about fiscal matters and staying out of the social conservative's realm.
Click to expand...

when the repugs were more interested in fiscal matters and civil rights i was a repug, but when the repugs became a bunch of social engineers, i left
 
Don Quixote said:
when the repugs were more interested in fiscal matters and civil rights i was a repug, but when the repugs became a bunch of social engineers, i left
Click to expand...

Conservative social engineering:

stock-photo-pipe-wrench-caught-in-a-gear-assembly-creating-sparks-59320282.jpg
 
DamnYankee said:
It's up to the states. Let Mass and CA have queers marrying. We won't here in God's country.
Click to expand...

If the federal courts rule that it is discriminatory to continue the ban, states can be made to recognize gay marriages.

Also, wouldn't it be better to remove the state & federal gov't from marriages completely?
 
Fuck you queer lover. You can't "make" states license activities that they see no interest in licensing. Go shove a hot poker up your ass.
 
DamnYankee said:
Fuck you queer lover. You can't "make" states license activities that they see no interest in licensing. Go shove a hot poker up your ass.
Click to expand...

You can't? Hmmm, I seem to recall several times when the federal gov't did just that. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forced states to abandon discriminatory practices. Many states didn't want to do it.
 
Fuck you queer lover. You can't "make" states license activities that they see no interest in licensing. Go shove a hot poker up your ass.
 
DamnYankee said:
Fuck you queer lover. You can't "make" states license activities that they see no interest in licensing. Go shove a hot poker up your ass.
Click to expand...

Ok, Loving v. Virginia. The federal gov't deemed the ban on interracial marriages to be unconstitutional. The states did not WANT to allow interracial marriages, but were forced to do so.
 
Interracial marriage has been practiced since the beginning of time and it's entirely natural. That's not at all the same. Most states have no interest in licensing prostitution or bestiality either.
 
DamnYankee said:
Interracial marriage has been practiced since the beginning of time and it's entirely natural. That's not at all the same. Most states have no interest in licensing prostitution or bestiality either.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word "natural" is completely irrelevant.

You stated "You can't "make" states license activities that they see no interest in licensing". I showed that to be inaccurate. The federal gov't did, in fact, "make" states licence activities that they see no interest in licencing.

The prostitution & bestiality are different issues and have no bearing on this discussion.
 
DamnYankee said:
Natural has everything to do with it.
Click to expand...

"Natural" has nothing to do with it. The entire institution of marriage is unnatural. Men have a biological drive to spread their seed to as many females as possible. THAT is natural. Confining all their activities to one woman, and only impregnating one woman is certainly not natural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top