We have the same consequence, different law. I have zero tolerance for liars and dumb, and you have zero tolerance for personal incivility.
I wonder whose list of blocks grows longer?
Evangelicals fume as GOP surrenders in gay marriage wars
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
We have the same consequence, different law. I have zero tolerance for liars and dumb, and you have zero tolerance for personal incivility.
I wonder whose list of blocks grows longer?
I rhink the GOP still needs Evangelicals to turn out. Losing to the Democrats by ten million votes is not good optics
They can vote, it is just that the United Russia Party holds all the cards: control of the state media, control of the courts, control of the nation's political infrastructure, rendering it next to impossible for opposition parties to gain traction.
Althea
Althea told me...
LOL. If this was about 'optics', we wouldn't see what's going on in Texas right now
Althea
Althea told me...
Yes. Pretty much what I meant. A few years ago I told a buddy that Russia is a democracy.
Everybody has the right to vote for Putin
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Micawber,
There is a lot of overlap.
A LOT.
We have the same consequence, different law. I have zero tolerance for liars and dumb, and you have zero tolerance for personal incivility.
I wonder whose list of blocks grows longer?
There is a lot of overlap.
A LOT.
This is obviously anecdotal but I personally don't know anyone in Russia who supports Putin. Admittedly, my relatives are associated with the white collar professional classes of Moscow and Saint Petersburg, so they are not exactly representative of the nation as a whole. But seemingly they are all pro-Navalny and/or working to get opposition candidates elected locally or in the state Duma.
Putin, Trump, and those guys in Brazil, India, Hungray seem to be a bad omen that rightwing nationalism has found real traction in the 21st century. And that seems to be happening with and without Evangelical support.
My OP refered to liberals on this forum around 2007 and 2008.
It did not refer to what people were thinking in 1994.
At that time, on this forum political affiliation was one of the most reliable predictors of whether one was hostile to SSM. Liberal posters were almost universally pro-SSM or at least they were not going to actively try to stop the gay community from winning in court.
Conservatives largely at that time were either hostile to SSM or did not lift a finger to stop all the SSM marriage bans the GOP was actively promoting in the states.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Nobody that I know of.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yeah, so? That doesn't change anything that I said. I'll say it again here:
Same sex relations are not marriages. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Between a man and a woman, procreation (in principle) is possible. That possibility is nonexistent in gay relationships, thus gay "marriage" is meaningless. Attempting to sexualize man-man/woman-woman relations is a perversion of marriage, as those types of relations can only ever be platonic in their end result (as procreation is impossible).
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Insults are not arguments, and do not address what I said.
I am not giving you any marriage or relationship advice. I'm just telling you why gay "marriage" is a pointless perversion of marriage. I'll say it again:
Same sex relations are not marriages. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Between a man and a woman, procreation (in principle) is possible. That possibility is nonexistent in gay relationships, thus gay "marriage" is meaningless. Attempting to sexualize man-man/woman-woman relations is a perversion of marriage, as those types of relations can only ever be platonic in their end result (as procreation is impossible).
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I am admittedly without a clue as to the reason behind the conservative objection to gay marriage.
Marriage shouldn't even be a legal term, in my view.
But if two people can enter a civil union to acquire the legal benefits afforded to the members of a civil union,
why should it not be ANY two people?
What happened to equal status under the law?
And how does the gay couple that lives across the street interfere with the lives of their straight neighbors in any way?
The only possible reason is that these people want to inject their own religious views into the laws of the land.
This makes them theocrats, equivalent to the Taliban.
Aaron Sorkin named them the "American Taliban."
Marriage shouldn't even be a legal term, in my view.
But if two people can enter a civil union to acquire the legal benefits afforded to the members of a civil union,
why should it not be ANY two people?
What happened to equal status under the law?
And how does the gay couple that lives across the street interfere with the lives of their straight neighbors in any way?
The only possible reason is that these people want to inject their own religious views into the laws of the land.
This makes them theocrats, equivalent to the Taliban.
Aaron Sorkin named them the "American Taliban."
Where else are the bat crap crazy end timers going to go?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Male and Female are not choices. One's sex (or "gender") is biological.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
No such thing.
That is true. Many people are born gay. It is just them acting as god made them.
BAM!
Wrong!
Most gays are aware they are different when they are little kids. It is just them being how they were born. What gives you the right to judge them for being who they were born as? You are flat-out wrong.
Differently doesn't mean homosexual, every human being is different, I know effeminate men who are married to women! Truth sometimes isn't convenient, however it's not judgement, I am simply not afraid to tell them the truth, I don't point fingers, or name call I don't even bring it up but when someone else does or asks what I think, I will not lie to them. Well unless you are gay, on this site, and call names, and say nasty things!