Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
They are a chosen people, a nation of priests to force god's laws onto humanity.
Why else?
Civil Rights & Democratic Cowards
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
They are a chosen people, a nation of priests to force god's laws onto humanity.
Why else?
Oh, yeah, that! Patriarch!
christiefan915
Catalyst
I hate that he does that, too. It's like the nit-picking lawyerly side of him that wants all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed, plus his fruitless attempt to reach out to conservatives.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Plus, by law it his duty to perpetuate and reinforce the Noahide Laws, which forbid homosexuality.
How would it look if the president violated the laws?
No one wants the government involved in a religious ceremony. You are conflating religious marriage and secular marriage. They are two different things.
I am married in the eyes of the state but not the eyes of the FSM because I didn't have a Pastafarian ceremony (the Mrs. balked). However, if I had the Pastafarian ceremony but didn't get a marriage license from the state and such, I would be married in the eyes of the FSM but not the state.
And there's no need to dicker around with telling people like me that I ain't married, just civil unioned when all that has to be done is for the states to just let gay people get married in the eyes of the state and be done with it. If the churches don't want to marry gay folk, they don't have to.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Collins and Snowe would have been enough had Reid not blocked discussion on the defense bill and also not stated that no one could amend the bill. He effectively killed it. (this assumes of course that Reid could have gotten Lincoln and Pryor back on his side of the vote)
Hell... all he needed was ONE of the Maine Senators. But like Pelosi on the bailout, he fucked up the chances with his ultimatums.
Instead he LOST two Dems and any chances of cooperation from a Rep Senator.
"These issues" - women's rights, voting rights, civil rights, gay rights - are never "important right now" to heteronormative white males.
If we all waited around for our civil rights to be important to that power structure, the rest of us still wouldn't even have our voting rights.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The above is exactly the type of ignorant reaction that keeps this an 'issue'.
The 'just give me everything I want and they can fuck themselves' type mentality.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Side note Dung.... if they really wanted to try and pass this.... bring it up as a single issue.
Don't have it attached to anything. Watch how quickly it passes.
As long as you attach it to something, people will find excuses to vote against it without voting against it.
Don't have it attached to anything. Watch how quickly it passes.
As long as you attach it to something, people will find excuses to vote against it without voting against it.
I disagree. The R's were using the amendment process to eternally delay legislation. This was a straight up or down issue - amendments were red herrings.
Snowe and Collins are both going to be primaried by the teabagging loons, and they believe that not voting for things like gay rights may stave off a challenge, but of course it won't. THey all do that.
But Reid, who has watched them for two years now, knew he couldn't get Snowe and Collins, and that is why he brought up the vote.
I can't wait, I think it's Snowe who is up first? For that circus to hit Maine, who I do not believe will elect a teabagger.
So that will probably be two more Dem seats. Plus just the fun of the primary circus.
What exactly is "ignorant" about what I said? You're the jackass conflating religious marriage and secular marriage as if the two were the same.
It's more like, "just do what I say because it is right."
Yes I agree with this.
I can't figure out why Obama's Admin is appealing this stuff. Maybe for the mid-term election cycle. This way nobody can use it "against" them during the election cycle, and the case is dropped right afterward.
This really makes the most sense and is very reasoned.
What I think we see happening is that, when someone wishes to portray themselves as a moderate, they always need to claim that the left is unreasonable so that they can take some imagined middle-ground.
But in fact, that desire has led to an unreasonable position - telling currently married heteros that they are not married, but rather are in "civil unions".
Leading me to conclude that what the left should have done is staked out the postion that the government must order religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages, this way people who wish to appear moderate could have had actually had something to hang their hats on.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
But many religions really are opposed to homosexuality. SHould that be allowed?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
What is ignorant is pretending the government's 'marriage' is necessary and that the RR should just suck it because you say so.
I am not conflating the two you idiot... I am stating that we DONT need the GOVERNMENT involved in 'MARRIAGE'... meaning there would be no secular.
Leave 'marriage' as a religious ceremony and this 'issue' is resolved.
But the RR doesn't want that... and neither do people like you. Both of you want it YOUR way all the way and fuck the other side.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and the above is EXACTLY why the 'issue' will continue being an 'issue'
it has NOTHING to do with trying to appear moderate. Obviously BOTH sides are hung up on the fucking term 'marriage' and want it to 'mean what THEY say it means'. It is a fucking word. Why the hell are you people so hung up on a fucking word?
Is the goal to get the WORD defined to mean what you want it to mean or to get everyone treated in the same manner... you know EQUAL RIGHTS????
Which is it?
I am not trying to define anything. People who advocate for your position are attempting to redefine heterosexual marriage as civil unions.
That's both unrealistic and unnecessary. In my most humble of opinions.