Two of our contributors are asked to take opposing stances on an issue and present a case for their viewpoint. Comment and tell us who you agree with or what you believe or think! The topics are suppose to elicit a response and start a conversation in comments. Enjoy!
TOPIC: Gay Marriage
Shelle Edit: Disclaimer ;) -- The opinions expressed here are the views of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Real World Venus vs. Mars site.
He Said...
Well once again we have a He Said She Said with Gucci and me. This time it is gay marriage. Now again I will put my basic political and life philosophy out there for all to read. I believe that if it doesn't cost me (personally or as a tax payer) money, it doesn't harm children and it doesn't take away rights then I don't much care what people do. So my stance is clear; this includes gay marriage.
Now if it will cost me money, if my taxes increase, my insurance premiums increase (Like the IDIOT democrats haven't already screwed that pooch) then I am definitely against it. Now don't get me wrong I am not marching in the street for it (or against it). I am not so simple minded that I would vote for politicians that champion it (or are against it) to the detriment of the whole nation either, which many simpletons do. Someone who would do that is a total drain on society at large and pretty much a sorry excuse for a human being, in my net gain voter opinion. It is basically a non issue to me. Also let me say if straight marriage costs me money I am against it too!
So here is my stance. I don't give a dang if a man marries a woman, a man, a goat, a football, seven women, a dwarf, someone outside his race, his religion, a midget, a crack head, a democrat or a space alien, or any combination of those. If it doesn't cost me money, hurt kids, or take away rights then go get 'em.
Note****** the outcome is EXACTLY the same if you are forced between marrying the goat and the d....... oh never mind, everyone knows that already.
Sage <--N always SFW
She Said...
It's pretty clear that this is a highly divisive topic, but it is my hope that we can discuss it without descending into accusations of "hate" and "ignorance" which are ridiculous and do nothing to advance the discussion.
Like Sage, it doesn't matter to me one way or another who someone loves, sleeps with, or marries as long as all parties are consenting adults. It's not a financial issue, it's not a moral issue, and it's not a lifestyle issue. It's an issue of whether "rights" are being denied a special interest group, in this case gays and lesbians.
The short answer is, no. Rights are not being denied gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians have the exact same rights as every other American. The "right" to marry (and whether marriage is a right at all is certainly debatable, but not the focus of today's discussion) is one that is legally restricted for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Every American has the ability to marry an adult of the opposite sex as long as that person is a consenting non family member. The "right" to marry is already equal for everyone. We run into trouble when we start creating rights for certain factions of society, and the issue of gay marriage is absolutely a "created right".
Still, it's not the issue of gay marriage itself that bothers me. I'll say again, I'm not against the idea of gay marriage. I'm not for it either; I'm actually neutral when it comes to the issue itself. I see it as an issue of states rights. Put it to a popular vote in individual states and let the people have their say. Of course, the problem we run into when the people are allowed a voice is that when the minority in power doesn't like the voice of the majority it wants to rule, the minority then gets fancy in the courts and forces the majority to swallow a very bitter pill. We saw this in California recently when Prop 8 was overturned by an activist court. The people of California overwhelmingly voted in favor of legally defining traditional marriage but unfortunately, liberals are only interested in the will of the people when it coincides with their agenda. Which is rare. So then we have this unfortunate practice of legislating from the bench and circumventing the democratic process.
Leave it to the states; let the people speak. And when they do, regardless of which way the vote swings, government must be allowed to work the way it was designed - for the people and by the people - because when minority opinion is forced upon the majority by activist judges in blatant defiance of the will of the people, well, we are on a very slippery slope indeed.
Gucci Mama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
81 comments:
I am going to agree. I am, as some of you know, huge on states rights, I am even bigger on the democratic process. When the courts are pro-active to undermine the actual votes of the people everyone loses. I should post on that.
The reason the left needs the courts is because they their stances goes against the will of the people. Without activism in the courts there is no left, well none with any power anyway. It is the only reason presidential elections matter.
A few things: I'm not interested in a long, drawn out debate, but I do want to share my views on a few things.
First, GM, I think even you realize that saying that "gay people have the same rights as the rest of us have" is a bit disingenuous, and I don't know any gay people who would agree. In 20 states, first cousins can marry. Second cousins can marry in 44 states. In contrast, only 5 states (and DC) allow gay marriage. Why is this? Because cousin marriage is considered "traditional"?
Second, I don't think that civil rights should be put to a vote. If that were the case, blacks may never have received the right to vote, own property, intermarry with whites, etc. Women may never have received the right to vote. I know that many people (probably you, included) think that it would not be fair for congress to pass such a law without putting it to a popular vote, but we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.
Last, many people seem to think that Judge Walker was "legislating from the bench". However, his job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, which he did. Many people are also saying that he is biased, but I'd like to point out that Reagan nominated him to the bench, and he was not confirmed because at the time he was considered "too conservative". Bush (the first) ended up getting him on the bench few years later. Many people have also stated that Walker is gay; If he is, he isn't out, as he is certainly not openly gay. I'm not saying he is or isn't, because I don't know, but he is not out if he is.
Last, what is the point of denying gays the chance to marry the person they love? It just seems that there would be so many better things to spend time/money on, than actively preventing consenting adults who are in love the change to marry, the chance to be able to make medical decisions for their spouse, to be considered the next of kin in times of emergency or death...to access the tax/insurance benefits that married people have been accessing for ages. If we can keep marriage rights away from some people, then do any of us deserve them? Do we even have them at all?
"Now if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you're at the computer, get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in "Japanese Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights, Okay? All right. You know about it. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: "Right this way" into the internment camps! Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away! And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. You see all, sooner or later. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a fuck about them! The government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you! It's interested in its own power. That's the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible." -George Carlin
Is this costing me? Hmmm... when I see how much moolah gets poured into the legal battle to overturn Prop 8 I want to pull a Shelle and throat punch somebody. States rights and the will of the people should be upheld - that's what our country is based on.
That said - you're both right... whether or not my neighbor is sleeping with a woman or a man (or a goat) really doesn't affect my own life choices and I'm not for ostracizing anyone based on their gender preference any more than I would for their dietary preferences. Being a religious person I firmly believe that God loves everyone... yes, even people who make choices I can't understand.
but when that slippery slop Gucci Mama mentions means that it is infringing on the basic principles of our country... yep, then I'll be throwing my fit.
Hmmmm. good topic.
I'm kinda leaning towards a "kinder, gentler, nation"
(cop out eh)
I can't weigh in on this issue really without getting my beliefs involved and so I'll just agree that I don't like the fact that a majority vote of a State can be turned over so easily.
But like others have said, I don't care who one commits their life to.
Sage is right on. It was hard to really debate this one since we essentially agree, though I think my stance is a little more hard line than his. I think there are some other reasons to question the validity of same sex marriage, chief among them is the reality that marriage to anyone at anytime is NOT a right. I don't have that right, Sage doesn't have that right, no one does. And so we run into trouble when we begin creating rights for certain factions of society. Where does that slippery slope end?
Gay people enjoy the same rights and privileges that straight people do. I'm with T also, the cost of overturning Prop 8 which was supported by the vast majority of even liberal Californians is outrageous, and so is the idea that this unwanted legislation can be rammed through the courts when the people don't do what the looney left wants them to do.
Also, I got no sleep and I have a fever of 103. So, you know, if this comment is a random smattering of words, I trust you'll forgive me and realize that my ideas are perfectly executed even if my fever is preventing me from articulating them as well as I'd like.
Yea... ummm you guys don't disagree at all. I'm snoring because of how bored I am :)
How come the F word makes me want to slit my wrists and go deaf and blind?
Okay... carry on.
Oh and GM... hope you get feeling better soon! :(
@Gucci Mama - A serious question because I really want to understand your line of thought: you say marriage is not a right and you say that straights and gays have all the same rights? Can you provide some examples of specific straights and gays share and/or explain how marriage (the civil contract part of it) is not a right?
Erika - I said marriage to any person at any time is not a right. I am not convinced that marriage is a right at all, quite frankly.
One of the biggest thing I see brought into this debate is gay partners inheriting, making medical decisions, those kind of legalities, as if straight people have some kind of exclusive claim on these things and so we must allow gays to marry so they can have them to. The fact is, they already do. Gay couples have the same rights and privileges as straight couples do.
(I hope this is making sense. My fever is so high I'm seeing heat waves in front of my screen, I think.)
I will say again that I don't have a problem with gay marriage necessarily, though the creation of rights for a certain faction of society, whatever the issue at hand happens to be (abortion is another fictional right that comes immediately to mind) is what gives me pause. But if we put it to the states, and we have to since there are already laws defining marriage on the books, then I'm fine with what the states decide. What I'm not fine with is an activist court deciding to overturn the will of the people because a fringe minority does not like what the people decided.
@Gucci Mama- hmmmm...still not making sense to me. Maybe marriage in and of itself is not a right and, in that sense, yes, any couple, gay or straight, can pursue a legal
contract ensuring rights related to inheritance, adoption/ coparenting, medical decisions, health benefits, etc. Are those the "rights" you're referring to that gays and straights share? The trouble with this argument is that, while marriage may not be a "right", marriage in its current evolution grants married couples 1,148 federal rights and, in Wisconsin, 500+ state rights. By prohibiting certain couples from equal access to those sets of rights, well, that's just plain old discrimination. A straight couple only has to pay for their marriage license to get these rights, while a gay couple must pay an indefinite sum for a piecemeal package that may or may not hold up in court if challenged by a family member or employer who disagrees with it. The US Constitution grants all Americans equal protection under the law. How are these two paths to the same sets of rights at all equal?
Another serious question to understand your line of thought: what do you mean when you say gays are a special interest group? The reason I ask is that, by saying that, you're implying that being gay is like being a gun-enthusiast, a member of PETA, or a smoker. Is that what you mean to say?
E "First, GM, I think even you realize that saying that "gay people have the same rights as the rest of us have" is a bit disingenuous, and I don't know any gay people who would agree."
Using this stance E then people could marry whatever they want. In actuality she is correct because Elton John can marry any female he wants, the same right I have.
Your stance depends on the desire of the individual, so if I wanted to marry a goat or mailbox, by your take, I am losing because I don't have the same "right" to marry as you do, because you chose to marry someone of the oppo sex.
E "I don't think that civil rights should be put to a vote. If that were the case, blacks may never have received the right to vote, own property, intermarry with whites,"
Civil right was put to a vote. There was no party standing up for the blacks so the party of the people, the intelligent people, the Republican party was founded on ONE issue, abolishing slavery.
This party VOTED to put Abe up.
Then the people VOTED to elect him the first republican president. Then he, because it was his mandate OF THE MAJORITY, sent or otherwise cause the deaths of 650k Americans, including his own.
Show me a Democrat with those kids of guts and I'll do a double black flip. Ever seen a fat boy do a back flip?
Ok I ran a rabbit, sue me. But it was BECAUSE OF THE POPULAR VOTE.
E "think that it would not be fair for congress to pass such a law without putting it to a popular vote, but we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one."
this is absolutely true AND OBAMA the messiah, said several times he is AGAINST gay marriage. Anyone voting for him/them because they WANT gay marriage really needs to do some thinking about whiskey tango foxtrot they have in their cavernous skull! HE SAID HE WAS AGIN IT!
Again a rabbit, but come on sheeeesh
E "the chance to be able to make medical decisions for their spouse, to be considered the next of kin in times of emergency or death...to access the tax/insurance benefits that married people have been accessing for ages."
All of this can be done with a simple contract, except the taxes. Binding and legal. Take about 30 minutes, my lawyer gets $80.00 and hour. This is a silly argument.
If this is the basis that ANYONE voted against the greater good of the country then WOW I can't understand that.
Voting to ruin the country at large, so a tiny group of people, wishing against the majority, can get a tax break.
Thats a tough sell.
E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeeeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!
You are the best ever!!!!!!! You have proved my every political point and summed it up in one run on sentence!
You have absolutely made my ear! Here ya go, PERFECTLY stated too I might add!
""Now if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you're at the computer, get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in "Japanese Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights, Okay? All right. You know about it. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country."
Y'all all do that, then go back up there to where we discussed slavery. Seeing a trend??? Who was pres in 1942???? FDR.
Ever wonder why damn near EVERY SINGLE FUBAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY happens under Democrats? See a trend? Nearly every time there is a HUGE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION it is the lowly simpletons that vote for Democrats that cause it!!!!
All that said I'm still for em gettin married, but there is no logical argument for it except I just dont care, as long as it doesnt hurt me of cost me money! (Democrats always cost me money!)
I'm just going to cop out right now with a "what Sage said" because I'm sick and I want my mommy. But he said exactly what I would have. Maybe after I take a nap I'll come back and give it a go.
Thanks, Sage baby. You nailed it.
Let us not forget why we even have institutionalized marriage to begin with.
The original concept of marriage did not require any type of formality, neither did it have any thing to do with governmental bodies.
Later in history it is performed within the various religions, and later recognized by the states governing.
The reason a married couple enjoys the few benefits from being married now, is because they PROCREATE...period!!!
I'm just sayin...
TUC is spot on as well. That is the reason behind it.
Erika said...
@Gucci Mama - A serious question because I really want to understand your line of thought: you say marriage is not a right and you say that straights and gays have all the same rights? Can you provide some examples of specific straights and gays share and/or explain how marriage (the civil contract part of it) is not a right?
What she is saying is that if there is a right then the rightis to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is all.
Anything one straight American human can do a gay American can do.
A straight Erika can marry any man she'd like, a gay Erika can also marry any man she'd like.
That is true EVEN if Erika or the man she marries is gay, go figure.
@ Erika
I hit the send button to quick. When Erika marries her man she has the same rights as anyone else, straight or gay that marries the opposite sex. Civilly.
If she would like to marry a girl female woman then she can have all that too with a quick trip to the lawyer.
Whew, I'm still sticking to the kinder gentler nation.
And now Sage has me all worried about the goats.
Gucci Mama - Hope you feel better soon. Sleep is good.
TUC - you just argued effectively for infertile married straight couples to be stripped of all their marital rights. And if you're talking about the origins of the institution of marriage, don't forget to mention that those origins involved a man paying a woman's father for exclusive sexual access to her. So, traditional marriage was, in its origin, prostituion without the zoot suits.
sage - any politcal historian will tell you that the Republicans of the 1800s were the Democrats of the 1960s. And Blacks couldn't vote until 1964 by the way, under the leadership of two Democratic presidents. Just sayin'.
Debates where the adversaries agree with one another ARE boring. At least we agree on that point. :)
Wendy
Bahahahaaaaaaaa
Baaaahhaaahahahahaahahhaha
Sage, first, there is no slippery slope here. I have the right to marry a consenting adult (well, I'm already married, but play along), provided that that consenting adult is of the opposite sex. Gay people want the right to marry a consenting adult of the same sex. This will not lead to you being able to marry your mailbox, although if you want to marry your mailbox, I'll send you a pretty card of congratulations.
The 15th amendment was ratified by Congress in 1870, which was what I was pointing out. It was not put to a popular vote, because at the time it almost certainly wouldn't have passed.
I didn't bring up Obama, but I personally think that he only said that in order to try to win over independent and moderate voters. If I had to guess, he doesn't care one way or the other about gay marriage.
There are several example of same sex couples who did have all that paperwork done and in order, and one was still denied access to their ill or dying spouse, or their decisions were overturned by other family members. I can provide links if you would like.
As for the George Carlin quote, well, I thought that you'd like that. And I agree. If gay couples do not have the right to marry, then do any of us really? We may be able to do so for now, but is it only a temporary ability? I think if one group of people wants to deny access to a "right", then perhaps none of us really deserve to have it.
Cowboy:
My inlaws are divorced, and both have remarried. Neither side is going to have children, as my MIL and stepMIL are well past the age, and my FIL had a vasectomy shortly after my husband was conceived. Should they not have been allowed to remarry?
My aunt is infertile, but is happily married. Should she not have been allowed to marry?
I have several friends who can have children, but do not want to, ever. Should they not have been allowed to marry?
I don't remember anywhere on the application for my wedding license where I had to indicate whether or not I was going to have children.
Also, if marriage is mainly for having children, then what of the children who are born to people who are not married. Should they then be forced to marry, since they've already fulfilled their "purpose" for being married?
@wendy @elaina I was simply stating a FACT...that's all.
personally, I really don't give two hoots one way or another. It just seems most of the public is ignorant about the history of things such as...MARRIAGE for one!
i'm just sayin...
You really want to talk about rights? I think EVERY freakin man should HAVE to serve two years in the military if he wants to enjoy all the rights most in the world don't. Because the rights we so enjoy and take advantage of are because of our military.
i'm just sayin...
Cowboy, I'm not sure if you're aware, but I'm an Army wife, we've already done one 15 month deployment, so...preaching to the choir here. But why just the men?
I say, let them get married, why should they be any less miserable than the rest of us?
UP ;)
TUC- amen. *shakes head while patting heart*
Oh, crap, was that outloud?
UP
And, TUC is right, our rights were fought for, and people died for them. I'm just sayin' too!
UP
Right on Elaina, I commend you and your husband for your sacrifices.
But what about all the other men?
I come from a long line of military service. Myself having served SO, and continue as a civillian. My son who is a RANGER having served 4 tours already, my father served in the Army in Vietnam and retired Air Force...I could go on and on.
The point is...our public seems to have a misguided opinion that they DESERVE rights simply from existing. This simply isn't true, and never has been throughout history.
SO = Special Operations (Army)
i'm just sayin...
I meant, if you think compulsory service should be, well, compulsory, for all American men, why not all American women?
Hey! The I'm just sayin bit... Is my bit! I have the patent for it!
You guys owe me for using it ;)
Because I do not feel ALL women should have to serve...I do, however feel all men should, IMHO.
i'm just sayin...
I don't know why you believe that, Shelle...I've probably been sayin that before you were born. :)
i'm just sayin...
Right... You are wwwwwwwwaaaaaaayyyyyyy older than me!
But obviously not as smart as me, since I got the patent for it and you didn't!
;)
Pay up cowboy!
Just sayin.
I'm smarter than you thought, Shelle...while you have the patent on "Just sayin." mine is on "i'm just sayin..."
Mine is clearly more brilliantly pleasing than yours. ;)
i'm just sayin...
Lol!
Okay fine. But you still owe me, just cause.
Just sayin.
Dont let gays marry? Military service for all males compulsory? But no gay people allowed in the military. Its all so confusing. Jesus you Americans are an interesting breed.
@ T4T, yes, yes, we are! Feeding the world, freeing those in bondage, Freedom, The Bill of Rights, Medical Miracles...we really should be ashamed!
UP
@Tit for Tat I don't recall ever saying gays shouldn't be allowed to serve. I believe they also have a duty to their country.
So yes...ALL GAYS should fall under a compulsory service term.
i'm just sayin...
Cowboy, do you mean only gay men, or do you think all gay women, but not all straight women?
I am thrilled that Sage is pro gay-marriage but really, really annoyed at the slam of the Democrats and their handling of health care. Really? Why bring that into your argument about gay marriage? I was waiting for you to call him Barack Hussein Obama. And it kind of made me dig you a little less, to be honest.
Dang it Elaina...I really like ya! If you weren't married, I just might start crushin on ya...
Now to your question: Men, whether straight or not should do SOMETHING for their country, and this something should be a stint in the military(2 freakin years).
Women, whether straight or not should be able to join, but not mandatory.
Now, of course this is only for people of all genders that are physically and mentally able to.
i'm just sayin...
TUC
My reference was more to an overall view of your culture, not you specifically.
UP
Dont fret, I know you Americans are really, really special and we all here in the world owe you for all that you do. Dont fluff those pretty little feathers now. ;)
Right on Tit for Tat.
Well, my husband is away a lot...I'm just saying. :)
Seriously, though, thanks for the clarification. Of course, we'd have to completely eradicate DADT, and slim down most Americans, before this would even be possible. Plus, can you imagine the clusterfuck that would be the Army with that kind of influx of people? Still, I can't say that I disagree, though I think it sexist to only make it compulsory for the men. If all high school grads went straight to the military out of high school, it could help to combat our obesity epidemic, as well...
@Elaina We have the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard...we could always put them to work at home no matter which branch...right? Yes, it would help with our FAT/LAZY oops, that wasn't politically correct, let me rephrase...our physically challenged/unmotivated individuals.
Hey, I feel like I'm over for a sleep over...hey Shelle, I'm getting kinda hungry and thirsty, whatcha got going in the kitchen? ;)
i'm just sayin...
Well! I took a little nap and now the fever hallucinations have largely stopped so I came back to read the comments.
Sage has pretty much cleaned up any misunderstandings and my sweet, sweet Urban Cowboy has taken care of a lot of the rest, so I won't parrot their spot on points.
I do want to point out though to Robin that neither Sage nor I said we were pro gay marriage. Neither one of us is against it either, in and of itself, but don't misconstrue being for allowing the states to vote on it and actually standing behind that vote for being pro gay marriage.
True, it would be spread out over all the branches. Then again, maybe we could just start a new branch, just for the teenagers, and they can do the mundane, like border patrol, raking leaves, cutting grass, mopping everything in sight, cleaning the motor pools. Basically, a combination of boy scouts and janitors. Sounds FUN, right?!
GUCCI...so glad to see you up and around! Sage just kinda left me hangin, I think. ;)
@Elaina No...military age = military...whatever they do should be based on the needs of our Country.
i'm just sayin...
But that would free up all our active duty troops to actually do those things...just a thought. Of course, I'm sure there would be so many exceptions to get out of it that it wouldn't be funny, so basically the only people who would be left would be the type of people who wouldn't mind being in the military anyway.
Hey Cowboy. I want to die a little less now, so that's a step in the right direction. I'm right with you on your military service views. You are fabulous.
But you knew that. ;)
If we are sleeping over here at my place then I'm cookin whatever you get off your cowboy butt and cook!
Because we are all southern hospitality like that.
Your Welcome :)
@Gucci : Awe shucks...you're such a sweetie :)
@Shelle : LOL...:)
Thank you, ma'am...may I have another?
Yes. I know, Cowboy. It's part of my charm. That and my stunning good looks and unstoppable brilliant mind. I'm the whole package, you see.
In related news, I'm good at making it all about me.
@ T4T - Oh thanks, but my funny comment gets ignored...i'm just sayin'!
UP
wOW --Urban Cowboy AND a military guy.
Is there anything hotter??
I guess we all need to be careful when it comes to "rights"....cause what if it ends up affecting YOUR rights.
and p.s. I hate politics
I'm from Canada, we just kinda stay out of that stuff.....pass the Labatts
@wendy Right on! I'll climb a couple blue mountains with a neighbor any day or night!
i'm just sayin...
Wendy
Labatts?? Est-ce que tu est folle? Molsons all the way. ;)
Shelle, you've done it again...good dialogue!
UP
(I still think I'm funny!)
TUC: You had em handled bro, I was watching, had you fumbled I woulda picked it up.
E: sage - any politcal historian will tell you that the Republicans of the 1800s were the Democrats of the 1960s. And Blacks couldn't vote until 1964 by the way, under the leadership of two Democratic presidents. Just sayin'.
LOL!!!
I knew if I chummed the water the libs would hit it with talking points, poor history and brainwashed ideology! The Dems of the 60's? I guess you will include Robert Byrd and Bull Conner and George Wallace?
Bwhahahahahahaha Y'all can't help it, it works for me every-single-time I bait the hook. What about Al Gore Sr? Thats ok in the top Racists of the era and the undeniably most racist president of the last 75 years was LBJ, should I get the quotes or will that be necessary. I don't know what historian you are listening to but to equate the party that send all those folks to die for rights of blacks with these fine folks, absolutely confirmed racists and segregationists, I have listed here not only slaps everyone in the face that can read but anyone who took a 7th grade history class in a non-government school.
E: Debates where the adversaries agree with one another ARE boring. At least we agree on that point. :)
It is tough to get a differing opinion when there is no possible way any logical well thought argument can be made otherwise.
El: Elaina said...
Sage, first, there is no slippery slope here. I have the right to marry a consenting adult (well, I'm already married, but play along), provided that that consenting adult is of the opposite sex. Gay people want the right to marry a consenting adult of the same sex. This will not lead to you being able to marry your mailbox, although if you want to marry your mailbox, I'll send you a pretty card of congratulations.
So you are only for it if its consenting adults? What is someone wants to marry a football? How is that hurting you? Why you all the time gotta hate on football lovers?
El: The 15th amendment was ratified by Congress in 1870, which was what I was pointing out. It was not put to a popular vote, because at the time it almost certainly wouldn't have passed.
I'm for it if they amend it!!! I'm always for it if they amend it, what I am against is when the courts invent it, ya know like abortion and the separation of church and state! Ya know read tings in there that aren't written in there. Do you know what it takes to amend the constitution???? It can absolutely not be done without the will of the people or either most of the folks getting voted out. I am very much pro-amendment even if it was for something I disagreed with.
El:
bwhahahaahahahahahahha Again I bait the hook and it gets hit the time it hits the water!!! I am the best ever evidently!
you said....I didn't bring up Obama, but I personally think that he only said that in order to try to win over independent and moderate voters. If I had to guess, he doesn't care one way or the other about gay marriage.
Now El, I'm trying to be kind here. What kind of person would EVER choose to vote for a person who they THOUGHT was telling a bald faced lie to run the country??????????????????????
I wonder how many idgets did that??? They intentionally voted for a damndable liar? ON PURPOSE???????
You gotta be shittin me!
Vote for liar, FAIL.
El: There are several example of same sex couples who did have all that paperwork done and in order, and one was still denied access to their ill or dying spouse, or their decisions were overturned by other family members. I can provide links if you would like.
They need a new lawyer.
George Carlin has never in history been more correct with that quote than he is at this very second in history! I had to go back, I was so tickled with the rest of it I didn't read that before.
I do agree for damn sure that I have lived 38 years and have never felt as abused by the government than I do right now. I can't figure any net gain people see it any differently.
This is silly, a little sad, and not at all why I come to this site . . .
I"m gonna have to draw the line at footballs and mailboxes.
I wonder how many idgets did that??? They intentionally voted for a damndable liar? ON PURPOSE???????
You gotta be shittin me!(Sage)
Well buddy, if I remember correctly 53 plus million voted for bush a second time. Why the fuck are you so surprised. Sometimes I wonder about you.
Sage, what politician ISN'T a liar?? Do you really think the conservatives are always truthful? They all lie.
I'm late to the party but need to throw in this because gay marriage is something I feel very strongly about.
The government is taking away the a choice from a certain section of the population that is granted to most because they don't like that section of the population.
If that's not wrong, I don't know what right is.
This is a human rights issue through and through and any of my gay and lesbian friends, who are the ones affected by these decisions, would wholeheartedly agree with me.
I hope in 10 years our kids will look back on this time and wonder how we could have been so ignorant about these laws, in the same way we look back at the civil rights movement and wonder how we could have acted that way.
Post a Comment