Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are pro-gay marriage. There is a good chance you are also Democrat. You haven't said you aren't. I don't really care what you are though. You just a screenname on the internet.
So many assumptions, but based on what, exactly? Nowhere in my initial post did I even mention gay marriage. Nowhere did I endorse liberal (or conservative) judges. I simply said that what the majority wants is not always the best course of action. And that was it. I wasn't really even refuting anything (else) you said.
But because of this, I'm apparently a gay Democrat.
Ok well you haven't proven you aren't Democrat, or gay for that matter. This issue seems to matter a lot to you so kind of weird if you were straight. Most straight people probably not going to be thinking about this too much on a Saturday night.
I get paid to make logical assumptions.
Why would anyone need to "prove" that they are not a Democrat to you - or to anyone?
Again, I don't want to talk about you and what you are. If I am wrong, I'm wrong. So what? But no evidence was presented to prove I was wrong. You can assume that i'm wrong, if you want.
Lol, what evidence are you looking for, sweetheart?
Originally, I didn't think it would be for another 20 or 30 years, but Texas and Oklahoma were recently overruled and are pending approval. Therefore, I would say in about 5-10 years, it will be legal in every state.
If you read my posts on this subject, you'll see that I agree this thing will eventually be the law of the land. I have no problem with that. So be it. The height of intellectual dishonesty is pretending that it's all about recognizing loving and committed relationships, when in fact it's really about wanting the same tax breaks, benefits and government perks that straight married couples get. In the end, the institution of marriage will have less meaning for everybody.
Agreeing that it will be the law of the land in the future is like saying you agree the sun will rise tomorrow. We're not in disagreement over an inevitability. The answer to the thread question is that all of them will likely have to recognize within the next 5 years. Which is last is somewhat inconsequential.
I'm just fascinated by your ability to judge the nature of other relationships of people you do not know, have never met and will never meet. To you, the only reason a gay couple would ever legitimately want to marry is because they're greedy. You're outright saying they're incapable of basing that relationship on love.
It is not the responsibility of gay people to validate heterosexual marriages. Pretty sure that's the responsibility of the heterosexual couple.
Yeah gays are so maligned
in America. That statement has no credibility so why should anybody take you
seriously on anything else? It is obvious you and others are trying to portray
gays as victims. That is just SOviet sytle propaganda.
lolwut?
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Romney said he was pro-civil union. Obama ran as pro-civil
union in 2008, don't remember you guys demonizing him either. That was main
reason he won NC so I guess you guys were ok with it. Clinton put forth the
Defense of Marriage Act. Never heard a bad word about him from gays.
Obama was wrong. Romney was wrong. Clinton was wrong. Two of the 3 have come around. Guess which ones. Even if they don't believe it personally, they recognize the changing of the tide. I don't fault people for making mistakes if they later make amends. After all, nobody's perfect.
Quote:
I'd be ok with the governmnet not being in the marriage business for anybody.
It sure would take away these kind of trivial issues that I believe Democrats
try to play up and exploit for other reasons. I don't see why government really must recognize and reward sexual relationships. A lot of the stuff like hospital visitation rights really
sholdn't be tied to marriage anyway.
So all marriages are a recognition of sexual relationships, or just gay ones? That's two people who seem to believe gays are incapable of love. Yeah, clearly no unwarranted discrimination against them.
You are pro-gay marriage. There is a good chance you are also Democrat. You haven't said you aren't. I don't really care what you are though. You just a screenname on the internet.
So you can't be pro-gay marriage without 1. Being gay, and/or 2. Being a Democrat?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
