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.
Nobody prohibits gays from entering monogamous relationships.
Is the CDC part of the Christian Taliban. HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly a male homosexual illness. To suggest or claim, or whatever you're doing, that gays are too stupid or uninformed to recognize the risk is nuts. So is what you said about SCOTUS.
is marriage a benefit given from the governent to people? if so then the equal protection clause applies to gay couples and they must be given these same rights.
again, being gay is NOT a choice.. what do you want gay people to do? you certainly wouldn't want me to marry a woman and lie to her and destroy her life.. but yet you don't want us to marry in accordance with our sexual orientation either.... basically you just want us to suffer for no reason other than hatred.
...again, being gay is NOT a choice.. what do you want gay people to do? you certainly wouldn't want me to marry a woman and lie to her and destroy her life.. but yet you don't want us to marry in accordance with our sexual orientation either.... basically you just want us to suffer for no reason other than hatred.
is marriage a benefit given from the governent to people? if so then the equal protection clause applies to gay couples and they must be given these same rights.
again, being gay is NOT a choice.. what do you want gay people to do? you certainly wouldn't want me to marry a woman and lie to her and destroy her life.. but yet you don't want us to marry in accordance with our sexual orientation either.... basically you just want us to suffer for no reason other than hatred.
I don't equate being monogamous with being married. Do you ?
Are you suggesting the only monogamous gay or straight people are married ?
The question was about monogamy, not marriage, so you can take your o/t rant against me and you know what with it.
Oh dear, have I confused you? Need a sound byte? In 4 words, I aim to please!
Suppose the down home folks who'd rather not think in depth about what it is they're saying or doing will comprehend that?
LOL C'mon Harborlady...don't flatter yourself all THAT much, ya heah?
I understand -- as I am sure everyone else does -- the "dictionary definition meanings" of every single one of the words/terms you use.
My earlier point was, that your "style" is to string the said words/terms together in a way that -- with all due respect and to be honest -- often comes across as abstruse and even like you are trying to impress others more with your mastery of "big words"...than to make the actual point.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not unfamiliar with the craft of good writing. Let me hasten to add (again! LOL) that I am NOT a master at it by any means. I'll never retire off the royalties of any of the mediocre stuff I have written. LOL. But I DO know general rules of good writing as in -- in this case -- the persuasive sort. And the first and foremost is be as simple and direct and sincere as possible...and fer gosh sakes, refrain from thinking you are impressing them just because you (may) have an above-average command of the English language.
Nothing -- as least IMHO -- turns a reader off more than if the writer comes across -- with their style, tone, and mechanics -- as presuming to be didactic and/or supercilious. Actually, it just makes many people stop reading and dismiss and think along the lines of "what the hell is this sh*t" supposed to mean...? LOL
And BTW -- this is NOT a personal attack nor insult. Not in the least. Just an honest observation. And further, had I not heard/read others say the general same things before, I probably would have never brought it up myself. Like I say -- whether we agree or disagree...and both have been the case in the past -- I very much respect your intelligence and etc. My point is you can do it sans all the superflous baggage!
is marriage a benefit given from the governent to people? if so then the equal protection clause applies to gay couples and they must be given these same rights.
again, being gay is NOT a choice.. what do you want gay people to do? you certainly wouldn't want me to marry a woman and lie to her and destroy her life.. but yet you don't want us to marry in accordance with our sexual orientation either.... basically you just want us to suffer for no reason other than hatred.
Marriage is not a right.
States already set moral and ethical standards when it comes to marriage; they decide who you can and cannot legally marry. In most all states, you cannot legally marry your sibling, first cousin, parent, underage child or multiple partners, etc...
And I assure you essentially every liberal here remembers Lawrence v. Texas - a ruling (still) derided by many conservatives (see Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Perry). The Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution, and many other conservative groups submitted briefs in support of the Texas law. Many state Republican parties (including Texas's) still have as part of their official platforms a vow to re-criminalize sodomy.
Don't forget that famous "pro-liberty" Republican Scalia!
Won't be an issue if governments get out of the business of marriage rather than trying to define it as a right or privilege or anything else.
People make up society, and society makes of government, by electing people as representatives from our society, to become politicians, and make the laws within government. You seem to want to remove people and society from government, as if government should act outside realm of society, where the people have no control, that's tyranny, and that's not going to happen in the United States... unless we stop electing liberals who seem hell bent on heading into that direction, of course.
Don't forget that famous "pro-liberty" Republican Scalia!
He's pro-liberty as interpreted by 1787 standards. If given the chance, he'd rule a law re-enslaving blacks Constitutional because it's in line with the original intent of the Constitution.
Santorum obviously doesn't understand the meaning of freedom.
But he does understand the Constitution.
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Of course no state is going to ban birth control, only a true idiot would believe such a thing, but in the long run that power should be left up to the states under our Constitution.
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.
