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.
I don't understand you at all. Currently marriage law, in most instances, is not accessible to gay people. Marriage law is not going away (neither state laws nor the 1,000 or so legal rights the feds extend to married couples). Should gay couples have equal access to current marriage law - yes or no?
YES... but that does NOT mean I support gay marriage, lol...
Do you not understand it is just a technicality? My disdain for monopolistic statutory law supersedes my disdain for homosexuality.
We are ready for a gay president, just not the gay president we now have in office. It isn't his sexual preference, or the fact he is half black that makes him bad. His polices are destroying America. He needs to spend more time in the bath house and less time destroying the country...
Were not ready for a gay president, fully ethnic president, president who isn't Christian, and highly doubt were ready for someone who's not democrat or republican.
Its extremely sad...our political system is more bland than rice cakes.
YES... but that does NOT mean I support gay marriage, lol...
If you support gay couples having equal access to current marriage law - which your emphatically bolded YES shows - then you absolutely do support gay marriage. That's what supporting gay marriage means.
Quote:
Do you not understand it is just a technicality? My disdain for monopolistic statutory law supersedes my disdain for homosexuality.
Get it now?
I apparently don't understand. How is it that gay people having equal access to the law is "just a technicality"?
Disdain for monopolistic statutory law? Huh? We are a nation of laws - laws that are governed by a supreme law, the Constitution. Are you suggesting we tear up our Constitution, ditch the Rule of Law, and try out another system?
Disdain for monopolistic statutory law? Huh? We are a nation of laws - laws that are governed by a supreme law, the Constitution. Are you suggesting we tear up our Constitution, ditch the Rule of Law, and try out another system?
I happen to think we've created the best country - the best functioning system of governance - ever in the history of the world. What basis of governance do you suggest? Monarchy? Some form of religious governance? Anarchy? What?
I happen to think we've created the best country - the best functioning system of governance - ever in the history of the world. What basis of governance do you suggest? Monarchy? Some form of religious governance? Anarchy? What?
Anti-Statism. Allow polycentric law to form naturally so people can create societies conducive to their preference and walks of life. It will get rid of forced associations. And it will, at least for the interim, get the bully that the state is.
So, if you must call it Anarchy...but there are very negative connotations with that word. It's exaggerated.
Anti-Statism. Allow polycentric law to form naturally so people can create societies conducive to their preference and walks of life. It will get rid of forced associations. And it will, at least for the interim, get the bully that the state is.
So, if you must call it Anarchy...but there are very negative connotations with that word. It's exaggerated.
When I say or hear anarchy, I'm not talking about punk kids running around disrupting G-8 summits. I've had some interesting conversations with my sister, who identifies as and anarcho-communist.
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.