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.
So when you and your wife were just living together, did the IRS allow you to file taxes jointly and save a ton of money? No? Imagine that.
Eventually you were *allowed* by the state to get married and enjoy 1,000 or more legal benefits of that legal status. And you want to deny that to others because … it's "icky"?
Why do you believe in legal discrimination against your fellow human beings and citizens?
We filed taxes as it says we are to file them. I sure didn't get married because of that lol...that's silly. Homosexuals can't "marry" because marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
Unless you plan to repeal the Second Amendment, you won't be able to "cleanse" anyone against their will.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
No plans for that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northnut
Yet, you were able to get married, weren't you? And you took advantage of that fact. Why do you want to discriminate against others simply because you don't like that they're not like you?
The rest of your post is nothing but dramatics. Grow up.
Marriage is 1 man 1 woman...end of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Are you saying that if you were in charge, your final solution to the homosexual problem would be a cleansing?
How is my loving my husband and the two of us making a home and life together (and yes, having sex with one another) while availing ourselves to the privileges of civil marriage law wrong? How is that a bad thing?
Allowing gay marriage will result in the complete downfall of society. There will be mass chaos. Like there has been in the states where it's legal. Oh wait...
LOL. "They" said that when pot was legalized in Colorado and Washington. From what I understand, the sky hasn't fallen in those two states due to legalization, and for the most part things appear to be so far so good.
So then please explain how you impose your iron will on the entire population (no point in being a dictator otherwise) without disarming them first. (I assume you're talking about something a bit more drastic than a slight adjustment in the compensation rules for federal contractors.)
The Texas vote was nearly 10 years ago. Opinions on gay marriage have changed dramatically in that time, and I am willing to bet they have in Texas too. Texas is the bible belt but in-migration has softened the edges there. If another vote were held today, gay marriage might still lose but it would not be 70-30. That shows, though, the problems in using popular opinion to decide people's rights. How often do we sample public opinion when we know it is fluid? What if Texans now favor allowing gay marriage? Suppose they change their minds one way or the other down the road? Do we give people rights based on the latest plebiscite results? Or should human rights endure and transcend popular opinion?
The Texas vote was nearly 10 years ago. Opinions on gay marriage have changed dramatically in that time, and I am willing to bet they have in Texas too. Texas is the bible belt but in-migration has softened the edges there. If another vote were held today, gay marriage might still lose but it would not be 70-30. That shows, though, the problems in using popular opinion to decide people's rights. How often do we sample public opinion when we know it is fluid? What if Texans now favor allowing gay marriage? Suppose they change their minds one way or the other down the road? Do we give people rights based on the latest plebiscite results? Or should human rights endure and transcend popular opinion?
Fine then put it to a vote instead of crying to a judge.
So then please explain how you impose your iron will on the entire population (no point in being a dictator otherwise) without disarming them first. (I assume you're talking about something a bit more drastic than a slight adjustment in the compensation rules for federal contractors.)
You aren't going to bait me. Nice try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northnut
Nope.
I said end of story. Your opinion is mute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
The Texas vote was nearly 10 years ago. Opinions on gay marriage have changed dramatically in that time, and I am willing to bet they have in Texas too. Texas is the bible belt but in-migration has softened the edges there. If another vote were held today, gay marriage might still lose but it would not be 70-30. That shows, though, the problems in using popular opinion to decide people's rights. How often do we sample public opinion when we know it is fluid? What if Texans now favor allowing gay marriage? Suppose they change their minds one way or the other down the road? Do we give people rights based on the latest plebiscite results? Or should human rights endure and transcend popular opinion?
NC just voted 2 years ago overwhelmingly to ban this crap...I guarantee Tx would ban it again but it wouldn't matter...some judge would just impose his will on others.
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.
