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.
As others have said, this argument was tried and failed miserably in many of the most recent wins for pro-SSM groups. The more you use it, the more out of touch it makes you look with the reality of those cases.
When you find yourself thinking the Utah GoP is a hotbed for liberal activism, maybe it is time to realize that you've drifted a bit outside the mainstream.
Well one thing is for sure if people are going to talk about implication's and whether or not something can be seen as either agreeable or disagreeable there are things to consider. ( including adult example in the community)
Other then the exact subjects to be considered where is the contribution of agreeable , isn't it about what is only agreeable to two people, are the arguments not all centered on two people and nothing to do with community in many different ways including example and possible outcome's.
( examples in this type of area was suggested by the pro gay side earlier, so its allowed)
Easy example since examples are being introduced. A hetro couple is married and have a couple of young guys. ( completely hypothetical)
A terrible thing happens and the wife pass's on.
The guy gets into that meth drug thing or whatever you call it and starts hitting the clubs. Before you know it he thinks he's bi or something.
Then before you know it he's moving in and wants to marry a gay guy.
Now the relatives , grandparents have a deal where the two young guy's who they have been taking to baseball, spending much time with, following grades in school, playing board games, cards, vacations and fishing up at the cottage
and now their two young guys are living in a house with these two men are acting as though there is a mating connection, snuggling by the Christmas tree, holding hands and smouching on the way to get groceries,
all I got to say to that is people are going to need to get some legal work down before ANYBODY gets married.
and this whole anti unity argument ( gov fault washing its hands of it ..give us barabus) is all about disagreeable including example and other and agreeable in example or other, so what Id like to know is who can point out how this whole thing is agreeable for anything other then what two people want to......get.
Last edited by alexcanter; 01-15-2014 at 01:58 PM..
Well one thing is for sure if people are going to talk about implication's and whether or not something can be seen as either agreeable or disagreeable there are things to consider. ( including adult example in the community)
Other then the exact subjects to be considered where is the contribution of agreeable , isn't it about what is only agreeable to two people, are the arguments not all centered on two people and nothing to do with community in many different ways and possible outcome's.
( examples in this type of area was suggested by the pro gay side earlier, so its allowed)
Easy example since examples are being introduced. A hetro couple is married and have a couple of young guys.
A terrible thing happens and the wife pass's on.
The guy gets into that meth drug or whatever you call it and starts hitting the clubs. Before you know it he thinks he's bi or something.
Then before you know it he's moving in and wants to marry a gay guy.
Now the relatives , grandparents have a deal where the two young guy's who they have been taking to baseball, spending much time with, following grades in school, playing board games, cards, vacations and fishing up at the cottage
and now their two young guys are living in a house with these two men acting as though there is a mating connection, snuggling by the Christmas tree, holding hands and smouching on the way to get groceries,
all I got to say to that is people are going to need to get some legal work down before ANYBODY gets married.
and this whole anti unity argument is all about disagreeable in example and other and agreeable in example or other, so what Id like to know is...who here can point out to this discourse how this whole thing is agreeable for anything other then what two people want to......get.
Nice story bro.
However we have this thing in this country called a constitution. States have to abide by this constitution. State laws do not deal with "what ifs".
Maybe states should ban heterosexual marriage since a couple could be married and have some kids, then they get divorced and mommy or daddy or both decide to parade the flavor of the week in and out of their lives.
Oh. Wait. That actually happens, yet heterosexuals can get married and divorced as many times as they want with absolutely no regard for the children. So, if you want to play the "for the children" game, you might want to clean up your own house before you start complaining about anyone elses Mythical messes.
However we have this thing in this country called a constitution. States have to abide by this constitution. State laws do not deal with "what ifs".
Maybe states should ban heterosexual marriage since a couple could be married and have some kids, then they get divorced and mommy or daddy or both decide to parade the flavor of the week in and out of their lives.
Oh. Wait. That actually happens, yet heterosexuals can get married and divorced as many times as they want with absolutely no regard for the children. So, if you want to play the "for the children" game, you might want to clean up your own house before you start complaining about anyone elses Mythical messes.
what does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?
However we have this thing in this country called a constitution. States have to abide by this constitution. State laws do not deal with "what ifs".
Maybe states should ban heterosexual marriage since a couple could be married and have some kids, then they get divorced and mommy or daddy or both decide to parade the flavor of the week in and out of their lives.
Oh. Wait. That actually happens, yet heterosexuals can get married and divorced as many times as they want with absolutely no regard for the children. So, if you want to play the "for the children" game, you might want to clean up your own house before you start complaining about anyone elses Mythical messes.
doesn't answer a very good question where two people are saying ,
we want privilege from the whole, the question is what for, where is the value to the whole.
the whole arguement incorrectly assumes there is a value received for privilege, consideration or a means of exchange requires an exchangeable value, what is that value?
I'd bet money that the two gay men in the featured video never so much as THOUGHT about abortion.
Here's what gets tossed into the pot on any "gay" thread. Anything gay leads to abortion, population decline, polygamy, murder, closure of churches, people marrying their pets, decline in reading scores, pedophilia and sex with goats (who may or many not be Satan in disguise).
Meanwhile those two men in the video are doing things like going to the grocery store, paying their bills, enjoying their grandchild (wasn't she a beauty?), cleaning the house, and, if they're real wild and crazy, staying up until midnight on New Year's Eve.
Just like the straight people.
You forgot the #1 thing that "gets tossed into the pot on any gay thread": That super ignorant and hyperbolic statement, "Organized religion is the greatest threat to the future of society and even civilization."
Then, of course, that stimulates all the people that hate those that hold a differing opinion than them on the subject (no less than those they criticize for hating on those that hold a differing opinion on the subject) to start with the "backslapping" and "repping" of those that agree with whatever side their hateful view falls on.
Hating, hating, hating, hating...all because someone feels different about a issue/matter/subject. Too bad. Unfortunately, it will never change.
Live and let live. Hold an opinion... not a judgment.
People are all different. If no one is being harmed (being "bothered" is not harm)...it's all cool.
Personally...I'm happy for those guys in the video. Good for them....happiness can be elusive...glad they found it.
.....
Easy example since examples are being introduced. A hetro couple is married and have a couple of young guys. ( completely hypothetical)
A terrible thing happens and the wife pass's on.
The guy gets into that meth drug thing or whatever you call it and starts hitting the clubs. Before you know it he thinks he's bi or something.
Then before you know it he's moving in and wants to marry a gay guy.
Now the relatives , grandparents have a deal where the two young guy's who they have been taking to baseball, spending much time with, following grades in school, playing board games, cards, vacations and fishing up at the cottage
and now their two young guys are living in a house with these two men are acting as though there is a mating connection, snuggling by the Christmas tree, holding hands and smouching on the way to get groceries,
all I got to say to that is people are going to need to get some legal work down before ANYBODY gets married.
and this whole anti unity argument ( gov fault washing its hands of it ..give us barabus) is all about disagreeable including example and other and agreeable in example or other, so what Id like to know is who can point out how this whole thing is agreeable for anything other then what two people want to......get.
There is a HUGE fallacy that renders your entire example completely ridiculous. This is a hetero couple. That means that the woman was attracted to males and the man is attracted to females. There is absolutely nothing to make a person think that the widower would get into drugs, then there is nothing to make us believe that those drugs that don't exist would turn him into a bar hopper, and finally, there is nothing to convince us that bar hopping would make this heterosexual guy think he's bisexual, or to think that he wants to marry a gay guy. Remember, YOU said he was hetero.
Now, what was this about needing some legal work done?
"Organized religion is the greatest threat to the future of society and even civilization."
You're right. I did forget that. That usually comes after someone who could give Phil Robertson a run for his money makes a post.
"It's not natural! All those gays and drunkards. We just let Jesus sort them out!"
Meanwhile Phil is making a bucket of money selling Duck Commander wine and Miss Kay and Willie are shopping in the plus size department so it's no wonder people view organized religion as a threat to the future of civilization. The hypocrisy from Phil alone is enough to shift the weight of the continent and dump us all into the Gulf of Mexico.
doesn't answer a very good question where two people are saying ,
we want privilege from the whole, the question is what for, where is the value to the whole.
the whole arguement incorrectly assumes there is a value received for privilege, consideration or a means of exchange requires an exchangeable value, what is that value?
That isn't the way the law works. The state has to show how denying equal protections furthers a compelling state interest.
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.
