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.
Oh please, comparing not advocating for gay marriage in the traditional sense to the plight of Black Americans is totally ridiculous. Change the rules for a civil union for gays then. It's really that simple. It reminds me of those who try and defend illegal immigration by trying to compare them to Black Americans and the Civil Rights Era also.
But it is separate but equal by having civil unions being second class marriage for gay American the same as Black Americans having to use and live in less desirable places than their White American equals. That is what I am talking about. Through the lettering of civil unions in many cases it is a second class right, similar to Blacks under separate but equal Jim Crow laws up until 50/60 years ago. The problem is some people (namely Christian conservatives) don't want to change that and in fact discriminate them and not even give them the right to "marry" through a civil union.
You do realize that the Tea Party Grassroots, are Independents.
Instead of pushing, you need to pull them.
Mitt Romney & John McCain had the Establishment base, but pulled no independent voters.
Ron Paul on the other hand, had the Establishment base by proxy. They were not going to let a Democrat hold the power. But Ron Paul also had the Independent silent majority too, which would have put a Republican in the Whitehouse.
So, Who is really costing the GOP elections?
The New World Order? The Globalist? The MONEY that makes the world go around?
They don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat, as long as they are a Globalist Progressive, protecting the ruling rich.
The media is just the propaganda wing of the Global New World Order Progressives. Where Freedom & Liberty, disrupts the plan
The reason Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are already getting the attack launched early, by big MONEY, at them both.
You're correct. We really have a three party system with part of the group that would have voted republican voting for independents which results in liberal victories with a minority of votes. Conservatives cannot win as long as they are a fractured group. Liberals rally behind one candidate. Conservatives don't. So liberals win.
But it is separate but equal by having civil unions being second class marriage for gay American the same as Black Americans having to use and live in less desirable places than their White American equals. That is what I am talking about. Through the lettering of civil unions in many cases it is a second class right, similar to Blacks under separate but equal Jim Crow laws up until 50/60 years ago. The problem is some people (namely Christian conservatives) don't want to change that and in fact discriminate them and not even give them the right to "marry" through a civil union.
You can argue till you are blue in the face but I will never agree with you. You won't even address the points I made about sisters and brothers being able to marry under your so-called equality BS and it's because you know I'm right. The line has to be drawn somewhere and it is just stretching the Constitution with kinds of bizarre so-called equality claims.
I have no problem with a civil union for gays. And many other conservatives don't either. It is a "traditional" marriage they object to.
I have no problem with a civil union for gays. And many other conservatives don't either. It is a "traditional" marriage they object to.
You are ignoring the fact that all legal marriages in the US are civil unions. We know this because the marriage license is issued by the state and not by the clergy. Religious sanctification is totally optional.
You can argue till you are blue in the face but I will never agree with you. You won't even address the points I made about sisters and brothers being able to marry under your so-called equality BS and it's because you know I'm right. The line has to be drawn somewhere and it is just stretching the Constitution with kinds of bizarre so-called equality claims.
I have no problem with a civil union for gays. And many other conservatives don't either. It is a "traditional" marriage they object to.
I would suggest getting over the issue of gay marriage. It is going to be legalized nationally this summer and once it is, it isn't going away.
The Tea Party, whether true or not, is considered extreme and uncompromising. The brand is tainted and nationally unelectable. On top of that...most Americans aren't hard right or hard left. They fit somewhere in the middle. Most people don't identify with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
As a Republican...it is my hope that the party will embrace Jeb Bush or more Eisenhower type Republicans moving forward. These are the types that will do well on the national stage. What kills us during national elections is having to swing SO FAR to the right during primaries...and then tow back to the middle during the general election. It's hard to walk that line.
You can argue till you are blue in the face but I will never agree with you. You won't even address the points I made about sisters and brothers being able to marry under your so-called equality BS and it's because you know I'm right. The line has to be drawn somewhere and it is just stretching the Constitution with kinds of bizarre so-called equality claims.
I have no problem with a civil union for gays. And many other conservatives don't either. It is a "traditional" marriage they object to.
Here's why I "never replied to your points."
First off, others fought the unborn issues as for right now the constitution includes born, mainly because do we consider a certain term or conception when a baby has all of their rights?
Second off, you use the slippery slope argument that because we allow gay marriage (albeit civil unions) must mean we now must allow incestuous marriage too (others use polygamy in the place of incest.) The difference here is that unlike gay marriage or even polygamy a brother and sister or two cousins WITHOUT getting a visectamy or hysterectomy could have a more likely chance of having children born with congenital deformities thanks to recessive genes in the family bloodline. By comparison a gay couple cannot actually have children without a surrogate (sperm donor for lesbians or egg donor for gay men.) Family getting married would have to have protected sex or have a sexless marriage. YES, there are cases that recessive genes don't pop-up but it is a crap shot with a known issue rather than a possible with non-related people marrying. And before you bring it up, polygamy is illegal out of simplicity of spousal benefits.
I only have a problem with civil unions for gays because 1, not every state recognizes it and 2, they don't exactly get all the legal benefits a civil union between a man and a woman have.
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.
