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.
Yes, she's is most certainly intolerant of intolerance.
She's a vulgar moron.
From Wikipedia....
Air America suspended Rhodes from the network on April 3, 2008 after an Air America affiliate, KKGN, event in San Francisco, California, where Rhodes said on March 22, 2008:
"Geraldine Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag ... What a ***** Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a ****ing *****! I wanna see her have to stand beside her husband at one of those mandatory 'I have sinned against you; I'm a *****' kind of a press conference. Mr. Ferraro should have to stand next to his ***** of a wife ... Hillary is a big ****ing *****, too. You know why she's a big ****ing *****? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, *******!'"
13JERM - You'd never see that many Christians.....
What a crock.
The truth is you'd never see that many Christians patting themselves on the the back publicly to support a cause.
You don't have to herald and trumpet (IOW get in people's face) every donation, cause, action etc. you've done for others in this world.
Maybe that what Jesus did too. It wasn't Jesus that made a big scene when he did something miraculous or kind for others, it was his followers AND his detractors that did that.
The Bible has absolutely no relevance in a debate about civil marriage, since we do not have a religious government.
Don't know a better source on marriage - civil or otherwise - than the Bible. Its relevance is nonpareil.
We most assuredly have a religious government because EVERYONE who has an opinion is religious. In the USA, we have chosen not to let a religious organization run our government and vice-versa.
This guy is how I picture most "gay friendly" types who are childishly boycotting the restaurant. Maybe not quite as extreme, but basically the same.
Yeah, but this idiot didn't just boycott,
he waited in line for over an hour, wasting
precious fossil fuels, just to get a "free
water" and dump on some young employee,
losing his own job in the process. What a fool.
Yeah, but this idiot didn't just boycott,
he waited in line for over an hour, wasting
precious fossil fuels, just to get a "free
water" and dump on some young employee,
losing his own job in the process. What a fool.
But many boycotters are talking about doing basically the same thing. Visiting the restaurants just to make trouble and interfere with the business.
There is something strange and evil about this particular boycott.
Who gave you the authority to decide that? People have had non consensual marriages for centuries.
And people used to burn witches at the stake. What's your point? You can't enter into a contract with someone/something who is incapable of understanding the legal ramifications of said contract. Therefore the ridiculous slippery slope argument of "Them I'm going to marry my cat" is not possible, unless we lobby to change the basic cornerstone of all contract law. All people, even gays, are protected under this concept. It serves no purpose to anyone to change it. Unlike our current marriage laws, it doesn't discriminate in regard to who benefits from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
So, you are now saying our laws are correct? I thought that was the core of the entire debate. YOU don't agree with our laws. YOU say our laws discriminate against the few homosexuals out there. But now you are saying the law requiring consent is a GOOD law.
You guys are quite amusing. You love any marriage restriction that serves your agenda and hate any restriction that opposes your agenda. You guys are 100% hypocrites.
You can't have it both ways.
Both ways what? There are good laws and bad laws. Laws are amended all the time. They change depending on the social mores of the day. Surely you know this?
I bet when the Suffragettes were marching for the right to vote (it used to be law that women couldn't vote) there were men chatting about the slippery slope over a pint in the local tavern. I can just see it - "Well if women get the right to vote, then what's to stop my prize cow from voting? Or my blunderbuss? Or my pint of beer? Who knows where this will end?" I would imagine they were quite appalled and pointed to bible verses as a reason why not and preached the immorality of it all.
You see - the right to vote law was good. The part about not letting women vote was not good. They amended the not good part, and made a better law. Men can still vote. It didn't ruin the sanctity of traditional voting.
Cats still can't vote, to this day.
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.
