Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:27 AM
 
46,973 posts, read 26,018,521 times
Reputation: 29461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
Government should only recognize civil unions, which should be upgraded to the same status as marriage, but with a different title.
Seeing as the bigots have gone out of their way on the state level to make damn sure that sort of thing could never happen, it's a bit late in the game to talk compromise. And a courthouse marriage is 100% secular, anyway, so...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:33 AM
 
6,500 posts, read 6,041,078 times
Reputation: 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
There are more than 40,000 Christian denominations in the U.S. Everyone is free to interpret scripture as they see fit to do or ignore the whole deal. Some Christian churches have no issue with SSM and will now be free to perform legal marriages should they choose to do so.
Good for them. As long as those who don't are left alone

I think the chances of that are slim though. But as I said, I hope I'm proven wrong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
8,299 posts, read 8,611,203 times
Reputation: 3663
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Oh good grief, wasn't it you who told someone to relax a bit ago?
We should all be concerned about nononsenseguy's blood pressure today, based on what he has been writing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
You really think I was serious about that? It was to make a point: copying and pasting someone else's post isn't really good form. Not that we all haven't done the copy and paste thing, but reading the same post over and over with a few words changed... it is a little annoying.
Sorry. Close reading can be difficult for some.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Are you serious? And here all this time I thought you were all a bunch of servers somewhere, which had become self-aware through recent breakthroughs in AI.

Beyond that, your response does not invalidate my conjecture.
Well you are right that you offer conjecture.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
I was not the subject of my post. Should you feel the desire to discuss me, feel free to start another thread.
Oh really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post

Indeed, from the nature of your post, it's quite obvious that you do not feel the way you claim to here. Unfortunately.

On the other hand, I think the poster you plagiarized probably does feel the way he states he does. So the first, I find honest and genuine (whether I agree with it or not), the second I find dishonest and disingenuous (whether I agree with it or not).

The statment was that the first post was presumably honest and sincere, and the second post was basically a personal dig. And I stand by that statement.
Yeah, all those I's don't make your post all about you. No, not at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Ta-ta, hon. You have a mirific day, now.
You too, sweetie. After all we are living in a better United States of America today. Who wouldn't be having a mirific day!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:35 AM
 
46,973 posts, read 26,018,521 times
Reputation: 29461
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Oh please, people!!!! Read An Honest Proposal 100 times and get back with me.
Interesting, I've always considered that more of a pure satire and less of a parody. Parody always required imitation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:37 AM
 
9,408 posts, read 11,937,825 times
Reputation: 12440
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
You haven't been banned. You have been banned only from what is unnatural and, frankly, disgusting and obscene.

Marriage has only one meaning, and no Court, no matter how high, can change that. This decision is an abomination, like homosexuality itself. May God's wrath be upon those who have made this decision, and all those who practice this iniquity.
Gay marriage is unnatural? Well so is hetero marriage, or any marriage. There is no marriage in nature as it is a human construct. Oh, you must mean banned from gay sex then. Except wait a minute, no, gays could have sex before this ruling, outside of marriage, just like heteros. So you were saying what, exactly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,193 posts, read 19,476,372 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
Maybe I missed something in the opinion that struck down ssm bans because they impose religion or prevent the free exercise of religion of anyone.

Now that 5 members of the SC have agreed on a marriage policy for the nation, you can give this Theocracy stuff a rest for a while.
If you bothered to read the post I responded to you would know why I mentioned we aren't a Theocracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:41 AM
 
8,131 posts, read 4,332,087 times
Reputation: 4683
I just wanna know why when it comes to LGBT topics folks all of a sudden want to quote scripture, talk about morality and make overtures about religious freedom being under attack, while everything else that might be considered immoral doesn't get the same treatment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:44 AM
 
34,069 posts, read 17,102,875 times
Reputation: 17215
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
This is a Straw grab, that is all it is and a faulty one at that.
Amen. It's tough for 19th century mindsets like the OP to advance 200 years.
,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:46 AM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,597,807 times
Reputation: 5664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Just how much whine do they expect to squeeze out of their sour grapes?
Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan broke the law.
Their opinion is invalid in this case and will not stand.
These are impeachable offenses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2015, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
8,299 posts, read 8,611,203 times
Reputation: 3663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan broke the law.
Their opinion is invalid in this case and will not stand.
These are impeachable offenses.
You can write it one million more times. Still isn't true. Sorry to disappoint you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:07 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top