Posted by chisox378 on 6/13/2017 4:36:00 PM (view original):
It is forcing beliefs. If you stand up for true marriage between one man and one woman you are called a bigot, can lose your business, just to name a few. They are putting it in schools forcing and confusing our children to believe that it is normal. If they havent gone far enough gender ideology is now oozing into society.

If you stand up for true marriage between people of the same race you are called a bigot, can lose your business, just to name a few. They are putting it in schools forcing and confusing our children to believe that it is normal.

Posted by moy23 on 6/13/2017 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 6/13/2017 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Really! NOW you're calling someone you don't even know a liar!!! I haven't had a TV on in my home (except to watch DVD's) for a decade!!!

I live in a rural area with NO free (thru the airwaves) TV reception and the local cable TV provider dropped out (stopped business!) over a decade ago.......... probably because there were so few of us buying their service.
The ONLY possible access to TV I would have is satellite (Dish or the other one, can't even remember their name!)
THOSE providers believe their product is worth WAY more than I do and I have refused to purchase it and won't anytime soon because I don't feel their product is worth the $50.00/month (minimum) that THEY think it is!! So F- YOU!!!

Call me a liar all you want....... it just makes you wrong AND stupidly arrogant for thinking you know something about something that (quite obviously) you have no f---ing idea!!! Trump himself has a name for folks like you........ it's called LOSER!!!

Have you ever called Donald Trump a liar? Do you know Donald Trump?

Airtight logic there, moy.

Personally I don't give a **** about SSM. Why not let gay people enjoy the additional taxes and burdensome paperwork the rest of us must endure?

But it's more a states' rights issue. It isn't in the constitution one way or another, which means it should fall to the states. Then it becomes an issue about your right to live in whichever state you want. After all, let's say a state banned FAT, UGLY people from getting married... If you're fat and ugly and you want to get married, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY PICK ANOTHER STATE TO LIVE IN, rather than trying to abridge the national laws just to fit your lifestyle.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 3:15:00 PM (view original):
If only SSM was the only possible item to determine inclusion/exclusion. What a simplistic world you live in. Must be nice.

It's an example you've argued for several pages. Should I take this as an admission that SSM isn't "forcing beliefs on someone else?"

No, you should take it for what it is. Marriage was "invented" to bond a man and a woman together for procreation. Then, somewhere along the line, a specific group of people said "Why can't we get married?", they lobbied, along with their bleeding heart brethen, and had the law changed.

Changing laws is forcing beliefs on others. Laws, in general, do that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 3:15:00 PM (view original):
If only SSM was the only possible item to determine inclusion/exclusion. What a simplistic world you live in. Must be nice.

It's an example you've argued for several pages. Should I take this as an admission that SSM isn't "forcing beliefs on someone else?"

No, you should take it for what it is. Marriage was "invented" to bond a man and a woman together for procreation. Then, somewhere along the line, a specific group of people said "Why can't we get married?", they lobbied, along with their bleeding heart brethen, and had the law changed.

Changing laws is forcing beliefs on others. Laws, in general, do that.

Does changing a law to allow more people to participate "force beliefs?" I'd argue no. People that don't believe in gay marriage are free to not gay marry. They can believe whatever they want.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/13/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Personally I don't give a **** about SSM. Why not let gay people enjoy the additional taxes and burdensome paperwork the rest of us must endure?

But it's more a states' rights issue. It isn't in the constitution one way or another, which means it should fall to the states. Then it becomes an issue about your right to live in whichever state you want. After all, let's say a state banned FAT, UGLY people from getting married... If you're fat and ugly and you want to get married, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY PICK ANOTHER STATE TO LIVE IN, rather than trying to abridge the national laws just to fit your lifestyle.

The constitution does guarantee equal protection under the law. Preventing gays from marrying on the basis of gender violates that.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 3:15:00 PM (view original):
If only SSM was the only possible item to determine inclusion/exclusion. What a simplistic world you live in. Must be nice.

It's an example you've argued for several pages. Should I take this as an admission that SSM isn't "forcing beliefs on someone else?"

No, you should take it for what it is. Marriage was "invented" to bond a man and a woman together for procreation. Then, somewhere along the line, a specific group of people said "Why can't we get married?", they lobbied, along with their bleeding heart brethen, and had the law changed.

Changing laws is forcing beliefs on others. Laws, in general, do that.

Does changing a law to allow more people to participate "force beliefs?" I'd argue no. People that don't believe in gay marriage are free to not gay marry. They can believe whatever they want.

Sigh. It changed the perceived invention of said institution. Gay people could have used the civil union laws but forced their way into marriage.

I'm not saying the initial law was right but it was the law. Maybe it outgrew it's original intention but it was what it was. And the change was not anywhere near unanimous.

I'm not ever sure "more participation" should play a role. Sounds like trophies for everyone.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 3:15:00 PM (view original):
If only SSM was the only possible item to determine inclusion/exclusion. What a simplistic world you live in. Must be nice.

It's an example you've argued for several pages. Should I take this as an admission that SSM isn't "forcing beliefs on someone else?"

No, you should take it for what it is. Marriage was "invented" to bond a man and a woman together for procreation. Then, somewhere along the line, a specific group of people said "Why can't we get married?", they lobbied, along with their bleeding heart brethen, and had the law changed.

Changing laws is forcing beliefs on others. Laws, in general, do that.

Does changing a law to allow more people to participate "force beliefs?" I'd argue no. People that don't believe in gay marriage are free to not gay marry. They can believe whatever they want.

Sigh. It changed the perceived invention of said institution. Gay people could have used the civil union laws but forced their way into marriage.

I'm not saying the initial law was right but it was the law. Maybe it outgrew it's original intention but it was what it was. And the change was not anywhere near unanimous.

I'm not ever sure "more participation" should play a role. Sounds like trophies for everyone.

Again, you're arguing that changing a law equates forcing beliefs on others.

That isn't the case.

I'll repeat the examples I used before.

Example 1:

Ending segregation DID FORCE the belief that blacks should have equal access on whites who disagreed. Whites could no longer go to white only facilities, schools, restaurants, etc.

Example 2:

Ending the ban on interracial marriage DID NOT FORCE any beliefs on anyone else. People who were against interracial marriage could still not participate in an interracial marriage.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Sound argument. Marriage was for a man/woman for centuries. The law was changed because of the belief, of some, that marriage should be consenting adults and not much else. Hmmmm.....sure sounds like a belief being forced upon the rest of the population.

Fair enough. Guess there's no harm in them being there since anyone who needs it, or despises it, has problems.

Seems like if such a policy existed, this would not be news. And said teacher from tec's link would not have been suspended. No?

And I'll repeat this to complete your circlejerk argument.

Posted by all3 on 6/13/2017 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/13/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Personally I don't give a **** about SSM. Why not let gay people enjoy the additional taxes and burdensome paperwork the rest of us must endure?

But it's more a states' rights issue. It isn't in the constitution one way or another, which means it should fall to the states. Then it becomes an issue about your right to live in whichever state you want. After all, let's say a state banned FAT, UGLY people from getting married... If you're fat and ugly and you want to get married, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY PICK ANOTHER STATE TO LIVE IN, rather than trying to abridge the national laws just to fit your lifestyle.

The constitution does guarantee equal protection under the law. Preventing gays from marrying on the basis of gender violates that.

Pretty sure when the Declaration was written, and for several hundred years afterward, "ensure domestic tranquility" covered the SSM issue.

Another example, since the marriage one doesn't seem to resonate for you.

If a state decides that recreational marijuana should be legal and another state thinks it's a felony, and you like smoking pot, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY LIVE IN ONE OF THE POT-LEGAL STATES. It's not something the federal government should be making laws about (kinda like marriage).

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 5:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2017 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Sound argument. Marriage was for a man/woman for centuries. The law was changed because of the belief, of some, that marriage should be consenting adults and not much else. Hmmmm.....sure sounds like a belief being forced upon the rest of the population.

Fair enough. Guess there's no harm in them being there since anyone who needs it, or despises it, has problems.

Seems like if such a policy existed, this would not be news. And said teacher from tec's link would not have been suspended. No?

And I'll repeat this to complete your circlejerk argument.

Are there people out there that believe that SSM is wrong?

Posted by toddcommish on 6/13/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/13/2017 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/13/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Personally I don't give a **** about SSM. Why not let gay people enjoy the additional taxes and burdensome paperwork the rest of us must endure?

But it's more a states' rights issue. It isn't in the constitution one way or another, which means it should fall to the states. Then it becomes an issue about your right to live in whichever state you want. After all, let's say a state banned FAT, UGLY people from getting married... If you're fat and ugly and you want to get married, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY PICK ANOTHER STATE TO LIVE IN, rather than trying to abridge the national laws just to fit your lifestyle.

The constitution does guarantee equal protection under the law. Preventing gays from marrying on the basis of gender violates that.

Pretty sure when the Declaration was written, and for several hundred years afterward, "ensure domestic tranquility" covered the SSM issue.

Another example, since the marriage one doesn't seem to resonate for you.

If a state decides that recreational marijuana should be legal and another state thinks it's a felony, and you like smoking pot, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY LIVE IN ONE OF THE POT-LEGAL STATES. It's not something the federal government should be making laws about (kinda like marriage).

Oh, I get it. Like how slavery is also a state's rights issue.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/13/2017 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 6/13/2017 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/13/2017 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Personally I don't give a **** about SSM. Why not let gay people enjoy the additional taxes and burdensome paperwork the rest of us must endure?

But it's more a states' rights issue. It isn't in the constitution one way or another, which means it should fall to the states. Then it becomes an issue about your right to live in whichever state you want. After all, let's say a state banned FAT, UGLY people from getting married... If you're fat and ugly and you want to get married, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY PICK ANOTHER STATE TO LIVE IN, rather than trying to abridge the national laws just to fit your lifestyle.

The constitution does guarantee equal protection under the law. Preventing gays from marrying on the basis of gender violates that.

Pretty sure when the Declaration was written, and for several hundred years afterward, "ensure domestic tranquility" covered the SSM issue.

Another example, since the marriage one doesn't seem to resonate for you.

If a state decides that recreational marijuana should be legal and another state thinks it's a felony, and you like smoking pot, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY LIVE IN ONE OF THE POT-LEGAL STATES. It's not something the federal government should be making laws about (kinda like marriage).

Oh, I get it. Like how slavery is also a state's rights issue.

So now SSM is on the same plane as slavery?

Do you have no sense of scope?

SSM isn't on the same plane as legal pot. I thought we were just pulling things out of our *****. My bad.