Trump: Worst President Ever? Topic

toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 6:24:00 PM (view original):
SSM isn't on the same plane as legal pot. I thought we were just pulling things out of our *****. My bad.
If you're pulling things out of your ***, you might want to start with your head.
6/13/2017 6:27 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
It is good to know that you understand that certain protections transcend state's rights.
6/13/2017 6:30 PM
DougOut
Posts: 44898 (0)
Hall of Famer
128
Prospect
Posted by toddcommish on 6/13/2017 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2017 6:24:00 PM (view original):
SSM isn't on the same plane as legal pot. I thought we were just pulling things out of our *****. My bad.
If you're pulling things out of your ***, you might want to start with your head.
6/13/2017 7:07 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
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.

Of course it does. If you don't agree with the concept of SSM, you are ostracized by the left.

A couple of years ago, I commented in somebody's FB post about SSM, and was verbally attacked by a handful of her uber-liberal friends. If I was a pansy-assed snowflake millennial, one could argue that I was basically being bullied because I had a belief that went against the agenda. But since I'm not, I just shrugged it off as typical liberal intolerance.

You can argue that the left is not trying to force beliefs. You would be wrong. Very wrong.
6/13/2017 8:36 PM
bagchucker
Posts: 18640 (0)
Hall of Famer
415 1 1 2 12
Prospect
Posted by laramiebob on 6/13/2017 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Which state banned the fat,ugly people??? I'm all for it........... who gets to be the decider?......... a committee appointed by the Governor?

after that all shakes out I think that same state should examine the necessity and harmful effects of bras. But ONLY in that state.

Back to the debate... carry on folks.
not Oklahoma, I can tell you that
6/13/2017 8:45 PM
RCBracco
Posts: 3412 (0)
Pro
11
Prospect
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.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are two different things. And you are welcome
6/13/2017 8:49 PM
The Taint
Posts: 13155 (0)
Hall of Famer
1054 3
Hall of Famer
Dont confuse him any further.
6/13/2017 8:55 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by RCBracco on 6/13/2017 9:04:00 PM (view original):
You are right. He has been practicing chewing gum and walking at the same time. He has enough on his plate
Does he have to put the gum down on the plate when he wants to walk?
6/13/2017 9:19 PM
RCBracco
Posts: 3412 (0)
Pro
11
Prospect
Only when he cheats.
6/13/2017 9:22 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
ON TO THE NEXT "SANDAL"!!!!!!
6/13/2017 10:18 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2017 8:36:00 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.

Of course it does. If you don't agree with the concept of SSM, you are ostracized by the left.

A couple of years ago, I commented in somebody's FB post about SSM, and was verbally attacked by a handful of her uber-liberal friends. If I was a pansy-assed snowflake millennial, one could argue that I was basically being bullied because I had a belief that went against the agenda. But since I'm not, I just shrugged it off as typical liberal intolerance.

You can argue that the left is not trying to force beliefs. You would be wrong. Very wrong.
I mean, at some point you're going to have to accept the fact that no one owes stupidity or ignorance an audience.

You can believe whatever you want. No one is forcing you to get gay married or even like gay marriage, but if you're going to venture out and express your opinion of gay marriage publicly, expect people to express their own opinion of you.
6/13/2017 10:44 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 110
Prospect
BL..... "TRUMP RUSSIA... WHERE THERE'S SMOKE THERE'S FIRE!!!! OMG!!!!"
6/13/2017 10:48 PM
◂ Prev 1...286|287|288|289|290...1096 Next ▸
Trump: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.