Interesting Question: Can You Be A Strong Conservative And Support Gay Marriage?

Phantasist said:
Why should they settle? They are humans just like you. They deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just like you. Keep your religion to yourself and out of our laws.
Click to expand...

Hilarious that you think marriage = pursuing happiness. Poor Bud.
 
CFM said:
Thingy is the kind that believes its OK for the judicial branch to make legislative type decisions because he knows he'd lose legislatively.
Click to expand...

I guess that may not be a viable option for people like Thingy anymore. Trump is likely to get Kavanaugh confirmed, and may get another pick if Thomas retires and/or unmeritorious RBG drops dead.
 
Legion said:
I'm not worried. Isn't it a fact that many of the posters you've duped are DEMOCRATS?
Click to expand...

Many of them that you kept track of

All of your Trump comrades that "thumbs up" racist comments because it gives them the warm and fuzzies -- you tend to ignore them
 
rhym3pays said:
I don't think polygamists should be discriminated against either -- if polygamists were smart, most of them should stop being so anti-gay themselves and build a coalition -- especially if in polygamist relationships, all participants are adults and can give consent.
Click to expand...

We tried to tell you polygamists would be next lol.
 
Darth Omar said:
We tried to tell you polygamists would be next lol.
Click to expand...

So I guess you are selective with your freedom of religious expression -- if you are using that expression to deny something to gays or the "others" -- then that is just being a good Christian --- if you are using that expression in a way that doesn't hurt anyone else, like 3 women agreeing to marry one man -- then we gotta stop that or else man will marry a horse
 
Thing1 said:
It's almost comically backwards to think that ALLOWING gay marriage is "tyranny."
Click to expand...

It’s tyranny in the sense we weren’t allowed to vote on how the government treated a societal institution.

The legislative branch was created for that sort of thing. Civics is your friend lol.
 
Darth Omar said:
It’s tyranny in the sense we weren’t allowed to vote on how the government treated a societal institution.

The legislative branch was created for that sort of thing. Civics is your friend lol.
Click to expand...

Equality under the law is a judicial concept.

The same arguments that are made today to prevent gay marriage were made 50 years ago for interracial marriage.
 
Darth Omar said:
It’s tyranny in the sense we weren’t allowed to vote on how the government treated a societal institution.

The legislative branch was created for that sort of thing. Civics is your friend lol.
Click to expand...

Thingy and those that believe like him know they'd lose in the legislative arena. That's why they go judge shopping. It's much easier to find a few judges willing to play legislator than it is to go about it in the manner in which it should go.
 
Thing1 said:
Equality under the law is a judicial concept.

The same arguments that are made today to prevent gay marriage were made 50 years ago for interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

The arguments that those pushing for same sex marriage are the same ones they refuse to apply when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place.
 
Thing1 said:
Again - many heterosexuals who marry CANNOT procreate. So, it is not a question if they "can." Many simply cannot, whether because of health, age, handicap, etc.

What do you say to those marriages if what matters is that they "can"? I am not lying about anything. Many cannot, and that is fact. Answer the question - should their marriages be restricted?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a couple being unable to procreate because of reasons they can't control (i.e. - medical, age) and being unable to procreate because they have the same parts.
 
Thing1 said:
Equality under the law is a judicial concept.

The same arguments that are made today to prevent gay marriage were made 50 years ago for interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t.

Interracial marriage didn’t meddle with what a marriage is: a union between a man and a woman.
 
rhym3pays said:
So I guess you are selective with your freedom of religious expression -- if you are using that expression to deny something to gays or the "others" -- then that is just being a good Christian --- if you are using that expression in a way that doesn't hurt anyone else, like 3 women agreeing to marry one man -- then we gotta stop that or else man will marry a horse
Click to expand...

Actually has nothing to do with religion.

There are several good secular reasons not to meddle with marriage.
 
Darth Omar said:
It’s tyranny in the sense we weren’t allowed to vote on how the government treated a societal institution.

The legislative branch was created for that sort of thing. Civics is your friend lol.
Click to expand...

Human rights should never be subject to the popular vote. [It's called, tyranny of the majority for a reason.]

But it's a given that slavery and racial discrimination would still be the law of the land if the decision were based purely on the popular vote. Women wouldn't be able to vote.

For that matter, at the time the US Supreme Court struck down the laws against interracial marriages, less than 20% of the US public believed they should be legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top