Will there be a Civil War II?

• Al Bundy

  isadore;1738885 wrote:Left is derived from the anglo-saxon word for weak. In Latin sinister meant left.

  So this is why liberals call themselves left-wing?
• HitsRus

  

  LMFAO!
• steubbigred

  rmolin73;1738868 wrote:Which annoys the fuck out of me! I can't come out of any closet everyone can see that I'm black lol.

  Unless you are Rachel Dolezal. lol. By the way I would do her she has got a hot body.
• QuakerOats

  SportsAndLady;1738590 wrote:Except no one thinks gay marriage is disgusting and immoral other than overly religious retarded losers like you and Quaker.
  

  I did not make such a comment.
• QuakerOats

  SportsAndLady;1738818 wrote:Just because it was "defined" thousands of years ago in a looney tune book doesn't mean it needs to be "the rule" today. Things can be tweaked if the general population believe it to be the right move. And most people think it's silly to prevent two men the right to marry. The only ones who don't are you religious whackjobs.

  
  2 men can certainly be partnered together and have a civil union etc... it's just not marriage. That's all.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1739006 wrote:2 men can certainly be partnered together and have a civil union etc... it's just not marriage. That's all.

  I find this to be petty and a difference without a distinction.
  
  I do agree that churches should not be forced to provide marriage services for homosexuals.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1739013 wrote:I find this to be petty and a difference without a distinction.
  
  I do agree that churches should not be forced to provide marriage services for homosexuals.

  Anyone who would disagree with the second part is unreasonable. The religious institution of marriage should be allowed to have it's own rules as long as they don't interfere with other's rights. A church or mosque should be allowed to not marry gay people if they want.
  
  That's a dumb stance to have but I'm not the authority on what's dumb or not.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1739025 wrote:Anyone who would disagree with the second part is unreasonable. The religious institution of marriage should be allowed to have it's own rules as long as they don't interfere with other's rights. A church or mosque should be allowed to not marry gay people if they want.
  
  That's a dumb stance to have but I'm not the authority on what's dumb or not.

  Yes but you know people are going to sue churches over this by claiming discrimination or w/e.
• Automatik

  

  I'm sure you'll have the extreme cases where gays are outraged that churches won't marry them, but overall I doubt you'll see much of that.
  
  Religious organizations have the right to discriminate, so suing won't get them shit.
• HitsRus

  

  sleeper;1739013 wrote:I find this to be petty and a difference without a distinction.
  
  I do agree that churches should not be forced to provide marriage services for homosexuals.

  It's not petty, and I explained why in post # 229.
• sleeper

  

  HitsRus;1739086 wrote:It's not petty, and I explained why in post # 229.

  It's very petty. You don't own the copyright on the word marriage and its not against your constitutional rights to have someone who's gay get "married".
  
  And I've already stated I don't think churches should be forced to service a homosexual wedding.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1739093 wrote:It's very petty. You don't own the copyright on the word marriage and its not against your constitutional rights to have someone who's gay get "married".

  You cannot change the definition of a term to merely meet some political end. Marriage is when a man and a woman unite; that's what it is. If a man and a man wish to unite and spend their lives together, that may be called a civil union or something related thereto, but it is not marriage. I am not sure why one group wants to hijack the simple meaning of a term and alter its definition to fit their political agenda. Words have meanings; we could not converse and debate otherwise.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1739122 wrote:You cannot change the definition of a term to merely meet some political end. Marriage is when a man and a woman unite; that's what it is. If a man and a man wish to unite and spend their lives together, that may be called a civil union or something related thereto, but it is not marriage. I am not sure why one group wants to hijack the simple meaning of a term and alter its definition to fit their political agenda. Words have meanings; we could not converse and debate otherwise.

  When are you going to grow up?
  
  You can continue to believe whatever you want, including your choice of words that it's not marriage, but in reality and in the eyes of the law, it's marriage.
• sleeper

  

  BTW definition of marriage according to Websters:
  

  : the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
  
  
  : a similar relationship between people of the same sex
  
  
  : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

  
  Welcome to reality.
• Lovejoy1984

  

  Meanings for words change, words, much like people evolve over time.
• sleeper

  

  HighRoller74;1739130 wrote:Meanings for words change, words, much like people evolve over time.

  Ironically the word gay used to mean happy and now the meaning is a reference to homosexual people.
  
  Marriage is no exception.
• HitsRus

  

  You may think it is petty, but the fundamentalist Christian photographer who doesn't want to shoot a gay civil union may think differently.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1739128 wrote:When are you going to grow up?
  
  You can continue to believe whatever you want, including your choice of words that it's not marriage, but in reality and in the eyes of the law, it's marriage.

  
  Thanks
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1739122 wrote:You cannot change the definition of a term to merely meet some political end. Marriage is when a man and a woman unite; that's what it is. If a man and a man wish to unite and spend their lives together, that may be called a civil union or something related thereto, but it is not marriage. I am not sure why one group wants to hijack the simple meaning of a term and alter its definition to fit their political agenda. Words have meanings; we could not converse and debate otherwise.

  A marriage is just a contract wherein the promises exchanges have to do with love and devotion. In the old days they regularly called it "our contract" for example and would "release you from the contract" rather than say "get divorced".
  
  Because men and women were the predominate people who entered these contracts and had them enforced by the state because gays were treated horribly by much of the ppst Constantine world is irrelevant.
  
  Not to mention that the only reason licenses came into fashion was because women were property and they socialized marriage to make it easy for men to produce a record of title in their wives.
  
  Let it go. This is the GOP's chance to back away from the socialism of marriage and get off the crazy train issues that alienate normal people.
  
  It is over. People are gay and the government will now enforce their right to contract about love. That is called marriage. Big deal. Move on.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  BoatShoes;1739171 wrote: People are gay and the government will now enforce their right to contract about love. That is called marriage.

  
  
  This sounds like socialism to me, government enforcement of a right.
• rmolin73

  

  Bio-Hazzzzard;1739186 wrote:This sounds like socialism to me, government enforcement of a right.

  So the laws regarding interracial marriage were socialism?
• HitsRus

  

  Let it go. This is the GOP's chance to back away from the socialism of marriage and get off the crazy train issues that alienate normal people.

  Most of the GOP has already "backed away" from opposing gay rights as well as their constituents. Most of the GOP is not racist, at least not anymore than the democrats. Most of the GOP is not mysogynistic. There is a political strategy to keeping the waters stirred up. The GOP could "back off" on everything and the activists would keep pushing until they've created another issue. The democrats have made political hay over splitting us up into little groups, playing us off against each other on social issues. Jeezus...we are even fighting over the confederate flag!
  
  Backing off? Capitulation is not an option.
  
  
  As sleeper would say....

  Welcome to reality.

• isadore

  HitsRus;1739231 wrote:Most of the GOP has already "backed away" from opposing gay rights as well as their constituents. Most of the GOP is not racist, at least not anymore than the democrats. Most of the GOP is not mysogynistic. There is a political strategy to keeping the waters stirred up. The GOP could "back off" on everything and the activists would keep pushing until they've created another issue. The democrats have made political hay over splitting us up into little groups, playing us off against each other on social issues. Jeezus...we are even fighting over the confederate flag!
  
  Backing off? Capitulation is not an option.
  
  
  As sleeper would say....

  gosh a ruddies, a few examples
  opposition to the extension by most Congressional republicans to extension of the voting rights act, opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Act to win equal pay for women, many leading Republicans opposition to right to abortion for victims of rape and incest, a leading Republican candidate made a racist attack on Mexicans and several of his fellow candidates refused to condemn him, every Republican candidate for President opposed the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage and several wanted an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the decision, (gosh you don't even want them to be allowed to call their unions a marriage)
  Homophobia, Misogyny and racism.
• HitsRus

  

  Oh, you mean like this?
  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-27-bush-votingrights_x.htm
  

  many leading Republicans opposition to right to abortion for victims of rape and incest, a leading Republican candidate made a racist attack on Mexicans and several of his fellow candidates refused to condemn him, every Republican candidate for President opposed the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage and several wanted an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the decision, (gosh you don't even want them to be allowed to call their unions a marriage)

  You're reaching way up your butt to call that racism, homophobia and misogyny.....but I'd expect that from the party of "War" amongst ourselves.
• isadore

  HitsRus;1739309 wrote:Oh, you mean like this?
  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-27-bush-votingrights_x.htm
  
  
  
  You're reaching way up your butt to call that racism, homophobia and misogyny.....but I'd expect that from the party of "War" amongst ourselves.

  gosh a ruddies really. It's 2015 "It's Not 'Necessary' To Restore Key Part Of Voting Rights Act, Top Republican Says"
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/voting-rights-act-congress_n_6470850.html
  
  There effort to limit African American voting.
  gosh that is strange or latent for someone opposed to gay "marriage" you seem fixated on guys' butts.