|
MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE
|
 (June 27, 2015 at 1:34 pm)professor Wrote: The 23rd of Sept is the date that comes up a lot. You might want to lay off the 'shine, "professor". 
I think *most* of the Republicans are happy that this issue is resolved. They know they are losing ground with the electorate on this, and now they have an easy out.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---  (June 27, 2015 at 5:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I think *most* of the Republicans are happy that this issue is resolved. They know they are losing ground with the electorate on this, and now they have an easy out. It definitely gives more moderate republicans an easy way out. But far right republicans might still fracture the constituency in the primaries over the issue. All in all I think the GOP's goal will be to make sure LGBTQ issues do not end up as a talking point during the presidential election at all. 
Andy Borowitz:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-...Mjc1NzMyS0 Quote: [/url] Quote:Priebus acknowledged that the loss of Obamacare and gay marriage as issues had dealt a serious blow to the G.O.P.’s supply of meaningless talking points, but he claimed that the Party would come back with even more insincere rhetoric than before. “Anyone who thinks we’ve run out of b.s. is sorely mistaken,” he said.  (June 27, 2015 at 6:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(June 27, 2015 at 5:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I think *most* of the Republicans are happy that this issue is resolved. They know they are losing ground with the electorate on this, and now they have an easy out. ![[Image: Stan_Smith.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Stan_Smith.png) In some cases, Stan Smith isn't a parody, but a mirror.
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
We were watching some coverage/analysis of the reaction to this late last night. Some particularly dim bulb from one of the Dakotas (I think) was having a right moan that the people of her state voted in a ban on gay marriage a couple of years ago, and now the 'Supreme Court has rejected the will of the voters.' Bitch, you don't get to vote on rights. That's why they're called 'rights'.
Update: It has been more than a full day since the Court's ruling on gay marriage, and the US still has not been destroyed by the wrath of an Almighty God. Ha ha. Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Quote:That's why they're called 'rights'. It's a good fucking thing or the south would have re-instituted slavery.  (June 27, 2015 at 7:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Update: It has been more than a full day since the Court's ruling on gay marriage, and the US still has not been destroyed by the wrath of an Almighty God. Ha ha. I think God(Yahweh) is actually pretty cool with gay people and he's really pissed at all his so called "followers" for massively strawmanning his teachings. 
I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling. For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others. So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling. On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral. I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that. I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable. A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status. I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men. Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written? The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
