No Senders--doesn't mean they have their own set of rules. They want to be cunted EQUAL not less than you. For all the bitching that goes no this board about the right to life--why would you try to negate the rights of another human being? Senders--GET OFF THEIR BACK! YOU are treading on them.
No Senders--doesn't mean they have their own set of rules. They want to be cunted EQUAL not less than you. For all the bitching that goes no this board about the right to life--why would you try to negate the rights of another human being? Senders--GET OFF THEIR BACK! YOU are treading on them.
no....that was not my question....nor was it my statement.....I am not negating their rights.....because their rights are the same as mine.... I DONT CARE if 2 guys get 'married' or if 2 girls get 'married'.....I dont care what the label is...the point is they are podium puck fodder for the politicos....and marriage is what we make of it.....so the GOVERNMENT connects 2 people together, big F'EN deal....those who want to have a religious marriage---HAVE AT IT....but when we label folks using terms like 'gay rights'/'hate crime' etc etc it confuses the conversation... there is no such thing as 'gay rights' because they are not different than you or I.....get it!
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
No Senders--doesn't mean they have their own set of rules. They want to be cunted EQUAL not less than you. For all the bitching that goes no this board about the right to life--why would you try to negate the rights of another human being? Senders--GET OFF THEIR BACK! YOU are treading on them.
Marriage isn't a right.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
On occasion a student would ask of me my opinion on gay marriage. My response was to have the student seek out the definition of the word marriage in one of the classroom dictionaries. No matter which of the books they used, the definition was the same, using the words “man and woman.” I then would ask the student “How much is one and one?” The inevitable response was two. Today we have revisionists attempting to change a defi nition that has always been. One and one will always be two and no matter how much you try, it will never be three. If you want to call it a “civil union” or whatever, then fine. Don’t insult me and others by socially manufacturing a definition to suit your agenda. Marriage is between a man and a woman and will always remain the same.
On this I agree with DVOR... MARRIAGE ISN'T A RIGHT... IT'S A LIFE SENTENCE!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ron Paul was right again...The liberals and the neo-cons are forcing a debate that is not even necessary. The federal government has no business in licensing or recognizing marriage - gay or straight. The left and right are arguing about who they grant the legal recognition of a relationship between two people. It's insane - Get government out of the business. If two individuals feel they would like to enter into a legal contract, they have that right. The fact this is even being debated is nothing more than a distraction.
The argument shouldn't be about - what the definition of marriage is? It should be - should the government be involved in marriage period?
Ron Paul was right again...The liberals and the neo-cons are forcing a debate that is not even necessary. The federal government has no business in licensing or recognizing marriage - gay or straight. The left and right are arguing about who they grant the legal recognition of a relationship between two people. It's insane - Get government out of the business. If two individuals feel they would like to enter into a legal contract, they have that right. The fact this is even being debated is nothing more than a distraction.
The argument shouldn't be about - what the definition of marriage is? It should be - should the government be involved in marriage period?
The government makes tons of $$$$ from marriage!!! From it's inception right through to divorce!!! Should they be involved in marriage? NO! But they are and the government is totally responsible for creating this mess. Marriage was just a religious institution that he government got involved in and shouldn't have.
They needed a voting base to garner votes............so here is just one of them!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Ron Paul was right again...The liberals and the neo-cons are forcing a debate that is not even necessary. The federal government has no business in licensing or recognizing marriage - gay or straight. The left and right are arguing about who they grant the legal recognition of a relationship between two people. It's insane - Get government out of the business. If two individuals feel they would like to enter into a legal contract, they have that right. The fact this is even being debated is nothing more than a distraction.
The argument shouldn't be about - what the definition of marriage is? It should be - should the government be involved in marriage period?
It's a non-issue created by the parties to persuade votes and both sides use it. The fact that our government even has a say in marriage should convince all Americans why our government is out of control. This is nothing new, both parties nitpicked these little issues that they shouldn't even be involved in first of all, with these issues they can keep the sheep dividing so people will never unite behind a true message of freedom and liberty.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
This is such a silly argument, let the gay's marry, it won't hurt anyone. I think it's kind of funny all these people coming to protect marriage from the gays. Seems like straigth people with their high divorce rates and drunken vegas weddings all of a sudden care about marriage? If we are gonna have marriage be a government right, then it should be a right for all. Gays are pretty clearly born that way, and their are plenty of other gay species of animals in the wild. Apparently god doesn't care or has a sick sense of humor.
Gays are pretty clearly born that way, and their are plenty of other gay species of animals in the wild. Apparently god doesn't care or has a sick sense of humor.
Are pedophiles born that way? I believe incest happens in nature too...Is that part of Gods sick sense of humor? What's your views on these naturally occurring sexual behavior? Government licensing for all?
Ciero I'll be on your side if someone tries to make incest legal, but this is not the case here. My issue with incest isn't that it's weird or yucky, which it is to me. The reason I believe it should be illegal is because it produces large numbers of severly disabled children, which isn't fair to the children or society who has to pay for the care of these children. Gay's can't produce children, but can clearly be just as in love as anyone else. Therefore if our government chooses to get involved with marriage it should do so in a fair and equal manner to all of it's citizens.
Re June 19 letter, “Respect McDonald’s gay marriage decision”: Hitler and Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie often enough the people will sooner or later believe it. In his letter, John Veitch repeats today’s “big lie”: “It is a fact that a person who is attracted to the same sex is genetically predisposed.” There is no study that proves this assertion, yet it has become accepted as true by many. I remember listening to National Public Radio back in 1986 while on my way to an alumni fund drive at Union College. The “All Things Considered” story discussed the publication of a twin study in the New England Journal of Medicine that purported to show an association between genetics and homosexuality. In this study, the incidence of homosexuality in fraternal and identical twins was compared. It was found that when one fraternal twin was homosexual, in 10 percent of the cases the other twin was also homosexual. However, when one identical twin was homosexual, in 15 percent of the cases the other twin was found to be homosexual. In statistical parlance, an association was found that suggested a genetic link, since the identical twins had identical genes. The more logical inference from this study would be that genetics are not dispositive, but they spun the story the other way! Twenty-five years later, this big lie is accepted as the truth and on the verge of creating a [incongruous] legal entity known as “gay marriage.” Homosexuality has three strikes against it. It is contrary to basic biology, evolutionary science and is proscribed by every major religion in the world. In Romans Chapter 1, Paul writes “professing to be wise, they become fools.” I recommend a reading of Romans Chapter 1. Gay marriage is a foolish and dangerous proposition for our society, and Sen. Roy McDonald has lost his way.
Don't Ya just love it when Conservatives start with SCIENCE and end up with THE BIBLE? What does it say in the bible about DNA??? Nothing. What does the bible say about atoms? Nothing. What does it say about microbes? Nothing. If it's not in the bible, then it must not exist!
The bible is a RELIGIOUS BOOK... NOT A SCIENCE BOOK.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
BetterRotterdam, my point was that your argument was fallacious since there MANY behaviors that people are predisposed to. That doesn't mean you use government to either condone or not condone the behavior if they are consenting adults. It isn’t the Federal governments business.
If biologically heterosexual men are predisposed to have sexual relationships with multiple women, should the government recognize polygamy? After all, they are all consenting adult and it happens in nature. Do we need a law RECOGNIZING polygamy?
Logged
