without supernatural belief, the lust is of no biological function other than to quench animalistic lusts, in doing so it absolves the respect for each-others natural design and order, regardless of the willing submission of the other person.
So now that prop 8 passed can we say Apple wasted the money? I mean, the side they supported lost so what was the point?
Interesting theory. Do you vote? Do you always "back the winner"? If not, what's the point of you voting?
It's also worth noting that the prop 8 vote in California and the prop 102 vote in Arizona were both much closer than the "75% of Americans oppose gay marriage" assertion propagated earlier in this thread.
Interesting theory. Do you vote? Do you always "back the winner"? If not, what's the point of you voting?
It's also worth noting that the prop 8 vote in California and the prop 102 vote in Arizona were both much closer than the "75% of Americans oppose gay marriage" assertion propagated earlier in this thread.
In a state that has more atheists (and gays) than any other in the union that is not very surprising.
Interesting theory. Do you vote? Do you always "back the winner"? If not, what's the point of you voting?
It's also worth noting that the prop 8 vote in California and the prop 102 vote in Arizona were both much closer than the "75% of Americans oppose gay marriage" assertion propagated earlier in this thread.
1) CA is nothing like America as a whole - you should certainly know that.
2) Yes, I vote but no, I don't give my money to candidates and if I did and they lost I'd consider it a waste of my money
1) CA is nothing like America as a whole - you should certainly know that.
What about Arizona?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
2) Yes, I vote but no, I don't give my money to candidates and if I did and they lost I'd consider it a waste of my money
How is it a waste of money but not a waste of a vote? Surely, by your logic, if you vote for someone who loses, you might as well not have bothered voting.
How is it a waste of money but not a waste of a vote? Surely, by your logic, if you vote for someone who loses, you might as well not have bothered voting.
Arizona - really? No, it's not representative either. This now makes 47/50 states with either laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. I think that statistic speaks for itself.
Voting is a right and I exercise that right. People didn't die for me to be able to make a dollar but they did die for me to have the right to vote. Voting is the 1 thing that brings the rich, middle class, and poor on a level playing field. Only problem is it's the rich that always determine the elections because it's almost always goes to the guy with the most money...
So, no, it's not the same. My vote is worth just as much as Bill Gates' or SJ even tho they have significantly more financial pull than I do.
EDIT: Looks like Florida passed one as well so that makes 48/50...
Arizona - really? No, it's not representative either. This now makes 47/50 states with either laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. I think that statistic speaks for itself.
Voting is a right and I exercise that right. People didn't die for me to be able to make a dollar but they did die for me to have the right to vote. Voting is the 1 thing that brings the rich, middle class, and poor on a level playing field. Only problem is it's the rich that always determine the elections because it's almost always goes to the guy with the most money...
So, no, it's not the same. My vote is worth just as much as Bill Gates' or SJ even tho they have significantly more financial pull than I do.
EDIT: Looks like Florida passed one as well so that makes 48/50...
Since I live in Arizona, I will take issue with that. Arizona is very representative of the rest of the country. The point though, the absolute bottom line, is that this country does NOT support gay marriage, and Mr. H should get over it.
Indeed. But it's nowhere near to the margin by which you were suggesting earlier. Certainly it's closer to 50:50 than 75:35.
One thing that we never really got to the bottom of is whether or not being "married" confers couples with more rights under law than a "civil union". It came to my attention that Arizona does allow for the civil union of homosexual couples and that presumably confers certain rights to said couples. There was a previous proposed amendment in 2006 that attempted to ban even the civil unions but that proposal was defeated.
This suggests that the people have a problem with the religious institution of marriage being effectively re-defined by the state. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being banned from a given church's "marriage" by said church as long as there exists a "civil union" option that confers exactly the same rights under law. However, now we have the situation where the definition of the religious institution of marriage is on the State's Constitution and completely out of the hands of the Church. It should be the Church's prerogative to define the religious institution of marriage, but that right has now been taken away from them. It should be the State's prerogative to confer legal rights and if it chooses to recognise couples' relationships under law it should do so regardless of sexual orientation.
I have a couple of questions:
How many states allow for the "civil union" of homosexual couples?
Do those unions confer upon couples equal rights under law as married couples?
Since I live in Arizona, I will take issue with that. Arizona is very representative of the rest of the country. The point though, the absolute bottom line, is that this country does NOT support gay marriage, and Mr. H should get over it.
I live in Texas and I know Texas is nothing like the country as a whole. The gender and ethnic %'s just aren't even close to "average" in either one of our states. On top of that you've got the whole liberal vs conservative thing that makes CA even more not representative (let's face it, the US, as a whole is much more 51-49 / 50-50 than either TX or CA).
Yeah, how dare they have opinions like regular people.
Are you serious?
Actually, I think he's just pointing out what a few articles suggested before the polls. The people that Obama motivated to go out and vote actually cost those opposed to Prop 8. At least I hope that was his intent...
Indeed. But it's nowhere near to the margin by which you were suggesting earlier. Certainly it's closer to 50:50 than 75:35.
One thing that we never really got to the bottom of is whether or not being "married" confers couples with more rights under law than a "civil union". It came to my attention that Arizona does allow for the civil union of homosexual couples and that presumably confers certain rights to said couples. There was a previous proposed amendment in 2006 that attempted to ban even the civil unions but that proposal was defeated.
This suggests that the people have a problem with the religious institution of marriage being effectively re-defined by the state. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being banned from a given church's "marriage" by said church as long as there exists a "civil union" option that confers exactly the same rights under law. However, now we have the situation where the definition of the religious institution of marriage is on the State's Constitution and completely out of the hands of the Church. It should be the Church's prerogative to define the religious institution of marriage, but that right has now been taken away from them. It should be the State's prerogative to confer legal rights and if it chooses to recognise couples' relationships under law it should do so regardless of sexual orientation.
I have a couple of questions:
How many states allow for the "civil union" of homosexual couples?
Do those unions confer upon couples equal rights under law as married couples?
The link below spells it out, and saves me a lot of words. Words better spoken by the author of that short column.
I keep asking but you stiill haven't answered, so I'll try one more time to talk to you as a rational adult.
Why would you post a link that you expect people to read, but then go out of your way to prevent the link from actually being a hyperlink? Why go out of your way to annoy people that are already annoyed with you, especially when you are trying to convert them to agree with your anti-civil rights agenda?
I keep asking but you stiill haven't answered, so I'll try one more time to talk to you as a rational adult.
Why would you post a link that you expect people to read, but then go out of your way to prevent the link from actually being a hyperlink? Why go out of your way to annoy people that are already annoyed with you, especially when you are trying to convert them to agree with your anti-civil rights agenda?
Even simpler, if you just paste the link into your post (without any extra characters like the "<" you were using), the forum software will automatically parse it and turn it into a link:
Comments
Adios, I don't suffer fools, or those that stick their nose into the business of others.
EeeKKK
without supernatural belief, the lust is of no biological function other than to quench animalistic lusts, in doing so it absolves the respect for each-others natural design and order, regardless of the willing submission of the other person.
You must have many children then.
So now that prop 8 passed can we say Apple wasted the money? I mean, the side they supported lost so what was the point?
Interesting theory. Do you vote? Do you always "back the winner"? If not, what's the point of you voting?
It's also worth noting that the prop 8 vote in California and the prop 102 vote in Arizona were both much closer than the "75% of Americans oppose gay marriage" assertion propagated earlier in this thread.
Interesting theory. Do you vote? Do you always "back the winner"? If not, what's the point of you voting?
It's also worth noting that the prop 8 vote in California and the prop 102 vote in Arizona were both much closer than the "75% of Americans oppose gay marriage" assertion propagated earlier in this thread.
In a state that has more atheists (and gays) than any other in the union that is not very surprising.
Interesting theory. Do you vote? Do you always "back the winner"? If not, what's the point of you voting?
It's also worth noting that the prop 8 vote in California and the prop 102 vote in Arizona were both much closer than the "75% of Americans oppose gay marriage" assertion propagated earlier in this thread.
1) CA is nothing like America as a whole - you should certainly know that.
2) Yes, I vote but no, I don't give my money to candidates and if I did and they lost I'd consider it a waste of my money
1) CA is nothing like America as a whole - you should certainly know that.
What about Arizona?
2) Yes, I vote but no, I don't give my money to candidates and if I did and they lost I'd consider it a waste of my money
How is it a waste of money but not a waste of a vote? Surely, by your logic, if you vote for someone who loses, you might as well not have bothered voting.
What about Arizona?
How is it a waste of money but not a waste of a vote? Surely, by your logic, if you vote for someone who loses, you might as well not have bothered voting.
Arizona - really? No, it's not representative either. This now makes 47/50 states with either laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. I think that statistic speaks for itself.
Voting is a right and I exercise that right. People didn't die for me to be able to make a dollar but they did die for me to have the right to vote. Voting is the 1 thing that brings the rich, middle class, and poor on a level playing field. Only problem is it's the rich that always determine the elections because it's almost always goes to the guy with the most money...
So, no, it's not the same. My vote is worth just as much as Bill Gates' or SJ even tho they have significantly more financial pull than I do.
EDIT: Looks like Florida passed one as well so that makes 48/50...
Arizona - really? No, it's not representative either. This now makes 47/50 states with either laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. I think that statistic speaks for itself.
Voting is a right and I exercise that right. People didn't die for me to be able to make a dollar but they did die for me to have the right to vote. Voting is the 1 thing that brings the rich, middle class, and poor on a level playing field. Only problem is it's the rich that always determine the elections because it's almost always goes to the guy with the most money...
So, no, it's not the same. My vote is worth just as much as Bill Gates' or SJ even tho they have significantly more financial pull than I do.
EDIT: Looks like Florida passed one as well so that makes 48/50...
Since I live in Arizona, I will take issue with that. Arizona is very representative of the rest of the country. The point though, the absolute bottom line, is that this country does NOT support gay marriage, and Mr. H should get over it.
Look at the numbers. The blacks put proposition 8 through. Not the Christians. Not the Mormons. The blacks.
Yeah, how dare they have opinions like regular people.
Are you serious?
this country does NOT support gay marriage
Indeed. But it's nowhere near to the margin by which you were suggesting earlier. Certainly it's closer to 50:50 than 75:35.
One thing that we never really got to the bottom of is whether or not being "married" confers couples with more rights under law than a "civil union". It came to my attention that Arizona does allow for the civil union of homosexual couples and that presumably confers certain rights to said couples. There was a previous proposed amendment in 2006 that attempted to ban even the civil unions but that proposal was defeated.
This suggests that the people have a problem with the religious institution of marriage being effectively re-defined by the state. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being banned from a given church's "marriage" by said church as long as there exists a "civil union" option that confers exactly the same rights under law. However, now we have the situation where the definition of the religious institution of marriage is on the State's Constitution and completely out of the hands of the Church. It should be the Church's prerogative to define the religious institution of marriage, but that right has now been taken away from them. It should be the State's prerogative to confer legal rights and if it chooses to recognise couples' relationships under law it should do so regardless of sexual orientation.
I have a couple of questions:
How many states allow for the "civil union" of homosexual couples?
Do those unions confer upon couples equal rights under law as married couples?
Since I live in Arizona, I will take issue with that. Arizona is very representative of the rest of the country. The point though, the absolute bottom line, is that this country does NOT support gay marriage, and Mr. H should get over it.
I live in Texas and I know Texas is nothing like the country as a whole. The gender and ethnic %'s just aren't even close to "average" in either one of our states. On top of that you've got the whole liberal vs conservative thing that makes CA even more not representative (let's face it, the US, as a whole is much more 51-49 / 50-50 than either TX or CA).
Yeah, how dare they have opinions like regular people.
Are you serious?
Actually, I think he's just pointing out what a few articles suggested before the polls. The people that Obama motivated to go out and vote actually cost those opposed to Prop 8. At least I hope that was his intent...
Starting Business Blog
Indeed. But it's nowhere near to the margin by which you were suggesting earlier. Certainly it's closer to 50:50 than 75:35.
One thing that we never really got to the bottom of is whether or not being "married" confers couples with more rights under law than a "civil union". It came to my attention that Arizona does allow for the civil union of homosexual couples and that presumably confers certain rights to said couples. There was a previous proposed amendment in 2006 that attempted to ban even the civil unions but that proposal was defeated.
This suggests that the people have a problem with the religious institution of marriage being effectively re-defined by the state. I don't have a problem with homosexuals being banned from a given church's "marriage" by said church as long as there exists a "civil union" option that confers exactly the same rights under law. However, now we have the situation where the definition of the religious institution of marriage is on the State's Constitution and completely out of the hands of the Church. It should be the Church's prerogative to define the religious institution of marriage, but that right has now been taken away from them. It should be the State's prerogative to confer legal rights and if it chooses to recognise couples' relationships under law it should do so regardless of sexual orientation.
I have a couple of questions:
How many states allow for the "civil union" of homosexual couples?
Do those unions confer upon couples equal rights under law as married couples?
The link below spells it out, and saves me a lot of words. Words better spoken by the author of that short column.
<http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/05/affirmative_action_and_gay_marriage>;
The link below spells it out, and saves me a lot of words. Words better spoken by the author of that short column.
<http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/05/affirmative_action_and_gay_marriage>;
I keep asking but you stiill haven't answered, so I'll try one more time to talk to you as a rational adult.
Why would you post a link that you expect people to read, but then go out of your way to prevent the link from actually being a hyperlink? Why go out of your way to annoy people that are already annoyed with you, especially when you are trying to convert them to agree with your anti-civil rights agenda?
I keep asking but you stiill haven't answered, so I'll try one more time to talk to you as a rational adult.
Why would you post a link that you expect people to read, but then go out of your way to prevent the link from actually being a hyperlink? Why go out of your way to annoy people that are already annoyed with you, especially when you are trying to convert them to agree with your anti-civil rights agenda?
Try this.
Try this.
That didn't work.
Either you should put "Try this." between your URL tags, like this (press "reply" to my post and you'll see exactly what I mean):
Try this.
Even simpler, if you just paste the link into your post (without any extra characters like the "<" you were using), the forum software will automatically parse it and turn it into a link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...d_gay_marriage