Con_Alma;1032214 wrote:If you believe I have ever drawn someone away from their position or efforts you are blind to reality.

Con_Alma;1032217 wrote:There's nothing covert about my efforts in any manner. I am very upfront and try to be very clear about the my position.

pmoney25;1032232 wrote:I am a christian and support gay marriage. since in all reality to be recognized as married you need a license from the government. That should have no relation to religion at all. You dont have to be married in a church.

It is possible to be christian and non judgemental .

Con_Alma;1032213 wrote:Yes that repeated statement doesn't change the prior repsonses to such statement. I don't deny the effect of my position and don't appologize for it. If we are being true regarding the effect, it is nothing. My position has had and will have zero impact. I donot believe we should have STate sanction marriage requirements.

Of course I am registered to vote. May statement related to being eligible to vote in in a party's primary, of which I am not.

isadore;1032223 wrote:an example of false modesty on your part.

DeyDurkie5;1032224 wrote:Let's allow a crack head mom and a deadbeat dad get married and raise 5 kids to become jailbirds, menaces to society, crackheads, whores, and to live off our taxes. but let's not allow two consenting adults to wed and live happy, fulfilling lives raising 5 kids who function and help society because they are...wait for it...GAY!...gasp!

the logic of religious people

isadore;1032242 wrote:You express yourself very well. You present your arguments in a cogent fashion even if they are for an idea that belongs in cloud cuckoo land. You push those arguments on a thread about gay rights as an alternative for gay couples to win equal rights. Your solution lets not fight for government sanctioned gay marriage, lets take government sanctioned marriage away from straight couples. That is an argument that will win some adherents among the delusional and the vindictive. So give yourself some credit for your efforts to defeat gay marriage.

isadore;1032226 wrote:the covert aspect is not in its expression but in the effect, which is to defeat the movement for gay marriage.

Con_Alma;1033041 wrote:Allow? It should not be for us nor the State to choose who gets married.

Con_Alma;1033040 wrote:It is quite the opposite. There has never been any indication at all that my views have ever steered anyone away from their own position. Then tend to galvanize another's stance and solidify their beliefs even more so. You are an example.

Con_Alma;1033043 wrote:There's a big difference between "taking it away" from people and stop forcing it upon them. Let people get married to who they choose. Don't make them gain permission to do so.

isadore;1033055 wrote:The almost all the people who express themselves on the political site in particular have have set views, myself included. Who you effect are the people labelled as "guests." Right now their are 29 "users" registered on OC but there are 32 "guests". Also your well written propaganda pieces can be copied and used elsewhere to undermine the efforts for government sanctioned gay marriage.

isadore;1033058 wrote:Again,
just as voting is a basic right so according to the supreme court is mariage. They don't gain permission any more than people do when they register to vote. If you meet the qualifications of age and residency you can vote. If you meet the qualifications of age and residency you can marry except for the gays. And in the case of marriage it is a government sanctioned marriage is a right both straight and gays want.

Con_Alma;1033044 wrote:If the effect you claim is not intentional on my part then you can label it as you choose. My convictions on the issue are are hidden to none and are as clear as I can be. There is no reason to force those with the interest of beng married to gain the permission of the State.

Con_Alma;1033059 wrote:My comments were clearly related to what has happened vs. what can happen.

To suggest that someone should squelch their core convictions for the potential of what others might do with such view is ridiculous.

Con_Alma;1033061 wrote:What "they want" has nothing to do with my views. Let them to go get it them. I am not stopping anyone.

There is no reason to have State sanctioned marriage. It's really that simple.

You are currently required to gain permission of the State to get married. The "criteria" dictates whether you will gain such permission. The criteria shouldn't be set by the State. It isn't necessary and provides the opportunity to discriminate. Marriage has nothing to do with the State. State sanctioning of it should be ended.

isadore;1033074 wrote:And the states set reasonable criteria on your right to vote, you have to be 18, you have to be mentally competent, in most states you can not be in prison, you have to register. That does not mean I have to ask the government's permission in order to vote.

isadore;1033068 wrote:Good, we have cut to the core of things. You do come on to a thread on gay rights and work to undermine an expressed goal of their movement for civil rights, government sanctioned gay marriage by denigrating that goal and you are indifferent to the possible negative effects of that action. Now the others beside the Shadow know.

isadore;1033063 wrote:" Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? can not see what lurks in your heart, I can only judge the effect.

Con_Alma;1033080 wrote:They have no reason to set such criteria. Permitting them to allows them to discriminate....just as they are. It's not necessary.

isadore;1033094 wrote:Sorry if they have denied the right to marry people under the age of consent, to marry people who are mentally incompetent, to marry any of your siblings. I think those would be considered reasonable discrimination as compared to denying the right to marry to adult gays.

Con_Alma;1033082 wrote:Certainly not I....and because I do not know I do not throttle the views of that which I believe is right.

You ave no means of determining the "effect" of my views yet assume as much.