Gays, Illegals and Unions OH My!

Belly35;1166311 wrote:Gays, Illegals and Unions OH My!

I'm assuming, based on your age, that you are against gays?

bases_loaded;1166238 wrote:If it wasn't for religion there wouldn't be marriage

If there wasn't religion there wouldn't be divorce. :rolleyes:

If there wasn't religion, you'd still have some form of civil unions. I think religious believers get hung up on the word marriage too much.

As much as I don't want to deal with religion discussions, unfortunately that is the main reason that people are against gay marriage.

Live and let live IMO

LJ;1166363 wrote:As much as I don't want to deal with religion discussions, unfortunately that is the main reason that people are against gay marriage.

Toss up between that and repressed homosexuality

LJ;1166363 wrote:As much as I don't want to deal with religion discussions, unfortunately that is the main reason that people are against gay marriage.

Live and let live IMO

reps.

Let them marry, have rights like any other couple. If Churches do not want to perform the marriage, so be it but from a government standpoint as long as government is in the marriage business, Gays should be allowed to marry. Kind of amazing that people throw such a huge fit because two people love each other and want to make a commitment to each other. What harm is there in that?

Kind of shocked the "If this is legal, why can't marrying a horse or 12 year old be legal then" crowd hasn't chimed in yet.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone marrying a horse. Horses keep their mouth shut and cost almost nothing to feed. It's not like I care about fidelity either so I'd never have to bang the horse, I'd bang other females. The horse can't divorce me either, nor can it vote. In times of emergency, the horse could provide transportation and/or food.

I'm all for allowing humans to marry horses.

ccrunner609;1166399 wrote:Obama put one foot out the door on this one.

Really? So, the whole election is going to hinge on this issue?
Please.

It is near the bottom of importance on issues.

I highly doubt someone was lock step with Obama, and then he changes his mind on gay-marriage and the person says, "Nope, not going to vote for him."

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement#13366064585933&{

More chicken shit fence riding from Barry.

superman;1166413 wrote:http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bull****-gay-marriage-announcement#13366064585933&{

More chicken **** fence riding from Barry.

Pretty good article. Interesting excerpt:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

ptown_trojans_1;1166412 wrote:Really? So, the whole election is going to hinge on this issue?
Please.

It is near the bottom of importance on issues.

I highly doubt someone was lock step with Obama, and then he changes his mind on gay-marriage and the person says, "Nope, not going to vote for him."

It's been my experience that the position a candidate takes is not the sole determinant on whether one votes for them or not but rather it is in indication of the candidate as a whole person and their ability to either stand firm in thier convictions when under fire or waiver for potential benefit of seeking a certain acceptance. It's almost pandering to the majority for their vote.

It's a CON job
Obama gag reflex to get votes.. and gain percentage figures in the polls

DeyDurkie5;1166196 wrote:You are dumb ernest.

It's also about time we stopped this whole hating gays because it's in the bible bullshit. They are who they are. Get over it people.

Where is that in the Bible? It's a State issue and many States have voted it down and a few have voted it in. why don't those whose States have voted it down get it over it?

hopefully some time in Obama's next term with a few changes in the Supreme Court we will get a reversal. A decision for gays like the Loving decision was for mixed marriage.

DeyDurkie5;1166313 wrote:I'm assuming, based on your age, that you are against gays?

Against Gays? Interesting
I’m for higher standards, morals and values.
I’m for social equality and our Constitutional rights
I’m for Christian believes
I’m for Guns
I’m for myself and family first, and don’t want to be later burden by decision others have made, limiting my resources to justify others ill-fated action.

I’m not Against gays I’m Against the long term ramification on society in general and me.

The better question to ask is what are you will to pay, give up and or provide in the future ….or have you thought about that.
From your personal freedom, liberty and pay check for such a decision?

Liberals squirt with excitement now but the what about later who will have to carry the load.

Derp

Superman rules

bases_loaded;1166560 wrote:http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=http%3A%2F%2Fgawker.com%2F5909002%2Fbarack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement%2313366064585933%26{

Is there an echo in here?

superman;1166573 wrote:Is there an echo in here?

..

Footwedge;1166197 wrote:Will check thev society page for the Sleeper/LJ wedding date. Do these events have maidens of honor? Bridesmaids? Or do they roll out 2 best men to carry the flowers?

Is LJ the pitcher or the catcher?

Meh, if the gays want to marry and be as miserable as everyone else, let em.

That being said, this change in ideolology is an obvious ploy to rally his base: the young vote, the ultra-libs, the gays, etc. The one demographic it might hit a little is evangelical blacks, but Obama could show up on television with his underwear on his head and he would still have the black vote in the bag.

Skyhook79;1166520 wrote:Where is that in the Bible? It's a State issue and many States have voted it down and a few have voted it in. why don't those whose States have voted it down get it over it?

It's not a secret that "gays can't get married" because of christian/catholic/whatever the fuck religion it is rules. They think it's wrong, and against "god's" plan. Hence, they hate gays.

Belly35;1166528 wrote:Against Gays? Interesting
I’m for higher standards, morals and values.
I’m for social equality and our Constitutional rights
I’m for Christian believes
I’m for Guns
I’m for myself and family first, and don’t want to be later burden by decision others have made, limiting my resources to justify others ill-fated action.

I’m not Against gays I’m Against the long term ramification on society in general and me.

The better question to ask is what are you will to pay, give up and or provide in the future ….or have you thought about that.
From your personal freedom, liberty and pay check for such a decision?

Liberals squirt with excitement now but the what about later who will have to carry the load.

What would I have to pay for gays to be able to get married? Nothing. It has no bearing on you, me, anyone else what gays do in their private time.

DeyDurkie5;1166741 wrote:What would I have to pay for gays to be able to get married? Nothing. It has no bearing on you, me, anyone else what gays do in their private time.

No shit, at least it won't be the gays popping out one retard kid after another to live off handouts.

DeyDurkie5;1166741 wrote:It's not a secret that "gays can't get married" because of christian/catholic/whatever the fuck religion it is rules. They think it's wrong, and against "god's" plan. Hence, they hate gays.



What would I have to pay for gays to be able to get married? Nothing. It has no bearing on you, me, anyone else what gays do in their private time.

Really!

Addition employer / business insurance cost for the increase in HIV down the road for married gay couples.
How about the potential sex change operation insurance cost how will at effect the cost of insuranse with in a company. Is that now added to the plan policy?
Will one of the partners want a maturity leave for an adoption.... going to happen sooner or later
Filing a join gay married account lost government tax revenue .. perfect
Third bathroom offices Male, Female and MFSP (male female sex partner) Non-gays check out their gay partners