Reply With Quote
Of course you didn't get the info from my next posting. If you had you wouldn't have been posting such BS about Democrats winning so recently.
You got it from Wikipedia. I know for a fact you got it from there.
Republican Wins in Virginia, New Jersey Build Momentum for 2010
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11...um-for-2010%2F
Of course you didn't get the info from my next posting. If you had you wouldn't have been posting such BS about Democrats winning so recently.
You got it from Wikipedia. I know for a fact you got it from there.
Actually did you notice what the post said? If she can't win in places like this then its fairly hopeless for her because thats as good as its going to get.
You know, nothing saddens me more than the situation with same sex marriage. I think its such an anti American position and every time it fails it simply reminds me how stupid people are in this country. Look at Crookshanks cheering on the continued repression of Americans.
I take heart in the fact it was so close, and as little as 5 or 6 years ago it would not have been so close. I still can't fathom why others chose to keep other Americans from equality, but I understand this nation is changing and sometimes that change takes longer than is right or we would like.
If this loss is a wake up to the GOP to go more conservative then I don't think you realize the conservative candidate had so much going for him yet....
Lost.
I honestly think a generation or two in the future are going to look back at this discrimination by sexual preference and they're going to feel a whole lot like what most people feel nowadays when looking back at racial discrimination. Pretty stupid.
What I hope is that people vote their conscious and not along party lines. Some might say this is a referendom to Obama's policies but I don't think so.
I think it is people finally being able to separate the partisan from their true beliefs. That would be great for America.
Issues such as same sex marriage...even though I'm not a proponent of...could care less if somebody wants to live their personal life the way they want. What I'm opposed to is the government saying I would HAVE to accept that personal issue through law. Again...if people want to live their personal life the way they seem fit...there shouldn't be a law that says you can't either.
Which of your civil rights would you like to put up to the people to decide if you deserve?
Do you really think Black people would be allowed to vote or marry white people if we had let the people decide this?
It's pretty ing sad that some people can be such bigots and assholes, but such is America. What's mind-boggling is that plenty of said bigots would like to cast themselves as libertarian warriors of some sort. Anti-federalists who hate the government, until they use it to restrict the civil rights of minorities.
And Crookshanks is one of, if not the single biggest in America. I know republicans are evil for the most part, but I'd like to think most of them are a step above the lowly s we refer to as crookshanks.
Any civil rights not protected by the bill of rights should be decided by the states. I don't see what civil rights has to do with gay marriage. Being gay is a life choice. What is wrong with a union. Marriage should stay one man and one woman.
The bill of rights was created by the people. The Jim Crow law was created by judges, not the people. Abolitionists were started by the people, not by judges.
Oh really? Then straight couples should give up all 1, 138 rights granted to married couples, because those aren't civil rights, either.
Black people did not have any legal rights long before the Jim Crow laws, homeslice. Check your history books. Black people would not have the right to vote had it not taken judicial action.
Being gay may or may not be a "choice" - the science is not currently on your side on this one, but it's also not clearly decided - but so is getting married. You don't HAVE to get married. You can even get married in a religious ceremony without getting married by the state.
It's a right awarded by the state. And as long as the state is granting rights to SOME citizens and not ALL citizens, that is the VERY DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION.
I don't see what the big deal is.
If a gay man and woman want to get married to each other, they should be able to.
So, to surmise, women shouldn't vote, we should still have slavery, and the voting age should not be 18.
Right?
LOL What? Unicorns, Mermaids, and weird incorrect history, OH MY.The bill of rights was created by the people. The Jim Crow law was created by judges, not the people. Abolitionists were started by the people, not by judges.
Heretic. You shall be purged.
How dare you! Think of the children!
Children?
How?
Wow - I thought Sarah Palin held that le. Now I really feel special.
You are to be pitied balli - you have so much hate for someone you don't even know. And the main reason for your hate is that I have strong convictions and beliefs that are contrary to yours. You are a sad, sad little man.
I will admit that our government should allow the act of marriage between gays if that is what the individual wants to do. Forcing a church (religion) on the other hand to have to accept this principle is not the right of the government to decide.
To each their own as long as they pay for their own and not extrapulate from those that might oppose the belief.
Unfortunately government involvement would deny fiscal rights of an opposing view.
I was at other sites as well. I saw the election results for the 23rd. The congressional race isn't the only race in the area you know. If the computer I was on wasn't a public computer, and saved history, I could easily find it again. I'm not going to even bother with someone "stuck on stupid."
What civil rights should married couples give up? WHat the are you talking about?
I brought up Jim Crow because it was a bad piece of law that was created by a judge. Not the elected reps b to the rian.
What judicial action gave black people the right to vote? Is it this: [Amendment XV to the U.S. Cons ution -
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."]
If science is inconclusive, how can it lean towards one side or the other? WHat proof have scientists found that might make a consideration of gay people being born with it?
What state? Which state right? It's not discrimination. It is also no way similar to racism or sexism.
List of rights denied to same sex married couples in places where marriage is limited by gender: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
Summary of the current state of the research on sexual orientation and biology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation
I was thinking of Brown v. Board of Education, which obviously did not give Black people the right to vote, but the right to participate fully in society. This change would never have come about without court intervention. In many parts of the country it still hasn't really come about. The comparison to the oppression of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people is so striking it's ridiculous, unless you're deliberately trying to not see it.
I was being sarcastic... taking a page out of The Simpsons whenever something morally debatable was about to happen...
Carry on
Speaking of watching - Obama didn't watch the election returns. Instead, he was watching a do entary about himself!It was an HBO do entary about Obama's year-long campaign. Geez - is that guy full of himself or what?
Funny, all the news outlets reported that he watched the Bucks-Bulls game.Speaking of watching - Obama didn't watch the election returns. Instead, he was watching a do entary about himself!
Its so easy to peg you. So damn easy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
