Reply With Quote
Are you serious that gay marriage is an important issue?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that there were, in fact, ready-made cookie-cutter politicians that you can mold to your complete personal views.Your rude hero is not a supporter of your "american idea" of same-sex marriage.
Of course, since he "stood up" () to Bush and supports gun rights on top of that, I'm sure you're willing to overlook this major flaw in his vision for America.
You really don't know much about the man, do you?
Sure, gay marriage is, to me, the 2nd biggest issue at the moment, but you won't find many politicians who not only were are veterens and have problems with the war, speak their mind openly, support gun rights, annnd support gay marriage. It just doesn't happen.
Are you serious that gay marriage is an important issue?
Yes, it is a key civil rights issue. Individual rights and liberties are as important to protect as are lives because they affect all generations.
I don't see why every-1 thinks that only "gays" would care about this issue, and are surprised that I am engaged. Were the only supporters of womens suffrage women? Were the abolitionists slaves? No, and this is our generations civil rights movement, and, when compared with the time in history, is no less than the others.
That's an insult to the lessons learned from the women's and minorities suffrage movements.
Gay people can vote. Gay people can attend the college of their choice. Gay people are not segregated to different restrooms, drinking fountains and eating establishments. Gay people are not even denied the right to partake in same-sex relationships.
The only "right" that a gay person cannot partake in as fully as any other American citizen is in relation to the legality of marriage. That pales in comparison to the second class citizenship that our country bestowed upon women and minorities for generations.
If you wish to make this an important issue to which you dedicate your effort to bring awareness and hopefully social change, have at it. That is your right. But don't make inane statements that the legal union rights of less than 5% of the population of the country can even begin to compare with woman's suffrage or the civil rights movement.
Apparantly reading comprehension is not your strong-suit.
I said that, for this time in history it is. Slavery, at that time, was widespread and deeply ingrained in our society and all others. It existed throughout the globe.
Women's suffrage is the same situation.
Gay marriage is, for this point in history, as bad because as a society we have progressed so far that it is no longer excusable. We have made such great steps that to still have such a gaping hole in our civil cons ution is a blaring error.
That is what I meant, and if slavery or womens suffrage was a problem now, then they would dwarf gay marriage...but they have been eradicated decades ago.
I was just curious. I have never really understood how allowing gays to marry would destroy or damage traditional marraige. I like what Kinky Friedman said about gay marriage (to parpahrase).. . "why not let them suffer along with everyone else" in responding to a question about his view on gay marriage. I don't consider on the level of the civil rights movement but I do see it as an equal rights issue.. Personally I don't care if they do or not. All of my gay friends don't want to marry they just want spousal type benefits.. insurance etc.. that traditional couple have.. Anyway this is way off this topic
So man has evolved, civilly advanced himself enough and cured all the social ills to the point where same-sex marriage in today's society is just as blatantly and poignantly a blight on the human race as slavery and woman's suffrage were in their day?
Forgive me if the correlation does not relate as strongly to me as it does to you.
Sandman do you live in Katy? I'm curious because I do..
Yep, but not in Katy proper. I live on N Fry.
Dummy, it isn't about civil rights. It is about sexual preference. That they
want to legitimize. Get a friggin life.
If Webb is so damn independent and hates Bush so much, why didn't he just skip
the WH invitation. Noooooo, He had to have a confrontation and then make a dumb
statement like: I could have slugged him. Maybe he should have tried. Just maybe
Bush may have slugged back.......
No you dummy this issue has nothing to do with sexual preference.. sorry ray but there has always been and there will always be gay folks. you don't have to accept them but most civilized people do. these people want the same rights as heterosexual couples have...very simple ray..
Considering the number of states that are voting against gay marriages, we must be the most uncivilized nation on the face of the earth.
Civil unions? Legal recognition of a relationship for beneficiary purposes? I am willing to accept that, even if the concept of sexuality is in contradiction with my personal value system. If we are going to provide those types of benefits to non-married heterosexual partners, then we need to be consistent.
But I would make all efforts to oppose the use of the term marriage. As much as the propoganda machine would like for a same sex union to be identical to a marriage, there is one major difference that will separate the two: copulative procreation.
Most civlized people recognize that their are gay people. ray seems to think that gay people/ sexuality will eventually go away As far as the gay marriage issue I feel it is strictly used to bash gay folks... they are easy prey and it plays to a person bias.. As I mentioned the gay friends that I have want the same benefits that heterosexual couples have... they could do without the marriage..
Except they aren't gay. They are sexuals. Get the terminology right.
And it has nothing to do with civilized people. Quit using buzz words and
talk about what it is all about. Sexual preference. Which they tout.
And heterosexuals don't. They can legalize their relationship by simply
going to a lawyer and making out power of attorneys and wills. No big
deal. Except they want to the legal recognition of a sexual act.
Ray, is Archie Bunker your favorite character?
Nooooooo, he didn't. Bushie didn't have to track him down and ask him such a stupidly loaded question.If Webb is so damn independent and hates Bush so much, why didn't he just skip
the WH invitation. Noooooo, He had to have a confrontation
Bush could have chosen not to force the matter and Webb could have chosen to respond in the manner than he did. They are both big boys and knew what they were doing.
Besides, without this incident we would be talking about mango trees growing where once saltgrass used to grow and the migrating patterns of butterflies.
This is much more sensational.
Oh, Chump how is your family doing? Oh, I'm sorry I
didn't mean to be so confrontational. That is such a
pointed question.
Webb ran his race wearing his sons boots, Ray. Bush's question about his son was return fire.
It was a White House function, avoiding the President could have been accomplished by not attending.
Look, I have no qualms with the guy beeing a jackass to the President. But, this Democratic Congress sure is getting off to a bad start, if you ask me.
I suspect this particular freshman will live up to his nickname of "One-Term Jim."
Considering what you said about Obama, I understand you attraction to Allen.
just kidding
Webb is the best thing about this start.Look, I have no qualms with the guy beeing a jackass to the President. But, this Democratic Congress sure is getting off to a bad start, if you ask me.
Bushie's handlers let him down -- again. Any sane person would have told him he's a loose cannon and nothing good would come from tracking him down.I don't expect you to understand.Oh, Chump how is your family doing? Oh, I'm sorry I
didn't mean to be so confrontational. That is such a
pointed question.Yeah, it pretty much enhances Webb's maverick status. It'll be interesting to see how far it goes in the Senate.This is much more sensational.
I agree, and I'm not kidding.
Well I guess the horse didn't think this guy had any individual rights and
liberties. But I am sure you do. What if a man wants to marry a horse or
his dog or say a nice young boy. You find that okay?
Sundance picks Seattle film on horse-sex case
The Sundance Film Festival announced Wednesday that Seattle filmmaker Robinson Devor's do entary "Zoo" has been accepted into the 2007 festival's do entary compe ion. The film examines the widely reported case of an Enumclaw man who died in 2005 after having sex with a horse.
"Zoo" is one of 16 do entaries selected for compe ion (out of 856 submitted), all of which will screen as world premieres. Devor has had two previous films at Sundance: the made-in-Seattle drama "Police Beat," and "The Woman Chaser."
The Sundance Film Festival will take place Jan. 18-28 in Park City, Utah.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
