Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

SCOTUS: Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide


Recommended Posts

Consent means that you agree to something. You're taking away their right to agree to something. you're doing this for whatever reason- bigotry, probably. Are you OK with somebody marrying an animal if the animal doesn't object? Doesn't affect anybody. You can't deny that people love their animals.

But,the main point is that you're OK with some restriction because their love isn't important enough. Thanks for your answer.

It took nine pages, but we FINALLY have a beastiality argument. Well done, Juan!!

Over/under on how many more pages before the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" angle is posed. I'll set the line at 3.5 pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flip-flopping is one thing, but sometimes people do actually change their opinion about something - it is called growth.

 

That said, Hillary is a political chameleon and will adapt her views to whatever she feels will further her career. Obama is a bit trickier. He presented himself as one thing back in 2008, but then once he got the Democratic nomination he took money from corporations and has been beholden to them. Still, he's accomplished quite a lot considering the unprecedented hostility across the aisle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's so disingenuous.

 

Tell me a political candidate who isn't.  Well there are some - Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, etc - but not many. Even Libertarian darling Rand Paul is turning into more of a traditional Republican. I didn't agree with everything his dad said but at least he was genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me a political candidate who isn't.  Well there are some - Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, etc - but not many. Even Libertarian darling Rand Paul is turning into more of a traditional Republican. I didn't agree with everything his dad said but at least he was genuine.

I get that most politicians are disingenuous, but she's been on overdrive lately. Hell, look at her Facebook page right now... You'd think she has been a proponent of marriage equality since Bill was in office (instead of 2013 when she finally "evolved" on the issue).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that most politicians are disingenuous, but she's been on overdrive lately. Hell, look at her Facebook page right now... You'd think she has been a proponent of marriage equality since Bill was in office (instead of 2013 when she finally "evolved" on the issue).

 

I know, I agree. Assuming she gets the Dem nominee, I'll probably vote for her because the alternative is...well, worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that most politicians are disingenuous, but she's been on overdrive lately. Hell, look at her Facebook page right now... You'd think she has been a proponent of marriage equality since Bill was in office (instead of 2013 when she finally "evolved" on the issue).

You mean the Elizabeth Warren who pretended to be Indian, flipped houses, voted Republican, and worked for corporations? Yeah, no flips there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took nine pages, but we FINALLY have a beastiality argument. Well done, Juan!!

Over/under on how many more pages before the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" angle is posed. I'll set the line at 3.5 pages.

Yep. And, never a response. Let me give you an insight, conservatives. This, like many other liberal arguments has to do with what's in style. It has zero to do with any principle or logic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. This was mentioned on Bill Maher last night. Dick Cheney and the Koch brothers were on board before Obama and Hillary. By a few years, even.

 

It is a political game, dude. Do you really think Obama or Hillary were against gay marriage? Ever? I did appreciate Cheney "coming out" in the way that he did, but he and the Koch brothers had little to lose. Hillary and Barack are master politicians. I don't like it, but I understand why they held off as long as they did. And as far as I know, Obama never spoke against it, he was just elusive.

 

But the fact is, the vast majority of people who are against gay marriage are fundamentalists. There really aren't many arguments other than religious ones against gay marriage, aside from sheer and unadulterated homophobia. But even atheist homophobes probably don't care if gay people get married - it is only the "Religious Right" who care what others do in their bedrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a political game, dude. Do you really think Obama or Hillary were against gay marriage? Ever? I did appreciate Cheney "coming out" in the way that he did, but he and the Koch brothers had little to lose. Hillary and Barack are master politicians. I don't like it, but I understand why they held off as long as they did. And as far as I know, Obama never spoke against it, he was just elusive.

 

But the fact is, the vast majority of people who are against gay marriage are fundamentalists. There really aren't many arguments other than religious ones against gay marriage, aside from sheer and unadulterated homophobia. But even atheist homophobes probably don't care if gay people get married - it is only the "Religious Right" who care what others do in their bedrooms.

Man, you are pretty much wrong every time you talk about Christianity.  It's a solid record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean the Elizabeth Warren who pretended to be Indian, flipped houses, voted Republican, and worked for corporations? Yeah, no flips there.

Ha, good one. I forgot that Warren claimed to be an Indian. What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement isn't very bright or accurate, but you inadvertently hit upon an interesting topic.

Of course, marriage has remained natural in the vast atheistic communist empires,as it did during the secular fascist governments of Italy and Germany.

It was opposite sex even when homosexuality was accepted like in the ancient world. It's opposite sex in Japan and other secular Asian countries.

They see/saw the utility of parents and a society geared towards families.

Secular people are more easily swayed by fashionable beliefs.When this became cool,nothing else mattered.

If you ask these same people if people should marry before having children or if one person or sixteen should raise a child or if married people should swing with others or really anything that's not racism,they'd shrug their shoulders.

It's impossible to have a rational moral argument with an atheist,as witnessed by their response to beastiality. Who doesn't think that they just pull that reason out of their ass and if it became cool, their reason wouldn't matter.

It is a political game, dude. Do you really think Obama or Hillary were against gay marriage? Ever? I did appreciate Cheney "coming out" in the way that he did, but he and the Koch brothers had little to lose. Hillary and Barack are master politicians. I don't like it, but I understand why they held off as long as they did. And as far as I know, Obama never spoke against it, he was just elusive.

But the fact is, the vast majority of people who are against gay marriage are fundamentalists. There really aren't many arguments other than religious ones against gay marriage, aside from sheer and unadulterated homophobia. But even atheist homophobes probably don't care if gay people get married - it is only the "Religious Right" who care what others do in their bedrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement isn't very bright or accurate, but you inadvertently hit upon an interesting topic.

Of course, marriage has remained natural in the vast atheistic communist empires,as it did during the secular fascist governments of Italy and Germany.

It was opposite sex even when homosexuality was accepted like in the ancient world. It's opposite sex in Japan and other secular Asian countries.

They see/saw the utility of parents and a society geared towards families.

Secular people are more easily swayed by fashionable beliefs.When this became cool,nothing else mattered.

If you ask these same people if people should marry before having children or if one person or sixteen should raise a child or if married people should swing with others or really anything that's not racism,they'd shrug their shoulders.

It's impossible to have a rational moral argument with an atheist,as witnessed by their response to beastiality. Who doesn't think that they just pull that reason out of their ass and if it became cool, their reason wouldn't matter.

 

Juan Savage, the champion for conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, you are pretty much wrong every time you talk about Christianity.  It's a solid record.

 

OK, buddy. I guess fundamentalists are accepting of different sexual preferences and don't care about "sodomy". My bad.

 

Bryan Fischer: "sodomy-based marriage." Yeah, he doesn't care what others do in their bedroom.

 

By the way, mt, stop claiming that I'm dissing Christianity. I'm only dissing fundamentalism and, to a lesser extent, evangelicals. Last time I checked, evangelicals were only about half of all Christians in the US, and fundamentalists even less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...