Obama: "I think same sex couples should be abe to get married
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Over here now "straights" do mostly get civil partnerships, because marriage is a church affair and given the amount of molesters that have been uncovered, very few level headed people have a desire to become part of the gay bashing, other religion hating, child fucking church.
That bring a bit more context to my previous statement?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I think depending on the definition of marriage provided. If its a law to force priests (as much as I abhorr them) to marry gay people in a Church where it's contrary to the ideals of that religion, I say no.
If it was a law that stated all people be treated equally with regards to the legal status of marriage (ie a civil partnership) then Id vote yes.
You can't give gay people rights that override the rights of a priest, or anyone else for that matter, because that's not equality.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
thank you for the apology.
speaking for myself here but even tho i am not a fan of many aspects of government i see them as a necessary evil in lieu of any viable alternative. that is when when people put up differing "solutions" i will not just blindly accept them but try to see if they're viable, even better or even a system that would quickly devolve into the system it was replacing
to get any of the things like next of kin, divorce right's it would be a necessity and would require a new contract for every marriage all i can see this doing is lining the pockets of lawyers
as mindphuck says it wouldn't be simple either
"people"?
i see you post about the village courts set up in rwanda to try to heal the communities after the genocide there. im not sure how this model of criminal court will translate into a civil court setting and how it would be applied to cases like divorce court where blame is not always apparent
expecting untrained members of the community to be able to understand the legal jargon in contract and to be able to make objective decisions rather than a local popularity contest seems a bit unrealistic and you'd have to train "everybody" otherwise you'd be back in similar situation we have now of judges and such
all of this instead of a simple legal definition of what "marriage" is because "gays" want to use it?
why not marriage = lifelong agreement between consenting entities
this does not preclude prenuptual agreements for an enhanced contract. it will save every couple the expense of getting lawyer up for every marriage, beyond the requirement of "consent" it discriminates against no one
it is even future proof (if you can prove your ai home huminoid consents then why shouldnt you marry)
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You yanks get married too fucking quickly anyways, hence the stupidly high divorce rate.
A prenup is betting on a marriage to fail, if you've doubts like that, wtf are you marrying the person for?!
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
im not a yank or american
i said about prenups because deprave seems to think a legally defined marriage = lose of freedom was just pointing out the freedom to change the definition if needed
i know its not the norm but can't prenups be used to allow a looser agreement between partners?
I've caught you in another lie, it must be compulsive, never once did I claim to pass the bar.
What I do have is a BS in business, the last thing I'd want to do is put my wife in the position of having to support us, I couldn't bear the humiliation!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Coming from the guy who supports raising cigarette taxes to subsidise stadiums for billionaires.
Learn to stop being a walking contradiction to yourself.
Back to picking on spelling, I see. We all know what that means......
Buck has conceded the arguement......But, I already knew he was wrong. Like usual!
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Did you have fun searching through my posts, trying to disprove my views? LOL!
Don't deny you did, LOSER! HAHAHA! Didn't find shit but spelling errors......I'm surprised I didn't have more, considering how drunk I was.......LOSER!
Why do you like billionaires' stadiums to get subsidised?
Is it because you're wife is a millionaire and you rich folk have to stick together???
Keep up the losing fight, loser.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
*subsidized
WileyCoyote
Active Member
I agree with Obama that gays should be allowed to marry. But let's face it. He made this "change of heart" only because he thinks it will assure his reelection.
In preceding weeks, he had one close aide after another "come out" to the media that they support gay marriage. This was clearly an orchestrated campaign to guage public reaction. Once he saw it would help his reelection, he "came out" as well.
Just like he did with us medical marijuana supporters in his first campaign. To get our votes, he "supported" medical marijuana. Once he was elected, he did an about-face and esclated the war on marijuana to secure conservative support in congress.
He wants what every first-term president wants: a second term. And he is willing to stab everyone in the back he has to in order to assure a second term.
He KNOWS that even though he stabbed us all in the back by escalating the war against marijuana, none (or not many) of us would ever vote for a conservative. So what incentive does he have to support medical marijuana? We vote for him because we cling to his pre-first-term support of medical marijuana. And middle-of-the-road conservatives cling to his escalation of the war against marijuana. And many of them vote for him as well.
We are all just pawns to be manipulated by internal campaign planning based upon polls and public reaction to controlled release of information.
In preceding weeks, he had one close aide after another "come out" to the media that they support gay marriage. This was clearly an orchestrated campaign to guage public reaction. Once he saw it would help his reelection, he "came out" as well.
Just like he did with us medical marijuana supporters in his first campaign. To get our votes, he "supported" medical marijuana. Once he was elected, he did an about-face and esclated the war on marijuana to secure conservative support in congress.
He wants what every first-term president wants: a second term. And he is willing to stab everyone in the back he has to in order to assure a second term.
He KNOWS that even though he stabbed us all in the back by escalating the war against marijuana, none (or not many) of us would ever vote for a conservative. So what incentive does he have to support medical marijuana? We vote for him because we cling to his pre-first-term support of medical marijuana. And middle-of-the-road conservatives cling to his escalation of the war against marijuana. And many of them vote for him as well.
We are all just pawns to be manipulated by internal campaign planning based upon polls and public reaction to controlled release of information.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Point proven. I win.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
I retired at 40, you chose to be poor and a hypocrite.......DOUBLE WIN!
YOU LOOOOOOOOSE! LOL!
WileyCoyote
Active Member
Kelly4 is right...is the best you can do find spelling errors by people who are undoubtedly high and drunk when they post otherwise relevant ideas?...OK, then have a fiedl day with ths.
