Bristol Palin Has A Bone To Pick With Obama Over Gay Marriage [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Bristol Palin Has A Bone To Pick With Obama Over Gay Marriage


DOC44
05-12-2012, 05:11
Reminds me of when Jimmy Carter said on national TV that he consulted his daughter, Amy, about nuclear warfare policies.

I had the same reaction then as I did now when obama referenced his daughters opinion on same sex marriage..... "WTF is this idiot doing?":dunno:


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/bristol-palin-has-a-bone-to-pick-with-obama-over-gay-marriage/

Doc44

hogship
05-12-2012, 06:30
Reminds me of when Jimmy Carter said on national TV that he consulted his daughter, Amy, about nuclear warfare policies.

I had the same reaction then as I did now when obama referenced his daughters opinion on same sex marriage..... "WTF is this idiot doing?":dunno:


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/bristol-palin-has-a-bone-to-pick-with-obama-over-gay-marriage/

Doc44

Same sex marriage has been rejected by the voters of this country repeatedly. These are people BHO represents.

I have a relative who supports gay marriage, and every time I ask why it must be called a marriage, the answer comes in the form of a question. As long as the same sex couples are not restricted any of their rights to their alternative lifestyle, and are given every single benefit of a married couple, except a marriage certificate.......what's the point behind their thinking that's not being discussed?

Well, I'll tell you what the point is: The real purpose behind the push to call marriage a union between other than one man and one woman, is that it's specifically designed to alter the traditional concept of marriage......in other words, to change the values and moral foundations of those who don't believe it's right to alter their foundational beliefs.

It has absolutely nothing to do with denying any rights or privileges, and everything to do with changing moral concept, or traditional values. This is something most people who hold traditional values and moral concepts do not wish to do, and this issue forces a national attitude that goes against the will of the majority of Americans.

There, you have it..........:wavey:

ooc

ChuteTheMall
05-12-2012, 06:33
Let the people vote on it in November.

hogship
05-12-2012, 06:39
Let the people vote on it in November.

I would support a national vote on this issue......but, that won't happen with the gay rights activists. What they want is for government to change this for them......and avoid putting it to a vote.

ooc

rahrah12
05-12-2012, 07:42
Nuclear war policies...his stance on gay marriage...seems about equal...

Glad to know Brstol is for a traditional marriage...:whistling:

QNman
05-12-2012, 07:48
I've got a better idea... Get the government out of the marriage business. No more tax deductions, etc. if you've proclaimed your love via marriage, that should suffice for property rights.

If gay folks can find a preacher willing to call them married, then who gives a rip? Take out the fed.gov and the Benny's afforded married couples, I will bet you this issue drops to near zero overnight.

eracer
05-12-2012, 07:50
Bristol's picked a few bones in her day.

She gave up the right to moralize about sex when she had a child out of wedlock.

Paul7
05-12-2012, 08:19
Bristol's picked a few bones in her day.

She gave up the right to moralize about sex when she had a child out of wedlock.

She acknowledges it was a mistake. Have you ever made one?

Paul7
05-12-2012, 08:20
Reminds me of when Jimmy Carter said on national TV that he consulted his daughter, Amy, about nuclear warfare policies.

I had the same reaction then as I did now when obama referenced his daughters opinion on same sex marriage..... "WTF is this idiot doing?":dunno:


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/bristol-palin-has-a-bone-to-pick-with-obama-over-gay-marriage/

Doc44

From the mouth of babes, way to go Bristol. Let's hope we have another Palin to be a thorn in the left's side for a long time to come.

camelotkid
05-12-2012, 09:34
From the mouth of babes, way to go Bristol. Let's hope we have another Palin to be a thorn in the left's side for a long time to come.
Thorn? more like something to laugh at and possibly ********** to:rofl:

JBnTX
05-12-2012, 09:42
So much for keeping ones sex life in the bedroom.

Gary W Trott
05-12-2012, 09:57
Reminds me of when Jimmy Carter said on national TV that he consulted his daughter, Amy, about nuclear warfare policies.
Wasn't he making fun of Ted Kennedy for doing the same thing on some issue? Or maybe it was Kennedy making fun of him, I just remember the two of them going at it.

HarlDane
05-12-2012, 11:12
I've got a better idea... Get the government out of the marriage business. No more tax deductions, etc. if you've proclaimed your love via marriage, that should suffice for property rights.

If gay folks can find a preacher willing to call them married, then who gives a rip? Take out the fed.gov and the Benny's afforded married couples, I will bet you this issue drops to near zero overnight.Could not agree more.

But until that happens, it's an equal protection issue.

maxsnafu
05-12-2012, 11:15
I've got a better idea... Get the government out of the marriage business. No more tax deductions, etc. if you've proclaimed your love via marriage, that should suffice for property rights.

If gay folks can find a preacher willing to call them married, then who gives a rip? Take out the fed.gov and the Benny's afforded married couples, I will bet you this issue drops to near zero overnight.

^^^Best idea I've heard all week.^^^

G29Reload
05-12-2012, 11:33
I've got a better idea... Get the government out of the marriage business.

Not even remotely, logically possible. Non-sequitor.


A marriage creates legal entanglements. It's like forming a new corporation, legal joint purchasing power, fiduciary responsibility over bank accounts, credit, property ownership, joint liabilities, taxation, , inheritance, medical issues, responsibilities over bearing children, responsibility therefore, inoculations, school registry, liability for behavioral issues, etc. List is endless.

Therefore, someone has to produce metadata and define what marriage is, so we're all talking about the same thing, and there is no confusion. It used to be that we didn't grant special privilege to the mentally ill, we incarcerated them. There was no question what marriage was because it was obvious. Now we have to listen to the mentally ill have standing in arguing that marriage is something its not, in order to satisfy 3% of population in its moral bankruptcy, psychologically dysfunctional, anti-social desires to live like freaks.

Worse, its not even something compatible with that lifestyle. Hey, fish, here's your bicycle! Wait, what?

The whole concept is incompatible with a lifestyle that bends to the promiscuous. Even batched with that "LGBT nonsense…the "B" part. Bisexual? That's with both sexes. So, the next thing needed is to produce legislation that says groups of people can get married? Marriage is between 3 people? Why not 5? We can't have marriage constraining people to groups of 2, since that would UNFAIRLY WAH!!!) prevent a person who goes both ways from being with his other "attraction".

What a crock of s#$*!

Now if you don't define everything, people will start listing their dog as a dependent on their tax forms (it's happened) and someone WILL try to marry their dog, or pony, etc. The folks who say this is a slippery slope are absolutely right…gotta get it nailed down or someone will say, hey, if was between a man and a woman, now its two men, or two women, I'd like to be at one with my cat, or, hey this expensive vase from the Ming Dynasty has been in my family for so long, and we're already attached at the hip, so…


Don't laugh. Someone, somewhere, will try a "stunt", and some bozo judge with allow it and the next thing you know…

Set a definition, lock it down. Or else.

automatic slim
05-12-2012, 11:38
Same sex marriage has been rejected by the voters of this country repeatedly. These are people BHO represents.

I have a relative who supports gay marriage, and every time I ask why it must be called a marriage, the answer comes in the form of a question. As long as the same sex couples are not restricted any of their rights to their alternative lifestyle, and are given every single benefit of a married couple, except a marriage certificate.......what's the point behind their thinking that's not being discussed?

Well, I'll tell you what the point is: The real purpose behind the push to call marriage a union between other than one man and one woman, is that it's specifically designed to alter the traditional concept of marriage......in other words, to change the values and moral foundations of those who don't believe it's right to alter their foundational beliefs.

It has absolutely nothing to do with denying any rights or privileges, and everything to do with changing moral concept, or traditional values. This is something most people who hold traditional values and moral concepts do not wish to do, and this issue forces a national attitude that goes against the will of the majority of Americans.

There, you have it..........:wavey:

ooc

You are correct. You would be labeled a "bigot", and other things I cannot repeat here, if you lived here in NC. Ooh, and also a "hayseed"......
The only bigots I have seen on this issue are the lefties....talking violence too. :wavey:

G29Reload
05-12-2012, 11:38
She gave up the right to moralize about sex when she had a child out of wedlock.

No, that doesn't deprive you of rights.

In fact, it may have made her an expert, since she's learned some painful lessons due to practical experience.

Paul7
05-12-2012, 12:10
Thorn? more like something to laugh at and possibly ********** to:rofl:

Must be why the nut left is so obsessed with the Palin's huh?

DOC44
05-12-2012, 13:13
Wasn't he making fun of Ted Kennedy for doing the same thing on some issue? Or maybe it was Kennedy making fun of him, I just remember the two of them going at it.

I believe Jimmy went first and really made fun of it.

Doc44

Alizard
05-12-2012, 14:11
Same sex marriage has been rejected by the voters of this country repeatedly.

Really? Maybe in the redneck states, but across the entire country that statement is false. The current approval is 50 - 48 in favor of legal same sex marriage (Gallup poll)

Fed Five Oh
05-12-2012, 14:14
Bristol's picked a few bones in her day.

She gave up the right to moralize about sex when she had a child out of wedlock.

So if she murdered the unborn baby you would be all ears?

eracer
05-12-2012, 14:36
So if she murdered the unborn baby you would be all ears?Nice try.


She acknowledges it was a mistake. Have you ever made one?I didn't say it was a mistake. I implied that it was hypocritical.

As for my mistakes...sure I've made 'em, but I don't pretend that either my beliefs or my behavior in any way gives me the right to moralize.

Paul7
05-12-2012, 16:09
I didn't say it was a mistake. I implied that it was hypocritical.

As for my mistakes...sure I've made 'em, but I don't pretend that either my beliefs or my behavior in any way gives me the right to moralize.

You're doing so right now.

eracer
05-12-2012, 17:25
You're doing so right now.
Not true.

G22Dude
05-12-2012, 18:24
Bristol's picked a few bones in her day.

She gave up the right to moralize about sex when she had a child out of wedlock.

If only the perfect may speak then we should all be silent.

QNman
05-12-2012, 18:54
Not even remotely, logically possible. Non-sequitor.


A marriage creates legal entanglements. It's like forming a new corporation, legal joint purchasing power, fiduciary responsibility over bank accounts, credit, property ownership, joint liabilities, taxation, , inheritance, medical issues, responsibilities over bearing children, responsibility therefore, inoculations, school registry, liability for behavioral issues, etc. List is endless.

Therefore, someone has to produce metadata and define what marriage is, so we're all talking about the same thing, and there is no confusion. It used to be that we didn't grant special privilege to the mentally ill, we incarcerated them. There was no question what marriage was because it was obvious. Now we have to listen to the mentally ill have standing in arguing that marriage is something its not, in order to satisfy 3% of population in its moral bankruptcy, psychologically dysfunctional, anti-social desires to live like freaks.

Worse, its not even something compatible with that lifestyle. Hey, fish, here's your bicycle! Wait, what?

The whole concept is incompatible with a lifestyle that bends to the promiscuous. Even batched with that "LGBT nonsense…the "B" part. Bisexual? That's with both sexes. So, the next thing needed is to produce legislation that says groups of people can get married? Marriage is between 3 people? Why not 5? We can't have marriage constraining people to groups of 2, since that would UNFAIRLY WAH!!!) prevent a person who goes both ways from being with his other "attraction".

What a crock of s#$*!

Now if you don't define everything, people will start listing their dog as a dependent on their tax forms (it's happened) and someone WILL try to marry their dog, or pony, etc. The folks who say this is a slippery slope are absolutely right…gotta get it nailed down or someone will say, hey, if was between a man and a woman, now its two men, or two women, I'd like to be at one with my cat, or, hey this expensive vase from the Ming Dynasty has been in my family for so long, and we're already attached at the hip, so…


Don't laugh. Someone, somewhere, will try a "stunt", and some bozo judge with allow it and the next thing you know…

Set a definition, lock it down. Or else.

Switch to decaf, my friend...

Seriously, though, my point is far from a non-sequitur. You and I may disagree, but my position is a valid one.

The problem is the federal-damn-government being in the marriage game to begin with. My church defines marriage for me far moreso that my congressman. I could give two hoots outside of that.

concretefuzzynuts
05-12-2012, 18:57
Really? Maybe in the redneck states, but across the entire country that statement is false. The current approval is 50 - 48 in favor of legal same sex marriage (Gallup poll)

I don't care what you do in your bedroom, Alitard. But if a state doesn't agree with your point of view they are a "red neck" state? How tolerant of you, Alitard.

G29Reload
05-12-2012, 21:01
Switch to decaf, my friend...

Actually, it was just well rationed logic, sorry if you can't keep up. Perhaps you just need to DUMP decaf so you can keep up with the rest of us.


Seriously, though, my point is far from a non-sequitur. You and I may disagree, but my position is a valid one.

No, its a perfect non-sequitor. Does not follow. Not a valid point, since marriage, by default creates equity in another dimension outside of religion. There are legal connotations that NECESSITATE the involvement of government by the conditions the construct creates. Its the water the boat you built sails on…without it, not gonna happen. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

QNman
05-12-2012, 21:35
Actually, it was just well rationed logic, sorry if you can't keep up. Perhaps you just need to DUMP decaf so you can keep up with the rest of us.



No, its a perfect non-sequitor. Does not follow. Not a valid point, since marriage, by default creates equity in another dimension outside of religion. There are legal connotations that NECESSITATE the involvement of government by the conditions the construct creates. Its the water the boat you built sails on…without it, not gonna happen. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

Look, we agree more than we don't. But disagreement doesn't necessarily mean we can't discuss this civilly.

Read my post again. Law can be enforced as a legitimate contract WITHOUT federal Involvement. It's done every single day. I see no compelling reason this is any different.

Do you agree that the "marriage" deduction is worthwhile? What about the recognition of the courts in shared property. Is it necessary to have a government issued contract of marriage to enforce the terms of the contract? What other issues are there that REQUIRE the government to have their own recognition of marriage?

Marriage existed long before this government. It managed just fine without all the "rights" gay folks are so up in a tizzy about. It could manage just fine without it now.

Take away that, what possible discussion would there be to allow or disallow gay marriage? Is this really an issue we should even be discussing? There are far greater issues the government should be occupying itself with - right now, first and foremost to stop the insane spending while we still can.

G29Reload
05-12-2012, 21:59
Look, we agree more than we don't. But disagreement doesn't necessarily mean we can't discuss this civilly.

We were discussing it civilly. Nobody's taken a swing.



Read my post again. Law can be enforced as a legitimate contract WITHOUT federal Involvement. It's done every single day. I see no compelling reason this is any different.

I believe you said government. Not WHICH government.

The usual .gov is the state. The fed doesnt seem to be involved much except for tax law.

The Fed only should be involved for cross jurisdictional issues, which marriage sometimes is. You get married in one state, but you move to another. Etc. One state could gay marry someone and then they move to another state that doesn't recognize it…issues can come up there, hence the move for a COTUS amendment to settle the matter. As it is now, states are usually required to recognize the public acts of another state, but as we see with carry permits, in practice other issues arise.

MArriage taxation is an interesting issue. I would have to think about the ethical considerations as to whether its appropriate for their rates to be higher or lower…I'm against taxation by envy…you have more, therefore you pay more. We should all pay the same RATE. Marriage makes counting a lot more difficult…2 people, under one roof, living cheaply, but…maybe one works, another raises children…both work, different again…expenses complicate…have to think about that.


What about the recognition of the courts in shared property. Is it necessary to have a government issued contract of marriage to enforce the terms of the contract?

Doesn't matter whether it was church issued or government issued marriage. It's boolean…you're married or you're not. It's a condition, and if it affects a contract, its not in degrees…it is, or isn't.

What other issues are there that REQUIRE the government to have their own recognition of marriage?

The government officializes all marriages. You can get married in a church, or at city hall in the clerk's office.

You are married, or you are not, and proceed from there. Rights of inheritance, medical visitation, child custody…quite a bit.

QNman
05-12-2012, 22:18
We were discussing it civilly. Nobody's taken a swing.

I believe you said government. Not WHICH government.

The usual .gov is the state. The fed doesnt seem to be involved much except for tax law.

The Fed only should be involved for cross jurisdictional issues, which marriage sometimes is. You get married in one state, but you move to another. Etc. One state could gay marry someone and then they move to another state that doesn't recognize it…issues can come up there, hence the move for a COTUS amendment to settle the matter. As it is now, states are usually required to recognize the public acts of another state, but as we see with carry permits, in practice other issues arise.

MArriage taxation is an interesting issue. I would have to think about the ethical considerations as to whether its appropriate for their rates to be higher or lower…I'm against taxation by envy…you have more, therefore you pay more. We should all pay the same RATE. Marriage makes counting a lot more difficult…2 people, under one roof, living cheaply, but…maybe one works, another raises children…both work, different again…expenses complicate…have to think about that.

Doesn't matter whether it was church issued or government issued marriage. It's boolean…you're married or you're not. It's a condition, and if it affects a contract, its not in degrees…it is, or isn't.

The government officializes all marriages. You can get married in a church, or at city hall in the clerk's office.

You are married, or you are not, and proceed from there. Rights of inheritance, medical visitation, child custody…quite a bit.

And those rights need not have a government - state or otherwise - issue their own document for those rights. A private contract could easily be recognized for rights of inheritance, medical visitation, child custody, etc. that's all I'm saying.

Besides that... I think what gays are missing out on is the 50% divorce rate. Now there's something I often wonder if they've considered in all their fighting... :whistling:

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 02:11
Same sex marriage has been rejected by the voters of this country repeatedly. These are people BHO represents.

I have a relative who supports gay marriage, and every time I ask why it must be called a marriage, the answer comes in the form of a question. As long as the same sex couples are not restricted any of their rights to their alternative lifestyle, and are given every single benefit of a married couple, except a marriage certificate.......what's the point behind their thinking that's not being discussed?

Well, I'll tell you what the point is: The real purpose behind the push to call marriage a union between other than one man and one woman, is that it's specifically designed to alter the traditional concept of marriage......in other words, to change the values and moral foundations of those who don't believe it's right to alter their foundational beliefs.

It has absolutely nothing to do with denying any rights or privileges, and everything to do with changing moral concept, or traditional values. This is something most people who hold traditional values and moral concepts do not wish to do, and this issue forces a national attitude that goes against the will of the majority of Americans.

There, you have it..........:wavey:

ooc

So because they seek the term "marriage" rather than capitulate to people that insist that legal definition be reserved for a man and a woman and just go with "civil union" instead they can only be out to destroy other's marriage?

Really? You can't think of any other reason?
How many times do you think the word "marriage" shows up in law books, legal documents and case law all over the country?
Maybe, just maybe they know that once the term "civil union" is adopted then some jackass lawyer will argue in court that this or that protection or benefit doesn't apply because the law or legal precedent or whatever says "married" and these two are in a civil union. Wouldn't they have good reason to think that given that, in a court of law more than anywhere else, words have meaning and that given the controversial nature of the issue there might be much incentive to screw them any way possible?

No they can't possibly be thinking of themselves. They surely must be going after that which you hold dear because they're just that evil and corrupt right? :upeyes:

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 03:12
Not even remotely, logically possible. Non-sequitor.


A marriage creates legal entanglements. It's like forming a new corporation, legal joint purchasing power, fiduciary responsibility over bank accounts, credit, property ownership, joint liabilities, taxation, , inheritance, medical issues, responsibilities over bearing children, responsibility therefore, inoculations, school registry, liability for behavioral issues, etc. List is endless.

Therefore, someone has to produce metadata and define what marriage is, so we're all talking about the same thing, and there is no confusion. It used to be that we didn't grant special privilege to the mentally ill, we incarcerated them. There was no question what marriage was because it was obvious. Now we have to listen to the mentally ill have standing in arguing that marriage is something its not, in order to satisfy 3% of population in its moral bankruptcy, psychologically dysfunctional, anti-social desires to live like freaks.

Worse, its not even something compatible with that lifestyle. Hey, fish, here's your bicycle! Wait, what?

The whole concept is incompatible with a lifestyle that bends to the promiscuous. Even batched with that "LGBT nonsense…the "B" part. Bisexual? That's with both sexes. So, the next thing needed is to produce legislation that says groups of people can get married? Marriage is between 3 people? Why not 5? We can't have marriage constraining people to groups of 2, since that would UNFAIRLY WAH!!!) prevent a person who goes both ways from being with his other "attraction".

What a crock of s#$*!

Now if you don't define everything, people will start listing their dog as a dependent on their tax forms (it's happened) and someone WILL try to marry their dog, or pony, etc. The folks who say this is a slippery slope are absolutely right…gotta get it nailed down or someone will say, hey, if was between a man and a woman, now its two men, or two women, I'd like to be at one with my cat, or, hey this expensive vase from the Ming Dynasty has been in my family for so long, and we're already attached at the hip, so…


Don't laugh. Someone, somewhere, will try a "stunt", and some bozo judge with allow it and the next thing you know…

Set a definition, lock it down. Or else.

If no marriages were legally recognized there wouldn't be any issue. The government stuck it's greasy little fingers in the business of saying that these people under this contract get special treatment like tax breaks and not having to testify in court against each other and over 1000 other little perks. They thought they were being cute by promoting Christian family values but they didn't see the equal rights movement coming.

Now we have a situation where, as another member on another thread put it, John wants to marry Susan and that's ok. Jenny want's to marry Susan and that's not ok because Jenny doesn't have a pen*s. Can you think of another contract that's issued by the government based on the condition of having a pen*s or having a vag*na? I can't because they've been systematically torn down under sexual discrimination laws. Oops, didn't see that one coming when we were promoting the nuclear family as the best option.

But now the Pandora's box of the government's recognizing marriage and granting benefits has been opened but only for two people. That's the only precedent set and that's all anyone can claim discrimination on. The government isn't saying men can molest children but not women or whites can marry goats or toasters but not other races. Polygamists have already argued their case and it didn't fly.

Anyone can easily see why it's a smart argument for the government to say that an unlimited number of people can't be allowed to file joint taxes when corporations would jump right on that or be immune to court testimony when crime organizations would be a big happy married family. Animals and kids and inanimate objects don't apply as anyone who's ever stuck their head out from under their rock and had this discussion outside of their echo chamber knows because they can't give consent. There really isn't much of a slope at all and if it's getting slippery it's only with the mouth foam of the rabid bigots that insist on making this into something it isn't. Shut them up with a SCOTUS decision and there's no problem at all.

Lowjiber
05-13-2012, 05:15
Gay or not, who really gives a damn what Bristol Palin thinks?

MZBKA
05-13-2012, 08:25
Gay or not, who really gives a damn what Bristol Palin thinks?

It's funny to what lengths some here will go to defend her hypocrisy. Bristol doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to marriage.

QNman
05-13-2012, 08:52
Gay or not, who really gives a damn what Bristol Palin thinks?

This.

I don't care if she had a child out of wedlock while a teenager or whether she's the picture of a perfect Puritan woman, her opinion is about the same to me as Cheneys daughter - which is about the same value as those twerps on Jersey Shore or my neighbors grandson. Not much.

I wonder what Paris Hilton thinks?

eracer
05-13-2012, 09:14
It's funny to what lengths some here will go to defend her hypocrisy. Bristol doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to marriage.Indeed.

Her sexuality is none of my business. The code she was programmed with causes her to believe that having a child out of wedlock is a sin (even if she publicly denies that she feels that way.) That makes her a hypocrite when she denounces someone for their sexuality.

This is not a moral criticism of her - it's a logical observation, nothing more.

Fed Five Oh
05-13-2012, 21:19
Indeed.

Her sexuality is none of my business. The code she was programmed with causes her to believe that having a child out of wedlock is a sin (even if she publicly denies that she feels that way.) That makes her a hypocrite when she denounces someone for their sexuality.

This is not a moral criticism of her - it's a logical observation, nothing more.I've never heard that having a child out of wedlock is a sin. I have heard that having sex outside of marriage is a sin.

As asked before, if she would have murdered the unborn baby, would she be pure in your book? Sounds that way.

Paul7
05-13-2012, 21:28
Gay or not, who really gives a damn what Bristol Palin thinks?

It is interesting when she has more common sense than our dope POTUS, not to mention many on this forum.

Paul7
05-13-2012, 21:30
The code she was programmed with causes her to believe that having a child out of wedlock is a sin.

Wow, that's patronizing. Is that why you think the way you do?

G29Reload
05-14-2012, 01:24
Its as simple as this: Marriage is an institution founded in religion, and generally centered around raising and protecting children.

None of anything in the above paragraph is remotely related to anything in the gay "lifestyle".

Religion universally condemns it; it sure as shinola ain't about having kids.

The only reason why they want to change the definition of marriage is to destroy it. They have no ownership of the principle, and its not theirs to change.

No wonder every state that's voted on it has turned it down.

Gunhaver
05-14-2012, 02:34
Its as simple as this: Marriage is an institution founded in religion, and generally centered around raising and protecting children.

None of anything in the above paragraph is remotely related to anything in the gay "lifestyle".

Religion universally condemns it; it sure as shinola ain't about having kids.

The only reason why they want to change the definition of marriage is to destroy it. They have no ownership of the principle, and its not theirs to change.

No wonder every state that's voted on it has turned it down.

So what do you think is going to go over better with currently married straight people, the government recognizing marriage for all couples that want to get married or just telling everyone that they're out of the marriage business altogether and nobody gets any government marriage benefits anymore?

Which would be easier to accomplish legally and politically?

Because the issue isn't just going to go away.

Alizard
05-14-2012, 14:36
Bristol's picked a few bones in her day.

She gave up the right to moralize about sex when she had a child out of wedlock.Funny, how it's always one of those lecturing on issues of family values..... Newt Gingrich spearheading a presidential impeachment to get to the bottom of adultery all the while he's cheating on his wife. Palin's spouting about immoral lifestyles while she can't keep her knees together when you get one wine cooler in her..... GOP politicians spouting about gays all the time they are in the closet themselves having gay affairs.

My dad used to remind me, there are people in this world who can't be shamed because they have no shame. She's living proof.

Alizard
05-14-2012, 14:39
Its as simple as this: Marriage is an institution founded in religion, and generally centered around raising and protecting children.

///////

Religion universally condemns it; it sure as shinola ain't about having kids.That's the point: religions post taboos about any behavior that limits childbirth for the simple reason they want to maximize their numbers to dominate the population. Hence the completely bizarre and indefensible position of the catholic church on contraception. Every church wants to be #1 and they want to have maximum "production" of offspring to get there.

eracer
05-14-2012, 15:09
I've never heard that having a child out of wedlock is a sin. I have heard that having sex outside of marriage is a sin.Wedlock is not equivalent to marriage?

As asked before, if she would have murdered the unborn baby, would she be pure in your book? Sounds that way.What does abortion have to do with this?

Seriously.