Mock

(06-27-2015, 06:31 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Rick Santorum - 'The Supreme Court just launched an unprecedented attack on the religious liberty and the traditional family.

Dude, Rick, you're one of the biggest queers I've ever met in my life. Don't attack your own people. #ItGetsBetter

After reading them all, Scalia's dissent was the best one.

Thomas is being taken out of context for that one paragraph. Whether people agree or not, his point is clear over his entire dissent about liberty and dignity. Had he given no examples, and instead said: "The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.", no one would be talking about it.

Roberts is obviously at odds with himself. His dissent almost mirrors the arguments he made in favor of Obamacare. What a loon.

Any Republican candidate who clings to this as an issue to campaign will be unelectable in a General Election. In the case of Santorum, Jindal, and Huckabee they stand no chance anyway... Walker will hurt himself if he sticks with it.

(06-28-2015, 12:08 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I saw Hillary ask them not to make it an issue so you know damn well there will be those who will.

She's just goading them to injure themselves. I'm sure some of them will take the bait...mostly the unelectable ones

They'll just play clips back to her when she said marriage is between a man and a woman. Political 'evolution' boomerangs both ways.

(06-28-2015, 12:08 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2015, 12:04 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Any Republican candidate who clings to this as an issue to campaign will be unelectable in a General Election.

I saw Hillary ask them not to make it an issue so you know damn well there will be those who will.

I don't know about the unelectable part. There are a lot of people that are against it. Plus I remember a few years back here in Iowa when they voted to make gay marriage legal . Well next election 3 of those judges came up for election and got put out of work because of that vote. There just might be enough bible thumpers out there to make a difference come election time.

Those reminders of her past opinions have already begun. I laughed at this one from FB.

(06-28-2015, 12:04 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]After reading them all, Scalia's dissent was the best one.

Thomas is being taken out of context for that one paragraph. Whether people agree or not, his point is clear over his entire dissent about liberty and dignity. Had he given no examples, and instead said: "The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.", no one would be talking about it.

I disagree Jimbone. I've read the full Supreme Court Opinion and Dissenting Opinions.

Thomas' dissenting opinion starts on page 78 of the linked PDF.

When you take out the specific examples Thomas gave to make his point about dignity, you alter the context of that paragraph and his dissent -- whether or not you agree with his contention that a denial of equal marriage rights is unrelated to the Constitution, unrelated to dignity, and unrelated to liberty.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf

(06-28-2015, 12:24 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Those reminders of her past opinions have already begun. I laughed at this one from FB.

Me too.

It's funny that some people think two and half years ago and two and half months ago are the same thing.

She expressed support of equal marriage rights for gays and the repeal of DOMA back in 2013.

We all know that people will distort the truth to suit their own needs.
Those people present those distorted facts knowing perfectly well that most people will just take it as gospel instead of fact checking. After all, its right there on the internet, its gotta be true.

I don't know F.U. I see a lot of people who stay informed on topics about which they take the time to engage in discussion.

So, it doesn't really require fact checking to smell bullshit rhetoric and spot revisionist history; just a functional memory.

Anyway, in the interest of truth, here's the March 2013 statement of firm support for marriage equality by Hillary Clinton.

The wind is blowing from the North today. It changes though probably not on this gay subject but most certainly on others depending on the wind direction is the way they go.
I don't see Catholics or Christians or any Islamic religion complying with it though. As it should be. It is a free country and there are plenty of places to get married although I'm sure there will be some that test the waters. the first ones will be immortalized. There is money to be made here.

While there are a lot that do stay informed there are just as many, if not more that do not and those are the ones that can be influenced by a funny little pic like I posted . Or just straight up lies. Just as long as its on the internet they will believe it.
I wasn't saying your facts are wrong, just that many couldn't care about the facts, just what they want to get out there.
Then there are others, like me that just cant stand a person and will refuse to listen to anything they say. I didn't watch the video you posted because, frankly I cant stand to listen to her voice. That is nothing new for me and has nothing to do with her change in stance on this issue or her running for office. That dislike goes all the way back to her hubbys days as prez.
But now I am once again drifting off topic.
So since I have nothing important to add to this thread I will give you the floor, read your response and back the hell out of this thread. No disrespect intended.
Peace , I'm Out.

My posts weren't jabs at you, F.U.

I was responding to the idea that people believe anything they see or read. Personally, I read and listen to everything posted in here and consider it (and respond if I'm interested). But, it doesn't bother me if other people don't.

I don't want the floor; it's nobody's floor in here. I don't really understand your emotional reaction to posting a politician's exact statements on gay marriage in a Gay Marriage thread when you brought the politician into the discussion. But, I do know that Hillary changed her stance over 2 years ago, as many have done before or since then.

Anyway, I think you're being overly sensitive. But, I'll leave it alone.

Not being sensitive , just not wanting to get into a political debate over this gay shit. I just posted that pic because it made me laugh after Duch and Jimbone brought her stance up [posts 404 & 405 I believe] or should I say change in stance. Either way, no biggee.

I got stuck working this evening so everyone have a enjoyable night while I go deal with a bunch of drunks.

Have a good night, F.U.

I've got to go deal with a couple of very old grumpy sober people tonight.

I'd rather be drunk at the bar making trouble for you.

Got permission to share this from a Facebook friend. Highlights are mine.



As a follower of Christ and lover of all people regardless of race, gender, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or game console preference, I'm going to be very blunt with my fellow Christians: why are you so pissed about this change in MAN's law? Absolutely nothing has changed in the Bible. God's law is exactly the same as it was before yesterday. The good book said that man's law wouldn't always line up with God's law, so why are you upset that the Bible was correct? If you expect the nation's legal system to teach your children about Christ then you're sadly mistaken. God never placed that responsibility with the courts; It's YOUR responsibility to spread the gospel and love of Jesus Christ.


The law doesn't force pornography upon your household, but it's legal. The law doesn't force twerk videos unto your household, but it's legal. The law doesn't force heterosexual sex between two unmarried people into your household, but it's legal. The law doesn't force having children out of wedlock unto your household, but again... it's perfectly legal. Homosexual marriage, like the above mentioned "sins", does not impede on the basic rights of anyone else. It's perfectly fine not to condone it, but to condemn it and attempt to codify your beliefs into laws that disenfranchise those with different belief systems is not ok. Here's a newsflash: Making it legal for gay people to be married by definition of man's law doesn't mean the world is coming to an end. This isn't anything new, by the way, as 22 other countries already recognize same-sex marriage years before June 26^th, 2015.

While we're on the subject, let's talk about state-sponsored sinful lifestyles for a second: every weekend I buy a lotto ticket from the corner store. I've been doing this for years. However, my Bible says to stay away from attempts to get rich quick (proverbs 13:11 and 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10). I guess that means I should also be condemned to the depths of Hell upon my death.

Look, there are so many other issues that require our attention as Christians: poverty, racism, genocide, persecution of Christians in the Middle East (while we're complaining about Christians losing influence in American politics, Middle-Eastern Christians are losing their LIVES), and others that are infinitely more worthy of our outrage than the issue of same-sex marriage in America. Instead of bloviating on social media about how offended you are about homosexuality, why don't you step out on faith and do some real kingdom work?

In closing, it is quite ironic that the most sin I've seen on social media isn't coming from all the rainbow colored profile pictures, but rather from self-proclaimed Christians shouting "F*ck this fag b.s." with a disturbing lack of one of the very cornerstones of the Christian faith: Grace.

(06-28-2015, 12:04 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Any Republican candidate who clings to this as an issue to campaign will be unelectable in a General Election. In the case of Santorum, Jindal, and Huckabee they stand no chance anyway... Walker will hurt himself if he sticks with it.

I think you're right on the money about candidates who use opposition to gay marriage as a platform being unelectable.

Rubio, Bush, and Graham are being smart about it, IMO, by not flip-flopping outright and alienating their more conservative bases, but not crusading against what's a done deal and alienating a lot of others. I think that the other Republican candidates who are pounding their fists are shortsighted.

Marco Rubio said while he disagrees with the court's decision, "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

Jeb Bush sent a statement saying while he disagrees, "I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments."

Lindsey Graham said that as president he would "staunchly defend religious liberty" but that "while we have differences, it is time for us to move forward together respectfully and as one people."

It'll be interesting to see if Walker changes course and takes a similar more moderate stance. I agree with you that it could hurt his chances of being elected if he doesn't.

64% of Independents and 37% of Republicans support gay marriage. I think it's likely that both those numbers will grow rather than decrease in the next year and a half, based on the trend over the last several years. Both parties want the Independent vote and there's no longer the old "leave it to the states" or "civil union compromise" approach to the issue (which is exactly what Hillary did until 2013).

If my husband drops dead I'm gonna marry a straight woman just for the government benefits and get dick on the side. It sounds like a good plan to me.

(06-28-2015, 07:38 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]If my husband drops dead I'm gonna marry a straight woman just for the government benefits and get dick on the side. It sounds like a good plan to me.

O.K. guess I am a little slow.....but what benefits would you get by marrying a straight woman that you don't receive now in your marital status (married to a man)? Are you fantasizing about a threesome or changing your sex? I hope you have not had a recent head injury.....