Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 23 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 28 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Writing on the Wall
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 1:54AM #221
Ed.W
Posts: 9,451

Results in 32 states, the results not even close, indicate your polling is "off".  Even SSM proponents admit that.


All Obama did was nail his coffin shut for November.

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 2:05AM #222
Qwesam
Posts: 3,369

May 13, 2012 -- 1:54AM, Ed.W wrote:

Results in 32 states, the results not even close, indicate your polling is "off".  Even SSM proponents admit that.


All Obama did was nail his coffin shut for November.


I can assure you that if 32 states put up another vote for Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment in 2012 election.  I am pretty sure Californians will defeat the Amendment.  Have the guts to do over again?


 

***Watching Foxnews makes you dumb and dumber than your friends who watch NO News. It is on the survey!

***Don’t listen to what Republicans say, look what they do to Women’s rights.

***Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims is far worse.

Garrett Epps
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 9:12AM #223
drawout
Posts: 5,943

The writing is truly on the wall when the propaganda arm of your movement admits you're an the wrong side.


"Speaking shortly after President Obama announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith suggested that Republicans were on “the wrong side of history” when it comes to the issue."


livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/s...

'When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.' - Mark Twain
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 9:34AM #224
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 12, 2012 -- 10:37PM, christzen wrote:


They no doubt do want their unions regognized as being the same,but not for necessarily the reasons you give.If you create a separate class of union that does not automatically equal hetero marriages,then you leave room for loopholes and lawsuits about what rights the new class of union confers.Insurance plans could cover "marriages" but not "civil unions".Same with retirement benefits.If each and every priviledge  of the new union must be haggled over,then it leaves room for lawsuits opposing those priviledges at every turn.





I understand what your saying here Christzen ... but again, it comes down to the difference of "righs" vs "privilege".  Where you say "what rights the new class of union confers" .. is really what privileges the new class of union will confer.


There is no right to privilege, thus there is no obligation for equality.  We have "inequality" throughout our society.  The Rich pay more in taxes than the poor.  If the goal is purely to create law that applies "equally" to all, then the tax code should be formed such that it applies equally to all.  Further, individual entities hold dominion over the privileges they extend.  Why should women pay less in auto insurance premium than men??  It's not fair, but it is the right of the insurance company to define those privileges.


I reject the premise that every privilege is a "right".  It's not fair in some minds, but it is reality, and it is written in our constitution, that "rights" are to be protected, and that "rights" are endowed by creation, what ever you vision that to be.  Authority can't grant what is not its to grant.  On the otherhand, Authority can grant privilege.


This whole issue is should Authority grant the same privileges to SSM and Traditional Marriage.  Considering that according to the Founding Documents, the "authority" of Government is derived from the people, then people hold the final word on privilege.  Our Founding Fathers made it clear that there were several "rights", where the people have no say, but when it comes to privilege, the people do.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 9:52AM #225
christzen
Posts: 8,781

May 13, 2012 -- 1:54AM, Ed.W wrote:


Results in 32 states, the results not even close, indicate your polling is "off".  Even SSM proponents admit that.


All Obama did was nail his coffin shut for November.




 


I'm not polling anyone.Merely looking at the ways things are going with gay rights and reading what your own leaders in opposition to SSM are saying.


 


The very fact that so many now argue for a civil union as long as it's not a marriage is way past what it was 10 yrs ago.


 


The young people do not bear your bigotry.Deal with it.Progress will inevitably defeat you.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 10:35AM #226
Ed.W
Posts: 9,451

May 13, 2012 -- 9:12AM, drawout wrote:


The writing is truly on the wall when the propaganda arm of your movement admits you're an the wrong side.


"Speaking shortly after President Obama announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith suggested that Republicans were on “the wrong side of history” when it comes to the issue."


livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/s...




Let's just say that may be Shepard Smith's "personal" opinion, and I wish him well.


Shep Faux Pas


‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 12:02PM #227
christzen
Posts: 8,781

May 13, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Ed.W wrote:


May 13, 2012 -- 9:12AM, drawout wrote:


The writing is truly on the wall when the propaganda arm of your movement admits you're an the wrong side.


"Speaking shortly after President Obama announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith suggested that Republicans were on “the wrong side of history” when it comes to the issue."


livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/s...




Let's just say that may be Shepard Smith's "personal" opinion, and I wish him well.


Shep Faux Pas





 


Of course it's just his personal opinion.The point is that the lead anchorman from the most conservative mainstream news org has  voiced the opinion that the conservatives are on the wrong side.It's akin to a spokesman for the KKK admitting that maybe things aren't going too well for them on the issue of civil rights for blacks.Stuff like this isn't voiced by conservative spokesmen if the conservative side is clearly winning the public opinion battle.But they are losing,and even the talking heads for Fox News are aware of it and saying so.


 


Woe is you.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 12:58PM #228
Ed.W
Posts: 9,451

I don't see Fox News as all that conservative.  I think the response to his question (which was not included in the clip) was:


I say the fact that you have to carefully edit things tells us all that you have nothing in your hand.



This video picks up where yours was suddenly stopped.  Brett Baier tells "Shep" he's it's not a foregone conclusion....  "I don't know about that, Shep,....", says Baier.


www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_det...



"Those are voters, going to the polls, even in California, making that choice [to ban SSM]."  Cry


Listen to the way he ends the word "California" as if to shake Shep out of his denial that SSM is not supported by the people.



BTW, Shep Smith is not "our leader" nor is Fox News necessarily conservative. 


But you live in a mythical world of bogeymen, I doubt I'll get through to you.  When you can handle reality let me know.  Until then, quit wasting my time with this tit for tat.


I have proved you have nothing, and you, like your friend Shep, are in a state of denial.  I hope you stay that way until November.  Laughing

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 1:47PM #229
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,913

May 13, 2012 -- 1:23AM, Ed.W wrote:

May 13, 2012 -- 1:15AM, christzen wrote:


May 13, 2012 -- 1:06AM, Ed.W wrote:


SSM is not about equal rights, so it's not ironic that they are taking up this cause of SSM.  SSM about attacking God and Religion, another thing Liberals have always been against.







 


So finally we come to some honesty.It is a religious issue.Gay marriage is against your religious beliefs,gays hate God,gays want to destroy God and America,etc etc.


 


Glad you finally became honest about it,instead of pussyfooting around with semantics about rights and such.


 


But even so,it is about equal rights.All gays ask is to be treated just like heterosexuals regarding marriage and it's priviledges.You want them to NOT be treated the same,but differently,with a different type of legal union created to define their different class of spousal union.To argue that "we want them treated differently than us,with different rules and laws,but it's not about equal treatment" is a contradictory statement.


Just be honest and stick with the gays hate God schtick.It's honest,at least.




We've already brought up the true motives of your side on this thread, that is clearly an attack on your part on Religion and God.  I don't know how you missed it.


However you try to conceal that and argue it on terms of equal rights, and we still mop the floor with you.  You chose the weapon and still lost. 


I can certainly argue it on religious grounds, but I prefer to do it on legal grounds since you ostensibly respect the law.


We've already brought up the true motives of your side on this thread, that is clearly an attack on your part on Religion and God.  I don't know how you missed it.


This is a nation of laws,  civil laws.     I agree the attack on SSM is basically a religious one or at least motivated by one's religious beliefs but so what?     We do not make laws based on religion or at least we are not supposed to.    Just because the current political trend is how religious are you? or I am a Christian and you are not does not make it democratic or true to the intent of the founding.     The discussion should be civil marriage vs civil union.     civil marriage covers it all civil unions do not.     By not letting certain citizens of this country partake in civil marriage  because of some religious belief is unamerican and a violation of one's civil rights.  


However you try to conceal that and argue it on terms of equal rights, and we still mop the floor with you.  You chose the weapon and still lost. 


No one tried to conceal the fact that religion should not trump our laws.   The argument of civil marriage vs civil union is indeed a matter of equal rights.


I can certainly argue it on religious grounds, but I prefer to do it on legal grounds since you ostensibly respect the law.


Of course you can argue it on religious grounds,   no law stopping you no law attempting to shut you down.    No law saying that you would have to marry same sex in spite of your religious beliefs is being proposed.     But if you prefer to do it on legal grounds what are your legal grounds   aside from the fact the law is evolving?        You want to talk legal grounds?    well it is illegal to treat citizens differently because of gender, sexual preference or color of their skin.    DOMA is an affront to citizens of the US and who the hell cares what your religion tells you to do or think or behave.    have at it,  it's a free country except for when it is not.

Human nature leads people to put each other in neat boxes. Some put all women into one category, even though Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton both exist. Black Lives Matter activists are arrested for civil disobedience nationwide, but we talk about “the black vote” as though Republican Ben Carson isn’t running for president and conservative Clarence Thomas isn’t a justice of the Supreme Court.

The Right Wing and the Left Wing come from the same bird.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 2:09PM #230
christzen
Posts: 8,781

May 13, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Ed.W wrote:


I don't see Fox News as all that conservative. 



 


LOL!


 


For the record,I read Fox.And Drudge.Along with CNN,The Daily Beast,Reuters,and a few others.And I'm fine with Fox and Drudge being conservative.Many other news orgs are clearly to the liberal side,so it is OK with the conservatives having some outlets for their side of the news angles. But anyone who can  say that Fox News isn't coming from a conservative slant doesn't deserve to be taken seriously,as it shows poor judgement and problems  processing reality on their part.This is not a bash of Fox.They tell things from angles that the more liberal news guys don't.But get real dude!


 


 


 


 


 


May 13, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Ed.W wrote:


I think the response to his question (which was not included in the clip) was:


I say the fact that you have to carefully edit things tells us all that you have nothing in your hand.



 


I have no clue what you are talikg about.I did not edit nor link any video.Learn to read please.


 


 



May 13, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Ed.W wrote:


BTW, Shep Smith is not "our leader" nor is Fox News necessarily conservative. 



 


Shep is the lead anchor on a conservative news network.I did not say he was your leader.Learn to read please.


 


 


May 13, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Ed.W wrote:


But you live in a mythical world of bogeymen, I doubt I'll get through to you.  When you can handle reality let me know.  Until then, quit wasting my time with this tit for tat.


I have proved you have nothing, and you, like your friend Shep, are in a state of denial.  I hope you stay that way until November.  Laughing




 


This entire statement is meaningless and irrelevant.Nobody is discussing bogeymen,whatever that reference is about.And you haven't proven jack,my confused friend.The only people in denial are the ones that think they can stem the tide of gays being treated as normal citizens by decent nonprejuduced people.CAn openly gay people hold public office now?Can gays serve in the military without hiding their sexuality?Has a sitting POTUS come out publicly for SSM?Would anyone have thought this much progress would have happened 20 yrs ago?Follow the logic,and you will see your side is losing.


 


Woe is you.


 


There is a cartoon today in the Dallas Morning News that is entirely apropos to your situation and your problem.It has a picture of 2 men getting married,with the minister saying "if anyone should object to the marriage of these two men,speak up now because opponents are aging and dying off and soon won't matter anymore".


 


LOL.That's your problem in a nutshell.Soon,you guys won't matter any more.BTW,if you feel exchanging posts is a waste of your time,then quit coming here and whining about gays being treated the same as everyone else.Nobody forces you to sit at your computer and spout bigotry.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 23 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 28 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook