|
Your Favorites for the Primary (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| barbina |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
Look, my sister is a lesbian and she has had the same gf for over a year. I can tell you from experience that it is disgusting to have homesexuals under the same roof.:mad:
Moving to Canada won't change anything. You still will be left unhappy because guess what? People there are homophoebic too. You don't have every Canadian waving gay flags, do you? No. |
I do NOT appreciate you attacking me. I have seen, FROM EXPERIENCE, that Canada is a MUCH more tolerable country when it comes to the homosexual population. Also, as being one of the few countries that DOES allow same-sex marriages it obviously is much more open to the idea of homosexuality. It is people like you who make me want to leave the US. You need to be more tolerant of people around you. You are not the only person living in this country, let alone this world. Judge yourself before you judge others. I shouldn't have to flee to another country to be who I am and to get what I was garunteed when I was born -until, of course, when it will be a woman I am marrying instead of a man. I am not asking for "everyone to wave a gay flag" I'm asking for the right to marry the woman I love. Your sister deserves that right, and your respect too.
Human is human. Love is love.
Whoever supports it most gets my vote.
And to everyone else..
sorry about the thread jack |
|
|
| ams.rld |
| quote: | Originally posted by barbina
I do NOT appreciate you attacking me. I have seen, FROM EXPERIENCE, that Canada is a MUCH more tolerable country when it comes to the homosexual population. Also, as being one of the few countries that DOES allow same-sex marriages it obviously is much more open to the idea of homosexuality. It is people like you who make me want to leave the US. You need to be more tolerant of people around you. You are not the only person living in this country, let alone this world. Judge yourself before you judge others. I shouldn't have to flee to another country to be who I am and to get what I was garunteed when I was born -until, of course, when it will be a woman I am marrying instead of a man. I am not asking for "everyone to wave a gay flag" I'm asking for the right to marry the woman I love. Your sister deserves that right, and your respect too.
Human is human. Love is love.
Whoever supports it most gets my vote.
And to everyone else..
sorry about the thread jack |
Ok, sarcasm flew over your head. |
|
|
| barbina |
I don't see how sarcasm could be fitting for a heated political thread.
Especially since your comments had any joking matter behind them.
I'd work on that.
So if you truly were being sarcastic, then I apologize. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
If it is a right protected under the Constituion, what needs to be decided? This is where I lose your "stick to the Constitution" argument. |
I believe in the choice of individual states to decide social issues according to the constitution. Unless there is a threat of a loss of law and order over an issue, I don't think the Federal government should be involved in social issues at the local level.
| quote: | | Again, I agree in principle (I'm a student of foreign policy after all), but you have to look at it from the perspective of how individual issues impact individual people. If you were gay, gay marriage would matter a great deal to you, as it would to myself. |
I agree, but the reality of the current situation makes the war a more important issue in terms of money, ethics, lives, etc. Realizing this, before we can debate a relatively minor social issue(in terms of people affected), we need to remedy our greatest problem which is the war. |
|
|
| ams.rld |
| quote: | Originally posted by barbina
I don't see how sarcasm could be fitting for a heated political thread.
Especially since your comments had any joking matter behind them.
I'd work on that.
So if you truly were being sarcastic, then I apologize. |
My sarcasm is deep. Sometimes too intellectual for majority of people. |
|
|
| barbina |
I wouldn't call it intellectual. Sarcasm doesn't really flow through computers, especially somewhere where its not to be expected. [or maybe even needed]
I vote.. save the unidentifiable sarcasm for the COR. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Pretext? The same reason why we had a revolution in the 1770's. |
yeah, no.
| quote: | | Ron Paul would agree with me. With liberty being a guarenteed birth-right, if gays want to be married, then let them get married. They are not violating anyone elses rights. No crime is being committed. |
so you think the Preamble of the Constitution provides gays the RIGHT to marriage because ill tell ya, thats the ONLY place the word "liberty" occurs in it...wait a second while i piss myself laughing:haha: :haha: :haha:
you have no idea what your talking about.
| quote: | | As for state's rights, it would be much easier for individual states to decide the gay rights issue than for the federal government to do so. |
now THATS what Ron Paul would say.
as a Constitutionalist, as an Originalist, you should know that gay marriage, ANY marriage, should have nothing to do with Federal Government. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah, no. |
Yea, no what? Did you stall on your thoughts?
| quote: | so you think the Preamble of the Constitution provides gays the RIGHT to marriage because ill tell ya, thats the ONLY place the word "liberty" occurs in it...wait a second while i piss myself laughing:haha: :haha: :haha:
you have no idea what your talking about. |
Uh, what? If an activity is not a crime, violates no one elses rights, then under the constitution, it should be legal. I don't think you know what you're talking about... It's called liberty. To think for yourself. Yes, it is in the preamble.
| quote: | now THATS what Ron Paul would say.
as a Constitutionalist, as an Originalist, you should know that gay marriage, ANY marriage, should have nothing to do with Federal Government. |
And I don't want it to be, so yea... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Uh, what? If an activity is not a crime, violates no one elses rights, then under the constitution, it should be legal. I don't think you know what you're talking about... It's called liberty. To think for yourself. Yes, it is in the preamble. |
omg dude, the Preamble does not assign ANY power to the Federal Government.:rolleyes:
| quote: | | And I don't want it to be, so yea... |
so then you don't agree with Barbina... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
so then you don't agree with Barbina... |
Yes I do. Did you not understand me when I said the issue should be decided at the state and local level, not at the federal level. Reason? It shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility, and it would be much easier for the gay rights people to get some comprimise in having at least a few states endorse gay marraige.
Would barbina want no marriage rights, or at least some. I think she would want at least some. If a few states endorse it, that's better than none. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Yes I do. Did you not understand me when I said the issue should be decided at the state and local level, not at the federal level. Reason? It shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility, and it would be much easier for the gay rights people to get some comprimise in having at least a few states endorse gay marraige.
Would barbina want no marriage rights, or at least some. I think she would want at least some. If a few states endorse it, that's better than none. |
well maybe he can correct me because i'm bad with ambiguity, but everything he's said so far reflects the intention for "gay rights" (gay marriage) to be Federal mandate. Ron Paul wouldn't touch that with a 10' pole. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
If an activity is not a crime, violates no one elses rights, then under the constitution, it should be legal. |
that still doesn't mean an activity should enjoy protections under the Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
