CT now has Gay Marriage?
-
@pbj said:
Nope, I am happily in a long term relationship with a woman. However, I am pro civil liberties.
I'm personally not against gay marriage but I can certainly understand that many do not want the definition and purpose of marriage erased.
I think everyone is pro civil liberty.
Mosat Americans are opposed to it but are OK with a civil union which affords all those liberties to the couple.
And while it's hip to ask "how does that affect MY marriage???"
Ask yourself what "rights" are denied in a civil union?
WSS
I'm personally not against gay marriage but I can certainly understand that many do not want the definition and purpose of marriage erased.
I think everyone is pro civil liberty.
Mosat Americans are opposed to it but are OK with a civil union which affords all those liberties to the couple.
And while it's hip to ask "how does that affect MY marriage???"
Ask yourself what "rights" are denied in a civil union?
WSS
While civil unions are a good thing and hold many of the rights found in marriage, separate but equal doesn't fly. Being able to say you are married is a big deal to some people, and to deny that right to them is wrong.
Once again, how does it affect you negatively if gays are allowed to be married?
-
I'm personally not against gay marriage but I can certainly understand that many do not want the definition and purpose of marriage erased.
I think everyone is pro civil liberty.
Mosat Americans are opposed to it but are OK with a civil union which affords all those liberties to the couple.
And while it's hip to ask "how does that affect MY marriage???"
Ask yourself what "rights" are denied in a civil union?
WSS
While civil unions are a good thing and hold many of the rights found in marriage, separate but equal doesn't fly. Being able to say you are married is a big deal to some people, and to deny that right to them is wrong.
Once again, how does it affect you negatively if gays are allowed to be married?
While civil unions are a good thing and hold many of the rights found in marriage, separate but equal doesn't fly. Being able to say you are married is a big deal to some people, and to deny that right to them is wrong.
Once again, how does it affect you negatively if gays are allowed to be married?
Give it up. No way you are getting WSS to come out of his closet.
-
I'm personally not against gay marriage but I can certainly understand that many do not want the definition and purpose of marriage erased.
I think everyone is pro civil liberty.
Mosat Americans are opposed to it but are OK with a civil union which affords all those liberties to the couple.
And while it's hip to ask "how does that affect MY marriage???"
Ask yourself what "rights" are denied in a civil union?
WSS
While civil unions are a good thing and hold many of the rights found in marriage, separate but equal doesn't fly. Being able to say you are married is a big deal to some people, and to deny that right to them is wrong.
Once again, how does it affect you negatively if gays are allowed to be married?
While civil unions are a good thing and hold many of the rights found in marriage, separate but equal doesn't fly. Being able to say you are married is a big deal to some people, and to deny that right to them is wrong.
Once again, how does it affect you negatively if gays are allowed to be married?
Me?
Prpobably doesn't.
Nor three men or a sister and a brother or a man and his cat.
How does that affect anyone?
How does it affect you if your neighbor jerks off to kiddie porn, sells crack or beats his wife?
Marriage is and always has been a matter of family and children.
Now you may well think that it's time that definition be changed.
Fair enough, but it is what it is.
Legally defined as a man and a woman.
WSS
-
While civil unions are a good thing and hold many of the rights found in marriage, separate but equal doesn't fly. Being able to say you are married is a big deal to some people, and to deny that right to them is wrong.
Once again, how does it affect you negatively if gays are allowed to be married?
Me?
Prpobably doesn't.
Nor three men or a sister and a brother or a man and his cat.
How does that affect anyone?
How does it affect you if your neighbor jerks off to kiddie porn, sells crack or beats his wife?
Marriage is and always has been a matter of family and children.
Now you may well think that it's time that definition be changed.
Fair enough, but it is what it is.
Legally defined as a man and a woman.
WSS
Me?
Prpobably doesn't.
Nor three men or a sister and a brother or a man and his cat.
How does that affect anyone?
How does it affect you if your neighbor jerks off to kiddie porn, sells crack or beats his wife?
Marriage is and always has been a matter of family and children.
Now you may well think that it's time that definition be changed.
Fair enough, but it is what it is.
Legally defined as a man and a woman.
WSS
Marriage has always been between two people, so three men wont be allowed to be married anytime soon. Between a sister and her brother, well, it happens to be selected against naturally so it is already discouraged by nature, whereas homosexuality occurs in virtually all species on earth. And when did I miss when cats were granted contractual rights?
Somebody wants to watch kiddie porn or beat there wife? They aren't affecting me, but they sure as hell are violating the child's and the wife's human rights.
If someone wants to use crack, or sell it, why should the government stop them? As long as they don't interfere with another person's rights let them do it.
If marriage truly is about family and children, why don't we go ahead and abolish marriage between infertile couples and older people, as they can't have children?
-
Me?
Prpobably doesn't.
Nor three men or a sister and a brother or a man and his cat.
How does that affect anyone?
How does it affect you if your neighbor jerks off to kiddie porn, sells crack or beats his wife?
Marriage is and always has been a matter of family and children.
Now you may well think that it's time that definition be changed.
Fair enough, but it is what it is.
Legally defined as a man and a woman.
WSS
Marriage has always been between two people, so three men wont be allowed to be married anytime soon. Between a sister and her brother, well, it happens to be selected against naturally so it is already discouraged by nature, whereas homosexuality occurs in virtually all species on earth. And when did I miss when cats were granted contractual rights?
Somebody wants to watch kiddie porn or beat there wife? They aren't affecting me, but they sure as hell are violating the child's and the wife's human rights.
If someone wants to use crack, or sell it, why should the government stop them? As long as they don't interfere with another person's rights let them do it.
If marriage truly is about family and children, why don't we go ahead and abolish marriage between infertile couples and older people, as they can't have children?
Marriage has always been between two people, so three men wont be allowed to be married anytime soon. Between a sister and her brother, well, it happens to be selected against naturally so it is already discouraged by nature, whereas homosexuality occurs in virtually all species on earth. And when did I miss when cats were granted contractual rights?
Somebody wants to watch kiddie porn or beat there wife? They aren't affecting me, but they sure as hell are violating the child's and the wife's human rights.
If someone wants to use crack, or sell it, why should the government stop them? As long as they don't interfere with another person's rights let them do it.
If marriage truly is about family and children, why don't we go ahead and abolish marriage between infertile couples and older people, as they can't have children?
So it's cool with you that people use or sell crack, and screw it right? What kind of a dipshit are you? People like you make me ill.
-
Me?
Prpobably doesn't.
Nor three men or a sister and a brother or a man and his cat.
How does that affect anyone?
How does it affect you if your neighbor jerks off to kiddie porn, sells crack or beats his wife?
Marriage is and always has been a matter of family and children.
Now you may well think that it's time that definition be changed.
Fair enough, but it is what it is.
Legally defined as a man and a woman.
WSS
Marriage has always been between two people, so three men wont be allowed to be married anytime soon. Between a sister and her brother, well, it happens to be selected against naturally so it is already discouraged by nature, whereas homosexuality occurs in virtually all species on earth. And when did I miss when cats were granted contractual rights?
Somebody wants to watch kiddie porn or beat there wife? They aren't affecting me, but they sure as hell are violating the child's and the wife's human rights.
If someone wants to use crack, or sell it, why should the government stop them? As long as they don't interfere with another person's rights let them do it.
If marriage truly is about family and children, why don't we go ahead and abolish marriage between infertile couples and older people, as they can't have children?
Marriage has always been between two people, so three men wont be allowed to be married anytime soon. Between a sister and her brother, well, it happens to be selected against naturally so it is already discouraged by nature, whereas homosexuality occurs in virtually all species on earth. And when did I miss when cats were granted contractual rights?
Somebody wants to watch kiddie porn or beat there wife? They aren't affecting me, but they sure as hell are violating the child's and the wife's human rights.
If someone wants to use crack, or sell it, why should the government stop them? As long as they don't interfere with another person's rights let them do it.
If marriage truly is about family and children, why don't we go ahead and abolish marriage between infertile couples and older people, as they can't have children?
So it's cool with you that people use or sell crack, and screw it right? What kind of a dipshit are you? People like you make me ill.
-
Marriage has always been between two people, so three men wont be allowed to be married anytime soon. Between a sister and her brother, well, it happens to be selected against naturally so it is already discouraged by nature, whereas homosexuality occurs in virtually all species on earth. And when did I miss when cats were granted contractual rights?
Somebody wants to watch kiddie porn or beat there wife? They aren't affecting me, but they sure as hell are violating the child's and the wife's human rights.
If someone wants to use crack, or sell it, why should the government stop them? As long as they don't interfere with another person's rights let them do it.
If marriage truly is about family and children, why don't we go ahead and abolish marriage between infertile couples and older people, as they can't have children?
So it's cool with you that people use or sell crack, and screw it right? What kind of a dipshit are you? People like you make me ill.
So it's cool with you that people use or sell crack, and screw it right? What kind of a dipshit are you? People like you make me ill.
I am not arguing that crack isn't bad for you - just that if you want to use it, and you aren't interfering with other people's rights then why should the government stop you? This shouldn't be a nanny state.
Eating too much high fat food is bad for you. Does that mean the government should be able to tell you,"You cannot eat that steak, it is unhealthy for you?" Hell no they shouldn't.
So to answer your question, yes, it is cool with me that people use and sell crack, as long as they don't fuck with other people while doing it.
-
So it's cool with you that people use or sell crack, and screw it right? What kind of a dipshit are you? People like you make me ill.
I am not arguing that crack isn't bad for you - just that if you want to use it, and you aren't interfering with other people's rights then why should the government stop you? This shouldn't be a nanny state.
Eating too much high fat food is bad for you. Does that mean the government should be able to tell you,"You cannot eat that steak, it is unhealthy for you?" Hell no they shouldn't.
So to answer your question, yes, it is cool with me that people use and sell crack, as long as they don't fuck with other people while doing it.
I am not arguing that crack isn't bad for you - just that if you want to use it, and you aren't interfering with other people's rights then why should the government stop you? This shouldn't be a nanny state.
Eating too much high fat food is bad for you. Does that mean the government should be able to tell you,"You cannot eat that steak, it is unhealthy for you?" Hell no they shouldn't.
So to answer your question, yes, it is cool with me that people use and sell crack, as long as they don't fuck with other people while doing it.
You should seek help, because you need it. Drug use causes crime, especially Crack Cocaine. Your "let them take it" approach is nuts. You make me sick.
-
I am not arguing that crack isn't bad for you - just that if you want to use it, and you aren't interfering with other people's rights then why should the government stop you? This shouldn't be a nanny state.
Eating too much high fat food is bad for you. Does that mean the government should be able to tell you,"You cannot eat that steak, it is unhealthy for you?" Hell no they shouldn't.
So to answer your question, yes, it is cool with me that people use and sell crack, as long as they don't fuck with other people while doing it.
You should seek help, because you need it. Drug use causes crime, especially Crack Cocaine. Your "let them take it" approach is nuts. You make me sick.
You should seek help, because you need it. Drug use causes crime, especially Crack Cocaine. Your "let them take it" approach is nuts. You make me sick.
Think about it though - if it weren't a crime it would actually be much safer. The government, or some sort of agency, would have some oversight on what actually is sold. Plus tax revenue on now illegal drugs would be collected. It is a win-win. The "war on drugs" is a colossal failure, drugs are already widely available.
How is my "let them take it" approach nuts? They already are taking it, and law enforcement dollars are going towards stopping them and it is completely unregulated. Why should a government micromanage someone's life, protecting them from there own idiocy? They have free will, and it is there right to make a decision, even it isn't in there best interest. As long as they aren't hurting others, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
-
You should seek help, because you need it. Drug use causes crime, especially Crack Cocaine. Your "let them take it" approach is nuts. You make me sick.
Think about it though - if it weren't a crime it would actually be much safer. The government, or some sort of agency, would have some oversight on what actually is sold. Plus tax revenue on now illegal drugs would be collected. It is a win-win. The "war on drugs" is a colossal failure, drugs are already widely available.
How is my "let them take it" approach nuts? They already are taking it, and law enforcement dollars are going towards stopping them and it is completely unregulated. Why should a government micromanage someone's life, protecting them from there own idiocy? They have free will, and it is there right to make a decision, even it isn't in there best interest. As long as they aren't hurting others, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Think about it though - if it weren't a crime it would actually be much safer. The government, or some sort of agency, would have some oversight on what actually is sold. Plus tax revenue on now illegal drugs would be collected. It is a win-win. The "war on drugs" is a colossal failure, drugs are already widely available.
How is my "let them take it" approach nuts? They already are taking it, and law enforcement dollars are going towards stopping them and it is completely unregulated. Why should a government micromanage someone's life, protecting them from there own idiocy? They have free will, and it is there right to make a decision, even it isn't in there best interest. As long as they aren't hurting others, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
I'm not going to argue with your poluted logic. Anyone taking crack is "hurting others", their families, society, themselves. If you can't grasp this you are nuts.
-
Think about it though - if it weren't a crime it would actually be much safer. The government, or some sort of agency, would have some oversight on what actually is sold. Plus tax revenue on now illegal drugs would be collected. It is a win-win. The "war on drugs" is a colossal failure, drugs are already widely available.
How is my "let them take it" approach nuts? They already are taking it, and law enforcement dollars are going towards stopping them and it is completely unregulated. Why should a government micromanage someone's life, protecting them from there own idiocy? They have free will, and it is there right to make a decision, even it isn't in there best interest. As long as they aren't hurting others, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
I'm not going to argue with your poluted logic. Anyone taking crack is "hurting others", their families, society, themselves. If you can't grasp this you are nuts.
I'm not going to argue with your poluted logic. Anyone taking crack is "hurting others", their families, society, themselves. If you can't grasp this you are nuts.
And at the same time, people that eat way too much are too. You don't stop them from eating too much. If you can't grasp the concept of free will and civil liberties then you are nuts.
By the way, when I say "hurting others" I mean taking a dump on their civil liberties.
-
I'm not going to argue with your poluted logic. Anyone taking crack is "hurting others", their families, society, themselves. If you can't grasp this you are nuts.
And at the same time, people that eat way too much are too. You don't stop them from eating too much. If you can't grasp the concept of free will and civil liberties then you are nuts.
By the way, when I say "hurting others" I mean taking a dump on their civil liberties.
And at the same time, people that eat way too much are too. You don't stop them from eating too much. If you can't grasp the concept of free will and civil liberties then you are nuts.
By the way, when I say "hurting others" I mean taking a dump on their civil liberties.
[/quote
I think your logic is nuts. I think you are nuts. Most people do. Comparing crack cocaine to over eating is nuts. Spend sometime in a jail or on the street sometime, see the crack heads. You sound like an idiot. Now, go fook yourself I don't want to converse with some dickwad.
-
And at the same time, people that eat way too much are too. You don't stop them from eating too much. If you can't grasp the concept of free will and civil liberties then you are nuts.
By the way, when I say "hurting others" I mean taking a dump on their civil liberties.
[/quote
I think your logic is nuts. I think you are nuts. Most people do. Comparing crack cocaine to over eating is nuts. Spend sometime in a jail or on the street sometime, see the crack heads. You sound like an idiot. Now, go fook yourself I don't want to converse with some dickwad.
I think your logic is nuts. I think you are nuts. Most people do. Comparing crack cocaine to over eating is nuts. Spend sometime in a jail or on the street sometime, see the crack heads. You sound like an idiot. Now, go fook yourself I don't want to converse with some dickwad.
Fine, you don't like my over eating analogy then how about smoking? Smoking is bad for you too, and it is legal. The government should try to take away the right of an individual to smoke, right? The same way they tried to take away the right to drink alcohol, that worked too! You act as if people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and the government is there to meddle in their lives. Even if they are -- let them, it is their right. Try walking around any town in america and see the fat fucks. It is an issue of civil liberties, much like the argument for pro choice of a woman having a right over her own body, so should everyone with the regards to what they ingest.
Now explain to me exactly how it any of my business or the government's business whether or not someone does drugs (besides the, "oh! its illegal" thing, they should be legalized), or going back to the topic, who can marry who.
And nice job keeping it civil.
-
i am happy to of maried and was able to pro-create!
to bad that some poor orphan gets a couple of weirdos as parents!
its a sad state of affairs when they get to adopt. poor kids! thats relly kicking them when there down!
i am happy to of maried and was able to pro-create!
to bad that some poor orphan gets a couple of weirdos as parents!
its a sad state of affairs when they get to adopt. poor kids! thats relly kicking them when there down!
Poor kids! How incredibly horrible it would be to be raised by two people that love you. It would be much better to live in orphange or be adopted by someone who just wants you for the money/benefits.
-
Bunker said:
kids are resiliant they can survive with loving foster parents and im glad some homo didnt adopt me
Yes, the can survive with loving foster parents, but it is also a temporary situation. Many times the children in a foster care system have a myriad of issues that is only exacerbated by moving them around as much as the system does. There is absolutely no proof that gay parents have an adverse affect on a child's well being, and they are loving parents just like everyone else.
I'm sure glad some religious zealot didn't adopt me
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login