Dabo's statement couldn't have been better in my opinion. He's come a long way over his career.
SIAP but was suprised to not see a thread about Dabo and this Family Council
- Thread starter OculusTiger
- Start date
Please just shut up. If you don't think marriage is a constitutional fundamental right read Loving v Virginia. And read how the govt argued how kids would be all messed up if whites could legally marry a non-white.
Funny how all these holier than thou marriage police are on their second, third, or fourth marriage and how many take $$$ from gay or lesbians in their businesses.
Sorry but you're just freaking dumb as a doorknob. I have said ad nauseum (that means many times to folks like you who seem to be a bit slow) that I agree that same sex couples should have recognition for their unions under the law. If you actually read what I said (which you didn't because it would go above your education level) then you'd realize that I agreed and have actually protested a lot of things such as DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell in the past. One thing that is enduring with your side of this issue is an inability to even have a discussion without hurling around accusations and labels. You seem to lack the ability go deep enough to understand these complex issues.
Sorry for being a total ass but it really annoys me when people are too stupid to read before they comment. If you want to have an honest and sincere disagreement, that's fine. But please, learn to read and learn to comprehend there's more to an issue than a 1st grade thought process. Know where a person actually stands before you choose to argue with them.
Change is coming, sucks you can't stop it doesn't it? Insert old man screaming "I hate change!"
I'm fine with change. Life always changes....I can start by changing your diaper.
Speaking as someone who has only in the last 10 years gotten on board with all these social changes, at least there is still hope for some of us older guys who realize everyone should live their life and be happy as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's happiness. I just have better things to worry about and realize humans are humans regardless of religion. No diapers here.
Look at the bolded portion & read the case I quoted (loving v va.) and then get back to me, dumbass.
So, the law is how you feel? Fasinating & scary. Oh, and you're still a dumbass. Actually, you sound like the radical Muslims.A judicial precedent doesn't change how I feel about a subject, Dutch. Sorry if that's too hard for you to comprehend, but that's how I feel. I'm not basing my life on what the court says.
That being said, I'm not going to read the court case info. I'm familiar with it. Mixed race marriages or anything having to do with the abomination that is racism really has nothing to do with this. Further, I HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT I SUPPORT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION many times. I believe marriage is as it has almost always been defined... one man, one woman.
Btw, have you looked at the website for this nefarious hate group? What a huge lie this is!
Btw, have you looked at the website for this nefarious hate group? What a huge lie this is!
You totally misrepresent my views. I am quite close to you on this but you just want to start a fight I guess. I do not want our government ever making social policy...ever. I don't want laws against people and I would prefer the government have as little power as possible. When we let the government make social policy, we think it's great if we agree. But what people forget is that tomorrow the government can change and start making policies against your freedoms. Best it stay out of it entirely. If that's such a problem for you, then you're basically saying you don't respect my right to have an opinion. Maybe you should spend some time around people who deal with everything that comes with homosexuality. It's not an easy life and there's a lot to deal with. I have no desire to do anything but try to help people and love them for who they are. I don't have to agree with their lifestyles to do that. You're an obnoxious idiot of a person but I still love you!
You said marriage was not an equal right, the case I quoted says the opposite. So, you're argument is crap. Yea, I get it, you're religious and this is how you feel. But, continue to go stick your head in the sand.
And, Dabo made his own decision. Funny how if someone criticizes his play calling, recruiting, or hiring people like you freak out. Stand behind the guy for making a decision or changing his mind y'all still freak out. My goodness, you are the one dumber than a doornail or another holier than thou.
this post is dedicated to @tigertommy1.
here's to hoping, after clicking this link, you sink into some sort of despair and cancel your membership to TI
For the rest, its a link to a VOX article on a gallup poll. The poll paints a scary picture for the religious right. TLDR for the link: the whole country is moving left on almost every single major social issue...
here's to hoping, after clicking this link, you sink into some sort of despair and cancel your membership to TI
For the rest, its a link to a VOX article on a gallup poll. The poll paints a scary picture for the religious right. TLDR for the link: the whole country is moving left on almost every single major social issue...
So, should the legal definition of marriage be defined by anything? So, would you be opposed to 3 or 4 consenting adults marrying the whole group? Or would you be opposed to a man marrying a sheep ? If you are opposed to either of these, what is the basis of your opposition?
this post is dedicated to @tigertommy1.
here's to hoping, after clicking this link, you sink into some sort of despair and cancel your membership to TI
For the rest, its a link to a VOX article on a gallup poll. The poll paints a scary picture for the religious right. TLDR for the link: the whole country is moving left on almost every single major social issue...
AH yes. Iceheart, my follower, has entered the scene. Been wondering where you've been. You are probably correct that their are people scared as they watch things unfold. The true followers of Jesus already know what is and will be happening to this country and the world, as the Bible spells it out for us. We have no fear as we anxiously await His return.
After only reading the first post, I typed this reply: "jesus. the animal thing is pure idiocy. there is a clear distinction and you know it."
While typing that reply, you put up the second post. I think im wrong. You genuinely dont see a distinction, and as i've said before, we are pretty much speaking different languages. The bolded is literally foreign to me.
Well, actually there is no distinction if we are talking about people having the right to happiness. and having the same opportunity as others. All you need to do is a simple google search. There are people marrying animal, although it is not legally recognized in most of the world. So, do you see a distinction for the group marriage people?
i dont understand what you mean re: a right to happiness? nobody is talking about granting everyone a right to do anything that makes them happy.
I already posted this but got no response. I'm interested in your opinion on this because there is some chance I misread you, so I'm bumping. Here is my original reply:
Perhaps I misread but none of what you said is a first amendment issue. BSA is changing due to societal pressure and your church doesn't like that. Churches are splitting because of the ever growing number of people who don't take exception with homosexuality. None of this is being forced by the government. What protections are not being received here? And again, no one is forcing churches to marry gay couples.
OK. The same rights as heterosexuals. however you want to construe what those rights are. I married my wife as an act of fulfilment and no other reason, so I construe that as happiness. The gov't sanctioned perks etc that come with the marriage license had no bearing on my desire to marry her. So, I will just say the right to marry, like the 3 lesbians in the UK that "married" each other as a group. So, do you see a distinction here? If you agree that more than 2 people can marry into a group, then is there a limit to how many? Where is that distinction, who decides and why? The point I am getting to is that if there are distinctions then these are nothing more moral lines drawn in the sand. Yet, Christians are told that their moral lines cannot be used anymore. Certain Muslims have yet a different moral line drawn in the sand; so to speak, as they will forcibly marry children. You would say that the gov't can no longer force gays out of legal marriage because the traditional distinctions are not valid. These being moral distinctions. You would also say that the Muslim view of marrying children is not valid. This can only be denied based on a moral distinction. So, it's ok for you to use moral distinction when it fits your conscience but you will not allow others to exercise moral distinctions that don't add up to yours.
Similar threads
