Gay discrimination

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Sooo, you answer is, because they want it really, really badly. Got it.

It was a good enough reason for the colonies to dump tea in Boston Harbor & declare war [in so many words] on their King.....:eek:
Actually, that's just half - it's because they want it really, really badly, and they believe having it would harm no one, individually or collectively.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
It's not a matter of avoiding responsibility. It's a matter of right time and right place. And that's the parent's decision to make, not those who want to make the entire world come to their viewpoint. And it's a given that the majority of the people working to sabotage marriage are not gay since only a few people are gay.

Parents only have so much control over what their children witness, and when. They can do their best to avoid exposing their offspring to situations they don't care to explain, but life is just full of surprises. Good parents can deal with that. If not, they better never have sex when there are kids in the house, lol.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
No what he was comparing was a KKK demonstration being out in the publics face ...as others a few posts ago were complaining about having to explain a gay parade to there children... as with the KKK..if you didn't like or agree you didn't stick around to watch ...so if you Dont like or agree with a gay parade ...Dont watch..pretty simple....that's his point..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

OK, it was hard to follow since I stopped reading this thread and there was no quote.
It makes sense to me, if you don't like gay marriage don't support it. Now if we could only convince the PC thugs that people should have that option.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
OK, it was hard to follow since I stopped reading this thread and there was no quote.
It makes sense to me, if you don't like gay marriage don't support it. Now if we could only convince the PC thugs that people should have that option.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

We like to refer to ourselves as keyboard tough guys...not pc thugs...please make note of it.....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
It was a good enough reason for the colonies to dump tea in Boston Harbor & declare war [in so many words] on their King.....:eek:
You have really got to stop getting analogy advice from asjssl.

Actually, that's just half - it's because they want it really, really badly, and they believe having it would harm no one, individually or collectively.
They believe that because they want it really, really badly, They don't care if gay marriage will harm anyone. Couldn't care less.

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. That's an absurd saying to mean that just because you call something a thing, doesn't make it that particular thing. If two people get married, that doesn't make it a marriage. A union between a man and a woman is a marriage, a union between two people of the same sex is not. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Civil laws are the structuring principles of human life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. They determine behavior that is acceptable and unacceptable. Homosexuality is not normal, by any criteria you choose to apply. It will never be normal until it is the norm, the most prolific state of being in society. The only way that will happen is when there are more homosexuals than there are heterosexuals.

What does marriage for homosexuals do? It validates and promotes the abnormal as being normal. Homosexual activist, leader and writer Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press: "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." And that's exactly what homosexuals want, and they want it really, really badly. What they want is fantasy, not reality.

By legalizing same-sex marriage, the State becomes an official and active promoter of homosexuality. Homosexuals know this. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, nurturing and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children. Even for people who cannot have children, including older people, marriage still creates the normal conditions for stability in society, as the unions are natural even if children are not a part if it. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

But same-sex marriage does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose is the benefit to society, but rather the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile, and unnatural, by nature. It should not be entitled to, therefore, the protection the State extends to true marriage.

Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing, stability, familial survival, etc. But same-sex marriage changes all this. Since marriage is also a moral issue (not exclusively religious morals, but rather society's morals at large irrespective of any particular religion), redefining marriage is redefining the morals of society. Marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society (not just here in the US) and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land, laws which are contrary to the morals of society.

Make no mistake, this isn't about the "rights" of the minority, regardless of how it's being promoted, it's about the morals of the minority. So then, you have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority? If you answer "Yes," or worse, with a "Yes, IF..." and come up with some spurious justification, then you enter dangerous territory.

There is no argument that can be successfully made to show that promoting abnormalcy in society is not harmful to society, much less that it promotes society. "Consequences be dаmned" is extremely short-sighted, if not reckless. As history shows, the consequences could be gravely significant. At the very least, and I mean the very least, it will create parallel societies. Like we need another one of those. And we can already see evidence of it where same-sex couples are not at all integrated into society at large, but have instead formed their own little pockets of interaction within society. Parallel societies never promote the furtherance of each other. Indeed, they are each weakened. We have also seen evidence of it where activist judges, like the openly gay Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California, stripped people of their core civil right to vote when with the stroke of a pen he invalidated the polls on Proposition 8 defining marriage as being "only between one man and one woman." In a twist of irony we have the morals of the minority stripping away the guaranteed rights of the majority. Yeah, I can see how that will greatly benefit society.

But hey, they want it really, really badly, so they should have it. Right?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
In order to drive home the point that gay marriage is equal marriage and homosexuals aren't getting special rights or anything, the County Clerks of Washtenaw and Muskegon counties have announced that unlike every other Saturday in the history of Saturdays, their offices will be open this Saturday (today) in order to issue marriages licenses to same-sex couples (but not to opposite-sex couples). In addition, to further impress that no special rights are privileges are employed here, the normal three-day waiting period will be waived (for same-sex couples only), and there will be no customary marriage licensing fee (for same-sex couples only). Getting the jump on a judge on Monday in issuing a stay in the order is apparently not even a factor in the decision to open up on Saturday. It's just the right thing to do.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
As we continue the drive to make a mockery of the institution of marriage. There will be NOTHING of value gained, and much lost. ANOTHER "special" class is created. SOON, they will be demanding more, like special tax rates, preference over the "evil" normal people for jobs, or subsidized housing.

The fragmentation of the country continues towards the goal that all of this is working for, a totally divided nation. For divided countries are easily conquered.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
I
You have really got to stop getting analogy advice from asjssl.

They believe that because they want it really, really badly, They don't care if gay marriage will harm anyone. Couldn't care less.

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. That's an absurd saying to mean that just because you call something a thing, doesn't make it that particular thing. If two people get married, that doesn't make it a marriage. A union between a man and a woman is a marriage, a union between two people of the same sex is not. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Civil laws are the structuring principles of human life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. They determine behavior that is acceptable and unacceptable. Homosexuality is not normal, by any criteria you choose to apply. It will never be normal until it is the norm, the most prolific state of being in society. The only way that will happen is when there are more homosexuals than there are heterosexuals.

What does marriage for homosexuals do? It validates and promotes the abnormal as being normal. Homosexual activist, leader and writer Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press: "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." And that's exactly what homosexuals want, and they want it really, really badly. What they want is fantasy, not reality.

By legalizing same-sex marriage, the State becomes an official and active promoter of homosexuality. Homosexuals know this. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, nurturing and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children. Even for people who cannot have children, including older people, marriage still creates the normal conditions for stability in society, as the unions are natural even if children are not a part if it. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

But same-sex marriage does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose is the benefit to society, but rather the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile, and unnatural, by nature. It should not be entitled to, therefore, the protection the State extends to true marriage.

Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing, stability, familial survival, etc. But same-sex marriage changes all this. Since marriage is also a moral issue (not exclusively religious morals, but rather society's morals at large irrespective of any particular religion), redefining marriage is redefining the morals of society. Marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society (not just here in the US) and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land, laws which are contrary to the morals of society.

Make no mistake, this isn't about the "rights" of the minority, regardless of how it's being promoted, it's about the morals of the minority. So then, you have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority? If you answer "Yes," or worse, with a "Yes, IF..." and come up with some spurious justification, then you enter dangerous territory.

There is no argument that can be successfully made to show that promoting abnormalcy in society is not harmful to society, much less that it promotes society. "Consequences be dаmned" is extremely short-sighted, if not reckless. As history shows, the consequences could be gravely significant. At the very least, and I mean the very least, it will create parallel societies. Like we need another one of those. And we can already see evidence of it where same-sex couples are not at all integrated into society at large, but have instead formed their own little pockets of interaction within society. Parallel societies never promote the furtherance of each other. Indeed, they are each weakened. We have also seen evidence of it where activist judges, like the openly gay Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California, stripped people of their core civil right to vote when with the stroke of a pen he invalidated the polls on Proposition 8 defining marriage as being "only between one man and one woman." In a twist of irony we have the morals of the minority stripping away the guaranteed rights of the majority. Yeah, I can see how that will greatly benefit society.

But hey, they want it really, really badly, so they should have it. Right?

Yes ..why can they not have it badly...they have been picked on...had to hide who they are..laughed at....so now..there here...and there queer..good for them!

Also..still do not know 2 people of the same sex getting married affects your life at all....you can copy and paste all the articles you like....but how does 2 women/men affect Mr.Turtles life? It does not...beside getting your panties in a bunch and something else to type...and type away at ...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
 
Last edited:

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
In order to drive home the point that gay marriage is equal marriage and homosexuals aren't getting special rights or anything, the County Clerks of Washtenaw and Muskegon counties have announced that unlike every other Saturday in the history of Saturdays, their offices will be open this Saturday (today) in order to issue marriages licenses to same-sex couples (but not to opposite-sex couples). In addition, to further impress that no special rights are privileges are employed here, the normal three-day waiting period will be waived (for same-sex couples only), and there will be no customary marriage licensing fee (for same-sex couples only). Getting the jump on a judge on Monday in issuing a stay in the order is apparently not even a factor in the decision to open up on Saturday. It's just the right thing to do.


..
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
ANOTHER "special" class is created.
Actually, it could be argued that denying homosexuals the right to marry creates an (unwarranted) "special protection" ... for heterosexuals.

The issue will ultimately be decided on the basis of "equal protection of the law" (as it was in Michigan) ... and I suspect that it will be decided a lot sooner than many people think ...

Accompanied by much gnashing of the teeth of course.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Actually, it could be argued that denying homosexuals the right to marry creates an (unwarranted) "special protection" ... for heterosexuals.
In the context of the history of human civilization and society, and the history of marriage and what it was created for, that's an argument I would love to read. It's an argument that cannot be made without redefining the term itself.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
In the context of the history of human civilization and society, and the history of marriage and what it was created for, that's an argument I would love to read. It's an argument that cannot be made without redefining the term itself.
But if I recall correctly, you yourself have stated that definitions of words change over the years to keep up with the times ... ;)
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Here's what I see as the real crackup (humor) of this whole thing, at least from my meager understanding of the issue:

1. People - wherever they are on the issue of marriage between homosexuals - will usually concede that homosexuals cannot really legally be denied the comparable substantive legal benefits that would accrue via a civil union (benefits, survivorship, etc.) as would accrue to married heterosexual couples.

2. Homosexuals can get "married" via a religious (but not necessarily legally-binding from the perspective of the state) ceremony in a church, whether or not the state chooses to recognize that as a marriage - assuming they can find a church that is willing to do so. And there is no way the state can legally prevent that from happening.

So it's really all about whether the state wants to persist in maintaining a delusion that doesn't comport with the reality of what is actually happening on the ground at present.

Churches should be left to decide whether they will perform such ceremonies - whether recognized by the state or not - all according to what their own particular religious tenets call for.

Continued resistance to according everyone the rights now enjoyed only by some is likely to result in unintended consequences, which those doing the resisting will not welcome or find pleasant.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
 

Attachments

  • 1395514929054.jpg
    1395514929054.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 26

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
But if I recall correctly, you yourself have stated that definitions of words change over the years to keep up with the times ... ;)
Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China, but OK, you're right, I have said that, sort of, because it's true. I don't recall ever saying they change "to keep up with the times," although that is more or less what happens. But definitions change over time, usually gradually, based on the need to change it for more precise communication and understanding, rather than quickly and dramatically based on a political want. Marriage, baby, child, these are among many words that have long accepted and understood meanings, but political agendas are trying to radically change their meanings for a personal want, not a societal need.

Crap. Got a load. :D

I look forward to reading the argument on how denying homosexuals the right to marry creates an (unwarranted) "special protection" ... for heterosexuals. ;)
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
You have really got to stop getting analogy advice from asjssl.

:rolleyes:

They believe that because they want it really, really badly, They don't care if gay marriage will harm anyone. Couldn't care less.

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. That's an absurd saying to mean that just because you call something a thing, doesn't make it that particular thing. If two people get married, that doesn't make it a marriage. A union between a man and a woman is a marriage, a union between two people of the same sex is not. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

If two people are married, it is a marriage.

Civil laws are the structuring principles of human life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. They determine behavior that is acceptable and unacceptable. Homosexuality is not normal, by any criteria you choose to apply. It will never be normal until it is the norm, the most prolific state of being in society. The only way that will happen is when there are more homosexuals than there are heterosexuals.

So you're saying that only what is 'normal' is acceptable?


What does marriage for homosexuals do? It validates and promotes the abnormal as being normal. Homosexual activist, leader and writer Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press: "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." And that's exactly what homosexuals want, and they want it really, really badly. What they want is fantasy, not reality.

Some people's views need to be changed.

By legalizing same-sex marriage, the State becomes an official and active promoter of homosexuality. Homosexuals know this. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

"Official and active promoter"? There's a pretty wide gulf between allowing and actively promoting. Schools teach tolerance of differences, and parents can override it with their own views, just as they always have. And kids can grow up and make up their own minds, just as we have. Punishing state employees would depend on the context - might be justified, might not.

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, nurturing and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children. Even for people who cannot have children, including older people, marriage still creates the normal conditions for stability in society, as the unions are natural even if children are not a part if it. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

And society will continue to benefit from hetero marriages. [And 50% of those marriages will last.]

But same-sex marriage does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose is the benefit to society, but rather the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile, and unnatural, by nature. It should not be entitled to, therefore, the protection the State extends to true marriage.

It can serve a much needed benefit to society: adoption and/or foster care. Win/win.

Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing, stability, familial survival, etc. But same-sex marriage changes all this. Since marriage is also a moral issue (not exclusively religious morals, but rather society's morals at large irrespective of any particular religion), redefining marriage is redefining the morals of society. Marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society (not just here in the US) and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land, laws which are contrary to the morals of society.

We have no way of knowing how many people who vow to remain faithful till death do they part actually keep those vows, do we? Emotional and sexual fidelity is a tough row to hoe, for a whole lot of hetero people, and always has been. At any rate, half of them won't keep the legal commitment, regardless of the promises about fidelity, which says marriage is already in trouble. Maybe we should be trying to find out why, and deal with that.
Perhaps, gay marriage could actually have the effect of reinforcing what marriage is all about: two people making a commitment to each other, to 'forsake all others', because they want to, and not because it's what their parents, friends, and society expect of them at a certain age.
Too many get married for the wrong reasons <raising hand: my first marriage was primarily to get out of my parents' house>, maybe seeing couples do it solely for love will be a positive development.

Make no mistake, this isn't about the "rights" of the minority, regardless of how it's being promoted, it's about the morals of the minority. So then, you have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority? If you answer "Yes," or worse, with a "Yes, IF..." and come up with some spurious justification, then you enter dangerous territory.

You don't have to adopt anyone else's morals. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, does that mean society accepts it as normal and moral?
No one is forced to accept morals - we each decide what we want to believe is moral, and that is not always what is legal. And vice versa.

There is no argument that can be successfully made to show that promoting abnormalcy in society is not harmful to society, much less that it promotes society. "Consequences be dаmned" is extremely short-sighted, if not reckless. As history shows, the consequences could be gravely significant. At the very least, and I mean the very least, it will create parallel societies. Like we need another one of those. And we can already see evidence of it where same-sex couples are not at all integrated into society at large, but have instead formed their own little pockets of interaction within society. Parallel societies never promote the furtherance of each other. Indeed, they are each weakened. We have also seen evidence of it where activist judges, like the openly gay Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California, stripped people of their core civil right to vote when with the stroke of a pen he invalidated the polls on Proposition 8 defining marriage as being "only between one man and one woman." In a twist of irony we have the morals of the minority stripping away the guaranteed rights of the majority. Yeah, I can see how that will greatly benefit society.

But hey, they want it really, really badly, so they should have it. Right?

The consequences could be beneficial, or neutral - we don't know until it happens. And what rights are being stripped away? If the Judge's actions were legal [ie: based on a technicality], then do the vote again. How often are politicians stripped of their right to run for office because an 'activist judge' declares their entry invalid, for some reason? It doesn't strip them of the right to turn around and try again, it just ensures that the law is followed.

PS The Michigan situation was one where the County Clerks knew that the right that had just been granted would be challenged [it was] and an emergency stay requested [it was] before anyone had a chance to exercise the rights, [rights the people had never been able to exercise before, which does make it special] if the usual Mon-Fri routine was followed. If a judge's orders don't count for anything, why do we have them? Of course they were getting a jump on the opposition - everyone does, in every legal case, if they can. Just like every loser appeals the decision, if he can afford to continue the fight. It's the American Way.
 

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
You have really got to stop getting analogy advice from asjssl.

They believe that because they want it really, really badly, They don't care if gay marriage will harm anyone. Couldn't care less.

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. That's an absurd saying to mean that just because you call something a thing, doesn't make it that particular thing. If two people get married, that doesn't make it a marriage. A union between a man and a woman is a marriage, a union between two people of the same sex is not. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Civil laws are the structuring principles of human life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. They determine behavior that is acceptable and unacceptable. Homosexuality is not normal, by any criteria you choose to apply. It will never be normal until it is the norm, the most prolific state of being in society. The only way that will happen is when there are more homosexuals than there are heterosexuals.

What does marriage for homosexuals do? It validates and promotes the abnormal as being normal. Homosexual activist, leader and writer Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press: "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." And that's exactly what homosexuals want, and they want it really, really badly. What they want is fantasy, not reality.

By legalizing same-sex marriage, the State becomes an official and active promoter of homosexuality. Homosexuals know this. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, nurturing and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children. Even for people who cannot have children, including older people, marriage still creates the normal conditions for stability in society, as the unions are natural even if children are not a part if it. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

But same-sex marriage does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose is the benefit to society, but rather the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile, and unnatural, by nature. It should not be entitled to, therefore, the protection the State extends to true marriage.

Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing, stability, familial survival, etc. But same-sex marriage changes all this. Since marriage is also a moral issue (not exclusively religious morals, but rather society's morals at large irrespective of any particular religion), redefining marriage is redefining the morals of society. Marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society (not just here in the US) and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land, laws which are contrary to the morals of society.

Make no mistake, this isn't about the "rights" of the minority, regardless of how it's being promoted, it's about the morals of the minority. So then, you have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority? If you answer "Yes," or worse, with a "Yes, IF..." and come up with some spurious justification, then you enter dangerous territory.

There is no argument that can be successfully made to show that promoting abnormalcy in society is not harmful to society, much less that it promotes society. "Consequences be dаmned" is extremely short-sighted, if not reckless. As history shows, the consequences could be gravely significant. At the very least, and I mean the very least, it will create parallel societies. Like we need another one of those. And we can already see evidence of it where same-sex couples are not at all integrated into society at large, but have instead formed their own little pockets of interaction within society. Parallel societies never promote the furtherance of each other. Indeed, they are each weakened. We have also seen evidence of it where activist judges, like the openly gay Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California, stripped people of their core civil right to vote when with the stroke of a pen he invalidated the polls on Proposition 8 defining marriage as being "only between one man and one woman." In a twist of irony we have the morals of the minority stripping away the guaranteed rights of the majority. Yeah, I can see how that will greatly benefit society.

But hey, they want it really, really badly, so they should have it. Right?



Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
 

Attachments

  • 1395779809488.jpg
    1395779809488.jpg
    100.2 KB · Views: 22

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The text on that picture makes no sense. Everything mentioned, on the top and the bottom, is unnatural. No bigotry involved. The question becomes which of the things mentioned benefit society at large and help ensure the survival of the species. The things mentioned at the bottom do, the thing mentioned at the top, not so much. Try again.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
The text on that picture makes no sense. Everything mentioned, on the top and the bottom, is unnatural. No bigotry involved. The question becomes which of the things mentioned benefit society at large and help ensure the survival of the species. The things mentioned at the bottom do, the thing mentioned at the top, not so much. Try again.

That wasn't nice. He now has to sort through thousands of images trying to find one that makes sense.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well really the only thing unnatural are combustible engines as opposed to combustion engines.
 
Top