President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage

page: 20
24
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
His plan is to encourage men to have more anal sex in order to reduce the amount of birth control pills needed by women; and reducing number of abortions needed thus reducing the cost of his health care program




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
His plan is to encourage men to have more anal sex in order to reduce the amount of birth control pills needed by women; and reducing number of abortions needed thus reducing the cost of his health care program


What an ignorant and hateful statement.

First off - not all gay men have anal sex. Second - many straight couples have anal sex.

I'm just not even going to bother with the rest of it.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry


It's not that the Left is "redefining" marriage — it's that conservatives must redefine the debate. The question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot. In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so.


For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist. This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.


It sounds right to me.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry


It's not that the Left is "redefining" marriage — it's that conservatives must redefine the debate. The question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot. In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so.


For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist. This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.


It sounds right to me.


The dictionary is not the boss of us

edit on 5/17/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
His plan is to encourage men to have more anal sex in order to reduce the amount of birth control pills needed by women; and reducing number of abortions needed thus reducing the cost of his health care program


sounds like everybody wins

edit: the fact that you would be opposed to a fictional scenario that would find people having more sex, allow greater access to birth control, reduce the number of abortions, and reduce health care costs should speak volumes. I mean, you really think this is bad stuff?
edit on 18-5-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry


It's not that the Left is "redefining" marriage — it's that conservatives must redefine the debate. The question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot. In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so.


For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist. This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.


It sounds right to me.


Really? This sounds right to you? You could make the same argument and say that we should just define marriage to be between two people of the same race.

I make this argument to point out how stupid it is to resort to prescriptive definitions in such a complex matter as this, as if you could just force everyone to slap themselves on the forehead and say "oh darn, I never realized it was in the definition of marriage that it has to be heterosexual!", but I also acknowledge that the argument may be lost on you or others who actually still feel bitter about allowing mixed-race couples.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 



Definition of MARRIAGE
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
www.merriam-webster.com...

look how modern and well-rounded are both our Merriam and our Webster...

although, I'm sure we'll now hear all about how the communists rewrote the dictionary

have at it

:-)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by maxella1
 



Definition of MARRIAGE
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
www.merriam-webster.com...

look how modern and well-rounded are both our Merriam and our Webster...

although, I'm sure we'll now hear all about how the communists rewrote the dictionary

have at it

:-)


lol, That's awesome!

Problem solved.





top topics
 
24
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join