Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Never called it a tragedy homeslice, just a sa disgrace. And remember, ths convo is about the gays, which this conservative really doesn't even care about. Just not a priority

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Is that what you call it when someone rebuts the two points in a prior post? Deflection? Not my fault he told a conservative what to think, or that he held up the teacher's strike as a tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Nice deflection.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Really, all conservatives are required to think the way you do. Because you are all so damn unified. And a seven day delay in the school year is the civil rights disgrace of a generation. Right, you mean the inconvenience of arranging for backup care was an unparalleled historical tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

You're clearly not involveed in electoral politics, bc you'd be saying, as a conservative, I really don't even care about this issue But gays prefer that this be the so-called civil rights issue of our generation. Those poor kids hoping to get an EDUCATION. An actual civil rights disgrace, re Chicago teachers...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Looks to me like the first PP is in total accord with the tenth amendment, saying that the fed should not be involved in marriage, which the Constitution definitely does not list as one of their duties. That's why I think DOMA shoul be declared unconstitutional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Federal government? Review the 10th amendment please, stop asking for exceptions.

Anonymous wrote:So your complaint has to do with Obama's evolution on the gay marriage issue? What do you say to Romney who has evolved on pretty much every issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed.

But things do change. Our language changes to reflect that (unless you're French, I suppose).

For most of us, when we "roll up" the window in our cars, it involves a button, not a handle we actually turn. When I was a kid, "looking up [a piece of information]" involved printed books. For my daughter, that phrase is more likely to involve the computer. Heck "cut and paste" used to actually mean cutting and pasting, not simply a series of keystrokes. The meaning of words and phrases changes constantly in an evolving culture.

You are correct. Could we just keep this one thing, just ONE thing? Man and woman, period, end of sentence. Just like Obama/Dumbass believed four years ago.

Why is this one thing so important to you? Can you explain how it's different from people who wanted to keep marriages racially segregated?

As a conservative, I don't think the government has any business preventing me from marrying who I will (assuming no harm - that is, the government does have an interest in establishing minimum ages for marriage). As a conservative, I am appalled by the idea that the federal government should be involved in preserving your semantic deities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed.

But things do change. Our language changes to reflect that (unless you're French, I suppose).

For most of us, when we "roll up" the window in our cars, it involves a button, not a handle we actually turn. When I was a kid, "looking up [a piece of information]" involved printed books. For my daughter, that phrase is more likely to involve the computer. Heck "cut and paste" used to actually mean cutting and pasting, not simply a series of keystrokes. The meaning of words and phrases changes constantly in an evolving culture.

You are correct. Could we just keep this one thing, just ONE thing? Man and woman, period, end of sentence. Just like Obama/Dumbass believed four years ago.

Anonymous wrote:Obama and Biden believed in it about as much as Dick Cheney. You are the fool for thinking these guys suddenly had an epiphany.

Anonymous wrote:Obama and Biden believed in it about as much as Dick Cheney. You are the fool for thinking these guys suddenly had an epiphany.