Why aren't civil unions good enough? They are the same thing, they just use a different word. Marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, now because the gays want to take it over all of a sudden we need to change the meaning of the word.
Civil Unions aren't good enough because they're not the same thing. Civil Unions, by and large, do not offer the exact same benefits and legal rights that marriage offers.
Add to this, a handful of states have outright banned civil unions as well, leaving gay couples completely out in the cold.
No, I can't except this. If you oppose gay marriage, if you oppose granting equal rights to a minority, then you are a bigot. There can be no compromise on this, no rationale explaining how you are in fact not a bigot when every single scrap of evidence points to you being so.
And if you support gay marriage you must also in fact be a homosexual. There is no compromise on this, no rationale explaining how you are in fact not a homosexual of some kind when every single scrap of evidence points to you being so.
I am a black gay female animal.
Because I think black people should have equal rights as white people. I also like that women can vote. I also think that gay people should be able to marry. I also don't think beastiality is cool.
It's nice to finally get in touch with my real self. So far I've thought that I was a straight white human male. Boy must I have been deluded.
Why aren't civil unions good enough? They are the same thing, they just use a different word. Marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, now because the gays want to take it over all of a sudden we need to change the meaning of the word.
There are a couple things wrong with that, like Adam and Eve having children after Abel* and the Lot's wife thing just being silly in an out of character way, but overall pretty good.
*Have these people never played Command and Conquer? Where do they think the name Seth came from?
Why aren't civil unions good enough? They are the same thing, they just use a different word. Marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, now because the gays want to take it over all of a sudden we need to change the meaning of the word.
Why would we want to exclude a section of our society from a wholesome institution like marriage?
What's the benefit in that? Having all those people kept outside the beneficial institutions we have that promote stable happy lives and families?
The real fight is if marriage should be a religious, or civil, issue.
I personally would like to give religion the sole control over marriage, and then strip any legal or civil benefits from it and give the government power in these aspects and just call it something else. Hetero/Homo all the same to government and let the jesus brigade do what they want and fume when their pastor can't do shit for them.
This is pretty much my stance, let them call it whatever they want. The government will solely recognize civil unions, which will be between any two consenting adults who wish to form a long term relationship.
The real fight is if marriage should be a religious, or civil, issue.
No, this is the fight some Libertarians wish was the real fight.
For everyone else marriage is simply the regular social institution and the real issue is whether gays can join it.
Aside from gay people marrying, there is no real controversy about the current arrangement.
Well, other than the fact that 'marriage' is a word with religious connotations, and that you can get married in a church. I mean, if the church was willing to call their thing something else instead then that would be even better, but I figure we should throw the babies a bone.
The institution implied by marriage has a certain cultural depth and prestige that I think is valuable to the people in it.
Besides, in reality marriage is already currently a civil issue. That's why courts and legislatures and referendums are defining its scope rather than synods.
The real fight is if marriage should be a religious, or civil, issue.
No, this is the fight some Libertarians wish was the real fight.
For everyone else marriage is simply the regular social institution and the real issue is whether gays can join it.
Aside from gay people marrying, there is no real controversy about the current arrangement.
Well, other than the fact that 'marriage' is a word with religious connotations, and that you can get married in a church. I mean, if the church was willing to call their thing something else instead then that would be even better, but I figure we should throw the babies a bone.
Yeah, see that's where I stand.
Marriage is a religious term and a priest can do it....
Ok fine. I'll give them that marriage is a religious term, and thus can be defined and is subject to religious law. But on the other hand by separation of church and state religion has now power in the legal sense.
So religion can wed only who they want and not recognize anything else. But the state doesn't recognize them and let's any two people "kabooza" that want to and recognizes that.
Ok fine. I'll give them that marriage is a religious term, and thus can be defined and is subject to religious law.
What?
Any justice of the peace can marry two people. Any person of any religion or no religion can currently contract a straight marriage if they aren't already in one.
In what why is that subject to any religious law?
It's easier to become a justice of the peace than a notary for godsake.
That's like saying you'll grant that marriage is a nautical term governed by naval regulations because ship's captains can marry people.
There are a couple things wrong with that, like Adam and Eve having children after Abel
Somehow, I don't think incest between siblings makes that any better.
There's also something about how at one point someone just goes to another village and finds a wife with no explanation as to how the other villages got there
My theory is that God basically had a bunch of Gardens sort of like Vaults, and just did different combinations of people to see what would work out.
This theory was formulated during a run of "Children of Eden" with the gay actor playing God.
The real fight is if marriage should be a religious, or civil, issue.
No, this is the fight some Libertarians wish was the real fight.
For everyone else marriage is simply the regular social institution and the real issue is whether gays can join it.
Aside from gay people marrying, there is no real controversy about the current arrangement.
Well, other than the fact that 'marriage' is a word with religious connotations, and that you can get married in a church. I mean, if the church was willing to call their thing something else instead then that would be even better, but I figure we should throw the babies a bone.
Yeah, see that's where I stand.
Marriage is a religious term and a priest can do it....
Ok fine. I'll give them that marriage is a religious term, and thus can be defined and is subject to religious law. But on the other hand by separation of church and state religion has now power in the legal sense.
So religion can wed only who they want and not recognize anything else. But the state doesn't recognize them and let's any two people "kabooza" that want to and recognizes that.
It works on so many levels.
This is pretty much my stance on it. I'm fine with marriage being a strictly religious ceremony dictated by religious law as long as all legal perks that go along with being married are completely removed. This will most certainly never happen though.
I think that the word marriage is too loaded. I think what we currently call "marriage" in legal circles should be retermed Civil Unions, and *all* Civil Unions should be brought up to that level.
But this will probably never happen and I'm pretty sure people on both sides would object for whatever reason
There are a couple things wrong with that, like Adam and Eve having children after Abel
Somehow, I don't think incest between siblings makes that any better.
You made me drag out my Bible to look this up!
Then I realized I could just google it. Apparently they only had one kid after that, named Seth, so it's still mommy porking just not with a fratricidal son. Of course, women could have been born during this time and nobody cared to record them, I don't know.
It's not like civil-unions-for-all is a brilliant political strategy that's just never occurred to us stupid 'mos. You will never ever pass a law that renames marriage for straight people. Especially if you rename it to something shared with the gay.
If the religious right cooperated, you might have a chance, but they'd fight it tooth and nail. More obvious separation of church and state is the opposite of what they want.
Apparently from the hebrew text of Genesis 4:16 you can either take it to mean Cain left to go live in the Land of Nod, presumably with other people God created, or you can read into the word "nod" which means "to wander" and assume it means Cain left his family to wander forever.
There were a people who the Hebrews called the Cainites who were nomadic, so the latter explanation is more likely a creation story for these nomads.
Apparently from the hebrew text of Genesis 4:16 you can either take it to mean Cain left to go live in the Land of Nod, presumably with other people God created, or you can read into the word "nod" which means "to wander" and assume it means Cain left his family to wander forever.
There were a people who the Hebrews called the Cainites who were nomadic, so the latter explanation is more likely a creation story for these nomads.
On the other hand, it's not unusual for biblical names to be applied to random stuff, such as calling Christians Edomites and Spain Sepharad.
It's not like civil-unions-for-all is a brilliant political strategy that's just never occurred to us stupid 'mos. You will never ever pass a law that renames marriage for straight people. Especially if you rename it to something shared with the gay.
If the religious right cooperated, you might have a chance, but they'd fight it tooth and nail. More obvious separation of church and state is the opposite of what they want.
I never meant to say it was the easiest option, I just think it is the obvious final destination. Because, you've gotta believe that after this fight is won (which it will be) in whatever way it is, that the next step is to get religion out of the issue entirely. Civil Unions are the government recognising the societal and long term tax benefits to them of stable couples, whether homo or heterosexual, God should have nothing to do with it.
Pretty much. I recognize that Civil Unions are "separate but equal", but they are a stepping stone. I would much rather have all couples treated equally under the law first; marriage is a loaded word and concept that we've allowed to become too intrinsically tied to one set of rules set forth by religious ideals. We have the power to pass legislation that ensures people are treated equally, but we cannot legislate away some people's preconceptions, and they will fight to the end to protect what, in the end, is a silly word.
Treat people equally in the eyes of the law, though, and society will slowly change around it.
It's not like civil-unions-for-all is a brilliant political strategy that's just never occurred to us stupid 'mos. You will never ever pass a law that renames marriage for straight people. Especially if you rename it to something shared with the gay.
If the religious right cooperated, you might have a chance, but they'd fight it tooth and nail. More obvious separation of church and state is the opposite of what they want.
I never meant to say it was the easiest option, I just think it is the obvious final destination. Because, you've gotta believe that after this fight is won (which it will be) in whatever way it is, that the next step is to get religion out of the issue entirely. Civil Unions are the government recognising the societal and long term tax benefits to them of stable couples, whether homo or heterosexual, God should have nothing to do with it.
Marriage predates religion, so there's not conflict of church and state for the government to use the word "Marriage."
Cervetus on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
So people use the democratic process, vote their minds as they are allowed to in this country, things don't go your way, and now you scream for a federal mandate.
Typical.
Last night was a great night. The right took VA, the right took NJ, the right spoke out in Maine.
Rock on America.
Hey, let's have a vote on if you should have the right to marry! Who cares if it fucks up your life, it's the political process!
Naa, my marriage is rooted in tradition and religion and various other things from the past many dozens of years, not a new fangled liberal idea designed to force feed the conservative majority in this country a lifestyle that does not go along with our beliefs.
This is still a Christian nation and the silent majority who has sat on the sidelines not putting up a fight is finally waking up and taking a stand against those who are trying to change it.
*rubs temples*
Okay, man, I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I'm Catholic. I believe that, yes, if we're a democratic country we have to live with the decisions the people of that country make as long as it's legal (meaning, we have to hold ourselves to the "You have representation, it's just not the type you like" we hold Pubbies to)
However
Why the fuck do you even care if gays get married, man? What does it affect you at all? You're married, right? So if you know Tom is cornholing Steve legally and can now enjoy the full rights that comes with marrying Steve, does it make you more gay? Are you saying that having the knowledge that somewhere in Maine there's a wedding cakes with two dudes on top somehow compels you to take it in the ass?
If no, then, why do you care? Really? I mean, you'd agree gay people have rights, right? And it says in the Declaration of Independence that all citizens of the US have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", right? Therefore, wouldn't restricting them from getting married violate at least two of those tenets? And, before you ask, it doesn't excuse say, pedophilia or beastiality because both of those are a violation of liberty (obviously children aren't mature enough to objectively determine whether they want to get married, doubly so for animals) and a restriction on one of the involved parties' pursuit of happiness.
I mean, I just don't get it. Why even care? I'm in the military and I swore to defend the people of the United States. I already knew that meant defending people I don't agree with. I mean, for Chrissakes I joined when Bush was prez and even though I personally hated the man I was willing to be subordinate to him as he was my duly elected commander in chief. Shouldn't we as a people be more willing to defend the rights of people we disagree with?
Jezo is so far up his ass on the NJ governors race I would actually question if he lives here or not. Christie ran in the general on a strong platform of "I will somehow cut your taxes" and "I am in fact, not John Corzine." If he happened to make any other statements in between those two it was to distinctly conservative groups that were voting straight R anyway but maybe needed some excitement for when it came to the polls.
If you asked most voters around here "So what do you think about Chris Christies stance on abortion now that hes elected?" You'd either get "I don't care" or "Whats Chris Christies stance on abortion?" more often then not.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
So people use the democratic process, vote their minds as they are allowed to in this country, things don't go your way, and now you scream for a federal mandate.
Typical.
Last night was a great night. The right took VA, the right took NJ, the right spoke out in Maine.
Rock on America.
Hey, let's have a vote on if you should have the right to marry! Who cares if it fucks up your life, it's the political process!
Naa, my marriage is rooted in tradition and religion and various other things from the past many dozens of years, not a new fangled liberal idea designed to force feed the conservative majority in this country a lifestyle that does not go along with our beliefs.
This is still a Christian nation and the silent majority who has sat on the sidelines not putting up a fight is finally waking up and taking a stand against those who are trying to change it.
*rubs temples*
Okay, man, I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I'm Catholic. I believe that, yes, if we're a democratic country we have to live with the decisions the people of that country make as long as it's legal (meaning, we have to hold ourselves to the "You have representation, it's just not the type you like" we hold Pubbies to)
However
Why the fuck do you even care if gays get married, man? What does it affect you at all? You're married, right? So if you know Tom is cornholing Steve legally and can now enjoy the full rights that comes with marrying Steve, does it make you more gay? Are you saying that having the knowledge that somewhere in Maine there's a wedding cakes with two dudes on top somehow compels you to take it in the ass?
If no, then, why do you care? Really? I mean, you'd agree gay people have rights, right? And it says in the Declaration of Independence that all citizens of the US have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", right? Therefore, wouldn't restricting them from getting married violate at least two of those tenets? And, before you ask, it doesn't excuse say, pedophilia or beastiality because both of those are a violation of liberty (obviously children aren't mature enough to objectively determine whether they want to get married, doubly so for animals) and a restriction on one of the involved parties' pursuit of happiness.
I mean, I just don't get it. Why even care? I'm in the military and I swore to defend the people of the United States. I already knew that meant defending people I don't agree with. I mean, for Chrissakes I joined when Bush was prez and even though I personally hated the man I was willing to be subordinate to him as he was my duly elected commander in chief. Shouldn't we as a people be more willing to defend the rights of people we disagree with?
I always like to mock people who say this is a Christian nation, because America has consistently failed to live up to the teachings of Christ, quite often purposely and with the express consent, encouragement, and leadership of so-called "Christians". If this country really is Christian, then our history almost certainly guarantees that we're going to hell, and fake Christians like Jezo are going to be working hard to make sure we get there faster.
What a shock eastern washington voted largely against gay rights. Also ref 71 shows that even when we try and do seperate but equeal measures the religious right screams about sanctity of marriage and homo queers raping your children with immunity. Ahh progress.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
What a shock eastern washington voted largely against gay rights. Also ref 71 shows that even when we try and do seperate but equeal measures the religious right screams about sanctity of marriage and homo queers raping your children with immunity. Ahh progress.
Wonder what's up with Pierce County...is Tacoma just that backwards, or is that the Army/Air Force influence down there?
What a shock eastern washington voted largely against gay rights. Also ref 71 shows that even when we try and do seperate but equeal measures the religious right screams about sanctity of marriage and homo queers raping your children with immunity. Ahh progress.
Every state seems to have an asshole, or in this case an ass crack. I live in the Big Bend of Florida, which is just to the east of Florida's asshole, the Panhandle. I'm sure the people that live there would get on just fine with the eastern Washingtonians.
What a shock eastern washington voted largely against gay rights. Also ref 71 shows that even when we try and do seperate but equeal measures the religious right screams about sanctity of marriage and homo queers raping your children with immunity. Ahh progress.
Wonder what's up with Pierce County...is Tacoma just that backwards, or is that the Army/Air Force influence down there?
Pierce is pretty conservatard as well, the futher your get from seattle the more likely you are to be one.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
What a shock eastern washington voted largely against gay rights. Also ref 71 shows that even when we try and do seperate but equeal measures the religious right screams about sanctity of marriage and homo queers raping your children with immunity. Ahh progress.
Wonder what's up with Pierce County...is Tacoma just that backwards, or is that the Army/Air Force influence down there?
Pierce is pretty conservatard as well, the futher your get from seattle the more likely you are to be one.
Just odd to me because the mud-flap quotient seems higher up here (Kitsap) than down there. But I haven't been here that long.
Just odd to me because the mud-flap quotient seems higher up here (Kitsap) than down there. But I haven't been here that long.
Pierce doesn't tend to have as many "get'r done" type conservatives as the "Fiscal" type.
And don't forget washington voters ref 71 is just round 1 of this bullshit the no on 71 fucks already are planning for next year and the year after etc etc.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
What a shock eastern washington voted largely against gay rights. Also ref 71 shows that even when we try and do seperate but equeal measures the religious right screams about sanctity of marriage and homo queers raping your children with immunity. Ahh progress.
Wonder what's up with Pierce County...is Tacoma just that backwards, or is that the Army/Air Force influence down there?
Pierce is pretty conservatard as well, the futher your get from seattle the more likely you are to be one.
...except in Olympia [Thurston County]. For future reference, Spokane is the asshole of Washington.
Pretty much. I recognize that Civil Unions are "separate but equal", but they are a stepping stone. I would much rather have all couples treated equally under the law first; marriage is a loaded word and concept that we've allowed to become too intrinsically tied to one set of rules set forth by religious ideals. We have the power to pass legislation that ensures people are treated equally, but we cannot legislate away some people's preconceptions, and they will fight to the end to protect what, in the end, is a silly word.
Treat people equally in the eyes of the law, though, and society will slowly change around it.
But then the situation arises where it's actually harder to get gay marriage because the gays already have their civil unions, why do they want to destroy marriage?!
Civil unions are a stepping stone in the right direction in theory, but it'll make the final step harder to achieve.
Also, calling everything a civil union and making marriage only a church thing would be so much harder than getting gay marriage. Now the gays just want to destroy the sanctity and tradition of marriage, if they started going after marriage in general there'd be hell to pay. It's a good solution, but it's less likely to happen then just getting the gays to marry.
By the way, do we have any age breakdown from exit polls for people who voted against gay marriage? I'd imagine the older people are the only ones who are opposing it. And the crazy younger people.
There are a couple things wrong with that, like Adam and Eve having children after Abel
Somehow, I don't think incest between siblings makes that any better.
You made me drag out my Bible to look this up!
Then I realized I could just google it. Apparently they only had one kid after that, named Seth, so it's still mommy porking just not with a fratricidal son. Of course, women could have been born during this time and nobody cared to record them, I don't know.
This isn't a religion thread, this is off-topic, and doesn't really matter, but Adam and Eve, according to Genesis, did have other kids, including daughters. It's like five sentences after the birth of Seth. Your Google-fu has failed you miserably.
Posts
Civil Unions aren't good enough because they're not the same thing. Civil Unions, by and large, do not offer the exact same benefits and legal rights that marriage offers.
Add to this, a handful of states have outright banned civil unions as well, leaving gay couples completely out in the cold.
There are a couple things wrong with that, like Adam and Eve having children after Abel* and the Lot's wife thing just being silly in an out of character way, but overall pretty good.
*Have these people never played Command and Conquer? Where do they think the name Seth came from?
This is pretty much my stance, let them call it whatever they want. The government will solely recognize civil unions, which will be between any two consenting adults who wish to form a long term relationship.
No, this is the fight some Libertarians wish was the real fight.
For everyone else marriage is simply the regular social institution and the real issue is whether gays can join it.
Aside from gay people marrying, there is no real controversy about the current arrangement.
I could live with this being the argument, and it has a certain appeal to it on a philosophical and tactical level.
Well, other than the fact that 'marriage' is a word with religious connotations, and that you can get married in a church. I mean, if the church was willing to call their thing something else instead then that would be even better, but I figure we should throw the babies a bone.
Besides, in reality marriage is already currently a civil issue. That's why courts and legislatures and referendums are defining its scope rather than synods.
Yeah, see that's where I stand.
Marriage is a religious term and a priest can do it....
Ok fine. I'll give them that marriage is a religious term, and thus can be defined and is subject to religious law. But on the other hand by separation of church and state religion has now power in the legal sense.
So religion can wed only who they want and not recognize anything else. But the state doesn't recognize them and let's any two people "kabooza" that want to and recognizes that.
It works on so many levels.
What the fuck?
What?
Any justice of the peace can marry two people. Any person of any religion or no religion can currently contract a straight marriage if they aren't already in one.
In what why is that subject to any religious law?
It's easier to become a justice of the peace than a notary for godsake.
That's like saying you'll grant that marriage is a nautical term governed by naval regulations because ship's captains can marry people.
Pro-choice.
Waka waka.
There's also something about how at one point someone just goes to another village and finds a wife with no explanation as to how the other villages got there
My theory is that God basically had a bunch of Gardens sort of like Vaults, and just did different combinations of people to see what would work out.
This theory was formulated during a run of "Children of Eden" with the gay actor playing God.
This is pretty much my stance on it. I'm fine with marriage being a strictly religious ceremony dictated by religious law as long as all legal perks that go along with being married are completely removed. This will most certainly never happen though.
But this will probably never happen and I'm pretty sure people on both sides would object for whatever reason
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
You made me drag out my Bible to look this up!
Then I realized I could just google it. Apparently they only had one kid after that, named Seth, so it's still mommy porking just not with a fratricidal son. Of course, women could have been born during this time and nobody cared to record them, I don't know.
If the religious right cooperated, you might have a chance, but they'd fight it tooth and nail. More obvious separation of church and state is the opposite of what they want.
There were a people who the Hebrews called the Cainites who were nomadic, so the latter explanation is more likely a creation story for these nomads.
On the other hand, it's not unusual for biblical names to be applied to random stuff, such as calling Christians Edomites and Spain Sepharad.
I never meant to say it was the easiest option, I just think it is the obvious final destination. Because, you've gotta believe that after this fight is won (which it will be) in whatever way it is, that the next step is to get religion out of the issue entirely. Civil Unions are the government recognising the societal and long term tax benefits to them of stable couples, whether homo or heterosexual, God should have nothing to do with it.
Treat people equally in the eyes of the law, though, and society will slowly change around it.
Marriage predates religion, so there's not conflict of church and state for the government to use the word "Marriage."
Thanks for insulting us military guys who, you know, joined the army so they'd get the direction and/or GI Bill in order to be able to go to college
You're quite the dick, do you know that?
*rubs temples*
Okay, man, I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I'm Catholic. I believe that, yes, if we're a democratic country we have to live with the decisions the people of that country make as long as it's legal (meaning, we have to hold ourselves to the "You have representation, it's just not the type you like" we hold Pubbies to)
However
Why the fuck do you even care if gays get married, man? What does it affect you at all? You're married, right? So if you know Tom is cornholing Steve legally and can now enjoy the full rights that comes with marrying Steve, does it make you more gay? Are you saying that having the knowledge that somewhere in Maine there's a wedding cakes with two dudes on top somehow compels you to take it in the ass?
If no, then, why do you care? Really? I mean, you'd agree gay people have rights, right? And it says in the Declaration of Independence that all citizens of the US have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", right? Therefore, wouldn't restricting them from getting married violate at least two of those tenets? And, before you ask, it doesn't excuse say, pedophilia or beastiality because both of those are a violation of liberty (obviously children aren't mature enough to objectively determine whether they want to get married, doubly so for animals) and a restriction on one of the involved parties' pursuit of happiness.
I mean, I just don't get it. Why even care? I'm in the military and I swore to defend the people of the United States. I already knew that meant defending people I don't agree with. I mean, for Chrissakes I joined when Bush was prez and even though I personally hated the man I was willing to be subordinate to him as he was my duly elected commander in chief. Shouldn't we as a people be more willing to defend the rights of people we disagree with?
Shouldn't we?
If you asked most voters around here "So what do you think about Chris Christies stance on abortion now that hes elected?" You'd either get "I don't care" or "Whats Chris Christies stance on abortion?" more often then not.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
No. Fuck the gays.
Metaphorically, of course.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
What a shock eastern washington voted largely against gay rights. Also ref 71 shows that even when we try and do seperate but equeal measures the religious right screams about sanctity of marriage and homo queers raping your children with immunity. Ahh progress.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wonder what's up with Pierce County...is Tacoma just that backwards, or is that the Army/Air Force influence down there?
Every state seems to have an asshole, or in this case an ass crack. I live in the Big Bend of Florida, which is just to the east of Florida's asshole, the Panhandle. I'm sure the people that live there would get on just fine with the eastern Washingtonians.
Pierce is pretty conservatard as well, the futher your get from seattle the more likely you are to be one.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Just odd to me because the mud-flap quotient seems higher up here (Kitsap) than down there. But I haven't been here that long.
Pierce doesn't tend to have as many "get'r done" type conservatives as the "Fiscal" type.
And don't forget washington voters ref 71 is just round 1 of this bullshit the no on 71 fucks already are planning for next year and the year after etc etc.
pleasepaypreacher.net
...except in Olympia [Thurston County]. For future reference, Spokane is the asshole of Washington.
Nah the asshole is vancouver, spokane is just the part that takes meth all the time.
pleasepaypreacher.net
But then the situation arises where it's actually harder to get gay marriage because the gays already have their civil unions, why do they want to destroy marriage?!
Civil unions are a stepping stone in the right direction in theory, but it'll make the final step harder to achieve.
Also, calling everything a civil union and making marriage only a church thing would be so much harder than getting gay marriage. Now the gays just want to destroy the sanctity and tradition of marriage, if they started going after marriage in general there'd be hell to pay. It's a good solution, but it's less likely to happen then just getting the gays to marry.
By the way, do we have any age breakdown from exit polls for people who voted against gay marriage? I'd imagine the older people are the only ones who are opposing it. And the crazy younger people.
Woo looks like its official r71 got by.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This isn't a religion thread, this is off-topic, and doesn't really matter, but Adam and Eve, according to Genesis, did have other kids, including daughters. It's like five sentences after the birth of Seth. Your Google-fu has failed you miserably.