| |
| Author |
Topic Options
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:32 pm
Well, that sounds like me, since I don't have any allies here either. It it's about having allies or fitting in with majority opinion, then that's just high school. Maybe Bart and I have more in common than either wants to admit. (I do have a dick tho, and no guns.)
Anyway, he has lots of allies in his hate the Muuuuuslims campaign, including the campaigner in chief, so he must be right.
|
Posts: 21611
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:33 pm
| Attachments: |
Hzi07cU.jpg [ 147.73 KiB | Viewed 75 times ]
|
Last edited by Public_Domain on Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Posts: 11362
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:36 pm
Better hurry Bart, all the good Dudes will be snapped up quick.
|
Posts: 21611
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:39 pm
Last edited by Public_Domain on Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Posts: 19928
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:41 pm
Yup. It's the tyranny of equality.
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:42 pm
That damn nanny state, not telling people who they can or can't marry....Oh, wait.
|
Posts: 21611
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:44 pm
Last edited by Public_Domain on Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Posts: 19928
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:46 pm
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:50 pm
I have to say tho, that I want the court to ban chaps worn without pants in public. By men, anyway. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
|
Posts: 21611
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:51 pm
Last edited by Public_Domain on Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:53 pm
I'm not sure that they "imposed" gay marriage as much as upheld the Constitution. This is another civil rights issue, nothing to do directly with sexuality, really.
|
Posts: 19928
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:57 pm
Exactly. People will say, there't no right to marriage in the Constitution, but neither is the right to privacy but 239 years of jurisprudence have made it law.
|
Posts: 1204
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:18 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
In what way does lowing OTHER people the freedom to marry mean that YOU are being ruled???
In actuality what you want is for those people to be ruled according to YOUR personal beliefs. If you really were the champion of freedom you claim to be, you would not be trying to impose YOUR private beliefs on others. You are the tyrant here, not them.
It's not about what the judges did its how they did it. I get it they made a law when they are just suppose to rule on laws. IDK if I want judges doing the job of congress and the president. Now that this is over (really) I wonder when polygamy will be made legal? This year? 2016? 2020?
|
Posts: 21611
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:28 pm
Last edited by Public_Domain on Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:41 pm
I would ban all marriage unless children under 18 are involved. Why should childless couples get benefits that singles don't? You want some religious person say hey nonny nonny over your union, feel free, but no state recognition unless you've got kids. If people with kids want to enter a polygamous marriage, no problem, as long as their benefits don't exceed those of monogamous marriage per person.
|
 
|
Page 2 of 12
|
[ 177 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests |
|
|
CKA Uber 
Forum Elite 
