TurkeyWithaSunburn
Legendary Member
Except his own when he can trade in one wife for a hotter version, and then lie about filing for divorce in the first place.Newt has priorities. Someones marriage isn't one of them.
Except his own when he can trade in one wife for a hotter version, and then lie about filing for divorce in the first place.Newt has priorities. Someones marriage isn't one of them.
Now are you calling me an idiot? :33:
Except his own when he can trade in one wife for a hotter version, and then lie about filing for divorce in the first place.![]()
Its funny how you don't want someone to control how you live your life...and then you criticize someone else for how they live theirs.....there is a word for that.
How do you know that I don't want someone to control my life? I could be into some freaky DOM/sub relationship stuff???
Of course I can criticize someone who is running for public office and has serious lapses in judgement regarding a "til death do us part" vow, while carrying on an affair with a staffer and going on a witch hunt against someone else for also having an affair, all the while keeping his own affair private.
So would that mean that Mr Gingrich is a hypocrite?
He could be, but that doesn't excuse either of you.
Did I ever say that or are you possibly confusing me for someone else in this thread?Its funny how you don't want someone to control how you live your life
only 2% of men are gay so how will that help obama?
I really didn't want to have to break out a dictionary on this one, but I'm going to give it one more chance.
The law isn't discriminatory. The law doesn't care who you love. It doesn't care who you have sex with or how you feel about another person.
All it says is that to for two people to participate in a marriage contract they must be of the opposite sex. Which is completely non-discriminatory since it applies to everyone in the same way.
It doesn't say the two participants must love each other, it doesn't say they have to have sex, it doesn't say they even have to be heterosexual.
A homosexual man can get married to a woman. Just like a straight man can get married to a woman. A gay man cannot get married to another man. Just like a straight man cannot get married to another man. Neither straight nor homosexual men can get married to another man. The law is applied equally to both parties.
This is basic legal doctrine and it is the reason gay advocates are failing horribly at attaining their goal. It has nothing to do with gay rights, it has nothing to do with equal rights, and equating any of it to women's suffrage of black civil rights is absolutely outrageous.
If they were to change marriage, it would be a completely new right that ALL people can utilize, regardless of sexual preference. THAT is why the government hasn't been forced to change. Because for one, they are under no obligation to recognize ANY marriage. The government could tomorrow say all marriages are null and void we no longer recognize it as a legal agreement. That is perfectly legal and acceptable to do. If you want power of attorney or all other legal obligations that traditionally come with marriage, hire a lawyer and draft the paperwork.
That is why defining what marriage can be between is perfectly Constitutional because they are under no obligation to legally recognize ANY marriage.
Your argument is purely emotional and has no basis in law or fact.
And thus, given your ardent support for this "non-discriminatory" law, you would give the exact same support to the law that says the only legal marriage is between people of the same sex, and there can be no legal marriage between people of the opposite sex. Since it applies to everyone equally, you'd fully support that law.
The government interest in marriage is that it traditionally produced children. That is a legitimate government interest. Since that is no longer the case anymore, the government should have no significant interest in regulating marriage.
I've never said I was for or against same-sex marriage.
Is this an attempt at a humorous post?
So are you for or against same-sex marriage?
I have no positive or negative opinion. But the issue is much more complicated than for or against.
Is it, now?
What happened to all that steely assurance?
No, and to disagree with that statement is ridiculous.
All major religions and most cultures throughout history have posed an obligation for a marriage to create children.
In most western countries that is mostly expected for younger couples, but not as significantly as it once was.
I'm not sure what you are getting at.