Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Now THIS is what America's all about!

Don't forget cops being forced to be nice.

Long time no post

The ACA isn't perfect. Hooray for the gays.

Cap'n Cat wrote:



Now THIS is what America's all about!

Just wait until President Sanders takes office....

houndawg wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:



Now THIS is what America's all about!

Just wait until President Sanders takes office....

Is modern America ready for a progressive in the White House?

kalm wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Just wait until President Sanders takes office....

Is modern America ready for a LIBERAL in the White House?

FIFY. Its ok now to say liberal...

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Is modern America ready for a LIBERAL in the White House?

FIFY. Its ok now to say liberal...

Cool!

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

Say, Cap'n, what sausage factory now employs you?

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
FIFY. Its ok now to say liberal...

Cool!

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

You mean personal liberty.


And no, it isn't good. The government is still in the business of sanctioning marriage. Nobody should have to get permission. Straight, gay, whatever.

You are laughing at the degradation of the culture around you. It portends a very squalid future world of Liberty lost along with delusion for your progeny. Very sad and ironic that you would laugh about it thinking that something "good" is going on. It's not.

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

No. Let's go through this again:

Defining marriage in any particular way was never a denial of personal freedom. Saying that two homosexuals can't engage in homosexual behavior is a denial of personal freedom. Saying that you opt not to recognize that behavior as "marriage" is not. Defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman never was an attack on personal freedom.

What IS an attack on personal freedom is something like this:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/chris ... ghts-back/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And we're about to see a lot of that kind of thing. We're about to see a massive attack on the free exercise of religion.

You guys just don't get it. The "Homosexuality is Normal" movement is not about freedom. It's just the opposite. It's about forcing people to accept depravity as normal. It's about taking freedom away.

JohnStOnge wrote:

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

No. Let's go through this again:

Defining marriage in any particular way was never a denial of personal freedom. Saying that two homosexuals can't engage in homosexual behavior is a denial of personal freedom. Saying that you opt not to recognize that behavior as "marriage" is not. Defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman never was an attack on personal freedom.

What IS an attack on personal freedom is something like this:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/chris ... ghts-back/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And we're about to see a lot of that kind of thing. We're about to see a massive attack on the free exercise of religion.

You guys just don't get it. The "Homosexuality is Normal" movement is not about freedom. It's just the opposite. It's about forcing people to accept depravity as normal. It's about taking freedom away.

Take away a church's tax exempt status and ability to preside over a union that determines people's legal rights and they can decide who they want to marry and who not. But states also don't get the right to determine who gets "married" or not.

The rest of your stance is pure hypocritical bullshit.

Liberty trumps religious squishiness.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Cool!

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

You mean personal liberty.


And no, it isn't good. The government is still in the business of sanctioning marriage. Nobody should have to get permission. Straight, gay, whatever.

Ditto. And people can get married without a state marriage license. Female can still legally change her last name if she wishes. Can do things like joint bank account, power of attorney, health care power of attorney, wills, etc. Benefit if both are working full time making avg to above avg salary not paying the marriage penalty. Course in a # of states after a certain period of time will revert to common law marriage anyway..

BDKJMU wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You mean personal liberty.


And no, it isn't good. The government is still in the business of sanctioning marriage. Nobody should have to get permission. Straight, gay, whatever.

Ditto. And people can get married without a state marriage license. Female can still legally change her last name if she wishes. Can do things like joint bank account, power of attorney, health care power of attorney, wills, etc. Benefit if both are working full time making avg to above avg salary not paying the marriage penalty. Course in a # of states after a certain period of time will revert to common law marriage anyway..

Yeah. I'm sure you'd be willing to jump through those hoops without a moment's complaint.

JohnStOnge wrote:

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

No. Let's go through this again:

Defining marriage in any particular way was never a denial of personal freedom. Saying that two homosexuals can't engage in homosexual behavior is a denial of personal freedom. Saying that you opt not to recognize that behavior as "marriage" is not. Defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman never was an attack on personal freedom.

What IS an attack on personal freedom is something like this:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/chris ... ghts-back/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And we're about to see a lot of that kind of thing. We're about to see a massive attack on the free exercise of religion.

You guys just don't get it. The "Homosexuality is Normal" movement is not about freedom. It's just the opposite. It's about forcing people to accept depravity as normal. It's about taking freedom away.

Oh nos! A massive attack on superstitious nonsense! Whatever shall we do!

JohnStOnge wrote:

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

No. Let's go through this again:

Defining marriage in any particular way was never a denial of personal freedom. Saying that two homosexuals can't engage in homosexual behavior is a denial of personal freedom. Saying that you opt not to recognize that behavior as "marriage" is not. Defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman never was an attack on personal freedom.

What IS an attack on personal freedom is something like this:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/chris ... ghts-back/

And we're about to see a lot of that kind of thing. We're about to see a massive attack on the free exercise of religion.

You guys just don't get it. The "Homosexuality is Normal" movement is not about freedom. It's just the opposite. It's about forcing people to accept depravity as normal. It's about taking freedom away.

15 yards. Unnecessary bullshit.

New week fat man..
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ution-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:New week fat man..
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ution-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unelected, activist judges.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:New week fat man..
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ution-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unelected, activist judges.

No again, that would be last week...

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
No. Let's go through this again:

Defining marriage in any particular way was never a denial of personal freedom. Saying that two homosexuals can't engage in homosexual behavior is a denial of personal freedom. Saying that you opt not to recognize that behavior as "marriage" is not. Defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman never was an attack on personal freedom.

What IS an attack on personal freedom is something like this:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/chris ... ghts-back/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And we're about to see a lot of that kind of thing. We're about to see a massive attack on the free exercise of religion.

You guys just don't get it. The "Homosexuality is Normal" movement is not about freedom. It's just the opposite. It's about forcing people to accept depravity as normal. It's about taking freedom away.

Oh nos! A massive attack on superstitious nonsense! Whatever shall we do!

Yep. Superstitious nonsense. One of the tenets on which this country was founded. No big deal, though, right?

Oh, so if the founders hated and marginalized homos, we should too?

Grizalltheway wrote:Oh, so if the founders hated and marginalized homos, we should too?

Is that what freedom of religion is about, to you?

You're a retard.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Oh nos! A massive attack on superstitious nonsense! Whatever shall we do!

Yep. Superstitious nonsense. One of the tenets on which this country was founded. No big deal, though, right?

Not really.