ASUMountaineer wrote:
I am not surprised by your response. I'd also think you would have the capacity to provide a response to my entire post.
As a married man, I fully support ending government-sanctioned marriage. In addition, I feel no threat from gay marriage being legalized. If my state of North Carolina decided tomorrow to allow gays to marry, I'd be for that. In fact, an amendment to define marriage as "one man and one woman" in North Carolina will be voted on in May. I plan to vote against the amendment. While you like to provide child-like responses to people's stances, I will actually utilize my right to vote to support your cause.
Supporting a strong central government is why you can't marry another man at this point. The government prevents this from being possible, yet you'd try to force your way into the club rather than dismantling the club all together. I choose the latter.
I would like to pose a question: why do you support government being in the marriage business?
When more breeders like yourself choose to take that stance and do something about it in numbers rather than providing lip service.......I'll gladly join you in fighting for that cause. How about this........allow ALL consenting adults to marry.......and then we'll all fight together to dismantle state sponsored marriage. Deal?
Or are you too afraid to stick your neck out even though you already have that right?
I have nothing to be afraid of, and I support gay marriage because who people marry is none of my business. Do not question my conviction on this issue, as I have not questioned yours. Your sarcasm is sorely misplaced, MJ.
On May 8, North Carolina's primary, I will vote against the amendment, that is the first step. At this point, my state has not voted on legalizing gay marriage so I have not had a chance to vote on that. However, my stance is unwavering and I have no problem with gay marriage. Again, what you do is none of my business.
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
ASUMountaineer wrote:
Cool story bro. I'm guessing non-breeders do too, which is why you support government-sanctioned marriage?
I would enjoy the RIGHT to marry........as well as the perks.
Luckily for you........you get to enjoy both.
I do. Unluckily for you, you don't.
I would like to see that change, and I'd be just fine with the perks being done away with. You see MJ, when I say I support ending government-sanctioned marriage, I mean all of it. No benefits for getting married, it's not the government's business.
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
bluehenbillk wrote:Christie wants every voting person in the State of New Jersey to decide through a referendum.
What exactly is wrong with that?
Agreed. Let the people decide.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
Gay people.....estimated to be 5-10% of the population.
And also estimated to be 1-3% of the population. Depends on who's estimates you use.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
mainejeff wrote:I never felt the need to out myself to azzholes like you.
But as I get older, I really don't give a sh*t about what inconsequential pricks like you think of me.
You obviously did feel the need to out yourself...otherwise you would not have posted what you've been posting for years. You were the only one, clueless, who thought you weren't out.
And stop lying to yourself and everyone...you do care what pricks think...otherwise you would not object to people voting on the same sex marriage.
mainejeff wrote:I never felt the need to out myself to azzholes like you.
But as I get older, I really don't give a sh*t about what inconsequential pricks like you think of me.
You obviously did feel the need to out yourself...otherwise you would not have posted what you've been posting for years. You were the only one, clueless, who thought you weren't out.
And stop lying to yourself and everyone...you do care what pricks think...otherwise you would not object to people voting on the same sex marriage.
Correction......I only care what voting pricks think.
mainejeff wrote:
Correction......I only care what voting pricks think.
See, jeff...we're making progress. You've been living a lie for so long you don't really know how to communicate honestly with others. I'm here to help.
And you know why Christie wants it to go to the people? B/c he and everyone else knows it won't pass. If it doesn't pass in Cali, how in the hell is it going to pass in NJ?
Seahawks08 wrote:And you know why Christie wants it to go to the people? B/c he and everyone else knows it won't pass. If it doesn't pass in Cali, how in the hell is it going to pass in NJ?
Which would prove that the government's system of "representation" does not work since the State Senators and Reps said they would vote yes. This would lead to the ousting of them in the next election for a new group to waste time overturning the law.
dbackjon wrote:I wouldn't mind ending gov-sanctioned marriage if ALL the perks associated were ended (like SS survivor benefits, tax breaks, etc.
Until then, I demand and deserve equality.
You know I've always agreed that, since government has created a number of economic and social benefits associated with civil marriage, it should provide the same benefits to all consenting adults. The only objection to this is religiously based. And while I fully support religion and religious rights, I think it is a very bad idea to base our civil laws on perceptions of right and wrong which are based solely on religion.
I grow concerned, though, when a see the state withdraw support from Catholic child placement services because they won't place children with gay couples, calling it discriminatory.
A balanced perspective respecting the rights of all involved is called for in a pluralistic society.
Seahawks08 wrote:And you know why Christie wants it to go to the people? B/c he and everyone else knows it won't pass. If it doesn't pass in Cali, how in the hell is it going to pass in NJ?
Which would prove that the government's system of "representation" does not work since the State Senators and Reps said they would vote yes. This would lead to the outing of them in the next election for a new group to waste time overturning the law.