Senators set to vote on bill to codify Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage protections

You seem awfully worried about the HIV tax burden on you, in particular.. In a thread about gay marriage.

I dislike fiscal irresponsibility. Does that bother you?

The thread has held more than one topic. I never commented in here until someone mentioned the costs involved with HIV.

Is there something i am saying that is bothering you, that you are having trouble putting your finger on?
 
It is not legally possible.
And age of consent laws are far more clearly tied to a direct individual harm (the exact harm that the mention of pedophilia is supposed to invoke, in fact) than a marital definition law.

Honestly, I’m not sure what part of “freedom, long as nobody is harmed” led to the asking of that question, much less the doubling down on it.
 
No offense dude, but if you're the ideal picture of a healthy society, I'd sooner just eat cancer for breakfast.

I'm flattered you think so, but I'm not the picture of an ideal society. Sadly, you probably already eat cancer for breakfast it seems. Good luck.
 
You seem awfully worried about the HIV tax burden on you, in particular.. In a thread about gay marriage.
Back in my motorcycle riding days, a guy I rode with, and I got into a discussion about states with no helmet laws. I was firmly against it and pointed out how much it cost the healthcare system each time one of them got into a wreck. He was all for no helmet laws and made the case that it cleaned out the gene pool a little more each time they had a wreck.
One would think that gay marriage would cut down on HIV, just like wearing helmets do.
 
Back in my motorcycle riding days, a guy I rode with, and I got into a discussion about states with no helmet laws. I was firmly against it and pointed out how much it cost the healthcare system each time one of them got into a wreck. He was all for no helmet laws and made the case that it cleaned out the gene pool a little more each time they had a wreck.
One would think that gay marriage would cut down on HIV, just like wearing helmets do.

One would think that legalizing reproductive rights would cut down on unwanted pregnancies that burden the system, just like helmets do.
 
One would think that legalizing reproductive rights would cut down on unwanted pregnancies that burden the system, just like helmets do.
Wearing helmets and legalizing gay marriage are a different issue than killing unborn babies, but you make your own decisions, I'm not going to get into a discussion about abortion.
 
Why is it illegal any any State or most States?
A law was passed which made it illegal. It is legal with appropriate permission. By your assertion, it means:
either it is wrong and therefore not legal, or it is right and legal. It cannot be both.
 
Anecdotal experience, but we went to Key West two years ago with my 16 year old son, and used to love going there, but probably won’t be going back because a creepy forty year old man kept checking him out and following us all around Duval Street.. he was thirty seconds away from me throat punching him, but fortunately for him, my death stare sufficed.. not saying all gay people are predatory, because they aren’t, but they have a lot of people that make them look really bad… it’s nothing but tchotchkes with ‘any cockledo’ with a rooster on it now lol.. no reason for us to be there now, it’s a shame

But "They" have a lot of people that make them look bad. WTF. Who are they? Your neighbor, your lawyer, your doctor, Your family member. THEY?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
Wearing helmets and legalizing gay marriage are a different issue than killing unborn babies, but you make your own decisions, I'm not going to get into a discussion about abortion.

Wearing helmets and gay marriage are two completely different issues as well but you decided to conflate the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flint
You think gov't should support polygamy?
I didn't type that. I didn't mean to imply it, either.
I support polygamous adults in their pursuit of happiness.

I don't believe government should "support" any family structure. Don't think supporting marriage/family structure is the government's role.
 
I think gov't should not prosecute hookers and folks selling sex but I don't think they should promote it either. By doing things like giving social security benefits to married people, gov't is promoting it.
Hmm...if only there were a self evident solution which would allow adults to do as they want and not have the government support it through financial incentives...I. can't. put. my. finger. on. the. answer. But I feel like it is right on the tip of my tongue.

eta: this was sarcastic just for the fun of being sarcastic. not a dig at you, sea ray.
 
Last edited:
This thread is wild. I've seen anti-Semites, holy rollers, anarchists, people who have no sense of history, and who knows what else I've missed, lol. Please carry on, I'm loving the entertainment.
 
Should they dole out SS and Medicare to each of the wives?

I can actually answer this. When this started, most women worked in the home. There were very few career women and Uncle Sam decided that a wife who had spent 40 or so years raising a family and taking care of the homestead while her husband brought home the bacon should not be destitute when he died. Different time in America. Even today I see the difference in male and female wages over their lifetime and as a result the difference in benefits. Not saying it is right or wrong, but just the way it is. Of course the laws haven't ever been updated to reflect the change in societal norms, so there is that. TIFWIW
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad

VN Store



Back
Top