Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

Well………It's not gonna take a few days.  It took a few minutes.  That's just one thread.

I'm not gonna waste my time on you.

From your posts I couldn't tell who the hell you'd vote for.  

Clearly you are a genius. 
2/17/2015 9:13 PM
I voted for Romney.  Decided Obamacare was the most important issue with meaningful separation between the candidates.

I'm sorry I don't blindly agree with everything one of the 2 impactful political parties available in this country says I should.  Am I supposed to apologize for that?
2/17/2015 9:44 PM
Separate is equal.  I can separate myself from the gay community and treat them equally.  I do it everyday.  But I don't push my agenda on them.  And they separate themselves from me.  And I work with people of different faith and color but we don't protest outside.  We work together.  And when we go home we are free to do what we want.  But people tell me I can't eat meat but I don't tell people they can't eat vegetables.  And they tell me the science and debate is over but don't tell them it's over.  

So there is a difference and you can accept jot or deny it.  And the differences should be superficial.  And equal.  And we should all be allowed our freedom to the point of law.  As long as the law allows equity without stepping on our freedoms.
Separate is not equal.  Again, people find ways to make it unequal, even if the law doesn't.  You can say the differences should be superficial.  But just as the differences between black schools and white schools, or black restrooms and white restrooms, etc., were not superficial, the differences between treatment of Civil Unions and marriages are not superficial either.

The best example, unsurprisingly, has to do with custody.  The sample sizes here are not enormous since same-sex marriage is still a relatively new phenomenon in our country, but it's looking more and more like custody cases in which one parent in a same-sex marriage passes away are decided more similarly to heterosexual marriages than same-sex civil unions.  The law may be equal, but the interpretation of judges and juries is not.  That's the kind of opening you leave all too easily by forcing a difference in terminology.

Again, my ideal solution is to have no marriage, legally.  Call everything a Civil Union and be done with it; transfer all current marriage laws to being civil union laws.  But absent of that, which of course would receive massive backlash from the religious right, I think you have to call legal same-sex couplings marriages.  Otherwise they will continue to be marginalized.  It's the natural response of society to segments of the population lots of people are uncomfortable with.  And let's face it, there are still a lot of people who are uncomfortable with homosexuals.  Predominantly older people, who are exactly the ones who don't manage to weasel out of the majority of their jury duty.
2/17/2015 9:50 PM
How about it doesn't matter and we move on.  Swamphawk would want it that way.  He was an easy guy with a good heart and I'll never forgert him as long as I live. 

Let's go to sleep.  Get up tomorrow and try to be better.

G'nite.
2/17/2015 9:53 PM
Maybe it doesn't matter to you or me, but it matters a lot to gay people.
2/18/2015 12:32 AM
Equal is not equal.   Again, people find ways to make it unequal, even if the law doesn't.
2/18/2015 8:35 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2015 8:35:00 AM (view original):
Equal is not equal.   Again, people find ways to make it unequal, even if the law doesn't.
Doesn't matter. We have to start with equal protection under the law.
2/18/2015 8:58 AM
In Massachusetts, equal is not equal.  I can't shack up with some broad and get covered by her health insurance, but teh gheys can and the LGBT groups fight to keep it that way. 

If they wanted fairness, then they would fight for me to shack up and get covered too.

2/18/2015 8:57 PM
Yeah.  In California you have to be gay or old to get a Civil Union, but everybody can get married.
2/19/2015 2:08 AM
Posted by raucous on 2/18/2015 8:57:00 PM (view original):
In Massachusetts, equal is not equal.  I can't shack up with some broad and get covered by her health insurance, but teh gheys can and the LGBT groups fight to keep it that way. 

If they wanted fairness, then they would fight for me to shack up and get covered too.

Shack up? Pretty sure if you marry "some broad" you get covered by her health insurance if you want.
2/19/2015 3:43 PM
Right.

However I can't just move in with a significant other and get coverage if the person I move in with is a woman and we are not married. 

I can if the significant other is a man and we are not married.



BTW.  Obama insulted the moderate Islamic clerics today be calling them boring.  I'm sure that insult won't be taken the wrong way.

Geez... Dumbass II is at least twice as smart as this guy.  Of course Dumbass II's VP isn't a wet paper towel, so he just looks dumber.



2/19/2015 4:22 PM
Posted by raucous on 2/19/2015 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Right.

However I can't just move in with a significant other and get coverage if the person I move in with is a woman and we are not married. 

I can if the significant other is a man and we are not married.



BTW.  Obama insulted the moderate Islamic clerics today be calling them boring.  I'm sure that insult won't be taken the wrong way.

Geez... Dumbass II is at least twice as smart as this guy.  Of course Dumbass II's VP isn't a wet paper towel, so he just looks dumber.



You realize how the laws regarding civil unions got to be, right? Straight people could get married but gay people couldn't. Civil unions were a work around. That work around is becoming less and less necessary now that gays can get married in most states.
2/19/2015 11:13 PM
What I am saying is in the states that anyone can marry anyone, let's make it equal for everyone.  It is not equal and it is not right.  Also it is not right for these organizations pushing to keep it unfair.
2/20/2015 7:41 AM
Posted by raucous on 2/19/2015 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Right.

However I can't just move in with a significant other and get coverage if the person I move in with is a woman and we are not married. 

I can if the significant other is a man and we are not married.



BTW.  Obama insulted the moderate Islamic clerics today be calling them boring.  I'm sure that insult won't be taken the wrong way.

Geez... Dumbass II is at least twice as smart as this guy.  Of course Dumbass II's VP isn't a wet paper towel, so he just looks dumber.



He said that they needed to step up their game in reaching today's youth. True statement.
2/20/2015 7:58 AM
Posted by raucous on 2/19/2015 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Right.

However I can't just move in with a significant other and get coverage if the person I move in with is a woman and we are not married. 

I can if the significant other is a man and we are not married.



BTW.  Obama insulted the moderate Islamic clerics today be calling them boring.  I'm sure that insult won't be taken the wrong way.

Geez... Dumbass II is at least twice as smart as this guy.  Of course Dumbass II's VP isn't a wet paper towel, so he just looks dumber.



Depends on what state you live in. Some states have civil unions that are the same for same sex/different sex couples. Tell your congressman to get off his *** so you too can live in sin.
2/20/2015 8:10 AM
◂ Prev 1...322|323|324|325|326...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.