Rick Perry laughable ad pandering to 'christian' wack jobs

[Man For All Seasons]

How 'christian' of you to suggest a loveless marriage and fraud. I think my point is made here.

Yep, you made a point........of demonstrating that once again you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about.

Who says the marriage would be loveless and a fraud? If it would be, then they should remain single. It's really very simple and yet it's beyond you. Amazing!

 

[Bubble Burster]

And you folks wonder why I call the republicans Judeo republican.

Not true Herr Unterfeldwebel...we understand quite well why you use it.

 

[Rocknwolf]

You have a right to your opinion....but to deny people what you have is very unfair.

Wonder how outraged the morally uptight get about the 7 year "shack-up", which results in the wonderful institution of "marriage", legal, but bereft of the so-called "religious" component?

A few posters will no doubt take umbrage at this revelation

 

[RockificationSpacification]

There is nothing unfair about it. Gays have the same rights to marriage as everyone else, but marriage is an inherently HETEROSEXUAL institution. If gays don't choose to take advantage of their rights to marry someone of the opposite gender, then that is on them.

Dude, that is so illogical it is creepy.

 

[jasmin]

Military: Close quarters, showering, etc. This would be like have dudes shower with women

"Don't worry - what makes me think I am attracted to you?" Yeah right.

Civil Unions - same rights as marriage, just called something other than "marriage." A nice compromise - why piss of the married people who DO feel strongly about marriage and it's meaning within a religious context?

Exactly on all points.

 

[jasmin]

You have a right to your opinion....but to deny people what you have is very unfair.

Who says life is fair? If someone is homosexual they should accept the realities of biological limitations and understand this means no kids. There is nothing that makes their union less by being a civil union. But a marriage is a religious ceremony bringing together one man and one woman under the eyes of God. If you don't believe in religion or are homosexual and don't fit the definition of marriage, that what is wrong with a civil union? You can still have a ceremony, celebrate with loved ones, and today, have essentially all the rights of a "marriage" without trying to redefine what marriage is.

 

[Surferdude]

Who says life is fair? If someone is homosexual they should accept the realities of biological limitations and understand this means no kids. There is nothing that makes their union less by being a civil union. But a marriage is a religious ceremony bringing together one man and one woman under the eyes of God. If you don't believe in religion or are homosexual and don't fit the definition of marriage, that what is wrong with a civil union? You can still have a ceremony, celebrate with loved ones, and today, have essentially all the rights of a "marriage" without trying to redefine what marriage is.

I don't believe in 'god'. It's inequality, end of story. For you to say that its because of kids is idiotic, because there are many heterosexual couples with no kids, and many gay couples with kids. The marriage is not about religion, its about legal rights that civil unions won't cover. Trust me, there are many. Besides no one wants to ask another to 'civil union' them. Geez.

 

[Vagitarian]

You think it's down to Perry and Romney? I would have guessed fattie Newt and Romney

Opps! Typo.

 

[Vagitarian]

Who says life is fair? If someone is homosexual they should accept the realities of biological limitations and understand this means no kids. There is nothing that makes their union less by being a civil union. But a marriage is a religious ceremony bringing together one man and one woman under the eyes of God. If you don't believe in religion or are homosexual and don't fit the definition of marriage, that what is wrong with a civil union? You can still have a ceremony, celebrate with loved ones, and today, have essentially all the rights of a "marriage" without trying to redefine what marriage is.

Yes, churches should have the right to refuse service to anyone. The courthouse is a different story.

Quick question for both sides, what the fuck difference is it whether it's called 'marriage' or 'civil union'? Why not call it all one or the other? Who gives a fuck what it's called? In both cases, oral sex and penetration occur - it's the same frigging thing.......

 

[Man For All Seasons]

Dude, that is so illogical it is creepy.

No, it's completely logical. What is illogical is your acceptance and defense of something that is patently abnormal and demonstrably unhealthy in all sorts of ways.

 

[Man For All Seasons]

Yes, churches should have the right to refuse service to anyone. The courthouse is a different story.

Quick question for both sides, what the fuck difference is it whether it's called 'marriage' or 'civil union'? Why not call it all one or the other? Who gives a fuck what it's called? In both cases, oral sex and penetration occur - it's the same frigging thing.......

Only a dysfunctional culture will give any social sanction whether it's civil unions or marriage to homosexuals. They don't need it and don't deserve it and yes, the social science data on the topic clearly indicates that it harms the institution of genuine marriage which is the foundational building block of society and the source of the next generation.

What consenting adults do in private is pretty much their own business as long as it stays strictly private.

Good grief some of you people make this far more difficult than it is.