Keith Ellison is a angry man

[Heffay]

mmm. more of a tweak or clarification than a redefinition if you ask me.

Just like we're doing with marriage? Just tweaking the definition between man and woman to 2 people.

And furthermore, why exactly does it have to be 2 people?

It doesn't. And in the future, it probably won't.

We'll deal with that issue when it comes up.

[NMRMN]

It doesn't. And in the future, it probably won't.
We'll deal with that issue when it comes up.

Well, I applaud your consistency.

[St. Olaf]

Is this guy for real?

Pretty real. Can you respond with more than emoticons and left-wing rhetoric?

You're the one responding with cryptic and invalid comparisons that don't make sense.

So, I too, have to wonder if you're serious or just intentionally posting apples to oranges comparisons and links about something that happened in Canada when we're discussing America.

Posts like that aren't for real.

[NMRMN]

Ola – either you didn't read my comments and follow-ups or you just don't understand. Which is okay. I believe my arguments were entirely consistent and logical. Please tell me how you disagree

[Cavscout]

What you get when you vote democrat. Gun hater/flip flop'er.

No one should be surprised that so many dems are changing sides.

[St. Olaf]

How can you NOT vote Democrat when the opponents are wrong on every issue except gun control?

This is why voting is so frustrating of late.

You have a choice of one pro gun right wing nut who who wants to destroy education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care, and who will tax YOU MORE (when you already pay plenty) and give the rich (himself) more and more tax breaks and benefits.......OR a person who is at least somewhat anti gun but has intelligent plans on all the rest.

Some choice, but do you destroy the country to save your AR-15?

More and more people are saying no.

So, the only solution is for Republicans to wise up and dump the Tea Party into the ocean and become moderates.

Then they might win some elections and we can have our guns and good education, Social Security, and public services instead of never ending war, deterioration and debt.

[infidel]

How can you NOT vote Democrat when the opponents are wrong on every issue except gun control?

This is why voting is so frustrating of late.

You have a choice of one pro gun right wing nut who who wants to destroy education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care, and who will tax YOU MORE (when you already pay plenty) and give the rich (himself) more and more tax breaks and benefits.......OR a person who is at least somewhat anti gun but has intelligent plans on all the rest.

Some choice, but do you destroy the country to save your AR-15?

More and more people are saying no.

So, the only solution is for Republicans to wise up and dump the Tea Party into the ocean and become moderates.

Then they might win some elections and we can have our guns and good education, Social Security, and public services instead of never ending war, deterioration and debt.

[grousemaster]

Bigots are those who support the taking or actually attempt to take away the rights of others based on things like race or sexual orientation.....most Americans either are or have been guilty of this in the past.

And the rights of Americans to practice their religion? Educate their children as they see fit? Speak freely about their religious beliefs?

The government recognizing gay marriage doesn't inhibit Americans from practicing their religion, or speaking freely about them, or educate their children as they see fit.

I agree with Heffay.

[grousemaster]

mmm. more of a tweak or clarification than a redefinition if you ask me.

Just like we're doing with marriage? Just tweaking the definition between man and woman to 2 people.

Why would you trample all over the religious liberty of some by limiting it to two people? Be consistent. I'd expect you to support the repeal of incest marriage laws as well as laws against polygamous arrangements as well.

[NMRMN]

Just like we're doing with marriage? Just tweaking the definition between man and woman to 2 people.

Why would you trample all over the religious liberty of some by limiting it to two people? Be consistent. I'd expect you to support the repeal of incest marriage laws as well as laws against polygamous arrangements as well.

Grousemaster, read the top of the page. Heffay is being consistent, for which I applauded him.

[NMRMN]

The government recognizing gay marriage doesn't inhibit Americans from practicing their religion, or speaking freely about them, or educate their children as they see fit.

I agree with Heffay.

Im glad that you aggree. Now go read what I wrote. I didnt say that it prevented it, but could lead to it, just like in Canada. I compared this to the argument against gun registration, which could lead to confiscation, as occured IN CANADA.

[White Horseradish]

You guys seem to bring up polygamy as something that will be the result of slippery slope.

What's wrong with polygamy? It's traditional, been around multiple thousands of years. It's in the Bible all over the place. How many wives did King Solomon have? Why do you want to have the marriage redefined as this newfangled one-man-one woman thing?

[Cavscout]

People with other species (animals) goes against nature just as much as homosexuality in my book. Why not allow all of it then? Then we can teach all of it to kids in public schools.(Nature = male + female of same species reproduce)

Trouble is... now the government is ruling (for lawsuits) in favor of gay couples when it goes against a church's right to not marry them, because it's against their beliefs as acceptable.

So the gov't recognizing gay marriage, etc, greatly affects individuals' rights in some cases. It shouldn't, but currently it is.

LOL @ the Reps trying to destroy all those things. God forbid an education program gets cut, even if it is well known that it's a failure. I'll try to remember that when this country collapses. Isn't 60% of the US budget in welfare type programs?

[NMRMN]

People with other species (animals) goes against nature just as much as homosexuality in my book. Why not allow all of it then? Then we can teach all of it to kids in public schools.(Nature = male + female of same species reproduce)
Trouble is... now the government is ruling (for lawsuits) in favor of gay couples when it goes against a church's right to not marry them, because it's against their beliefs as acceptable.
So the gov't recognizing gay marriage, etc, greatly affects individuals' rights in some cases. It shouldn't, but currently it is.

exactly. One either follows the argument for same sex marraige to its logical conclusion, and ends up with all kinds of weirdness, or become arbitrary and inconsistent. In the meantime, the religious liberties of those who disagree may be infringed.

[White Horseradish]

Trouble is... now the government is ruling (for lawsuits) in favor of gay couples when it goes against a church's right to not marry them, because it's against their beliefs as acceptable.

You must not read this board very much. We've been over this. The government that did this is not US government. It is the government of Denmark, which has an entirely different Constitution and the church there is not separate from state. The parliament is legally the rulemaking body of the church. Also, it's a monarchy. They have a king, who is also the head of the church.

In the US a church refusing to marry a gay couple is no different than a church refusing to marry a Jewish or a Buddhist couple. In other words, they are within their rights to do so and no court can force them to do otherwise.