Thread: Sens. Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsor Marriage Protection Amendment

Hypocrites.

marriage is only between a man and a woman so i hope this bill passes the liberals in this counrty just keep doing all they can to destroy traditional family values.

I could care less what gay people do amongst themselves...now when we say family values are you talking about the Leave it to beaver days or so called real values we have nowadays.

To late for this bill.

Originally Posted by cadnkides

marriage is only between a man and a woman so i hope this bill passes the liberals in this counrty just keep doing all they can to destroy traditional family values.

Do you know who those 2 guys are?

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Do you know who those 2 guys are?

Two-face liars, just like all politicians.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Do you know who those 2 guys are?

i dont care who they are i care about marriage stayiong between a man and woman like god intended

Originally Posted by clemson357

Two-face liars, just like all politicians.

So true, so sad.

Originally Posted by cadnkides

i dont care who they are i care about marriage stayiong between a man and woman like god intended

I respect your beliefs.....so are you going to take a wide stance on this one?

Originally Posted by cadnkides

i dont care who they are i care about marriage stayiong between a man and woman like god intended

...guess I'll have to bring back this video. . .

Originally Posted by clemson357

Two-face liars, just like all politicians.

...and likely criminals, since both allegedly participated in illegal activity of an immoral nature, humiliating their own marriage vows, committing a crime and then clinging to their power position as if it was an entitlement.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

...and likely criminals, since both allegedly participated in illegal activity of an immoral nature, humiliating their own marriage vows, committing a crime and then clinging to their power position as if it was an entitlement.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. A couple weeks ago you were arguing that elected positions were entitlements. Now they aren't?

You are seriously the most ridiculous person I've ever come across.

Originally Posted by clemson357

You have got to be fucking kidding me. A couple weeks ago you were arguing that elected positions were entitlements. Now they aren't?

You are seriously the most ridiculous person I've ever come across.

Keep trying.

These two sponsoring this bill is like Ted kennedy sponsoring a drunk driving bill or Bill Clinton sponsoring an anti-adultery bill. One thing I have always been curious about is why gay people who want the right to marry don't support polygamous marriage. If their belief is that every consenting adult has the right to marry then why not more than one? And why cant siblings get married? I have no problem with gay people having all the same legal rights as straight people do through marriage. But I can't just call my dog a cat and make it into one. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Laugh.. that will help your cause. 7/10 Americans say marriage is between a man & a woman. Irrogance isn't going to bolster your position.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Keep trying.

no really he is right. that is the most apt description of you, that you're going to find

why is it funny that i and most americans believe that marrage is between a man and a woman is it some anti god thing?

Originally Posted by cadnkides

why is it funny that i and most americans believe that marrage is between a man and a woman is it some anti god thing?

For the most part.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Laugh.. that will help your cause. 7/10 Americans say marriage is between a man & a woman. Irrogance isn't going to bolster your position.

7 our of 10 heterosupremacists say their marriage is between a man and a woman. Since marriage is considered as a highly individual endeavor, wouldn't that make sense to them?

What doesn't make sense is how vicious some are about "defending" their right to steal property, exhume and rebury bodies, control who visits someone in the hospital, and take inheritances, etc. - because they claim they have a vested interest in sticking their noses in other people's marriages for the good of protecting the "foundation of civilization."

There isn't anything more hypocritical than having two senators who publicly humiliated their marriages and violated their own vows (and broke the law) cling to their political power positions, moralize about others, and still cash in on a couple of thousand perks provided by the rest of the population after showing us they have a fake marriage.

It is even more hilarious that these two clowns supported the Republican effort to find an "activist" judge to unilaterlly use the state to dissolve the Michael-Terri Schiavo marriage without the consent of any of the parties in the matter. Their legal claim was that Michael Schiavo, who was living/dating another woman, had committed adultery and the state should dissolve their marriage. Funny how that concept doesn't apply to these two, whose infidelity was publicly displayed. Now tell us why these two deserve 2000 special rights?

Originally Posted by busyLivin

For the most part.

What does state-sanctioned marriage have to do with your selected version of God?

Originally Posted by bio-chem

no really he is right. that is the most apt description of you, that you're going to find

Pull up your pants, hon. . . your ass is starting to show.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

7 our of 10 heterosupremacists say their marriage is between a man and a woman. Since marriage is considered as a highly individual endeavor, wouldn't that make sense to them?

What doesn't make sense is how vicious some are about "defending" their right to steal property, exhume and rebury bodies, control who visits someone in the hospital, and take inheritances, etc. - because they claim they have a vested interest in sticking their noses in other people's marriages for the good of protecting the "foundation of civilization."

There isn't anything more hypocritical than having two senators who publicly humiliated their marriages and violated their own vows (and broke the law) cling to their political power positions, moralize about others, and still cash in on a couple of thousand perks provided by the rest of the population after showing us they have a fake marriage.

It is even more hilarious that these two clowns supported the Republican effort to find an "activist" judge to unilaterlly use the state to dissolve the Michael-Terri Schiavo marriage without the consent of any of the parties in the matter. Their legal claim was that Michael Schiavo, who was living/dating another woman, had committed adultery and the state should dissolve their marriage. Funny how that concept doesn't apply to these two, whose infidelity was publicly displayed. Now tell us why these two deserve 2000 special rights?

Heterosupremacists? Call us what you will... name calling won't help your cause either.

I never defended them at all. I believe in letting the people decide, and for now that decision is for marriage to be between a man & a woman. I agree.. these "activist" judges shouldn't be able to dictate policy from the bench... just as was done in California. The people voted down same sex marriage & the courts overruled them. I'll stay consistent... you do the same.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Heterosupremacists? Call us what you will... name calling won't help your cause either.

I never defended them at all. I believe in letting the people decide, and for now that decision is for marriage to be between a man & a woman. I agree.. these "activist" judges shouldn't be able to dictate policy from the bench... just as was done in California. The people voted down same sex marriage & the courts overruled them. I'll stay consistent... you do the same.

It's a rather commonly used term, silly.

Give me a call when you are able to find someone willing to marry you, and we'll let all the people decide on that, too. Since marriages are individual endeavors and highly personal relationships are considered the foundation of individual rights, shouldn't we all have a say in deciding whether you are capable of engaging in such a vital institution?

As for California, the public voted on a referendum eight years ago.Two years ago, the state legislature passed a marriage equality bill. Arnold vetoed it. They passed it again last year. Arnold vetoed it again. Both times the governor made it clear the Republican-dominated state supreme court should decide the matter.

Shouldn't all the people be deciding on the rights of each group on every issue? I mean, we don't need the courts to do anything but rubberstamp the tyranny of the majority on every issue, right?

Originally Posted by Jeeper

These two sponsoring this bill is like Ted kennedy sponsoring a drunk driving bill or Bill Clinton sponsoring an anti-adultery bill. One thing I have always been curious about is why gay people who want the right to marry don't support polygamous marriage. If their belief is that every consenting adult has the right to marry then why not more than one? And why cant siblings get married? I have no problem with gay people having all the same legal rights as straight people do through marriage. But I can't just call my dog a cat and make it into one. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Polygamy raises issues that cross into the legitimate interests of the state - meaning ensuring the proper flow of inheritance, property rights, and even funeral and health arrangements. Sibling marriages are not allowed because of the high risk of birth defects in subsequent children.. .though one could argue that constitutionally, as long as they are "one man and one woman" their rights are being violated by a refusal to wed. None of those constitutional amendments says anything about "unrelated."

Of course, it would be quite easy to solve the matter by stripping away all of the state statutes granting special rights to "married" people and just leaving them with the same options to protect their interests as "single" people have. . .after all, conservatives claim that single people and gay couples already have completely adequate legal protections. That would ensure equal protection under the law, a concept conservatives find to be an outrageous notion.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Pull up your pants, hon. . . your ass is starting to show.

and you have reached a new low. the funny thing is that as soon as you enter a thread, individuals who generally share the same opinion as you on an issue run for the hills. you are so far gone you are even able to get people who agree with you to distance themselves. none of your posts ever help your cause or even begin to prove your point. never once have you referenced something concrete, or solid to show the validity of your point. anything you may bring up to support your cause is anecdotal at best. when direct evidence is brought up that points against your views, you dismiss it without addressing it. i think the worst part is that the rest of us have continued to post in response to the mindless wondering babble you call an argument.

may you find mercy for your tortured soul.

Well said.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

and you have reached a new low. the funny thing is that as soon as you enter a thread, individuals who generally share the same opinion as you on an issue run for the hills. you are so far gone you are even able to get people who agree with you to distance themselves. none of your posts ever help your cause or even begin to prove your point. never once have you referenced something concrete, or solid to show the validity of your point. anything you may bring up to support your cause is anecdotal at best. when direct evidence is brought up that points against your views, you dismiss it without addressing it. i think the worst part is that the rest of us have continued to post in response to the mindless wondering babble you call an argument.

may you find mercy for your tortured soul.

Give your projections a rest. You guys don't give anyone a chance to express another viewpoint before you descend into your grade schoolyard bullying bullshit - which pretty much destroys any concept of having a halfway intelligent discussion. What you can't stand is the idea that anyone shovels the shit back at you.

Now did I miss some "direct evidence" on the topic of this thread, bucko?

Originally Posted by DOMS

Well said.