Palin is all Q.Q

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

We've established the closet homosexuality of your party Leif, we're talking about homosexuals that are out and don't cheat on hetero spouses to go on gay excursions in public restrooms.

I'm sure more than 25% of "the gays" vote for conservatives because, well, more than 25% of conservative representatives have "the gay."

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The issue is the blatant hypocrisy of "do what I say, not what I do." Which applies not only to sexuality, but morals, finance reform, campaigning etc and so forth

[Leif]

The issue is the blatant hypocrisy of "do what I say, not what I do." Which applies not only to sexuality, but morals, finance reform, campaigning etc and so forth

Watch this video, from just today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFNezndrSII



There is a very sharp divide within the GOP about this very issue. A lot of people didn't like this guy, and the number of supporters are growing fast.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

It's half clapping and half booing. Also, why are you bragging that it took until 2010 when Republicans are facing another horrible defeat for being an empty party and started reaching out to the gay community?

[Leif]

It's half clapping and half booing.

Hence "sharp divide".

Also, why are you bragging

Bragging? I'm simply making the point that not all conservatives go with the social issues.

that it took until 2010 when Republicans are facing another horrible defeat

Oh, no they are not.

Generic Ballot 02-14-10: Democrats 36% GOP 45%

Democrats are in big trouble come November. This is why they are all running to the right.

Hell, even John McCain is frantically sprinting to the right to avoid being replaced by a real conservative.

for being an empty party and started reaching out to the gay community?

It was the other way around.

[Qalbert]

It's half clapping and half booing. Also, why are you bragging that it took until 2010 when Republicans are facing another horrible defeat for being an empty party and started reaching around to the gay community?

i believe this is more accurate

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I've never understand why people care whether gays marry, but I don't see how the GOP is party of gay haters when every time the American people get a chance to make gay marriage legal they vote it down. In liberal states no less.

Edit: Oh now my sig shows up.

[ephel]

It's been a year with a Democrat president who promised more gay rights, and a majority Democrat Congress in both houses. How much more rights do gays have as of now, or legislation in the works.

[Monkor]

I've never understand why people care whether gays marry, but I don't see how the GOP is party of gay haters when every time the American people get a chance to make gay marriage legal they vote it down. In liberal states no less.

Edit: Oh now my sig shows up.

Because marriage is for the most part an institution of the church, and extremely religious people don't want gay marriage to "dirty" their sacred tradition. The problem would go away if you make a domestic partnership the basis for couples' rights and such and leave marriage to also accomplish the task, but good luck with making that happening when there are those who will fight against the rights of people with whose life choices they don't agree.

[ephel]

Because marriage is for the most part an institution of the church, and extremely religious people don't want gay marriage to "dirty" their sacred tradition. The problem would go away if you make a domestic partnership the basis for couples' rights and such and leave marriage to also accomplish the task, but good luck with making that happening when there are those who will fight against the rights of people with whose life choices they don't agree.

Just another example of why people who put religion first in their life shouldn't be in politics. Though you can't just blame the "church" on this, are there other cultures who have allowed gay marriage till lets say this century?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I've never understand why people care whether gays marry, but I don't see how the GOP is party of gay haters when every time the American people get a chance to make gay marriage legal they vote it down. In liberal states no less.

Edit: Oh now my sig shows up.

Because the right funds PAC's with massive amounts of money to campaign against gay rights, and pays for much more TV commercials, print ads, and canvassing that supporters of gay marriage can, dumbass.

[ephel]

Because the right funds PAC's with massive amounts of money to campaign against gay rights, and pays for much more TV commercials, print ads, and canvassing that supporters of gay marriage can, dumbass.

To simplify this, do you think there are more people in the US for or against samesex marriage?

[Viserdes]

My view on gay marriage is that it is not possible. I believe marriage is between a man and woman, to call it something else would be like calling a dog a cat. I do believe gay couples should get every single right a married couple would get but it simply would not be called marriage (i know little about civil unions).

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

To simplify this, do you think there are more people in the US for or against samesex marriage?

I think there are more for, but it's a moot point as in the 60's more people thought "niggers" didn't deserve civil rights, much like in the 20's most people didn't think women deserved civil rights.

The majority isn't always right.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Because the right funds PAC's with massive amounts of money to campaign against gay rights, and pays for much more TV commercials, print ads, and canvassing that supporters of gay marriage can, dumbass.

When calling someone a dumbass at least spell shit correctly.

And I find it hard to believe the right outspent the left in Cali and Maine recently.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

My view on gay marriage is that it is not possible. I believe marriage is between a man and woman, to call it something else would be like calling a dog a cat. I do believe gay couples should get every single right a married couple would get but it simply would not be called marriage (i know little about civil unions).

retarded troll is trig palin.

Marriage existed before your dumbass religion, and was used as a tool to gain property or survive. Right, women as young as 12 years old were traded for goats or plots of land and this was called marriage.

So slavery is np because women were given away, sometimes children, but a man and a man marrying out of emotion is not possible? What a fucking ignorant dunce

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

When calling someone a dumbass at least spell shit correctly.

what a fucking moran

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dumbass

[Yuri-G]

The majority isn't always right.

I'll never understand why this is so hard for some people to wrap their head around. It's always "majority rules" until you're part of a minority, then suddenly shit changes and fast.

[Ksandra]

My view on gay marriage is that it is not possible. I believe marriage is between a man and woman, to call it something else would be like calling a dog a cat. I do believe gay couples should get every single right a married couple would get but it simply would not be called marriage (i know little about civil unions).

What if a priest/minister/whatevertheheadofthereligiousgroupiscalled, marries them? Then is it ok to call it marriage?

Often people argue that it shouldn't be called married because their church doesn't allow gay marriages.

There are many religious groups that do allow it and have performed marriage ceremonies for them. So if they do that and get a marriage license from the state (which men and women have to do as well), how is it not the same?

It is all semantics really, but if we're going down this tunnel, then you would have to admit that people that don't get married by a religious head shouldn't get to call themselves "married" either.

[ephel]

I think there are more for, but it's a moot point as in the 60's more people thought "niggers" didn't deserve civil rights, much like in the 20's most people didn't think women deserved civil rights.

The majority isn't always right.

I totally agree that it isn't always right, but doesn't a majority get to decide how any paticular country runs? In this case it would be for general elections, the majority get to decide.

So the same should happen in US government. Why would the Democrats getting a majority in government become such a big deal if it didn't allow to push their agenda. So wheres all the changes?