|
GOP vows to ban same-sex marriage | by FireballMatt | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Santorum is such a pr*ck! | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 06:48:15 |
|
What pisses me off the most about these @$$holes | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 07:30:16 |
|
Doesn't parse for me | by DesertRat66 | 2004-07-14 08:21:51 |
|
Um, Sorry. The proposed amendment does violate | by talon0720 | 2004-07-14 09:11:52 |
| That someone of DesertRat66's intelligence |
by NOLAWitch |
2004-07-14 09:19:47 |
| cannot see that such is the case bodes ill for the possibility of the majorly indoctrinated from ever conceding that they're wrong. Stevie Wonder could see that they're trying to establish their religion. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I can see his point. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 10:31:01 |
|
It does impose a religious act: marginalizing and | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:33:39 |
|
Ding. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:35:31 |
|
How is that religious? | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 10:47:52 |
|
No, but you have to be religious... | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 10:55:07 |
|
What about | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:04:19 |
|
That was why I used "valid", as well. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:18:34 |
|
I'm not familiar with arguments for | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:33:23 |
|
Wrong quote placement. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:37:51 |
|
Amendment 22 | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:51:34 |
|
Well, I can't shoot you down, | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:57:50 |
|
As Ravenlock indicated... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:19:25 |
|
For starters, it's a lie. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:13:55 |
|
On your first paragraph | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 12:22:05 |
|
Invalid arguments are ignored. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:31:02 |
|
Irrelevant. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:08:16 |
|
...Interesting. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:16:59 |
|
No. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:49:15 |
|
Fair enough. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:53:40 |
|
Hey now, | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 12:01:19 |
|
Okay by me. :-) (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 12:01:58 |
|
But that's precisely what they are arguing. | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 11:29:15 |
|
In fact it has been listed as a sacrament | by Matthewdba | 2004-07-14 11:41:30 |
|
Clearly, they are wrong. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:55:18 |
|
See my point about circumcision. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 11:58:31 |
|
If you define marriage solely according to the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 12:06:56 |
|
But the dispute and the amendment | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 12:51:16 |
|
Well, now I gotta drag it out again. | by Ravenlock | 2004-07-14 12:54:57 |
|
Wouldn't happen. | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 13:14:03 |
|
By your logic... | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 16:01:15 |
|
They are using their religion to justify their | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 10:55:50 |
|
But that is different | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 11:04:07 |
|
Then use Slippery Slope argument. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 12:27:47 |
|
Is the dogma the basis for the law | by BloodyViking | 2004-07-14 12:33:16 |
|
A bit off all of the above, don't you think? (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 12:35:39 |
|
s/off/of (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2004-07-14 12:35:50 |
|
What NOLA said. | by Naruki | 2004-07-14 13:03:02 |