You may be right. I don’t think so… I’m sure history could be used to prove both our points but I’m honestly guessing. We’ll find out in 4 years.
LOL…REALLY?
I am talking about promoting something that is unhealthy and costly. This has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy of their own home. It has everything to do with what…pay attention because I really don’t like repeating myself endlessly with this nonsense…OUR GOVERNMENT PROMOTES.
Then gay marriage should not have been passed according to you. PERIOD
Give me some examples where the person who finished second took the podium at the convention and did not endorse the parties nominee (and the next day made disparaging remarks about the parties nominee doubling down on his emotional reasoning) and then came back and became President.
Do not dispute me unless you give me solid examples as I gave you, or I am going to stop taking you seriously.
No, there is a difference between a marriage and a sex life. Gay marriage has nothing to do with their sex lives. It has everything to do with the law recognizing a unity between two people, regardless of their gender or how they have sex.
I answered your question, answer mine. Should the law prevent all anal sex on the basis of saving our economic doom or do you only want to restrict gay people?
Zeb, I literally said I was guessing. I was saying history could show that a politician backing out of his word could still get support… not that history has this exactly situation. RELAX.
You stated that the law should not be involved in peoples sex lives.
I am relaxed but you have done this on occasion Drew. I generally like your posts but when you don’t have the facts you continue to try to push your point. Why not just say “maybe your right ZEB because I do not have any idea regarding Presidential political history.”
That I could respect.
Because I don’t think you’re right and we won’t know if you’re right for another ~3 years? lol.
Did you read the rest of the post? I bolded the part that should help. It hints at there being a difference between people’s sex lives and gay marriage.
Here it is again incase you missed it:
No, there is a difference between a marriage and a sex life. Gay marriage has nothing to do with their sex lives. It has everything to do with the law recognizing a unity between two people, regardless of their gender or how they have sex.
I answered your question, answer mine. Should the law prevent all anal sex on the basis of saving our economic doom or do you only want to restrict gay people?
I gave you two excellent examples, you have nothing yet you say “I don’t think you’re right”.
I see.
Exactly, based off the situation as I see it I think it will play out differently. It’s a guess, who knows, I’m not putting much behind it and will be curious how it plays out. Why do you get so bent out of shape over predictions? They’re exactly that, predictions. We don’t know.
You said you did not want the government involved I simply reminded you that the government got involved.
I am not here on a thread which reads “GOP Platform: A Better Way” to discuss gay marriage.
Start a thread entitled “Gay Marriage” If I feel like posting I will.
My rational has already been given and I stand by it. Go back and read it all I can to is type it over and over again and I’m not doing that.
You’ve already proven to be someone who will not yield the simplest of points when clearly proven that he does not know the facts.
Bye Drew
LOL…based on?
Drew “Um I dunno I just think it will so I will say it.”
Agreed. No problem if he wants to hold fast to principles he thinks are being compromised by Trump and the RNC. But decline to give a speech.
Cruz didn’t show guts last night - Cruz did what he thought was best for Cruz’s future shot at the Oval Office. I think it backfired.
Which is sad. Because his speech wasn’t bad, and what he said about voting your conscience needed to be said. Sadly HRC will probably be elected regardless of what Cruz did last night. He might be only thinking of himself, who knows. But there is a very large swath of the republicans who feel similarly and that includes more of the congressmen and governors than almost any presidential candidate in the modern era. Cruz is the lightning rod, but there is a lot of the same feeling underneath the surface.
I agree. But then, as numerous people on this board are fond of saying: this is politics. All politicians are liars. Some are less odious than others.
haha uh huh. I asked to understand your logic about how gay marriage leads to economic failure and we went round in circles, moved the goal posts, and stand by your point that government promotes anal sex? And you want me to buy that?. I’m glad you’re confident in your position, but for anyone following along they can see it is not based on any sound logic.
I think think thats a good idea, but we were talking about how social issues impact a presidential choice, specifically the “economic failure” statement with gay marriage as an example. I’m confident the social issues you mentioned do not lead to economic failure.
Well, the flip side to this is that Trump has a record number of congressmen and governors who do not support or endorse him. This is nearly unprecedented in the modern era. Cruz was the public face of that but not nearly the only one. Not by a long shot. And remember we are not talking about voters here, we’re talking party politicians.
One other thing I would add - we’ve heard for years around here that if only the GOP would nominate a hard-right “true conservative” instead of all these squishes, the GOP would win national election after national election.
The “true conservative” took the stage last night, stood up for “true conservatism” as he understands it, and was booed off the stage.
And not by the Establishment.