Cleetus
August 4th, 2004, 10:14 AM
To MIssouri as the just passed the amendment to ban gay marriages (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5592789/)
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Ya_know is moving
jitBob
August 4th, 2004, 10:21 AM
To MIssouri as the just passed the amendment to ban gay marriages (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5592789/)
Why not? He lives in a constant state of Misery anyway! http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Why not? He lives in a constant state of Misery anyway! http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 10:27 AM
http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/agreed.gif
WooHOoo!!!
Missouri, http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/yourock.gif
WooHOoo!!!
Missouri, http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/yourock.gif
edball
August 4th, 2004, 10:57 AM
Yeah, but there may be a down side.....http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sagrin.gif
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/06/17/503469-ap.html
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/06/17/503469-ap.html
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 10:59 AM
Yeah, but there may be a down side.....http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sagrin.gif
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/06/17/503469-ap.html
What's the down side? I can still get Internet Porn from Missouri!!!
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/06/17/503469-ap.html
What's the down side? I can still get Internet Porn from Missouri!!!
techs
August 4th, 2004, 12:41 PM
What's the down side? I can still get Internet Porn from Missouri!!!
Maybe not for long.
Maybe not for long.
TripleRLtd
August 4th, 2004, 12:46 PM
To MIssouri as the just passed the amendment to ban gay marriages (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5592789/)http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/lach.gif (http://forums.windrivers.com/misc.php?do=getsmilies#)
Good one Cleete.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Notice how different states see this issue, btw. Which I suppose is your point, right? My opinion: it should be a state issue. Leave it alone Buish. Making it a Constitutional Amendment issue only further inflames the masses of polar opposites this nation is becoming with its two-party system.
Good one Cleete.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Notice how different states see this issue, btw. Which I suppose is your point, right? My opinion: it should be a state issue. Leave it alone Buish. Making it a Constitutional Amendment issue only further inflames the masses of polar opposites this nation is becoming with its two-party system.
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 01:10 PM
http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/lach.gif (http://forums.windrivers.com/misc.php?do=getsmilies#)
Good one Cleete.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Notice how different states see this issue, btw. Which I suppose is your point, right? My opinion: it should be a state issue. Leave it alone Buish. Making it a Constitutional Amendment issue only further inflames the masses of polar opposites this nation is becoming with its two-party system.
By putting it in the states hands we now have an issue that will be addressing the non-recognition of some states acceptance by states that don’t recognize same sex marriages at all. So just what have we accomplished???
Good one Cleete.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Notice how different states see this issue, btw. Which I suppose is your point, right? My opinion: it should be a state issue. Leave it alone Buish. Making it a Constitutional Amendment issue only further inflames the masses of polar opposites this nation is becoming with its two-party system.
By putting it in the states hands we now have an issue that will be addressing the non-recognition of some states acceptance by states that don’t recognize same sex marriages at all. So just what have we accomplished???
TripleRLtd
August 4th, 2004, 01:23 PM
By putting it in the states hands we now have an issue that will be addressing the non-recognition of some states acceptance by states that don’t recognize same sex marriages at all. So just what have we accomplished???States Rights is what. I take it you want it to be an Amendment?
What do you see coming, another Civil War like over the Slave State v Non-slave State question?
What do you see coming, another Civil War like over the Slave State v Non-slave State question?
jitBob
August 4th, 2004, 01:26 PM
States Rights is what. I take it you want it to be an Amendment?
What do you see coming, another Civil War like over the Slave State v Non-slave State question?
Get real. A civil war over this? http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
What do you see coming, another Civil War like over the Slave State v Non-slave State question?
Get real. A civil war over this? http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
GrandDad
August 4th, 2004, 01:45 PM
http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/agreed.gif
WooHOoo!!!
Missouri, http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/yourock.gif
Sorry , there's no housing to buy or rent here .
Message to builders ; Get that wall up quik !
WooHOoo!!!
Missouri, http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/yourock.gif
Sorry , there's no housing to buy or rent here .
Message to builders ; Get that wall up quik !
TripleRLtd
August 4th, 2004, 01:51 PM
Get real. A civil war over this? http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gifI asked teh Ya_k knucklehead.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
I want to see what he sees as the problem with this
I want to see what he sees as the problem with this
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 01:51 PM
States Rights is what. I take it you want it to be an Amendment?
What do you see coming, another Civil War like over the Slave State v Non-slave State question?
I'm not talking civil war dumba$$. You're the only one that would come at me with that.
I am saying let's agree on this once and for all, one way or the other. By allowing the states to have individual say-so's in a matter such as gay marriage, to include the legal aspect of all of the joint finances and benefits, is completely backwards-@SS. So now every time a gay married couple moves to a different state, or tries to get services from a company that is in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, we are going to see massive debates and lawsuits that will only further thicken the plot of this, and it is so unnecessary.
This needs to be either a federally recognized or banned concept...you can't pass this off on the states...this is One Country!!! That is where Kerry and Bush differ. Bush sees that, where Kerry just wants to walk away from it because he thinks it to hot of a debate issue to pick a side.
Either we ban it or we accept it, but we shouldn’t be leaving this up to the states!!!!!
What do you see coming, another Civil War like over the Slave State v Non-slave State question?
I'm not talking civil war dumba$$. You're the only one that would come at me with that.
I am saying let's agree on this once and for all, one way or the other. By allowing the states to have individual say-so's in a matter such as gay marriage, to include the legal aspect of all of the joint finances and benefits, is completely backwards-@SS. So now every time a gay married couple moves to a different state, or tries to get services from a company that is in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, we are going to see massive debates and lawsuits that will only further thicken the plot of this, and it is so unnecessary.
This needs to be either a federally recognized or banned concept...you can't pass this off on the states...this is One Country!!! That is where Kerry and Bush differ. Bush sees that, where Kerry just wants to walk away from it because he thinks it to hot of a debate issue to pick a side.
Either we ban it or we accept it, but we shouldn’t be leaving this up to the states!!!!!
TripleRLtd
August 4th, 2004, 02:01 PM
So now every time a gay married couple moves to a different state, or tries to get services from a company that is in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, we are going to see massive debates and lawsuits that will only further thicken the plot of this, and it is so unnecessary.
This needs to be either a federally recognized or banned concept...you can't pass this off on the states...this is One Country!!!
That is where Kerry and Bush differ. Bush sees that, where Kerry just wants to walk away from it because he thinks it to hot of a debate issue to pick a side.
Either we ban it or we accept it, but we shouldn’t be leaving this up to the states!!!!!Valid points dumba$$.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif So, say that Kerry comes down on the side of acceptance: after all Massachusetts is for it. Do you think he would want this to be a Constitutional Amendment further dividing the country and the parties?
This needs to be either a federally recognized or banned concept...you can't pass this off on the states...this is One Country!!!
That is where Kerry and Bush differ. Bush sees that, where Kerry just wants to walk away from it because he thinks it to hot of a debate issue to pick a side.
Either we ban it or we accept it, but we shouldn’t be leaving this up to the states!!!!!Valid points dumba$$.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif So, say that Kerry comes down on the side of acceptance: after all Massachusetts is for it. Do you think he would want this to be a Constitutional Amendment further dividing the country and the parties?
Ya_know
August 4th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Valid points dumba$$.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif So, say that Kerry comes down on the side of acceptance: after all Massachusetts is for it. Do you think he would want this to be a Constitutional Amendment further dividing the country and the parties?
It isn't going to end until we do something drastic, hence the US Constitutional amendment. As much as I am against gay marriages, and would fight it right to the end, I would respect the decision if it was placed in stone. If I have to accept it, I want it to be there, and not here in this state, and not in that. I would think that that is what even the homosexual community would prefer…one way or the other. No more of this in-between.
I though I made all of this clear to you in previous threads like this? I guess I had to do it again…
Remember, Ya_know for Politicos ’05!!!
It isn't going to end until we do something drastic, hence the US Constitutional amendment. As much as I am against gay marriages, and would fight it right to the end, I would respect the decision if it was placed in stone. If I have to accept it, I want it to be there, and not here in this state, and not in that. I would think that that is what even the homosexual community would prefer…one way or the other. No more of this in-between.
I though I made all of this clear to you in previous threads like this? I guess I had to do it again…
Remember, Ya_know for Politicos ’05!!!
windrivers.com
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.