That was already going on the only thing this ruling changed is the precedent that he state dictates whom you can enter a union with. If anything religious folk should be weary of the state attempting to regulate a religious or private union. Just because it's legal doesn't mean people that disagree with have to accept it or recognize it. If you give the state the power to dictate who you can marry that's more dangerous then anything.

And might I add, just because people disagree with it, or don't accept or recoginize it does not mean they fear or hate those that do.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

That was already going on the only thing this ruling changed is the precedent that he state dictates whom you can enter a union with. If anything religious folk should be weary of the state attempting to regulate a religious or private union. Just because it's legal doesn't mean people that disagree with have to accept it or recognize it. If you give the state the power to dictate who you can marry that's more dangerous then anything.

 

I would put it differently.   What the ruling changed is that the state cannot dictate whom you can enter a union with.   In that way, it's not marriage regulation, it's marriage deregulation.  

 

Prior to the ruling, wasn't marriage regulated more than it is after the ruling?   Rather than "giving the states the power to dictate who you can marry," it's taking away some of the state's power to dictate whom you can marry.  

 

Before, the states could say that gays could not marry.    They regulated marriage in that way.   Now they cannot say that.   Is that not DE-regulation?    Isn't a regulation a restriction?   When you remove a restriction (gays cannot marry) is that not deregulation?  

---

Maybe you guys don't know any teenagers? Being gay is already too normative, they've moved on to odder things.

Kids dont care. Even my generation, 30 y/o's dont care

---

Thats part of the problem. What happens when gays realize that they're not so special and unique anymore. What's next?

Yes, I'm sure people were only being gay because it's cool and unique.  I mean... gay teens are more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be homeless, and are totally choosing to be gay because being discriminated against is awesome.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Kids dont care. Even my generation, 30 y/o's dont care

Closer to forty then thirty, but I don't see that being the case.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

You have kids? :-)

I do.

---

So Ted Cruz said that between the Obamacare ruling and marriage equality, we're facing "the worst 24 hours in our country's history."

 

I'll be sure to pass the message along to 9/11 victims.

 

I can't speak for Ted Cruz but I believe his mindset is along the line of how I feel.

 

There's no dispute that 9/11 was tragic beyond any words that can be used.   The mental anguish of 9/11 still exists for me and that will almost certainly be the case as long as I'm alive.   Yet,  because of what transpired in the 24 hours last Thursday and Friday,   there's a school of thought by many that the worst by far is yet to come in this country.   Especially,  when combining this with other decisions,  policies,  and the overall direction of the United States.   

 

I realize that many,  if not most people reading this strongly disagree with this mindset.   I doubt you will be convinced in the short term regardless of what anyone says.   But it reinforces why I strongly believe that Ted Cruz or someone like him is the only hope for the United States of America.   

---

I would put it differently. What the ruling changed is that the state cannot dictate whom you can enter a union with. In that way, it's not marriage regulation, it's marriage deregulation.


Prior to the ruling, wasn't marriage regulated more than it is after the ruling? Rather than "giving the states the power to dictate who you can marry," it's taking away some of the state's power to dictate whom you can marry.


Before, the states could say that gays could not marry. They regulated marriage in that way. Now they cannot say that. Is that not DE-regulation? Isn't a regulation a restriction? When you remove a restriction (gays cannot marry) is that not deregulation?

That's what I was saying maybe I wast clear?


I support this action because it's a step towards deregulating marriage, which is a private and usually religious union.


Government has no role to play in private individuals joining a union.

---

I can't speak for Ted Cruz but I believe his mindset is along the line of how I feel.

 

There's no dispute that 9/11 was tragic beyond any words that can be used.   The mental anguish of 9/11 still exists for me and that will almost certainly be the case as long as I'm alive.   Yet,  because of what transpired in the 24 hours last Thursday and Friday,   there's a school of thought by many that the worst by far is yet to come in this country.   Especially,  when combining this with other decisions,  policies,  and the overall direction of the United States.   

 

I realize that many,  if not most people reading this strongly disagree with this mindset.   I doubt you will be convinced in the short term regardless of what anyone says.   But it reinforces why I strongly believe that Ted Cruz or someone like him is the only hope for the United States of America.

I respect your opinion, but I don't see how anyone can equate people getting killed by terrorists to two people getting married because they love each other.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

I would put it differently.   What the ruling changed is that the state cannot dictate whom you can enter a union with.   In that way, it's not marriage regulation, it's marriage deregulation.  

 

Prior to the ruling, wasn't marriage regulated more than it is after the ruling?   Rather than "giving the states the power to dictate who you can marry," it's taking away some of the state's power to dictate whom you can marry.  

 

Before, the states could say that gays could not marry.    They regulated marriage in that way.   Now they cannot say that.   Is that not DE-regulation?    Isn't a regulation a restriction?   When you remove a restriction (gays cannot marry) is that not deregulation?  

 

Changing a regulation of something that shouldn't be regulated isn't deregulation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I respect your opinion, but I don't see how anyone can equate people getting killed by terrorists to two people getting married because they love each other.

 

   It's very hard to express my thoughts because of the COC.   I'll say this though.  I believe that if society condones and even more pronounced sanctions same sex marriage or anything related,  it will inevitability lead to epic disaster if the course isn't at least substantially altered.    America might be the most powerful nation in the world today but it's a country of finite human beings.   I think you and most others know what I would like to express but can't.     We see things differently.  

---

Only way gay marriage ruins this country is if it causes Ted Cruz to get elected.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Only way gay marriage ruins this country is if it causes Ted Cruz to get elected.

 

  Your entitled to your opinion.   But we view the situation 180 degrees apart.  

---

Only way gay marriage ruins this country is if it causes Ted Cruz to get elected.

 

Funny how the leftist hate is strongest for minorities who run as Republicans. Can't have 'em getting off the plantation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Funny how the leftist hate is strongest for minorities who run as Republicans. Can't have 'em getting off the plantation.

 

Did you post this with a straight face?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I'm so glad my family doesn't associate with people that liken gay marriage to 9/11. I'd keep my son FAR away from such an individual.


The fact is, people are becoming more open minded and accepting. The country is evolving, people are evolving. It's happening, and will continue to happen, whether you like it or not. If some want to sulk in their own pool of misery, that's their prerogative. The rest of society is moving on.

---

Did you post this with a straight face?

 

Ever seen how your heroes treat black Republicans? That's nothing compared to what Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal have coming to them. Can't disrupt the narrative that the party of the Old South is the Great White Hope for minorities.

 

BTW, have you ever seen an old and creamy white vanilla bunch of candidates as what the Demos are puking up this year? Like the roll call at a Klan meeting it is.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I can't speak for Ted Cruz but I believe his mindset is along the line of how I feel.

 

There's no dispute that 9/11 was tragic beyond any words that can be used.   The mental anguish of 9/11 still exists for me and that will almost certainly be the case as long as I'm alive.   Yet,  because of what transpired in the 24 hours last Thursday and Friday,   there's a school of thought by many that the worst by far is yet to come in this country.   Especially,  when combining this with other decisions,  policies,  and the overall direction of the United States.   

 

I realize that many,  if not most people reading this strongly disagree with this mindset.   I doubt you will be convinced in the short term regardless of what anyone says.   But it reinforces why I strongly believe that Ted Cruz or someone like him is the only hope for the United States of America.   

 

Funny, but I feel just the opposite. Ted Cruz (and those of his ilk) are fighting the tide of history - and is not the hope of the USA. Far from it. 

 

The trend of America has been one of expanding liberty. Too slowly at times, too cruel at times, but always expanding the base of citizen rights. Cruz doesn't want that. He's rather play upon the fears of a segment of the population that is uncertain as to the current course of the country. At one time they thought they knew. At one time they thought they were in control. But it's now all so confusing to them.

 

Read some American history. There have been periods, many in fact, that were a lot more scary and threatening than the period we're living through. The expansion of liberty is a good thing, believe it or not, and America will get through this.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Ever seen how your heroes treat black Republicans? That's nothing compared to what Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal have coming to them. Can't disrupt the narrative that the party of the Old South is the Great White Hope for minorities.

 

BTW, have you ever seen an old and creamy white vanilla bunch of candidates as what the Demos are puking up this year? Like the roll call at a Klan meeting it is.

 

I'm not even sure where to begin.

 

My heroes?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I'm not even sure where to begin.

 

My heroes?

 

Friend, we know where you stand, it's written all over these forums.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato