Republicans really do hate gay people

[Wiglaf]

I believe, as do most conservatives, that a society that treats important words and institutions like 'marriage' with so little respect that they can be changed dramatically in just a few years, is not a stable society in other areas of law (eg contracts, constitutional law, etc). An unstable society affects everyone.

[giblets]

An unstable society does not affect everyone. My bunker is fully stocked with guns, bottled water, canned food, gold and fuel. I am prepared.

[Wiglaf]

Okay.

[Lorizael]

You lose every argument you engage in, always being sure to run away rather than acknowledge how stupid you are, and consistently refuse to release your SAT scores and undergraduate transcripts. You're the idiot and everyone knows it. You probably went to a COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

I'M GOING TO A COMMUNITY COLLEGE YOU *****ING *** *****ER ***WAD.

[Wiglaf]

Why can't you go to a real one?

[Lorizael]

I WILL IN TWO YEARS YOU GIANT *****'S ****ING **********.

[Wiglaf]

Why in two years? Why not straight away?

And how do you know you'll get into a college in two years? What will have changed?

[Lorizael]

Because it's significantly cheaper to do the first two years of my degree at a community college than at a four-year university. And I'm automatically admitted to one particular four-year college if I have a high enough GPA and an associate's degrees from the particular community college I'm going to.

[kentonio]

While, like everybody else who's posted in the past five pages or so of this thread, I support gay marriage, I and I alone support gay marriage for correct and scientific reasons (i.e., so we can hook magnets up to Falwell's corpse and coffin to generate power from him turning over in his grave).

The rest of you ignorant douches are going to hell.

[Wiglaf]

I'm not sure what you were doing in high school to have a GPA so low that a state school didn't make more financial sense right off the bat, but okay.

It's like I say, people. Before you call me stupid, crack a book or two.

[Lorizael]

I'm not sure what you were doing in high school to have a GPA so low that a state school didn't make more financial sense right off the bat, but okay.

Being a lazy, unmotivated douche.

[rah]

I believe, as do most conservatives, that a society that treats important words and institutions like 'marriage' with so little respect that they can be changed dramatically in just a few years, is not a stable society in other areas of law (eg contracts, constitutional law, etc). An unstable society affects everyone.

Again, you use the "I believe" that it leads to an unstable society. That is no proof of harm or a future unstable society. Changes will always happen in every area because that's the nature of life. I'm on the conservative side and like to see changes take time after considerable debate. 20 years ago I would have laughed at the concept. Years ago I adjusted that to "just give them a civic union and be done with it". Now I'm, "no sweat off my back", let them get married. This debate has been going on for a lot longer than a "few years". I have long conceded that it presents no harm to me and it's only fair. Why should we treat them differently?

As pointed out many times here, there have been many many GOOD changes. How long it takes should not be used to define the positive nature of the change.

[rah]

And just for grins a lot of experts are now preaching that with the high cost of education and the lack of employment guarantees that taking out loans to go to a full college is not that smart.
They recommend going to a community college and take classes that you can highly expect to be transferable and save the money. Then transfer and get your final degree from a more prestigious university at a savings of 40% or so. If you toss in the room and board savings by sponging off the parents, a more money could be saved. Student debt is getting out of control.

The only downside is the crappier opportunities to party.

[Wiglaf]

Again, you use the "I believe" that it leads to an unstable society. That is no proof of harm or a future unstable society. Changes will always happen in every area because that's the nature of life. I'm on the conservative side and like to see changes take time after considerable debate. 20 years ago I would have laughed at the concept. Years ago I adjusted that to "just give them a civic union and be done with it". Now I'm, "no sweat off my back", let them get married. This debate has been going on for a lot longer than a "few years". I have long conceded that it presents no harm to me and it's only fair. Why should we treat them differently?

As pointed out many times here, there have been many many GOOD changes. How long it takes should not be used to define the positive nature of the change.

What response do you have to someone who might say that, while 'the Right to bear arms' originally referred to weapons like rifles, now it should be interpreted to refer to water pistols?

You can't refer to tradition. You can't refer to a textual definition of 'arms' that has persisted for centuries. What can you do?

[giblets]

What response do you have to someone who might say that, while 'the Right to bear arms' originally referred to weapons like rifles, now it should be interpreted to refer to water pistols?

You can't refer to tradition. You can't refer to a textual definition of 'arms' that has persisted for centuries. What can you do?

You interpret it in the context of contemporary society where no one would consider a water pistol to be an effective form of protection.

When deciding what "cruel and unusual punishment" means should the Supreme Court go by what was considered acceptable in the 18th century? Does the Constitution prevent states from putting sodomites to death?