Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Texas Religious Liberty Law Signed
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3242397" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>"To blame". Ha! </p><p></p><p>Or, to put it another way, the media (if you must) picked up on and drew attention to a legal injustice and the people have made up their minds to change. And in regards to civil rights and the media, i'm pretty sure pictures of fire hoses and police dogs being turned on peaceful marchers was totally agenda driven and had nothing to do with exposing the reality of the situation... Perhaps it'd be better to say 'got the message out about the lack of dangers of (insert gay marriage, civil rights, etc here).' But again, i'm more for freedom of association than using government power to restrict things i don't believe in personally.</p><p></p><p>If you are 'fine' with civil unions, but only want 'marriage' to be between a man and woman than it does seem like you're hung up about the word. Why else create the legal need for two separate processes that are really only different in makeup of the two people involved. Why does it make sense to create a need for bob and steve to get a 'civil union license' while bob and sally need a 'marriage license' (and there it is again, using 'marriage' as a term with government involvement). </p><p></p><p>And of course, "They are portrayed in a very favorable light with favorable results" might also be offsetting all the years where they weren't portrayed that way. In much the same way as has been true for blacks, asians, irish, etc, etc, etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 3242397, member: 277"] "To blame". Ha! Or, to put it another way, the media (if you must) picked up on and drew attention to a legal injustice and the people have made up their minds to change. And in regards to civil rights and the media, i'm pretty sure pictures of fire hoses and police dogs being turned on peaceful marchers was totally agenda driven and had nothing to do with exposing the reality of the situation... Perhaps it'd be better to say 'got the message out about the lack of dangers of (insert gay marriage, civil rights, etc here).' But again, i'm more for freedom of association than using government power to restrict things i don't believe in personally. If you are 'fine' with civil unions, but only want 'marriage' to be between a man and woman than it does seem like you're hung up about the word. Why else create the legal need for two separate processes that are really only different in makeup of the two people involved. Why does it make sense to create a need for bob and steve to get a 'civil union license' while bob and sally need a 'marriage license' (and there it is again, using 'marriage' as a term with government involvement). And of course, "They are portrayed in a very favorable light with favorable results" might also be offsetting all the years where they weren't portrayed that way. In much the same way as has been true for blacks, asians, irish, etc, etc, etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Texas Religious Liberty Law Signed
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom