U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Cattaclysmic]

Probably. I never understood the angst some people have for allowing gay couples to marry.

If gays are allowed to marry then they will be happy. And they cant be happy. They need to be miserable like the rest of married folks. So therefore they need to remain unmarried.

[stumpy]

If gays are allowed to marry then they will be happy. And they cant be happy. They need to be miserable like the rest of married folks. So therefore they need to remain unmarried.

Hot damn, I think you've finally found the answer! It's not hate at all! It's envy!

EDIT: Although you have to figure... once homosexuals (inevitably) get the right to marry as easily as straight people do, they'll have as many frivolous, ill-advised marriages as straight couples do and soon become as miserable as the rest.

Don't you see? We're forcing them to wade through a mountain of shit for their own good!

[Slammin Shaman]

If gays are allowed to marry then they will be happy. And they cant be happy. They need to be miserable like the rest of married folks. So therefore they need to remain unmarried.

Paradox, baby. Paradox.

[Kalyyn]

If gays are allowed to marry then they will be happy. And they cant be happy. They need to be miserable like the rest of married folks. So therefore they need to remain unmarried.

I had a friend (I use the term loosely, actually couldn't stand the guy some days) who is strongly against gay marriage, but didn't want to admit that it was for religious reasons. He told me that he wanted the definition of marriage to remain one man and one woman. So I asked him, "Wouldn't that be government imposing the will of the church?" to which he responded "No, that's just always been the definition of the word marriage! It has nothing to do with religion!"

Dude, I don't think Merriam Webster is going to lose sleep over this -_-

[smelltheglove]

Dude, I don't think Merriam Webster is going to lose sleep over this -_-

webster's complete and unabridged paradoxical dictionary

[Cattaclysmic]

I had a friend (I use the term loosely, actually couldn't stand the guy some days) who is strongly against gay marriage, but didn't want to admit that it was for religious reasons. He told me that he wanted the definition of marriage to remain one man and one woman. So I asked him, "Wouldn't that be government imposing the will of the church?" to which he responded "No, that's just always been the definition of the word marriage! It has nothing to do with religion!"

Dude, I don't think Merriam Webster is going to lose sleep over this -_-

He wanted the church to define it but then said it had nothing to do with religion?

[Kalyyn]

He wanted the church to define it but then said it had nothing to do with religion?

Its kind of sad to watch, really. He's an amazingly intelligent person, especially when it comes to anything related to numbers, and all around just a genius. Unfortunately, he was raised as a devout catholic, and his parents really drilled into him that every word of the bible is undeniable fact. So to me, he always seems torn between his intellect and his overzealous faith. I think it's really frustrating for him, which is why he tends to become angry when arguing about anything related to christianity.

[Grizzly Willy]

I was responding sarcastically to a person saying everyone is on koolaid, yet my post is an example of liberals. I'm sorry, I guess I should have said people who disagree with me are high, to live up to her standard.

Pardon? I wasn't talking about you.

[Felya420]

Pardon? I wasn't talking about you.

Her standard, not yours. I was agreeing with you.

[Grizzly Willy]

You would think that, as an English major, I would be better at figuring this stuff out. Suppose I should work on that.

[belfpala]

Random history lesson.

http://xkcd.com/1122/

[Grizzly Willy]

I liked the 1996 entry. One streak that Munroe missed is that no Republican has won the presidency without Ohio.

[Mnevis]

That's what the whole thing is a reaction to.

[Grizzly Willy]

Totally knew that.

>.>

What?

[Reeve]

Its kind of sad to watch, really. He's an amazingly intelligent person, especially when it comes to anything related to numbers, and all around just a genius. Unfortunately, he was raised as a devout catholic, and his parents really drilled into him that every word of the bible is undeniable fact. So to me, he always seems torn between his intellect and his overzealous faith. I think it's really frustrating for him, which is why he tends to become angry when arguing about anything related to christianity.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

[Willeonge]

Random history lesson.

http://xkcd.com/1122/

Relevant xkcd?

[belfpala]

Relevant xkcd?

There's always a relevant xkcd.

[obdigore]

There's always a relevant xkcd.

Indeed there is. I particularly like this one. http://xkcd.com/647/

[Wells]

Obama on the Daily Show tonight.

---------- Post added 2012-10-19 at 06:28 AM ----------

Also his answer about the Libya response was a good one. Paraphrasing here but: "Government is a big organization, and sometimes you screw up, and you fix it". So can we move past that stupid "issue" now?

[Felya420]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...iage-equality/

Kluwe will debate an empty chair over marriage*equality

Vikings punter Chris Kluwe wants to debate a supporter of the proposed Minnesota marriage amendment, which would limit the definition of the term to a union between a man and a woman.* But invitations extended to folks like former Vikings center Matt Birk and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann weren’t accepted.

So Kluwe will be debating an empty chair.

Yes, the tactic has been used recently by Clint Eastwood, but if no one will step up to the stage and take on Kluwe, then he has no choice.

The “debate” will happen Friday night, and it will be “moderated” by local radio personality Tom Bernard.* Here’s hoping he keeps the chair in line.