Learn WTF Tolerance Means [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Veritas

5/15/2009, 09:17 AM

Tolerance means I put up with your ****. Tolerance means that when my parents start talking their crazy charismatic babble, I put up with it. I TOLERATE it.

Tolerance does NOT mean endorsement. If I don't endorse something, that does NOT mean I'm not intolerant.

For example. I don't support gay marriage*. If you ask me, I think marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. I'm not going to vote for anything pro-gay marriage because to do so would be to endorse it.

This does NOT make me intolerant of gay people. If you want to live with a dude and **** each other in the ***, more power to you. When I was single I'd have said "more chicks for me." If you want to be out and proud in the work place, awesome. Get your job done and I don't care if you're going to have horns implanted in your skull.

I will tolerate your gayness. But I won't endorse it.

And the media, liberal, and Democrats people seem to miss this. They want to construe tolerance as endorsement, and more importantly construe a lack of endorsement as intolerance.

And that's bull****.

*I actually don't give a damn either way. The state has no business being involved in marriage at all. But gay marriage is gay.

badger

5/15/2009, 09:20 AM

Tell us how you really feel. Tell us what really husks your corn, eats your bug and mankills your mastodon.

JohnnyMack

5/15/2009, 09:35 AM

I will tolerate your bugeaterness. But I won't endorse it.

Veritas

5/15/2009, 10:28 AM

I will tolerate your bugeaterness. But I won't endorse it.
I <3 Mack.

TUSooner

5/15/2009, 10:43 AM

Tolerance means I put up with your ****. Tolerance means that when my parents start talking their crazy charismatic babble, I put up with it. I TOLERATE it.

Tolerance does NOT mean endorsement. If I don't endorse something, that does NOT mean I'm not intolerant.

For example. I don't support gay marriage*. If you ask me, I think marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. I'm not going to vote for anything pro-gay marriage because to do so would be to endorse it.

This does NOT make me intolerant of gay people...
I will tolerate your gayness. But I won't endorse it.

And the media, liberal, and Democrats people seem to miss this. They want to construe tolerance as endorsement, and more importantly construe a lack of endorsement as intolerance.

And that's bull****....

My thoughts exactly - on any number of issues. It's almost like it's an insult to merely "tolerate" folks and their views these days. They want you to "validate" them, or as you say, "endorse" them. Lots of people are lucky we don't just shoot 'em and burn their houses down. :mad: :rolleyes:

StoopTroup

5/15/2009, 10:45 AM

V seems kinda bitchy today.

olevetonahill

5/15/2009, 10:46 AM

V seems kinda bitchy today.

Hes Just all a twitter :P

StoopTroup

5/15/2009, 10:48 AM

Lots of people are lucky we don't just shoot 'em and burn their houses down. :mad: :rolleyes:

That would be wrong right? :pop:

ADs_Agent

5/15/2009, 11:04 AM

I agree with this, what i'd like to add is that many times the gay community is the most intolerant of any community out there. Because I choose to live a moral and Christ based life they immediately blow me off as small minded etc. I love the person but don't love their lifestyle. Is society merely asking a tolerance of a slackening in morals?

StoopTroup

5/15/2009, 11:06 AM

Will we someday lose the right to refuse to pick up the soap?

JohnnyMack

5/15/2009, 11:10 AM

I agree with this, what i'd like to add is that many times the religious community is the most intolerant of any community out there. Because I choose to live a moral and Reason based life they immediately blow me off as a heretic, etc. I love the person but don't love their lifestyle. Is society merely asking for a tolerance of a lack of common sense?

:D

leavingthezoo

5/15/2009, 12:38 PM

i hate you all. tolerate that. :P

CrimsonJim

5/15/2009, 12:50 PM

V seems kinda bitchy today.

V may be bitchy today, but V's got it all figured out! Well said V!! :)

LosAngelesSooner

5/15/2009, 02:26 PM

Tolerance means I put up with your ****. Tolerance means that when my parents start talking their crazy charismatic babble, I put up with it. I TOLERATE it.

Tolerance does NOT mean endorsement. If I don't endorse something, that does NOT mean I'm not intolerant.

For example. I don't support gay marriage*. If you ask me, I think marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. I'm not going to vote for anything pro-gay marriage because to do so would be to endorse it.

This does NOT make me intolerant of gay people. If you want to live with a dude and **** each other in the ***, more power to you. When I was single I'd have said "more chicks for me." If you want to be out and proud in the work place, awesome. Get your job done and I don't care if you're going to have *horns* implanted in your skull.

I will tolerate your gayness. But I won't endorse it.

And the media, liberal, and Democrats people seem to miss this. They want to construe tolerance as endorsement, and more importantly construe a lack of endorsement as intolerance.

And that's bull****.

*I actually don't give a damn either way. The state has no business being involved in marriage at all. But gay marriage is gay.So, then...you also won't vote FOR a ban on gay marriage, because that would demonstrate intolerance?

olevetonahill

5/15/2009, 02:55 PM

So, then...you also won't vote FOR a ban on gay marriage, because that would demonstrate intolerance?

I will cause Ima Intolerant mother****er :P

C&CDean

5/15/2009, 03:20 PM

So, then...you also won't vote FOR a ban on gay marriage, because that would demonstrate intolerance?

I'm the most tolerant mother****er I know. But I would vote for a ban on gay marriage. I believe it's wrong. This doesn't in any way, shape, or form make me intolerant.

I tolerate the boys boinking each other, and I tolerate the whole "gayness is rightousness and if you feel differently then you're a racist homophobe" from the media, but in the one arena where I can express myself and my opinion I would/will.

To put it another way, would you vote to make NAMBLA or the KKK or the NRA illegal organizations?

SoonerStormchaser

5/15/2009, 03:26 PM

I am a homophobe and proud of it...after all, I serve in the intolerant military!

OU_Sooners75

5/15/2009, 03:29 PM

Wait a ****ing minute...

We have a bugeater as a moderator here?

Veritas

5/15/2009, 03:30 PM

So, then...you also won't vote FOR a ban on gay marriage, because that would demonstrate intolerance?
I wouldn't. On that particular issue the government has no damn business telling us who we can or cannot form a legally binding contract with.

We have a bugeater as a moderator here?Boggles the mind, don't it?:D

olevetonahill

5/15/2009, 03:31 PM

Wait a ****ing minute...

We have a bugeater as a moderator here?

And a Dayum goodun at that
Plus he joined up at the hideout
Pay tention

olevetonahill

5/15/2009, 03:35 PM

i hate you all. tolerate that. :P

I endorse this Post :D

JohnnyMack

5/15/2009, 03:37 PM

I wouldn't. On that particular issue the government has no damn business telling us who we can or cannot form a legally binding contract with.

This.

picasso

5/15/2009, 03:55 PM

I'm very tolerant of boobies. Why just today I had lunch with a friend at Twin Peaks. Nice little boobies.

JohnnyMack

5/15/2009, 03:57 PM

I'm very tolerant of boobies. Why just today I had lunch with a friend at Twin Peaks. Nice little boobies.

Is that place any good? I keep meaning to try it.

picasso

5/15/2009, 03:59 PM

eh. I had a friend in town from Arizona who used to sell beer here. He wanted to stop by there. we didn't eat, just had beer and boobs. girls were ok in a boobs and no arse stripper kinda way.

we did sit next to former Sooner Michael Thompson atten ze bar.

picasso

5/15/2009, 04:01 PM

oh and I had to hit the lavatory in a golfed all morning sit down and turn the fan on kinda way.

the place has been blessed.

stoops the eternal pimp

5/15/2009, 04:12 PM

im not tolerant of your poop

picasso

5/15/2009, 04:15 PM

but I did 2 courtesy flushes. 2 Jerry!

stoops the eternal pimp

5/15/2009, 04:17 PM

very well...thats acceptable under the Geneva Convention

47straight

5/15/2009, 04:47 PM

I wouldn't. On that particular issue the government has no damn business telling us who we can or cannot form a legally binding contract with.

Sure it does, your own sentence belies this fact. What makes it legally binding? The willingness of the government to enforce and uphold it.

When you want the government and society to enforce a contract, and use its money, time and means to do so, that goes to endorsement. You are telling the people (I'm a wacko who believes that government should reflect the will of the people), "Hey, enforce this contract." Then you say, "you cannot refuse to enforce this contract, it is none of your business." I see this as a contradiction.

There are lots of contracts that are not upheld. Gratuitous promises, contracts that violate public policy, contracts made from positions of grossly unfair bargaining power, contracts with minors, multiple simultaneous contracts to marry, etc. There are different reasons behind each of these.

Now, maybe you'd say that we should have freedom to contract in any of these cases. If so, that's fine but I'd disagree, especially to the extent that such a right is a Constitutional or due process right.

Okla-homey

5/15/2009, 06:01 PM

I support homosexual marriage. Its part of the lawyer full employment initiative. Two men, married, doubles the odds of divorce. And divorce = $$$ for my divorce lawyerin' colleagues. ;)

I do not support any initiative requiring faith groups to recognize, otherwise bless or officiate at said ceremonies. That's going too far.

All that said, I'm tolerant, but won't agree it's just an "alternative lifestyle" or othrwise validate or endorse it. I've seen enough homo-ism to know what it is. For d00ds, its mostly about hiding their pickle in another d00ds cornhole. For gals, its mostly about settling for another gal because no man was interested.:eek:

Frozen Sooner

5/15/2009, 10:58 PM

Sure it does, your own sentence belies this fact. What makes it legally binding? The willingness of the government to enforce and uphold it.

When you want the government and society to enforce a contract, and use its money, time and means to do so, that goes to endorsement. You are telling the people (I'm a wacko who believes that government should reflect the will of the people), "Hey, enforce this contract." Then you say, "you cannot refuse to enforce this contract, it is none of your business." I see this as a contradiction.

There are lots of contracts that are not upheld. Gratuitous promises, contracts that violate public policy, contracts made from positions of grossly unfair bargaining power, contracts with minors, multiple simultaneous contracts to marry, etc. There are different reasons behind each of these.

Now, maybe you'd say that we should have freedom to contract in any of these cases. If so, that's fine but I'd disagree, especially to the extent that such a right is a Constitutional or due process right.

Gratuitous promises aren't contracts. No mutual detriment. They can be enforced through promissory estoppel, though, based on the plaintiff's reasonable reliance.

I been studyin'.

olevetonahill

5/15/2009, 11:01 PM

Gratuitous promises aren't contracts. No mutual detriment. They can be enforced through promissory estoppel, though, based on the plaintiff's reasonable reliance.

I been studyin'.

Brainiac :P

Frozen Sooner

5/15/2009, 11:25 PM

I should amend that, as it looks like I'm saying that the promise in it's entirety would be enforced through promissory estoppel. The plaintiff can be made whole to the extent which he suffered damage due to their reasonable reliance on a gratuitous promise, not to the full value of the promise.

StoopTroup

5/16/2009, 12:36 AM

Wait a ****ing minute...

We have a bugeater as a moderator here?

Yes....and those of us who are still here and didn't absolutely loose our freaking minds about it when it happened realize that he is one of the nicest guy you'll ever meet and like OV said...he's a very good and fair Mod.

Collier11

5/16/2009, 01:40 AM

What is quite funny is that the fact that I will support gay couples having rights and benefits that go to all couples, I just dont support gay marriage because marriage has, is, and always will be a union between a man and a woman. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. But somehow that would make me intolerant according to the libs even though as I stated earlier, I fully support gay couples having equal rights and protections.

So that makes me intolerant but gays trying to take marriage and make it something its not, make it an unnatural act all while disrespecting the idea and sanctity of a pure marriage doesnt make them intolerant?

They say we are too caught up on the verbage and definition but arent they as well?

There are two sides to every argument such as this but the fuggin libs only see their side and dont respect the other side even though they are b*tching and moaning about getting their own respect. F*ck Off!

Okla-homey

5/16/2009, 07:04 AM

Homosexuals will get marriage/divorce in all states eventually.

That's if Congress doesn't repeal DOMA first, which is quite likely. If that happens, a homosexual marriage/divorce performed in another state, must be recognized in all other states.

The reason homosexuals will be able to marry/divorce in all states eventually is because they are arguing "equal protection" pretty effectively now, and the fact fudge-packers are humans too makes that argument pretty much a winner.

LosAngelesSooner

5/16/2009, 07:06 AM

I will cause Ima Intolerant mother****er :P
Yes. We know that already, Vet. ;)

I'm the most tolerant mother****er I know. But I would vote for a ban on gay marriage. I believe it's wrong. This doesn't in any way, shape, or form make me intolerant.Dean, voting to deny basic equality and the same rights as everyone else to a minority is the definition of intolerance.

So you aren't "the most tolerant mother****er you know." By your own statement you're a hypocrite. Now, if you're okay with that... *shrug*

I tolerate the boys boinking each other, and I tolerate the whole "gayness is rightousness and if you feel differently then you're a racist homophobe" from the media, but in the one arena where I can express myself and my opinion I would/will.
Expressing an opinion is one thing. And it's one thing I wholeheartedly agree you should be allowed to do. Voting to deny rights and discriminate against a minority...notsomuch.

To put it another way, would you vote to make NAMBLA or the KKK or the NRA illegal organizations?NAMBLA? YES. I would DEFINITELY vote to make that "organization" illegal. I can't believe it ISN'T already.

The KKK is disgusting, but should be legal.

The NRA? There isn't even a legitimate argument as to why they would EVER be considered illegal, so I think mentioning that is just silly.

I wouldn't. On that particular issue the government has no damn business telling us who we can or cannot form a legally binding contract with.

Boggles the mind, don't it?:DNah. I actually expected you to answer this way (and I was originally asking the question to you, btw). Like me, you're pretty middle of the road.

And I can't say I disagree with your assessment of how to handle the situation. I disagree with your stance, but I agree with and approve of how you're handling it and voicing it (for what it's worth).

AlbqSooner

5/16/2009, 08:01 AM

I <3 *Mack*.

Oh man! You are over the line.! I am a reasonably tolerant person, but there are limits!;)

AlbqSooner

5/16/2009, 08:07 AM

So, then...you also won't vote FOR a ban on gay marriage, because that would demonstrate intolerance?

Lemme see. You are saying if I support a position I am demonstrating intolerance. You are wrong. I am simply ENDORSING it with my vote.

I will never vote for a ban on private ownership of handguns, but I tolerate those who choose not to own them.

I will vote for an act which permits private ownership of handguns because I endorse it. NOT because I don't tolerate those who don't.

GrapevineSooner

5/16/2009, 09:27 AM

You know, I've done some thinking on this topic. And you know what? I just don't care all that much about it.

What with the economy, federal bailouts, the war on terror, etc.

In fact, if gay marriage does come to pass across this great land of our's, I would accept it. Afterall like Kinky Friedman said, I believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. ;)

But since Veritas started it and I happen to agree with his sentiment that a non-endorsement of gay marriage does not make one bigoted...

Why is it necessary for a state to recognize a union between two gay men or two lesbian women as a marriage? Why can't marriage be reserved between a man and a woman and all other unions be considered civil unions complete with the same rights and benefits that those of us married folks enjoy?

Veritas

5/16/2009, 10:53 AM

Yes....and those of us who are still here and didn't absolutely loose our freaking minds about it when it happened realize that he is one of the nicest guy you'll ever meet and like OV said...he's a very good and fair Mod.
That's very nice of you. This board has been a great place to be for the last five years and will continue to be one of my favorite destinations on the interwebs.

I really wasn't trying to get YAGM* thread started. Gay issues just seem like the easiest example since that lobby is the most frequent abuser of the word "tolerance." What I was trying to communicate with isn't as complicated as that issue.

But since it's become the subject of the thread and since LAS asked, I'm going to expound a bit on why I wouldn't vote for or against legalized gay marriage.

Obviously there have to be standards set to govern whether or not parties can enter into legally binding contracts, and those standards exist. You can't form a contract with a child, a retard, or a person with dimensia. The Statute of Frauds defines which contracts must be written and cannot be binding if only oral. Etc etc. IANAL, but I play one on TV.

But the issue is not "who can contract with whom," it is "who can legally obtain a marriage license." Look into the history of the marriage license and you'll discover that the marriage license has always been an instrument of control, something used by the government to keep certain parties from marrying. It used to be an tool of segregation that restricted interracial marriage, now it's used as a tool of to enforce a religious belief via government mandate.

Now, I personally believe that homosexuality is in contradiction with Scripture, and I've done my research. Don't **** with me on this, I read Koine Greek and Hebrew better than most. :D Anyway, since I've decided that I believe that Christ was who he said he was, I'm bound by that belief to Scripture. Even when it's not convenient or popular.

But while I hold that belief, I also hold the belief that the republic must be free from oppression of religion *and* oppression by religion. The first is stated clearly in the bill of rights, the second is a logical conclusion that should not be confused with "separation of church and state." That theory has taken a phrase written by Jefferson in 1802 and twisted it beyond all recognition to the extent that the weak-minded and ignorant think it's part of our founding documents.

Therefore I would not vote against or for gay marriage because while I personally disagree with the concept of homosexuality, I also disagree with the enforcement of religious belief via a government body and I disagree with the whole concept of marriage licenses.

*Yet Another Gay Marriage

picasso

5/16/2009, 11:17 AM

so denying homosexuals the right to get married is intolerant? and if you don't consider a person's sexual preference a cause to be called a minority then you are also intolerant?

quite educating.

yermom

5/16/2009, 11:26 AM

King Crimson

5/16/2009, 11:30 AM

i just to like to say, with the big picture of SO politics thread in mind, it's a little late and totally far gone to be pushing for rigorous or even consistent definition of terms. :texan:

picasso

5/16/2009, 11:32 AM

sounds pretty intolerant to me...

how do you define minority?

gay people exist, they aren't going away, you can't just pretend they aren't there forever

you can't just say "well, we aren't going to put you in jail, or beat you up anymore, but go ahead and stop causing problems and stay in the closet"

who the hell said I wanted them to go away? sheesh. You know I happen to do a lot of work with known gay people. I get along fine with them.
I also happen to like art and jazz. Am I a minority?:rolleyes:

picasso

5/16/2009, 11:45 AM

btw, I'm all for legal civil unions that would allow said couples to receive tax and other benefits.

yermom

5/16/2009, 11:45 AM

gay people like jazz?

picasso

5/16/2009, 11:46 AM

not sure on that one. heh.

yermom

5/16/2009, 11:51 AM

btw, I'm all for legal civil unions that would allow said couples to receive tax and other benefits.

so it's semantics?

personally, i don't understand why all marriages aren't just civil unions to the government.

i also don't understand the big deal about polygamy... it's not illegal to have like 5 baby-mamas, so what is the big deal about having more legal accountability/connection to multiple women?

of course, the line should be drawn at consenting adults...

JohnnyMack

5/16/2009, 12:01 PM

picasso

5/16/2009, 12:08 PM

I will point out that even though I disagree with them, I am tolerant of people who subscribe to mystical superstitions otherwise known as religion. I know that some people still enjoy hearing made up stories and socializing once or twice a week and I can dig that, I just think the whole thing is silly.

but what exactly does that have to do with this topic? You know Christ really did walk the earth. whether you think he really was the son of God or just some crazy prophet is up to you.

and if I think he was the son of God I'll pass on being called a minority for it. and I'll give you a pass if you are intolerant of said religion.

GrapevineSooner

5/16/2009, 12:10 PM

so it's semantics?

personally, i don't understand why all marriages aren't just civil unions to the government.

i also don't understand the big deal about polygamy... it's not illegal to have like 5 baby-mamas, so what is the big deal about having more legal accountability/connection to multiple women?

of course, the line should be drawn at consenting adults...

I gagree.

And it all goes back to the state staying the hell out of everyone's private lives.

Which is ironic because when the homosexual movement began, it was centered around the idea of the state and everyone else staying the hell out of their bedroom.

Of course, I could also envision a 'I know pronounce you Chuck and Larry' scenario, but with 50 different Chucks, Larrys, Marys, and Sherrys all declaring they're entering into a civil union just so they can all get in on a family healthcare plan.

Which is probably why it would be a good idea if we limited this civil union thing to two people regardless of sexual orientation. Of course, that wouldn't prevent other shams of marriage/unions from occurring either.

yermom

5/16/2009, 12:16 PM

JohnnyMack

5/16/2009, 12:21 PM

but what exactly does that have to do with this topic? You know Christ really did walk the earth. whether you think he really was the son of God or just some crazy prophet is up to you.

and if I think he was the son of God I'll pass on being called a minority for it. and I'll give you a pass if you are intolerant of said religion.

A man named Jesus MAY have walked this earth. That much I'll give you.

picasso

5/16/2009, 12:31 PM

A man named Jesus MAY have walked this earth. That much I'll give you.

I don't want you to "give" me anything.

There's more evidence that he walked the earth than just in the bible. I like folks who think they're smart when they dismiss Christians, not knowing how badly they'd get smoked in a theology class.

picasso

5/16/2009, 12:36 PM

My brother (who has a Masters in theology so he must be silly) is big on this guy:

Ravi Zacharias.

Pretty practical.

anyway, it's an old argument on here. I really don't know how folks can live without God.

JohnnyMack

5/16/2009, 12:44 PM

I don't want you to "give" me anything.

There's more evidence that he walked the earth than just in the bible. I like folks who think they're smart when they dismiss Christians, not knowing how badly they'd get smoked in a theology class.

I'm not dismissing Christianity, I'm dismissing religion. Everyone who subscribes to a religion thinks they've got the road map to the other side. What an amusing waste of time.

Frozen Sooner

5/16/2009, 12:53 PM

From the OED:
tolerate |ˈtäləˌrāt|
verb [ trans. ]
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference : a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent.
• accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance : how was it that she could tolerate such noise?
• be capable of continued subjection to (a drug, toxin, or environmental condition) without adverse reaction : lichens grow in conditions that no other plants tolerate.

Arguably, a denial of the ability to contract as one wishes solely based on that contract being formed with a member of the same sex is is intolerant of a homosexual right to contract.

The real question is whether or not gay marriage is something that should be tolerated, not whether opposing it is intolerant. I think it should be. Others don't. Those in opposition need to realize that those who wish to marry someone of their own sex get pretty upset because it's their lives you're regulating. Those in support need to realize that those in opposition aren't opposing just because they're a-holes-they have actual reasons for their opposition, even if I don't agree with them.

Frozen Sooner

5/16/2009, 12:58 PM

This isn't meant to say that Veritas isn't opposing simply because he's an a-hole. That's probably his reason. ;)

GrapevineSooner

5/16/2009, 02:37 PM

is gagree a typo? :D

and yeah, that highlights some problems with insurance, immigration and taxes

those are just problems in general though.

i mean if it's Chuck and Linda, it's the same fraud, but less likely to be caught. but how is that really different than some couple that just stays together for the kids, or money, or whatever?

It's not a typo to Vince Young. ;)

And you are right. For every argument I hear from Fundies that allowing Gay Marriage will destroy the institution of Marriage, there's a bunch of examples from that well you just mentioned that we could draw from.

LosAngelesSooner

5/16/2009, 03:03 PM

Lemme see. You are saying if I support a position I am demonstrating intolerance. You are wrong. I am simply ENDORSING it with my vote.

I will never vote for a ban on private ownership of handguns, but I tolerate those who choose not to own them.

I will vote for an act which permits private ownership of handguns because I endorse it. NOT because I don't tolerate those who don't.So voting in favor of a law that strips all African Americans of their rights and makes all of them slaves again isn't "demonstrating intolerance" in your view...it's "simply endorsing" something with your vote.

I like your world. It's filled with cotton candy and boobies.

LosAngelesSooner

5/16/2009, 03:33 PM

Why is it necessary for a state to recognize a union between two gay men or two lesbian women as a marriage? Why can't marriage be reserved between a man and a woman and all other unions be considered civil unions complete with the same rights and benefits that those of us married folks enjoy?Because "separate but equal" is still discrimination. And we're supposed to live in a nation where "all men are created equal."

By the way, I agreed with most of the rest of your post. Just wanted to comment on this one point.

LosAngelesSooner

5/16/2009, 03:42 PM

By the way...the whole "allowing gay marriage to exist will destroy the fundamentals of 'traditional marriage' (a made up concept that is less than 200 years old)" is one of the most IMBECILIC and gag-worthy sentences floating around out there right now. I mean it's up there with Pelosi saying, "The CIA liiiiiied to meeeee." It's B.S. Everyone knows it. It makes no sense. It is illogical. It has no facts to back it up.

It's just a dumb, dumb, dumb statement.

And if someone disagrees with that, PLEASE...take the time to explain to allz of us how two dudes getting married will somehow "destroy marriage."

OU_Sooners75

5/16/2009, 03:44 PM

LosAngelesSooner

5/16/2009, 04:00 PM

Lame.

OU_Sooners75

5/16/2009, 04:23 PM

Lame.

Kinda like some of posts that you have made. Just trying to match the prestige of LAS! ;)

LosAngelesSooner

5/16/2009, 07:13 PM

Not even in your best day could you hope to.

theresonly1OU

5/16/2009, 08:15 PM

Not even in your best day could you hope to be as arrogant as me.

fixed

Collier11

5/16/2009, 08:25 PM

Not even in your best day could you hope to be as insignificant as me.

FIXED

Collier11

5/16/2009, 08:32 PM

Crucifax Autumn

5/16/2009, 08:56 PM

I'm a full of **** lib. And I'm also a full of **** conservative.

It all depends on the issue and my beliefs generally revolve closely around true center.

And I just flat don't give a crap if gay people get married. It's not gonna effect my marriage anymore than people getting married at the courthouse or people getting married in a pagan ceremony.

I didn't egt married in a church OR a courthouse, but those people that due haven't invalidated or weakened my marriage at all.

I still get headaches from the kids, no sex from the wife, and I've grown fatter each year. Yep...my marriage is as strong as ever!

SanJoaquinSooner

5/16/2009, 09:36 PM

Why is it necessary for a state to recognize a union between two gay men or two lesbian women as a marriage?

It's only necessary if we, as a nation, agree not to discriminate with respect to gender.

for example, if Megan is a hot, rich babe and Jack and Jill are both attracted to Megan, it discriminates with respect to gender if Jack can marry Megan but Jill can't - solely due to the fact she a female. Jack can marry Megan because he's a man, Jill can't because she's a woman.

http://gossipteen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/megan_fox.jpg