Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sd_matt
ParticipantHow much freedom do I have to choose my tenants? Lets say I had a friend who was not first on the list but I knew would be a good tenant? Can I choose that individual?
ParticipantInteresting point zk. And something I thought of a while ago and forgot until now. Yeah gays should be able to put their own label on a state-sanctioned union between two of the same sex.
The biblical view disturbs me just as much as abortion and womens rights. If we stood back and thought of it as human rights and not just marriage or womens rights maybe gays and the unborn(who have acquired consciousness), would all be given equal protection.
ParticipantInteresting point zk. And something I thought of a while ago and forgot until now. Yeah gays should be able to put their own label on a state-sanctioned union between two of the same sex.
The biblical view disturbs me just as much as abortion and womens rights. If we stood back and thought of it as human rights and not just marriage or womens rights maybe gays and the unborn(who have acquired consciousness), would all be given equal protection.
ParticipantInteresting point zk. And something I thought of a while ago and forgot until now. Yeah gays should be able to put their own label on a state-sanctioned union between two of the same sex.
The biblical view disturbs me just as much as abortion and womens rights. If we stood back and thought of it as human rights and not just marriage or womens rights maybe gays and the unborn(who have acquired consciousness), would all be given equal protection.
ParticipantInteresting point zk. And something I thought of a while ago and forgot until now. Yeah gays should be able to put their own label on a state-sanctioned union between two of the same sex.
The biblical view disturbs me just as much as abortion and womens rights. If we stood back and thought of it as human rights and not just marriage or womens rights maybe gays and the unborn(who have acquired consciousness), would all be given equal protection.
ParticipantInteresting point zk. And something I thought of a while ago and forgot until now. Yeah gays should be able to put their own label on a state-sanctioned union between two of the same sex.
The biblical view disturbs me just as much as abortion and womens rights. If we stood back and thought of it as human rights and not just marriage or womens rights maybe gays and the unborn(who have acquired consciousness), would all be given equal protection.
ParticipantAsianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.
First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.
While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.
ParticipantAsianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.
First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.
While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.
ParticipantAsianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.
First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.
While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.
ParticipantAsianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.
First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.
While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.
ParticipantAsianautica, No kidding on what you said about divorce.
First and foremost the majority should define civil rights. If the majority of CA says yes to Gay marraige then gays should have the right to marry.
While I personally think that gays should have the right I also think it was wrong of that judge who married those couples in SF some years ago ( do I have my facts correct here?). Democracy should come first, not 5-10%. Judges should be a reflection of the will of the people, and not reinterpret the constitution.
ParticipantAsiannautica; I didn’t mean to imply congress, I meant the president. The white base didn’t sit on its hands for Bush. He still got reelected.
Like I said before SDEngineer, there is much more tolerance for homophobia than for racism. Not that it’s fair, it is what it is. McCains disassociation from Hagee will be less painful than Obamas with Wright. We can debate this all day but time will tell. And I bet I am correct.
I think that the voters will go with what they know (even if they don’t like McCain all that much), this is what happened with GW vs Kerry. What did all the analyses say about Kerry before he lost? Last I remember he was projected to be the winner by the mainstream media.
My impression of McCain is that he doesn’t want to bail out anyone. It’s a coin toss whether he gives in to pressure from the right to bailout big business. I think you are correct that Obama will try to bail out the masses.
ParticipantAsiannautica; I didn’t mean to imply congress, I meant the president. The white base didn’t sit on its hands for Bush. He still got reelected.
Like I said before SDEngineer, there is much more tolerance for homophobia than for racism. Not that it’s fair, it is what it is. McCains disassociation from Hagee will be less painful than Obamas with Wright. We can debate this all day but time will tell. And I bet I am correct.
I think that the voters will go with what they know (even if they don’t like McCain all that much), this is what happened with GW vs Kerry. What did all the analyses say about Kerry before he lost? Last I remember he was projected to be the winner by the mainstream media.
My impression of McCain is that he doesn’t want to bail out anyone. It’s a coin toss whether he gives in to pressure from the right to bailout big business. I think you are correct that Obama will try to bail out the masses.
ParticipantAsiannautica; I didn’t mean to imply congress, I meant the president. The white base didn’t sit on its hands for Bush. He still got reelected.
Like I said before SDEngineer, there is much more tolerance for homophobia than for racism. Not that it’s fair, it is what it is. McCains disassociation from Hagee will be less painful than Obamas with Wright. We can debate this all day but time will tell. And I bet I am correct.
I think that the voters will go with what they know (even if they don’t like McCain all that much), this is what happened with GW vs Kerry. What did all the analyses say about Kerry before he lost? Last I remember he was projected to be the winner by the mainstream media.
My impression of McCain is that he doesn’t want to bail out anyone. It’s a coin toss whether he gives in to pressure from the right to bailout big business. I think you are correct that Obama will try to bail out the masses.
-
AuthorPosts
