Any Republican that would support protections for gay marriage needs tar and feathers - Page 12

RebelE Infantry

Joined: Aug 30, 2011

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

Tex117 said:
Yall are getting caught up in the semantics of it.

The government calling it a "civil union" or "marriage" is a distinction without consequence.

To my knowledge, the government can't force a religious institution to "marry" a couple in a religious context. So, there is no harm here.

These are two separate and distinct paths with one not affecting the other in any real way.

You may not like the use of the word "marriage" but for fuchsakes, there are bigger issues out there to be faux outraged about.

I'd say the intentional destruction of the fundamental political unit does not bode well for the future of society and therefore is really high up on the list of things to be concerned about.

The flames of the Imperium burn brightly in the hearts of men repulsed by degenerate modernity. Souls aflame with love of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, and order.

AggieVictor10

Joined: Feb 2, 2007

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to dead • 11:24a, 12/14/22

dead said:
Kunkle for Congress TX-34 said:
100% Agree. Democrats are aiming at monogamous heterosexual marriage and will not stop until equality, equity, whatever is achieved. Now is the time to show how quickly "love is love" has changed into sexual indoctrination of children at public schools.

The Democratic party will try to take down marriage and we must go with preemptive strike. Luckily, the Democratic Party has provided us will all of the ammo we will ever need.

"The Democratic party will try to take down marriage"? What are you smoking?

Weed.

hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. good times create weak men. and weak men create hard times.

less virtue signaling, more vice signaling.

Birds aren’t real
Lol,lmao

No Spin Ag

Joined: Sep 23, 2007

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Tex117 • 1:22p, 12/14/22

Tex117 said:
Yall are getting caught up in the semantics of it.

The government calling it a "civil union" or "marriage" is a distinction without consequence.

To my knowledge, the government can't force a religious institution to "marry" a couple in a religious context. So, there is no harm here.

These are two separate and distinct paths with one not affecting the other in any real way.

You may not like the use of the word "marriage" but for fuchsakes, there are bigger issues out there to be faux outraged about.

You're talking about the party of "not one inch!", and many have continued to be enraged about "the gays" since they came out of the closet. Something like this really reminds them that the country really is moving away from the past where things were just how they wanted it, even if they were the only ones happy about it.