If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gary Johnson 2012)   Gary Johnson (L-aissez Faire) endorses the Freedom to Marry Act in Ohio: "It should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another"   (garyjohnson2012.com) divider line 224
    More: Hero, freedom to marry, Ohio, horizon, freedoms, beliefs, Secret sauce  
•       •       •

1850 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2012 at 3:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-06 05:05:47 PM

slayer199: Epoch_Zero: ...being people who don't believe in management in a managed organization yelling about being managed?

Honestly, I'm surprised the LP hasn't just become a super-dense toroid.

Recruiting from the GOP does nothing to promote Libertarianism. Getting another party's cast-offs unless they were strongly libertarian beforehand, doesn't help the party. Gary Johnson has historically voted more libertarian than Republican. He's 1000x better than Bob Barr.


Yes, but what I mean is the inherent contradiction in being a party that wants government out of everyone's business.... which they totally promise to do if you only elect them to government positions. It feels like those anarchist kids in high school who are just reflexively contrary and nothing is their fault even though they have the answers for everything.
 
2012-08-06 05:08:03 PM

slayer199: cman: Hate to threadjack, but am I on your ignore list? Been meaning to ask that question for a few years now.

I don't have anyone on my ignore list...not even GAT :)


I thought that tiff would have earned me a spot. shiat.

In case if you were wondering, CN is in the middle of its longest great war.
 
2012-08-06 05:10:15 PM

slayer199: Epoch_Zero: Usually when a member of a party makes them look bad for being a complete loon he is disowned by that party. Weird.

I'm curious of your gauge on Rand Paul.

He leans libertarian on some issues, but he's a Republican. He's anti-abortion, against the legalization of marijuana, anti-immigration, and against gay-marriage. I'm not a fan.

On the flip side, I'd love to see Ron Paul shake up the convention...just because the GOP is such a disaster...it would make for some entertainment.


I really got into Ron Paul for a while, but then I looked past his anti-war foreign policy and railing against the banking cartel to find out that he's basically a neoconfederate, which is terrifying as all hell. Given the power to do so, many parts of the South would transform into oppressive theocracies virtually overnight.

But like you said, it would be great to see him shake up the convention. The GOP needs to realize that the teabaggers and neocons who have hijacked their party are not real conservatives.
 
2012-08-06 05:12:45 PM

dekko: I'm debating whether or not I want to throw my vote to Johnson. I'm in Illinois, so another Obama vote isn't really going to make a difference, and I'd like to see another voice in the debates.

That said, I'd vote for Obama in an Obama/Johnson match-up, as Johnson's a bit too righty on the financial side. But I'll listen to what he has to say.


Man, an Obama/Johnson debate would be really good for this country. I wish we could hear what he has to say on a national level, and have an intelligent opponent refute it.

The Obama/Romney "debate" will just be a whole lot of baseless accusations and "I know you are but what am I", and each one will lower the national IQ as we collectively try to process the massive quantities of cognitive dissonance.
 
2012-08-06 05:21:48 PM

Epoch_Zero: Yes, but what I mean is the inherent contradiction in being a party that wants government out of everyone's business.... which they totally promise to do if you only elect them to government positions. It feels like those anarchist kids in high school who are just reflexively contrary and nothing is their fault even though they have the answers for everything.


I don't think that's entirely accurate. Yes, there are minarchists in the libertarian party, but eliminating all government isn't entirely practical. Years ago I was part of a Reform Caucus inside the LP. The goal was more practical libertarianism. I recognize the need for government, just not the extent that it's grown into now.

For example, instead of saying, let's legalize all drugs (something a majority of people cannot or will not accept), start with legalizing marijuana (something a majority of people DO support). Because of that, the party itself has shifted somewhat in terms of what the goal may be vs. what people will accept.

Are there still loony extremists in the LP? Sure. But there are loony extremists in every party.
 
2012-08-06 05:23:17 PM

Aarontology: slayer199: That's fine...fark the GOP, he's got my vote and the GOP will never get it so long as they continue to force their brand of social conservatism on this country.

Well yeah. For as much as the GOP pretends to be all about individual liberty and whatnot, their actual beliefs are far from it.


They're for individual liberty, as long as the individual is rich, white, straight, and male.
 
2012-08-06 05:24:35 PM

cameroncrazy1984: If Johnson weren't a flat taxer and a gold nut, he'd be a pretty good candidate. Foreign-policy wise he's like Ron Paul without the racism.


At least he had the balls to go 3rd party.
 
2012-08-06 05:27:13 PM

cman: I thought that tiff would have earned me a spot. shiat.

In case if you were wondering, CN is in the middle of its longest great war.


Nah, I only stopped back for the 5 year anniversary of TPF...then disappeared again. I keep in contact with a few from the game, but that's about it. I have no idea what's going on in the game and I don't really care tbh. The game was a huge time sink and I was happy to be done with it.

In terms of my ignore list, I've never used it...even for people that annoy the hell out of me. :) The only one that allowed CN to filter back to Fark threads was Skail. I swear, that dude stalked me on Fark for at least 6 months....over a silly political simulation game.

It was a game...and I had fun being controversial. :P
 
2012-08-06 05:28:05 PM

xanadian: SURE, THROW ALL YOUR VOTES AWAY ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE!!

/imagine if a majority of people "threw away" their votes?


Enough of the British did in 2010 and look what they've got now. A Tory / LibDem coalition.
 
2012-08-06 05:30:17 PM

qorkfiend: MugzyBrown: It's funny because you seem to think foreign policy won't be a topic at the debates.

It's funny because you think it matters. George Bush was practically an isolationist in 2000, how did that work out?

I can't wait for the gripping debate as to if we should invade Iran or Syria. Maybe there will be a surprise country by then. I'm on the edge of my seat.

Nothing changed between January of 2001 and the start of the wars? No events of note?


Yeah, Afghanistan attacked us so he attacked some other farking random country for no goddamn reason.
 
2012-08-06 05:34:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: cman: From what I can tell, Johnson has not talked about the gold standard. Cameron is playing on stereotypes putting him in with the same folk as Paul when he is not Paul nor a clone of him.

When asked about the gold standard, he said "I understand the argument for it."

No rational person believes that there is a good argument for the gold standard.

It's kind of sad that I know more about your candidate than you do. But hey, at least he doesn't want to completely abolish the Fed like Ron Paul does.

I understand the argument for it
= supporting it?
 
2012-08-06 05:35:20 PM

slayer199: Corvus: Always? Is that why Ron Paul supports DOMA, thinks state's can have official religions, ban abortions (or anything else they find morally objectionable) including gay marriage?

Ron Paul is a libertarian-leaning Republican, he is NOT a Libertarian.


He was the Libertarian Party's candidate for President in 1988, and his policy viewpoints haven't changed much, if at all, since then. Now, currently, he is a Republican, but his policy positions are not atypical of the Libertarian Party or of people who call themselves libertarians (either big or small "L") believe.

Johnson is also a Libertarian. Their policy positions have large amounts of overlap and small amounts of differences.
 
2012-08-06 05:36:45 PM

xanadian: SURE, THROW ALL YOUR VOTES AWAY ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE!!

/imagine if a majority of people "threw away" their votes?


Yes, and voting with the status quo 2-party system is working out so well. Perhaps if more people voted their conscience than voting for the lesser of 2 evils, we might have better choices and more moderation from either of the major parties.
 
2012-08-06 05:38:24 PM

slayer199: HeartBurnKid: Which is why the guy who wrote DOMA was their nominee in 2008.

/yes, I realize that support for gay marriage is in their platform
//but that's worthless if you don't walk the walk

If you're talking Bob Barr (2008), he was a horrible candidate...I protested loudly that he was nothing more than a Republican.

If you're talking Ron Paul (1988), he's another libertarian-leaning Republican, he's not a Libertarian.

Hence the real problem with the LP (as a party). The party needs to grow their own candidates, not recruit them from the GOP. Recruiting Republicans that have historically voted along party lines when it comes to individual liberty (drugs, gay marriage, etc), only serves to subvert the party.

The other problem is that both the Republican and Democratic parties tilt the rules so 3rd parties have difficulty even getting on the ballot in some states and they're locked out of the debates. Heaven forbid we hear some new ideas from the Libertarian and Green parties.


Now you are doing a "No True Scotsman". That's unhelpful, to say the least.
 
2012-08-06 05:40:20 PM
I'm genuinely surprised when a Libertarian candidate says or does something actually libertarian.
 
2012-08-06 05:43:59 PM

spif: MugzyBrown:
There would be so very little difference between an Obama 2nd term and a Romney 1st term.

Once in awhile someone says something smart here.


So Obama's second term will be turning America into a Mormon theocracy, banning abortion and stripping women of their reproductive rights, banning gays from being viewed as human beings, and attacking more countries?

When did we suddenly go to Bizarro World?

/me am not Bizarro #1
 
2012-08-06 05:44:51 PM

Geotpf: Now you are doing a "No True Scotsman". That's unhelpful, to say the least.


Sorta. I'm still bitter over Bob Barr getting the nomination in 2008. Gary Johnson has some libertarian cred so I have no problem voting for him (and I don't agree with him on everything, but most things). If they recruit another crappy GOP politician like Bob Barr again, I'll slash my wrists.

Still, growing the party from the ground up should be the focus, not recruiting outside the party and trying to convert a has-been GOP politician like Bob Barr.
 
2012-08-06 05:51:46 PM
I like Gary Johnson. No chance in hell of being elected though.
 
2012-08-06 05:52:36 PM

slayer199: xanadian: SURE, THROW ALL YOUR VOTES AWAY ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE!!

/imagine if a majority of people "threw away" their votes?

Yes, and voting with the status quo 2-party system is working out so well. Perhaps if more people voted their conscience than voting for the lesser of 2 evils, we might have better choices and more moderation from either of the major parties.


The design of the American Republic basically guarantees a two party system. This is not on purpose, but is an artifact of indvidual elections in specific districts elected in a first (adding meaningless words here to bypass Fark filter that turns this into Weiners) past the post system. Unless you completely scrap existing law, tradition, and the constitution, reforming the country in a parliamentary system where one votes for a party and not a specific candidate in an individual election, we basically are stuck with it.

Deal with it! Wake up and smell reality.

The way to get better candidates is to vote for them (and support them with your time and money) in the primaries, especially in elections where there is no incumbent and the party you support (or hate the least) is favored to win. Picking Obama over Clinton or Edwards was almost as important as voting for him over McCain.

The way not to do it is to repeat the 2000 Presidential election.
 
2012-08-06 05:55:57 PM
I can only wonder about the speed of Gary's mental processes. Obama endorsed gay marriage three months ago and that fact still hasn't made it's way into Gary's reality.
 
2012-08-06 05:58:22 PM

xanadian: SURE, THROW ALL YOUR VOTES AWAY ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE!!

/imagine if a majority of people "threw away" their votes?


When people accept that there really isn't all that much of a difference between a D or an R, voting third party becomes more attractive. Accept that it doesn't matter which of the two major candidates wins the election. Now you can truly vote your conscious. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Free your mind, your ass will follow.
 
2012-08-06 05:59:41 PM

slayer199: Geotpf: Now you are doing a "No True Scotsman". That's unhelpful, to say the least.

Sorta. I'm still bitter over Bob Barr getting the nomination in 2008. Gary Johnson has some libertarian cred so I have no problem voting for him (and I don't agree with him on everything, but most things). If they recruit another crappy GOP politician like Bob Barr again, I'll slash my wrists.

Still, growing the party from the ground up should be the focus, not recruiting outside the party and trying to convert a has-been GOP politician like Bob Barr.


It doesn't matter. The Libertarian Party will never win any election of note. I guess I'm rooting for Johnson to drain some Republican votes away from Romney, although the potential to go the other way also exists. He'll probably get 1-2% or so (considering the best the Libertarians have ever done is 1.06%, in 1980, that's pretty good for them which, in turn, is pretty sad).
 
2012-08-06 06:02:11 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: So Obama's second term will be .... attacking more countries?


Obama doesn't need a second term to do that.
 
2012-08-06 06:02:23 PM

OgreMagi: xanadian: SURE, THROW ALL YOUR VOTES AWAY ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE!!

/imagine if a majority of people "threw away" their votes?

When people accept that there really isn't all that much of a difference between a D or an R, voting third party becomes more attractive. Accept that it doesn't matter which of the two major candidates wins the election. Now you can truly vote your conscious. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Free your mind, your ass will follow.


The thing is, there is a lot of difference between Republicans and Democrats! If you think otherwise, you haven't been reading Fark. Or have any active brain cells.
 
2012-08-06 06:06:46 PM
I think that the Freedom to Marry Act does not stand a snow ball's chance to pass if they even get enough people to sign it to begin with. This is Ohio after all. Look at what happened in NC.
 
2012-08-06 06:07:03 PM

OgreMagi: Keizer_Ghidorah: So Obama's second term will be .... attacking more countries?

Obama doesn't need a second term to do that.


You're saying he's responsible for Bush's wars?
 
2012-08-06 06:13:32 PM
if you took the best parts of him, and of stein, you'd actually have a really good candidate. unfortunately both also have some terrible ideas independently
 
2012-08-06 06:19:52 PM

Geotpf: If you think otherwise, you haven't been reading Fark. Or have any active brain cells.


OgreMagi is very vocal in his belief that there's no such thing as rape.

If he ever had any brain cells, which I doubt, they committed suicide a long time ago.
 
2012-08-06 06:20:24 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: OgreMagi: Keizer_Ghidorah: So Obama's second term will be .... attacking more countries?

Obama doesn't need a second term to do that.

You're saying he's responsible for Bush's wars?


I take it you don't pay attention to things.

Pakistan: http://tribune.com.pk/story/391529/obama-orders-sharp-increase-in-dron e-strikes-report/

Libya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSAnhF26MQ
 
2012-08-06 06:22:20 PM

Geotpf: OgreMagi: xanadian: SURE, THROW ALL YOUR VOTES AWAY ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE!!

/imagine if a majority of people "threw away" their votes?

When people accept that there really isn't all that much of a difference between a D or an R, voting third party becomes more attractive. Accept that it doesn't matter which of the two major candidates wins the election. Now you can truly vote your conscious. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Free your mind, your ass will follow.

The thing is, there is a lot of difference between Republicans and Democrats! If you think otherwise, you haven't been reading Fark. Or have any active brain cells.


Ultimately, there is no difference. Their idiological differences don't matter since they are usually Constitutional issues that would require more than a simple Congressional majority to change.

The two parties are lock step on their most important issue: Keep their asses in power, fark the people over big time.
 
2012-08-06 06:23:26 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Geotpf: If you think otherwise, you haven't been reading Fark. Or have any active brain cells.

OgreMagi is very vocal in his belief that there's no such thing as rape.

If he ever had any brain cells, which I doubt, they committed suicide a long time ago.


Excuse the fark out of me? What does rape have to do with the topic? Are you a compete farking moron?
 
2012-08-06 06:29:04 PM
Gary Johnson (L-aissez Faire) endorses the Freedom to Marry Act in Ohio: "It should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another"


Sorry to deflate your heads but either way is imposition of one's beliefs upon another.

/despite it being the 'right' choice
 
2012-08-06 06:33:32 PM

OgreMagi: xanadian: SURE, THROW ALL YOUR VOTES AWAY ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE!!

/imagine if a majority of people "threw away" their votes?

When people accept that there really isn't all that much of a difference between a D or an R, voting third party becomes more attractive. Accept that it doesn't matter which of the two major candidates wins the election. Now you can truly vote your conscious. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

Free your mind, your ass will follow.


I "accepted" that in 2000. I learned my farking lesson shortly afterwards.
 
2012-08-06 06:52:26 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: This. From what I've heard, I actually like this guy, but I'm not wasting my vote on a third party when there's so much at stake.


I like President Obama, and I think the work he's done in his first term has been good enough to earn reelection. I have donated money to his campaign, plan to do so again, and proudly sport an Obama/ Biden 2008 sticker on my vehicle.

Barring a major change between now and November, I intend to vote for Gary Johnson. I would like to see third parties gain a more viable voice in American politics. I'm admittedly taking a risk there, but if my single vote is the difference between a Romney or Obama victory because of how Texas' electoral votes swing... well, that's a risk I'm willing to take.
 
2012-08-06 06:53:31 PM
And the Republicans attempt to crawl back from the destructive policies that they crafted in order to gain an edge without having to be called 'Democrats.'

Pity it won't work.
 
2012-08-06 06:57:11 PM

what_now: Aarontology: Andrew Wiggin: what_now: xanadian: SURE, THROW ALL YOUR VOTES AWAY ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE!!

/imagine if a majority of people "threw away" their votes?

You'd get Florida, 2000?

oh snap

This assumes that the people who voted Nader would have voted Gore in sufficient numbers had Nader not been on the ballot.

The Bush/Gore count in Florida was 537 votes.

97,488 people voted for Nadar.

I'm thinking that yeah, some of those people regret the decision.


Probably the 111,261 Floridians who voted for two or more people.

/More people "spoiled" their ballot than "wasted" it.
//Which could be easily fixed by Approval voting.
 
2012-08-06 07:03:25 PM
I wonder if people like Gary Johnson go into the Presidential election thinking that they have a chance at winning? Or are they generally more realistic about their chances and have some other motive for running?
 
2012-08-06 07:14:00 PM
A couple of years ago they were all carrying copies of the Constitution in their wallets. Guess they still haven't read it.
 
2012-08-06 07:17:17 PM
it's pretty weird that the people in this thread that are all rah rah anti GOP are clamoring for another sociopathic lassez-faire retard who believes in a lot of horrible appalling shiat and would wreck this country as fast or faster than romney, santorum, or bachmann.

go read the goddamn libertarian platform, please. it's for idiots and children. at least the GOP is honest about being the party for malicious idiots, libertarians by and large seem too ignorant to even know the kind of damaging policies they support.

it doesn't take a lot of courage to come out in favor of gay marriage, and it doesn't remove the stain of wanting to completely dismantle the governmental infrastructure and hand this country over once and for all to corporate america.
 
2012-08-06 07:17:35 PM

Rich Cream: Gary Johnson (L-aissez Faire) endorses the Freedom to Marry Act in Ohio: "It should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another"


Sorry to deflate your heads but either way is imposition of one's beliefs upon another.

/despite it being the 'right' choice



How do you figure?

It would be one thing if the Freedom to Marry act required people to get married to someone of the same sex, but it doesn't.

One side of the debate says that each adult has the right to decide for him or herself who, if anyone, they want to marry. Nobody has to marry anyone they don't want to and everyone can marry who ever they do want to.

The other side says that one specific denomination of one specific religion gets to decide the laws that govern all citizens, whether they are members of that religion or not. People can't marry who they want if some preacher somewhere disapproves.


How are they both imposing beliefs on others?
 
2012-08-06 07:29:03 PM

Geotpf: The way to get better candidates is to vote for them (and support them with your time and money) in the primaries, especially in elections where there is no incumbent and the party you support (or hate the least) is favored to win. Picking Obama over Clinton or Edwards was almost as important as voting for him over McCain.


Indeed. The Tea Party's influence came about because they started beating incumbents in primaries; any incumbent who wanted to keep their job started listening to them.

As an aside, I don't know if this strategy would work for the left. There are sizable regions where the people will never, ever vote for a Democrat, no matter how extreme the Republican candidate is, so electability is less of a concern; I don't think the same can be said on the other side.
 
2012-08-06 07:38:25 PM

OgreMagi: Keizer_Ghidorah: OgreMagi: Keizer_Ghidorah: So Obama's second term will be .... attacking more countries?

Obama doesn't need a second term to do that.

You're saying he's responsible for Bush's wars?

I take it you don't pay attention to things.

Pakistan: http://tribune.com.pk/story/391529/obama-orders-sharp-increase-in-dron e-strikes-report/

Libya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSAnhF26MQ


Hey, long as we're Israel's guard dog, we have to do what they want. At least we actually did something meaningful in Libya.

/personally we should pull everyone out of there and let them handle their own problems
 
2012-08-06 07:48:11 PM
Well, now I have to decide between Obama, Johnson and Stein.

Romney still won't get my vote.
 
2012-08-06 07:49:07 PM

Shirley Ujest: Well, now I have to decide between Obama, Johnson and Stein.

Romney still won't get my vote.


let me narrow that down for you a bit with two phrases

1. flat tax
2. gold standard
 
2012-08-06 07:55:01 PM
Well, it's nice to know that the tattered remains of the Libertarian Party haven't COMPLETELY betrayed ALL their values...................................yet.
 
2012-08-06 07:55:19 PM

natazha: I can only wonder about the speed of Gary's mental processes. Obama endorsed gay marriage three months ago and that fact still hasn't made it's way into Gary's reality.


See my earlier post for his reaction comment on Obama's announcement on the day he made it. Which was just a restatement of his (Johnson's) existing position.

Your reality is the one that needs to be updated.
 
2012-08-06 08:21:15 PM

imontheinternet: MugzyBrown: There would be so very little difference between an Obama 2nd term and a Romney 1st term.

Unfortunately, that's probably true. The rich may pay a percentage point or two more in taxes under Obama.

Either way, we'll probably be at war with Iran within a year or so, though Obama will try to make it more like Libya, while Romney would just repeat the Iraq War. There are enough differences to make Obama the better choice, but they're really not that far apart.

That said, the main threat from a Republican president would be a simultaneous takeover of Congress. If the teabaggers are able to pass even a fraction of the legislation they really want, the country will go down in flames.


--------------

This is total BS. Obama has had 3 and 1/2 years to start a war with Iran if he wanted. Dubya proved (sadly) just how easy it is to drum up support for a fight with zero real evidence, and Obama has clearly chosen not to do this with Iran.

Additionally, Obama has proven quite nicely that he acts with restraint and discretion when choosing his battles. Libya was great proof of how these fights don't have to be total trainwrecks, and good things happen cheaper and faster if you build a true international coalition.
 
2012-08-06 08:29:33 PM

Geotpf: It doesn't matter. The Libertarian Party will never win any election of note. I guess I'm rooting for Johnson to drain some Republican votes away from Romney, although the potential to go the other way also exists. He'll probably get 1-2% or so (considering the best the Libertarians have ever done is 1.06%, in 1980, that's pretty good for them which, in turn, is pretty sad).


That's exactly the point. If the LP gets more votes and the GOP believes it's because of their policies, it will moderate the party. The bottom line is that we are stuck with 2 parties that suck...that are reluctant to change. Voting 3rd party serves a purpose...to moderate and shift the polices of the major parties.
 
2012-08-06 08:44:49 PM

cameroncrazy1984: cman: From what I can tell, Johnson has not talked about the gold standard. Cameron is playing on stereotypes putting him in with the same folk as Paul when he is not Paul nor a clone of him.

When asked about the gold standard, he said "I understand the argument for it."

No rational person believes that there is a good argument for the gold standard.

It's kind of sad that I know more about your candidate than you do. But hey, at least he doesn't want to completely abolish the Fed like Ron Paul does.


That's one of the weakest troll reasonings you've ever used on Fark. No rational person believes that someone who says "I understand the argument for it" is supporting it.

I understand why you seem to consistently take only one side of any political argument immaterial of the actual details. That doesn't mean I support your doing so.
 
2012-08-06 08:49:19 PM

FloydA: How do you figure?

It would be one thing if the Freedom to Marry act required people to get married to someone of the same sex, but it doesn't.

One side of the debate says that each adult has the right to decide for him or herself who, if anyone, they want to marry. Nobody has to marry anyone they don't want to and everyone can marry who ever they do want to.

The other side says that one specific denomination of one specific religion gets to decide the laws that govern all citizens, whether they are members of that religion or not. People can't marry who they want if some preacher somewhere disapproves.


How are they both imposing beliefs on others?



You believe in the right of gays to marry and someone else doesn't. You're imposing your beliefs on another. You don't have to force people to gay marry to impose on their anti-gay marriage beliefs. Simply making it legal when they don't BELIEVE it should be, is an imposition on their belief system.

I have a feeling you feel "imposed upon" because it isn't legal and that goes against your beliefs. See?


/devil's advocate so no flames please
//farkers taking themselves wayyy too seriously lately
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report