1 - 10 Next
"But in 2012, the balance shifted. Gay marriage was approved by voters in all four states considering the issue." Or maybe after seeing the vote get thrown out by a judge every time, many of those who would have voted against redefining marriage said "screw it, some judge will throw out the vote if it doesn't redefine marriage, why should I waste my time?" What's the point of playing along with a rigged game?
I agree that it is possible that the woman could be the one taking advantage of the man. It's just given how sexuality usually works in the two genders, it's usually the guy taking advantage. Also yes, this is a (somewhat) free society. So if two people want to have a sexual relationship with no romance, they're free to do so. However, others also have the freedom to condemn them for making that choice. Freedom works both ways.
So, what is the point of allowing people to vote on how to define marriage if every time they vote against redefining it, one judge throws it out?
Given that you can get cash back from the cash portion of the EBT card, food stamp recipients could have been doing this already. This just gets rid of the need to withdraw the cash from some other store that accepts EBT.
I think you have a good point there. When someone says "socially liberal" are they using the real meaning of the word liberal? Or what the word has been hijacked to mean by leftists, which is the complete opposite of the word's actual meaning?
"Just what is the national GOP actually doing about same sex marriage or abortion or anything else that social conservatives care about?" Indeed. We had a supposedly pro-life majority for a time under the supposedly pro-life Bush. Was there even a proposal that put ANY kind of limit on abortion during that time? Not that I recall hearing about.
In my very limited personal experience, people who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" generally are neither. They don't want to end the welfare state that makes being socially liberal impossible. They'll say yes to redefining marriage and yes to abortion, but no to cigarettes and no to a business's right to freedom of association.
Either you meant to respond to someone else's post or you misunderstood/misread mine. Because your post does not follow at all what mine was saying.
If those who would refuse to provide goods/services to homosexuals are going to be "left in the dust" by the rest of the world embracing homosexuality, then why do you need to use government force? If the rest of the world is perfectly fine and accepting of and/or embracing homosexuality, then those who aren't will go out of business when the world stops supporting those business that refuse to serve.
This is a joke, right? This guy lost what should've been the easiest election ever. If he couldn't beat Obama after his horrible first term, does anyone seriously think Romney could win running against a non-incumbent who won't have to overcome the problems that he/she had in their first term?
1 - 10 Next