To: wagglebee; stephenjohnbanker; Gilbo_3; Impy; NFHale; GOPsterinMA; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj
This doesn’t bother me,
but if States can ban counselors from helping minors overcome same-sex attraction then why are they not allowed to define their own marriage laws?
6 posted on
05/07/2015 10:46:43 AM PDT by
sickoflibs
(King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
To: sickoflibs
My thoughts as well. For better or for worse, it encourages me (in principle) when the Supreme Court refuses to overturn a state decision.
14 posted on
05/07/2015 10:51:47 AM PDT by
Genoa
(Starve the beast.)
To: sickoflibs
Agreed. And I know I will get KILLED for this, but I worked with lots of gay guys in graphics. Some were ok. Many had issues. But none who went through any kind of attempt to become “straight” turned out the better for it.
could someone turn me “gay”. Not in a million years.
They have the choice to act on a terrible compulsion and face their maker, or abstain. I don't envy them.
16 posted on
05/07/2015 10:54:15 AM PDT by
dp0622
To: sickoflibs
"...but if States can ban counselors from helping minors overcome same-sex
"I hope I'm wrong
. This makes me think it's their lukewarm attempt to split the baby. They uphold "states rights" to a degree, then claim gay marriage a right under the 14th.
To: sickoflibs
It’s worse than that: the broad definition means making no distinction to a person who goes around banging tons of people, and is at serious risk for dumping tons of expenses down for the chronic medication needed for the diseases contracted. I can’t say SSA is as bad as someone being super promiscuous.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson