If they are going to have Gay Rights because they are born with it.....
Then for the same reason we need drinker and smokers rights, we are born with it too
We need special accommodation to be able to smoke in class and drink in public.
Same theory as the Gay Marriage folks .... Equal protection folks.
“If they are going to have Gay Rights because they are born with it.....
Then for the same reason we need drinker and smokers rights, we are born with it too...”
You want to marry a cigarette or a beer? Anyone stopping you from smoking a cig or enjoying an adult beverage”
“We need special accommodation to be able to smoke in class and drink in public.”
So... you are still in school?
“Same theory as the Gay Marriage folks .... Equal protection folks.”
No... not really. Not really at all.
How about conservative rights? How about worldwide political incorrectness, forever?
Then for the same reason we need drinker and smokers rights, we are born with it too” - dila
People aren't born smokers or drinkers. They're almost certainly born gay. So your analogy doesn't work (IMO).
Not only that, but you don't have to believe civil unions are required under the equal protection clause, to believe that they should be made available.
To straights who might want to pool their resources as well. They are a contract between two people, that simulate marriage, w/ the rights and burdens.
If gays want the spiritual part, and they can find some holy man willing to do it, well that's between them and him. But it has nothing to do w/ civil unions or the government.
“This is a mistake on his part. It should be left up to the states” - Winstons Julia
I believe in gay rights, but I don't see anything wrong w/ this pledge other than the “vigorous defense of DOMA”. I would have no problem signing the rest of it.
The President has nothing to do w/ constitutional amendments, so why not let the states debate it, whatever it is?
And I don't want nine unelected priest-kings on the bench deciding these things.
I also disagree that social conservatism has no place in this election. It's necessary to explain why Presidential appointments are important, and to get out the so-con voters.
Let Obama explain he wants to appoint Justices who want to treat KSM the same as a purse snatcher, and we'll see who wins the issue on Judges/Justices.
“smoke in class”
no....sorry....smoke is not confined to the person doing it. if a person could keep all that smoke inside his/her own body and not exhale and have the cigarette only operate when dragging on it, then i have no problem with it. but, it does not work that way.
people who smoke are not aware of how irritating it is to others who do not. or, they do not care.
it is an assault on others and should be against the law.
“drink in public”
agree here....the drinking is not a problem and is confined to the person doing it. there are ample restrictions on behavior that might result from drunkenness
“If they are going to have Gay Rights because they are born with it.....”
without arguing the truth of this “because they are born with it” part of the proposition, the analogy does not work because no one is born with a cigarette in their mouth or alcohol in their stomach.
in my humble opinion