• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

44 to reverse 43's executive orders

I hear that combination smells like Chanel No. 5. :lol:

I always imagined San Francisco to be really beautiful, but that's probably only because I've seen Vertigo too many times. I'm sure it's changed significantly since then.

Anything south of market, the tenderloin, and anything in the haight-ashbury area is just...sad. SF really is a ****hole.
 
Aren't they a sanctuary city as well? And how much federal bailout did they get on the last earthquake?

Geez Louise, the list just goes on and on. :roll:
 
Its the people who vote for her.

That and the whole gay marriage thing with Mayor Gavin, trying to force it down America's throats.

And the 9th Circuit court.

I could see your point about the gay marriage being shoved down everyone's throats if they were trying to get other people to get a gay marriage, but they weren't. Regardless of whether you agree with gay marriage or not, I don't see how advocating rights for others equates to shoving it down others throats. But maybe that's just me.

I still don't see what is so bad about San Francisco. Then again, I've never visited there and I could be completely missing something that only those who have dared to go there have experienced.
 
I could see your point about the gay marriage being shoved down everyone's throats if they were trying to get other people to get a gay marriage, but they weren't. Regardless of whether you agree with gay marriage or not, I don't see how advocating rights for others equates to shoving it down others throats. But maybe that's just me.

....
Yeah its just you.

And people like you who think that blowing off 5000 years of tradition respected by abut 90% of the country is stifling the rights of people who chose an abnormal lifestyle. But please keep trying to equate it with the Civil Rights movement because that went over so well with blacks in California.
 
Yeah its just you.

And people like you who think that blowing off 5000 years of tradition respected by abut 90% of the country is stifling the rights of people who chose an abnormal lifestyle. But please keep trying to equate it with the Civil Rights movement because that went over so well with blacks in California.

5000 years ago polygamy was the norm and women were regarded as property.
 
Yeah its just you.

Perhaps, but I don't think so.

And people like you who think that blowing off 5000 years of tradition respected by abut 90% of the country is stifling the rights of people who chose an abnormal lifestyle. But please keep trying to equate it with the Civil Rights movement because that went over so well with blacks in California.

5,000 years of tradition, huh? Well, regardless of what you'd like to think people progress and so does society. And this issue will keep going until eventually it is allowed. That's a fact of life. You can try to stifle progression all you want, but it will happen regardless. Oh, and by the way...just because African Americans still deal with civil rights issues doesn't mean that they somehow get to define and decide what are and aren't civil rights issues. I personally think it is a civil rights issue.
 
Perhaps, but I don't think so.



5,000 years of tradition, huh? Well, regardless of what you'd like to think people progress and so does society. And this issue will keep going until eventually it is allowed. That's a fact of life. You can try to stifle progression all you want, but it will happen regardless. Oh, and by the way...just because African Americans still deal with civil rights issues doesn't mean that they somehow get to define and decide what are and aren't civil rights issues. I personally think it is a civil rights issue.
I think this issue will keep going until the pendulum swings back. Make sure y'all duck when it does. :cool:
 
5,000 years of tradition, huh? Well, regardless of what you'd like to think people progress and so does society. And this issue will keep going until eventually it is allowed. That's a fact of life. You can try to stifle progression all you want...
Describing the movement towards the universal recognition of same-sex marriage as 'progress' is a matter of opinion.
 
Describing the movement towards the universal recognition of same-sex marriage as 'progress' is a matter of opinion.

Well, I'm sorry, but how would it be anything but a progression? It's certainly not regression. It's not like it once was universally legal and now it's not but we are working to get it legal once again.
 
Well, I'm sorry, but how would it be anything but a progression? It's certainly not regression. It's not like it once was universally legal and now it's not but we are working to get it legal once again.
"Progress" in this context means movement towards something positive.
Describing universal same-sex marriage as a 'positive' is a matter of opinion.
 
"Progress" in this context means movement towards something positive.
Describing universal same-sex marriage as a 'positive' is a matter of opinion.

That's not the context I was referring to. I meant it simply as moving forward.
 
Not marriage. Not in 5000 years anyway. *shrug*

I thought gay marriage was not outlawed in Rome until Emperor Constantius II?

342 or so. That doesn't lead me to conclude 5000 years of tradition.

And didn't Emperor Elagabalus actually get married to a man?
 
I thought gay marriage was not outlawed in Rome until Emperor Constantius II?

342 or so. That doesn't lead me to conclude 5000 years of tradition.

And didn't Emperor Elagabalus actually get married to a man?
I'm referring to the Judaeo-Christian tradition that still lives on, not some Roman one that was taken over by it.
 
"Forward" denotes "positive", when in fact the more universal acceptance of homosexuality would drive society back towards the Greeks.

Forward doesn't necessarily denote positive. It means that things are progressing. If I was to say that a war was progressing to more bloodshed and violence that wouldn't be a positive thing, but the term still works. And as far as the rest of your comment that is a matter of opinion as well.
 
I'm referring to the Judaeo-Christian tradition that still lives on, not some Roman one that was taken over by it.

Fair enough.

By the way, your post reminds me of this quote from The Big Lebowski

Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... You're goddamn right I'm living in the ****ing past!

Love that movie.
 
Forward doesn't necessarily denote positive. It means that things are progressing. If I was to say that a war was progressing to more bloodshed and violence that wouldn't be a positive thing, but the term still works. And as far as the rest of your comment that is a matter of opinion as well.
"moving forward" denotes something different that "moving on" or "moving toward", et al.

Stating that it is a matter of opinion to describe the movement towards universal same-sex marriage as 'good' is -not- a matter of opinon.
 
"moving forward" denotes something different that "moving on" or "moving toward", et al.

Stating that it is a matter of opinion to describe the movement towards universal same-sex marriage as 'good' is -not- a matter of opinon.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I know what I meant and if you want to denote a different meaning from what I said there's nothing that I can do to stop you. I explained what I meant and that's all I can do. Take it however you want.
 
Back
Top Bottom