Colorado legalizes pot for rec use

GDPofDRC wrote:

Capt explained as clearly as could be done the similarities in change between the two. Different subjects, similar changing opinions.

I'm just saying it's extremely possible to be for one and not the other. They are completely different questions.

No one is saying the subjects are similar in this thread. The fight through the legal and electoral process though has been.

Marriage is a tricky subject. It's more or less a religious ceremony. If you don't view it as religious in any way then it's just a label. Who cares about how relationships are labeled? No one is denying anyone the right to be together.

GDPofDRC wrote:

No one is saying the subjects are similar in this thread. The fight through the legal and electoral process though has been.

I get that the process to make both legal are similar. Still, I don't think it should ever be paired/grouped together.

Then would you agree any benefit through the government afforded to married straight couples should be withdrawn?

OU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

No one is saying the subjects are similar in this thread. The fight through the legal and electoral process though has been.

I get that the process to make both legal are similar. Still, I don't think it should ever be paired/grouped together.

This is what is being talked about, I don't understand why your trying to make it about the second part when nobody here is.

GDPofDRC wrote:

OU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

No one is saying the subjects are similar in this thread. The fight through the legal and electoral process though has been.

I get that the process to make both legal are similar. Still, I don't think it should ever be paired/grouped together.

This is what is being talked about, I don't understand why your trying to make it about the second part when nobody here is.

My bad if that is the case. But Capt's original comments seemed to pair the two up. I wanted to make it clear I view them as extremely separate.

GDPofDRC wrote:

Then would you agree any benefit through the government afforded to married straight couples should be withdrawn?

I would be fine with that. But I wouldn't say it NEEDS to be that way.

I think we need policies that don't explicitly discriminate against one group of people. Unless they Sanduskies.

I wish they could separate religion from politics, but they can't. A non-Christian doesn't stand a chance of being President in America these days. Sad truth.

OU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

OU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

No one is saying the subjects are similar in this thread. The fight through the legal and electoral process though has been.

I get that the process to make both legal are similar. Still, I don't think it should ever be paired/grouped together.

This is what is being talked about, I don't understand why your trying to make it about the second part when nobody here is.

My bad if that is the case. But Capt's original comments seemed to pair the two up. I wanted to make it clear I view them as extremely separate.

they are paired up for the reasons I stated. Big one being, it's going that way anyway, just break the freaking door down already.

OU wrote:

Marriage is a tricky subject. It's more or less a religious ceremony. If you don't view it as religious in any way then it's just a label. Who cares about how relationships are labeled? No one is denying anyone the right to be together.

Exactly. Thus it should be legal.

captain organic wrote:

OU wrote:

Marriage is a tricky subject. It's more or less a religious ceremony. If you don't view it as religious in any way then it's just a label. Who cares about how relationships are labeled? No one is denying anyone the right to be together.

Exactly. Thus it should be legal.

Thus why does it matter? For the benefits? If being together isn't enough, maybe it's better you don't get married. Divorce rate is laughable enough already.

captain organic wrote:

OU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

OU wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

No one is saying the subjects are similar in this thread. The fight through the legal and electoral process though has been.

I get that the process to make both legal are similar. Still, I don't think it should ever be paired/grouped together.

This is what is being talked about, I don't understand why your trying to make it about the second part when nobody here is.

My bad if that is the case. But Capt's original comments seemed to pair the two up. I wanted to make it clear I view them as extremely separate.

they are paired up for the reasons I stated. Big one being, it's going that way anyway, just break the freaking door down already.

See there you go grouping it together again. "Because that is how it is going" is not a valid reason for anyone vote on anything.

OU wrote:

captain organic wrote:

OU wrote:

Marriage is a tricky subject. It's more or less a religious ceremony. If you don't view it as religious in any way then it's just a label. Who cares about how relationships are labeled? No one is denying anyone the right to be together.

Exactly. Thus it should be legal.

Thus why does it matter? For the benefits? If being together isn't enough, maybe it's better you don't get married. Divorce rate is laughable enough already.

Seems more like an argument for making all marriage illegal.

I don't like that this is now a gay marriage thread you guys are killing my celibration buzz, that said my 2 cents, marriage is a union under God so if a gay couple that believes in God and whats to get married because they believe God blesses their love then I support them but if you don't believe in God and your gay WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO GET MARRIED FOR??

I mean if it's about getting the same rights as married couples then give them the same rights just call it something else, that goes for anyone who doesn't believe in God let them call it something else with the same rights as married couples.

captain organic wrote:

OU wrote:

captain organic wrote:

OU wrote:

Marriage is a tricky subject. It's more or less a religious ceremony. If you don't view it as religious in any way then it's just a label. Who cares about how relationships are labeled? No one is denying anyone the right to be together.

Exactly. Thus it should be legal.

Thus why does it matter? For the benefits? If being together isn't enough, maybe it's better you don't get married. Divorce rate is laughable enough already.

Seems more like an argument for making all marriage illegal.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. It's a sensationalized, out dated and increasingly meaningless act anyways.

This is an unfair recruiting advantage for CU and CSU. All the potheads like the honey badger are going to lead them over USC and UO.

Farmer1906 wrote:

This is an unfair recruiting advantage for CU and CSU. All the potheads like the honey badger are going to lead them over USC and UO.

Oregon had their chance to pass the same law. Didn't Washington pass it?

OU wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

This is an unfair recruiting advantage for CU and CSU. All the potheads like the honey badger are going to lead them over USC and UO.

Oregon had their chance to pass the same law. Didn't Washington pass it?

Oh shit. Mike Leach is about to do work.

Farmer1906 wrote:

This is an unfair recruiting advantage for CU and CSU. All the potheads like the honey badger are going to lead them over USC and UO.

Holy shit Farmer your right that's gonna be the reason it gets legalized nation wide haha

Farmer1906 wrote:

OU wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

This is an unfair recruiting advantage for CU and CSU. All the potheads like the honey badger are going to lead them over USC and UO.

Oregon had their chance to pass the same law. Didn't Washington pass it?

Oh shit. Mike Leach is about to do work.

I hear he is bringing in Ricky Williams as the RB coach and Nate Newton as a line coach. Randy Moss said he will stop in every "once in a blue moon" to help out the WR.

OU wrote:

captain organic wrote:

OU wrote:

captain organic wrote:

OU wrote:

Marriage is a tricky subject. It's more or less a religious ceremony. If you don't view it as religious in any way then it's just a label. Who cares about how relationships are labeled? No one is denying anyone the right to be together.

Exactly. Thus it should be legal.

Thus why does it matter? For the benefits? If being together isn't enough, maybe it's better you don't get married. Divorce rate is laughable enough already.

Seems more like an argument for making all marriage illegal.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. It's a sensationalized, out dated and increasingly meaningless act anyways.

Not that Im for making it illegal, but Im in the same boat. Much to the chagrin of my girl friend of 10 years.

Saw this on FB

One week before marijuana is legalized in Colorado, Peyton Manning purchases 21 Papa Johns franchises throughout the state. Dude can't do anything wrong right now, brilliant move!

and my bad on the hijack.