It is actually. Are you from NH originally? Our schools are usually pretty good about teaching critical thinking skills, but I suppose you could have been homeschooled or something.

Irrelevant as were are significant benefits granted by the state by marriage that are not extended to civil unions.

No, there were and are legal distinctions between civil union and marriage defined at the federal level

Possibly bullshit

There are benefits that come from being married in the eyes of the state which is what the issue of gay marriage is predicated upon, not to force the religious concept of marriage to include nontraditional concepts. Implied rights are easier given than relinquished, so we can't just remove all state sanctioned benefits of marriage to promote equality.

The Church is still able to deny facilitating the marriage in the eyes of God. It is worth noting that with the decreasing participation in organized religion, it has become increasingly tolerant (on the whole) of marginalized groups which is a trend I expect to continue.

No, marriage is a state institution. If it had been separated and there were no sanctioned benefits from being legally married and it was exclusively a religious union it would be a different discussion.

Reading the article there wasn't anything close to slander, he seems upset that his political ideology has received backlash. Which you need to prepared for if you're employed by a university, economic research group, and running for a planning board.

I can't find OP :(

Please don't let it be an airbnb. Can we get some legislation of short term rentals already?

To clarify: You believe the US funds the UN and that prevents New Hampshire from clean drinking water?

Edit, since it got deleted, this was the follow up to the deleted yes

Well, generally, people that hold similar political beliefs as the ones you seem to convey also prefer state spending over federal funding. Perhaps some one can weigh in but I understood our water treatment to be facilitated locally, which in turn would reduce the strength of your argument.

I think its also noting that the most of US contributions to the Ukraine was outdated stockpiles of weaponry. We can agree that the US industrial military complex needs drastic reductions and restructuring though.

https://www.grammarly.com/Grammar?gclid=Cj0KCQjw2cWgBhDYARIsALggUhrHI6cmayaBOBK5EzSXazTCV7ZkndM8QqlmWBHnd9zcY16VxZdX1CIaAsWsEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Please refer to my first statement

I didn't, I glanced at your post/comment history as well as noted that you told two people in this thread to fuck off which was widely unprovoked. I don't think you're an internet troll, I think you're a real life troll.

How so?

You seem well adjusted and exactly like the kind of person who should have access to high capacity magazines/bump stocks.

If you have time would you mind talking about cohesive bonding in snow slopes through freeze thaw cycles?

Cheers, I'll hit you up in a 2 years. Best of luck, you'll need it

You were so close to being self aware.

I do, and I'm against that. I believe in owner occupancy for STRs

You're making a lot of assumptions.

I disagree, the pricing out of locals is a well studied, understood, and documented phenomenon.

I'd rather that you hadn't. Own your shit, to quote you, and understand the adverse impact you created on young people in our state.

From your description northern MA like Haverhill or Andover would be better. If you want socializing, nightlife, etc.

I like tourists, I understand the role they play in our economy, I just don't like them moving here, reducing available housing, and pricing out the locals.

It's both, but it gave me something to latch onto. I feel I am owning my shit.