| Author | Message | ||
     Moxnix |
Red herring. Dump on Christians, it's high fives all around. Dump on sexual minorities and NEW LAWS MUST BE PASSED to stem those hateful prudes. Someone's ox is always getting gored. | ||
| Sifo |
It's a red herring because it's not being done. I don't think he will be able to provide any example such as I have asked him for. | ||
| Drkside79 |
That is forcing others to bend to the will of your G-d, or lack thereof. See any problem with that? No actually not one single problem. | ||
| Buellinmke |
it happened in the post directly after yours - someone claiming that Christians are being dumped on for whatever reason and so dumping on sexual minorities causes new laws to be passed. doesn't make any sense, does it? See any problem with that? | ||
| Sifo |
How in the world is "it happened in the post directly after yours - someone claiming that Christians are being dumped on for whatever reason and so dumping on sexual minorities causes new laws to be passed. doesn't make any sense, does it? See any problem with that?" an example of "Then why is it ok to take money from those who have religious beliefs in favor of having a dirty willie and giving it to those who have religious beliefs against having a dirty willie? That is forcing others to bend to the will of your G-d. See any problem with that?" ??? I also think you have probably missed the point of the "dump on Christians" post. | ||
| Sifo |
That is forcing others to bend to the will of your G-d, or lack thereof. See any problem with that? No actually not one single problem. Do you dislike the entire Constitution or just certain parts? | ||
| Moxnix |
>>>I also think you have probably missed the point of the "dump on Christians" post. Me too. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sort of lost track here.... This is about the increased healthcare ins. costs of people who eat too much, have unprotected sex, and do drugs that ruin their health? There's been talk for quite some time that those who engage in risky behaviors should be excluded or charged more for health/life insurance. There is a logic there. As one who engages in risky behavior..... I'm against it. ( list available on request ) I know telling your agent you are a Hang Glider Pilot really jacks up ( or eliminates ) your Life insurance bill..... Last I looked no one asked me what I do for a hobby for Health insurance, but I bet you it will be an issue with Obamacare. Political Correctness ( the Inquisition of the Holy State ) will probably exclude HIV treatment, but last I looked, sport bikers are fair game. Consider the protected groups of the current power holders. Bike riders, Motorbike riders in particular, are not in a good spot. Our bikes cost lots of money, so we are the 1%. ( never mind that Bono or Geithner spend more on cab fair ) We use precious natural resources...and emit an evil, cursed gas. ( never mind that my Cyclone is as efficient as a Prius on less resources ) We threaten MANY people's comfortable world image, by doing risky things, and generally being braver in at least one tiny part of life.... Yep, we're screwed. Protest that. Also could we please discuss other forms of sodomy? I find some quite fun, but not all. Is there any we agree on is especially nice? | ||
| Sifo |
Seem fitting for this thread...  | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
rofl!!! | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
If this administration put as much effort into championing gay marriage as they did setting up American FFL holders in fast and furious, than the standing ovation this prez has received would be merited. | ||
| Aesquire |
That's a fair statement. | ||
| Guell |
Question, since "marriage" is a religious entity, and the word is so loosely slung around now, what does it mean if an atheist man and woman get "married" Do you consider that a marriage Blake? | ||
| Slaughter |
Worse than an atheist marriage - how about a Methodist and a Catholic? EVEN WORSE - Southern Baptist and a Catholic! WORSE STILL - Jewish bride, Southern Baptist groom! | ||
| Danger_dave |
I'm rescinding Slaughter's proxy. :-) | ||
| Moxnix |
>>>since "marriage" is a religious entity We were married in a foreign country by a "marriage commissioner," a legally binding contract, in that sovereign land. I don't remember the paperwork mentioning anything about the agreed upon union being a religious entity. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
"married in a foreign country by a "marriage commissioner," a legally binding contract, in that sovereign land. I don't remember the paperwork mentioning anything about the agreed upon union being a religious entity." yep, it is the only way I will get married. Marriage in the US is a business contract - one that you enter knowing that half will fail , and you will loose your assets for the long forseeable future (have kids that are headed to college even though they are now only in pre - school - yep, you paying; and in many cases EVEN IF she gets remarried) there was a guy in UK that started the notion of 'marriage' insurance as a surety bond on performance contract basis ie the contract says love, honor, obey, care for in sickness and in health until death do you part (or some mumbo jumbo to the extent) ) but the divorce lawyers have gotten around many prenupts, and too many instances of no fault divorce are a step later for upwardly mobile 'real housewives' drama queens. A performance based surety bond negates the cost and expenditure of the divorce. last I checked - he wasn't having much luck with it - not for lack of customers - but because nobody would reinsure the finance portion of loses in which they see the financial loss too great a threat. (marry in Moldova - unless it is infidelity or abuse - the lawyer that brings the suit of divorce is also fined for contract failure and breach of ethics) or out at sea in international waters. Captain of a ship can marry you, and as it is an international contract.... no US lawyer, judge, advocate that is also not in an international venue has jurisdiction too many damn lawyers maybe the Revolution cures that. | ||
| Moxnix |
City, we could see your back yard from the hillside on Vancouver Island were the contract was signed. | ||
| Geedee |
Guell- Question, since "marriage" is a religious entity, and the word is so loosely slung around now, what does it mean if an atheist man and woman get "married" Not so sure about that: http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/06/12/marriage-rel igious-rite-or-civil-right.htm | ||
| Geedee |
The correct term in the Christian Religion (don't know about other religions) is Holy Matrimony. Marriage, on the other hand, well, it seems anything goes. Had this discussion with Blake before. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch /sacraments/6_matrimony.html I could care less what the 'state' recognises anyway. It's a fiction, like the Tooth Fairy. Are you still allowed to say fairy? | ||
| Blake |
What do I believe? The discussion ought be about the issues, not me. Words ought to have meaning. Male... Female Man... Woman Father... Mother Husband... Wife Marriage. Marriage is the complimentary union of man & woman, husband & wife, which is consummated through natural procreative joining. Homosexual partnerships is not marriage. What proponents of a radical redefinition of marriage are saying is that to be a "marriage", the inherent nature of a union matters not, only that there is one of any sort. Why should other types of partnerships not be mandated as equal to marriage? How about because of truth? Appeals to emotion based on lies? The govt ought not involve itself? That's a very tough argument to make, maybe a bit naive. Marriage is a contractual agreement. If you're averse to that, then by all means, avoid it; don't marry anyone you can't trust. But to argue that a contractual agreement ought not fall under proper jurisdiction of the state is a giant leap. Ought the federal govt avoid excessive interference in the matter? That's surely a valid case to make. Has anyone offered a good reason that society ought not maintain our special recognition of the only union that creates family, new human life, and the optimum environment for raising children? We ought to be forced to view two men who love each other as identical to the marriage of a husband and wife? We should further officially devalue marriage beyond what our self-obsessed morally challenged culture has on its own? Marx approves. (Message edited by Blake on May 24, 2012) | ||
| Blake |
| ||
| Britchri10 |
Slaughter: I was raised Methodist, married a Catholic girl (still married 26 odd years later) & could reasonably accurately described as an athiest (with a small "a") Where does that leave me? (ROFLMAO) | ||
| Geedee |
Sorry Blake, didn't mean it to be about you at all. The point I was trying to make is that Holy Matrimony can only be between a man and a woman, and we had discussed that previously. Marriage on the other hand is not and never has been necessarily religious, and although traditionally between a man and a woman is open to interpretation and alteration by the state. In some countries the titles Husband and Wife are being or have been removed completely from the contract. To claim that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is therefore incorrect. If it is appropriate, a union between a man and a woman could easily be referred to as (Holy) Matrimony. In my opinion only, it is a superior union anyway. Don't care what anyone else thinks. | ||
| Blake |
Guell Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 10:06 pm: >>> Question, since "marriage" is a religious entity, and the word is so loosely slung around now, what does it mean if an atheist man and woman get "married" >>> Do you consider that a marriage Blake? Do any of the definitions of marriage I've offered and defended include any reference to religion? My one point raised involving G-d was to point out that on any objective basis His laws against promiscuity and homosexual fecal canal sodomy have been proved correct. It was a divergent comment related to the issue. The cold hard facts of STDs and especially HIV/AIDS surely must inform the discussion. And again, let's not go personal. Keep the discussion on the issue, not personal beliefs. Regardless, your premise that marriage is only a religious issue, is false. Marriage is an issue of civil contract, religious conviction, and also legal definition, which ties back to the contract issue. Very few Christian organizations have accepted marriage as anything but the union of man and woman. Very few states have passed legislation mandating that homosexuals in domestic partnerships constitute marriage and must be viewed identically to marriage of man and woman. A host of states have passed legislation affirming that marriage is only the union of man and woman. Activist judges in a few states have tyrannicaly mandated that homosexuals in domestic partnerships constitute marriage and must be viewed identically to marriage of man and woman. Religion shall not dictate our civil law. Likewise, our civil law shall not dictate religion. (Message edited by blake on May 24, 2012) | ||
| Blake |
Tony, Fecal canal sodomy is unhealthful no matter who the perpetrators might be. This is medical fact, sound biological science. But you miss the larger point, that fecal canal sodomy is not equl to normal male-female sexual intercourse. Again, this is basic medical fact and biological science. One has to wonder what kind of religion would hold that the act of fecal canal sodomy is the same as normal procreative sexual intercourse. I think it's been deceitfully termed "Progressivism". Marx approves. | ||
| Aesquire |
Marriage is between a man and a woman. And a woman. And a Woman. And a... I think 6 is the limit is some faiths, though you can also keep Concubines as well in your Hareem. Frankly, based on practical economic reality, and actual scientific studies of human sexuality, 1 woman 2 men group marriages seem like the best way to go. With 2 breadwinners, ( males make 16% more in the Obama White House for equal work ) the woman can be a stay at home mom, or housewife, and have a pretty good life style. Our American Culture doesn't seem to be set up for such wife sharing on a contractual ( or male emotional ) basis, but it has some good arguments. Non traditional marriage is more common than you think. Still rather discuss other forms of sodomy. Is there a most popular? Least offensive? Most likely to be done on a Ferris Wheel? ( I think I know that one! ) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Definitely not a Marxist - but I don't support Marriage, nor kids, nor an all intrusive government. If they want to live together in 'sin' as man man, woman woman - it is nor more the government's business if a man and woman want to live in 'sin' cohabitating and not marrying. There are larger fish to fry. Honestly - if the government would get the hell out of many facets of life - the budget would be way more balanced. Don't even get me started on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. I heavily believe in self reliance and personal responsibility. Quit ass-raping my pocket book to pay for others lifestyles - what ever it may be. | ||
| Sifo |
All the banter about if marriage is a religious construct or not has no bearing on the Constitutionality of gay marriage. I'll connect the dots for those who can't for themselves... As it has been pointed out, marriage has for a long time been part of the tax code to encourage stable family structures that build a better society. Certainly you can argue at this point that the government is promoting a religious institution, therefore should be unconstitutional. I would certainly agree with the part about supporting a religious institution. Is that unconstitutional though? I don't think that argument would ever be upheld simply because marriage is virtually universally accepted among all religions, at least as a union between a man and woman. Once the government expands the definition of marriage beyond what is universally accepted by all religions then you have an issue because the tax code encouraging such behavior. This is true whether you are trying to promote gay marriage, polygamy, bestiality, or a marriage between a woman and a building. It matters not one bit if it's a religious institution in your eyes. It does matter that marriage to some (most in reality, but violating one religion is enough) religions view marriage as the joining of a man and a woman ONLY. Promoting anything beyond that is forcing people to promote a behavior that they find wrong based on religious beliefs. It would be just as wrong as making the national anthem to be Amazing Grace. Take the tax code out of marriage, then you might have a chance at non-traditional marriage being Constitutional. There may still be other issues I haven't considered, but that one is quite clear. | ||
| Aesquire |
It is a conservative principal that orderly, happy, committed couples are more productive and better for society than singles. Both the young adult running around getting in trouble type and the single moms who have serious economic issues. More couples, less welfare, less crime, less std's. Win win all around. If they are having some kind of sex a religious fellow 3 thousand years ago had trouble with, as long as it's behind closed doors, ( or a high fence.... just don't scare the horses ) it's none of our business. While not a fan of many of the kinky things we do to one another, there might be a few described in the Kama Sutra that are not approved by Mrs. Grundy that I like.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy |
