...and here's the slippery slope (1 Viewer)

[maxiep]

It's absolutely easy to tell Howard go to trial because its public record. I think they mean, the ugly to the normal ones.

And anyway, you keep talking about amicable and I'm showing you over and over and over again that option is already available. I still don't know what you are trying to argue

I'm trying to argue to get the government out completely. No court. Nothing. No legal filing. No judgment by the state. Make people responsible for the dissolution of their relationship. Don't go running to the government. Again, make it about personal responsibility.

Hell, I looked at that article, and even a $39.95 quickie divorce cost over $500 in court fees. Why should the court be involved at all? It should be worked out privately, then you simply have a form that changes your status on a local, state and federal level that doesn't require a court order.

 

[Draco]

Marriage wasn't developed as a legal arrangement; it was created as a spiritual covenant. For those that wish the legal benefits/responsibilities of marriage, they can have civil unions.

If we replace the word marriage from all laws with civil unions, what is or who decides the criteria for a valid civil union?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Sigh. You do realize that it does have an effect on them, don't you?

Hurting someone's feelings a tiny bit doesn't count.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

would this be too simple?

For those that want to make sure there is a seperation of church and state, why should state be able to dictate policy to church?

 

[MarAzul]

Will Congress continue to offer different tax rates to "married" couples if it includes Gay couples?

Or will they change the law to redefine the tax law to target married men and women filing jointly?
This was the original intent, Will the predominately Republican House allow the courts to change their intent?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Will Congress continue to offer different tax rates to "married" couples if it includes Gay couples?

Or will they change the law to redefine the tax law to target married men and women filing jointly?
This was the original intent, Will the predominately Republican House allow the courts to change their intent?

wll, yeah, they have. I dont care if they have the same "rights"

What I dont care for ir two fold

Government dictating what the church does..as well as private Orgs like the Boy scouts

and the very fact that the Government believes tha it needs to be involved.

Find a real issue

 

[maxiep]

If we replace the word marriage from all laws with civil unions, what is or who decides the criteria for a valid civil union?

Governments can't discriminate.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Governments can't discriminate.

Really? Tell Obama that

 

[maxiep]

Really? Tell Obama that

Our government discriminates all the time right now, especially when it comes to marriage. It shouldn't. Equal rights for all.

 

[oldguy]

Maxiep

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking, adopt Jesus as our savior, teach creationism in school, etc.

Fuck em.

Which religions are beating the drum to ban drinking in this country?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Which religions are beating the drum to ban drinking in this country?

Go Blazers

Why should we care if they did? That's the point.

 

[magnifier661]

Why should we care if they did? That's the point.

I saw that you were in your 80's man. That's impressive!!! You don't look it William!

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Why should we care if they did? That's the point.

your arguement is like a cloud, always shifting shape, and sometimes full of shit

 

[magnifier661]

your arguement is like a cloud, always shifting shape, and sometimes full of shit

That was good

 

[Denny Crane]

your arguement is like a cloud, always shifting shape, and sometimes full of shit

maxiep's argument is that calling marriage "marriage" offends people of faith. So we shouldn't call it "marriage." He can correct me if I have his argument wrong (yeah, yeah, something about keeping the government out of it by not calling it marriage). He used the term "shove down their throats," in fact.

Other things bother people of faith, too. We "shove these things down their throats, too."

Excuuuuuuse me for providing examples.

Why should we cater to them, or anyone else for that matter? They can go pound sand. Let people who want to be married, be married.

 

[MarAzul]

maxiep's argument is that calling marriage "marriage" offends people of faith. So we shouldn't call it "marriage." He can correct me if I have his argument wrong (yeah, yeah, something about keeping the government out of it by not calling it marriage). He used the term "shove down their throats," in fact.

Other things bother people of faith, too. We "shove these things down their throats, too."

Excuuuuuuse me for providing examples.

Why should we cater to them, or anyone else for that matter? They can go pound sand. Let people who want to be married, be married.

Pound Sand?? That is quite a strong opinion for a minority asshole. What happened to you to cause such a violent reaction against the majority with long held principles?

Perhaps you need to step back, check your anger, maybe even seek help to lighten your load.

 

[Denny Crane]

Pound Sand?? That is quite a strong opinion for a minority asshole. What happened to you to cause such a violent reaction against the majority with long held principles?

Perhaps you need to step back, check your anger, maybe even seek help to lighten your load.

"They can go pound sand" has nothing to do with anger. It has everything to do with what they can do if they need to stick their noses in other peoples' business.

 

[oldguy]

Why should we care if they did? That's the point.

Here's what you said:

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking

So, what? You just pull shit out of your ass to piss people off, and when asked where you got that, you just say, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" What a crock.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's what you said:



So, what? You just pull shit out of your ass to piss people off, and when asked where you got that, you just say, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" What a crock.

Go Blazers

I was asking a hypothetical. He says, "we don't want to call it marriage because it'll get religious people bent out of shape - they're voters, blah blah" I say, "what other absurd things should we legislate so religious people won't get bent out of shape?"

If you don't like it, you can pound sand, too.

 

[MarAzul]

"They can go pound sand" has nothing to do with anger. It has everything to do with what they can do if they need to stick their noses in other peoples' business.

Sorry, I misread you, I thought it was anger, but your just a common asshole. Over 80% of the population says they believe in some religion. So if you think they should go pound sand, there can be no other term for you if it isn't anger. Redefining the definition of marriage is definitely their business. Look in any religious book, marriage is between a man and a women. If you want something else then call it what you will, that would be your business.

Bringing the liberal church into the argument farther compounds the wrong, the US government has never been involved with marriage except in the last century for tax purposes and a short misguided excursion by Bill Clinton. But I am sure you knew it.

 

[oldguy]

I was asking a hypothetical. He says, "we don't want to call it marriage because it'll get religious people bent out of shape - they're voters, blah blah" I say, "what other absurd things should we legislate so religious people won't get bent out of shape?"

If you don't like it, you can pound sand, too.

No, this is what you said:

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking...

Are you denying that you said that?

If you did say it, why don't you back up what you said, or man up and admit that what you said was bullshit?

Go Blazers

 

[DaLincolnJones]

That was good

thanks, I guess that ABM is not the only one to inspire me hahaha

 

[Denny Crane]

No, this is what you said:



Are you denying that you said that?

If you did say it, why don't you back up what you said, or man up and admit that what you said was bullshit?

Go Blazers

Been there, done that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Prohibition in the United States was a national ban on the sale, production, and transportation of alcohol, in place from 1920 to 1933.[1] The dry movement was led by rural Protestants in both political parties and was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. The ban was mandated by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Volstead Act set down the rules for enforcing the ban and defined the types of alcoholic beverages that were prohibited. Private ownership and consumption of alcohol was not made illegal under federal law, but in many areas local laws were stricter and some states banned possession outright. Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, on December 5, 1933.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry, I misread you, I thought it was anger, but your just a common asshole. Over 80% of the population says they believe in some religion. So if you think they should go pound sand, there can be no other term for you if it isn't anger. Redefining the definition of marriage is definitely their business. Look in any religious book, marriage is between a man and a women. If you want something else then call it what you will, that would be your business.

Bringing the liberal church into the argument farther compounds the wrong, the US government has never been involved with marriage except in the last century for tax purposes and a short misguided excursion by Bill Clinton. But I am sure you knew it.

I know you'd be happy with slavery again if 80% of the people want it.

Those 80% can go pound sand.

The constitution protects the right of a minority against the tyrannical majority.

And yes, it is tyranny.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Been there, done that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Prohibition in the United States was a national ban on the sale, production, and transportation of alcohol, in place from 1920 to 1933.[1] The dry movement was led by rural Protestants in both political parties and was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. The ban was mandated by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Volstead Act set down the rules for enforcing the ban and defined the types of alcoholic beverages that were prohibited. Private ownership and consumption of alcohol was not made illegal under federal law, but in many areas local laws were stricter and some states banned possession outright. Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, on December 5, 1933.

laughable that you would bring up an almost century old, failed concept, with wikipedia as your best research effort..

come on Denny, you can do better that that.

as for me, well you know my opinion, keep shifting and I will hit the pool with a few adult beverages..

 

[Denny Crane]

laughable that you would bring up an almost century old, failed concept, with wikipedia as your best research effort..

come on Denny, you can do better that that.

as for me, well you know my opinion, keep shifting and I will hit the pool with a few adult beverages..

So these people changed their mind about alcohol?

Ban on gay marriage is a centuries' old failed concept.

Whatever goes on between your ears that bothers you when two people far far far away from you marry is no reason to affect someone else's lives.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/Alcohol-Blue-Laws.html

Religion, Morality, and Blue Laws

Sunday Alcohol Sales an Affront to Moral Values
The town of Henderson in Kentucky will vote on whether or not to permit restaurants to serve alcohol beverages with meals on Sundays.

Support for maintaining the colonial-era Blue Law prohibitions against the sale of alcohol on Sundays is largely based on the religious beliefs held by some Christians. A typical letter to the editor of the town's newspaper asserts that even discussing such an option is thrusting "an immoral sword" deep into Henderson.

The letter explains that "We believe the church plays a critical role in our nation, therefore we do not believe the historical documents of this country, our state, or our local government teach anywhere of a separation of church and state"

It continues that "We are opposed to Sunday alcohol sales because it is Biblical to do so; it is the fourth commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy."

Opposition to Sunday sales of alcoholic beverages is frequently, if not usually, based on religious beliefs.

Separate Personal Opinion from Biblical Teachings on Alcohol, Says Minister

Some communities are voting on whether or not to allow Sunday alcohol sales or on whether to overturn old laws prohibiting any sale of alcohol. In virtually all news reports, opposition to such change is organized by a local minister who contends that drinking is prohibited by the Bible or otherwise against the will of God.

The Rev. Dr. Bob LeFavi, the founding pastor at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Rincon, Georgia, expresses concern that people in such communities are only hearing from local religious leaders who oppose alcohol sales or alcohol sales on Sundays and are coming to the conclusion that such an issues is one of Christians against non-Christians.

Dr. LeFavi says that what he sees as vital to these debates "is a clear separation between Holy Scripture and personal opinion." The Bible makes it clear that Jesus drank wine (Matthew 15:11; Luke 7:33-35) and approved of its moderate consumption (Matthew 15:11). Rev. LeFavi says the Bible makes clear that alcohol beverage is neither good nor bad in itself.

Sunday Alcohol Sales Bans: Blue Laws Indefensible

An editorial in South Carolina's Independent-Mail notes that much of the opposition to Sunday alcohol sales uses religion as its justification. However, it notes that "Nowhere in the Bible does it say, 'Thou shalt not drink alcohol on Sunday.'"

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/Etc/1133288995.html

“Sunday Alcohol Sales an Affront to Moral Values”

The town of Henderson in Kentucky will vote on whether or not to permit restaurants to serve alcohol beverages with meals on Sundays.

Support for maintaining the colonial-era Blue Law prohibitions against the sale of alcohol on Sundays is largely based on the religious beliefs held by some Christians. A typical letter to the editor of the town’s newspaper asserts that even discussing such an option is thrusting “an immoral sword” deep into Henderson.

The letter explains that “We believe the church plays a critical role in our nation, therefore we do not believe the historical documents of this country, our state, or our local government teach anywhere of a separation of church and state”

It continues that “We are opposed to Sunday alcohol sales because it is Biblical to do so; it is the fourth commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.”

Opposition to Sunday sales of alcoholic beverages is frequently, if not usually, based on religious beliefs.

 

[oldguy]

Been there, done that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Prohibition in the United States was a national ban on the sale, production, and transportation of alcohol, in place from 1920 to 1933.[1] The dry movement was led by rural Protestants in both political parties and was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. The ban was mandated by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Volstead Act set down the rules for enforcing the ban and defined the types of alcoholic beverages that were prohibited. Private ownership and consumption of alcohol was not made illegal under federal law, but in many areas local laws were stricter and some states banned possession outright. Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, on December 5, 1933.

This is what you said:

Your religious friends think we should ban drinking...

That statement is present tense. How about you back up your bullcrap with some current events?

I'll let it go, since you won't man up. I've become used to your new bitchy style, and this is right in line with it.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

You man up. There are 25 states with blue laws banning sale of alcohol for religious reasons.

 

[MarAzul]

I know you'd be happy with slavery again if 80% of the people want it.

Those 80% can go pound sand.

The constitution protects the right of a minority against the tyrannical majority.

And yes, it is tyranny.

The definition of marriage has been there for many millennial, nothing tyrannical about that nor does it have squat to do with slavery. That was a rather weak diversion for an asshole that wants the majority of the people to pound sand. You must be feeling inadequate. Heh heh! Maybe just weak, heh?