goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: "storm"nut on March 27, 2013, 10:09:43 AM
-
I pose this question because all I hear about is the fight for the rights for gay couples to get married. A man and a man or a women and a women. Okay, fine by me but will there be a gay test? How do you prevent fraud much like people wanting citizenship get married for just that reason, which is illegal. Would not a required testing program be a very bad president and could lead to discrimination if implemented? Or should there be marrige with no restrictions at all in number of people and age?
-
:flush:
-
straight people have sham marriages all the damn time. there is no test for them
-
:flush:
very educated response. Thank you.
-
straight people have sham marriages all the damn time. there is no test for them
so there should be more of them is what you are saying.
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
so you're cool with gay marriage
-
If the government is going to be in the marriage business, it needs to provide the same legal benefits equally to all people.
-
I believe this was already addressed in the classic film "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry".
-
In other words, it will be hilarious.
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
so you're cool with gay marriage
More of a fan of Civil Unions as I believe marriage is a convent between god and the married couple. If anything I wish governments would remove the word marriage from there official documentation no matter who is getting joined.
-
I believe this was already addressed in the classic film "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry".
also if you stay fake gay married for long enough you will fall in gay love and be real gay married. I learned this from "the following" starring kevin bacon.
-
basically, i think stormnut started this thread to say that if 2 dudes are gay and wanna live gay together, then he needs to witness them doing it raunchy butt-style.
-
If the government is going to be in the marriage business, it needs to provide the same legal benefits equally to all people.
This. Government types giving special benefits to people that are married and treat them differently to people that are unmarried like my self is unfair. I should be able to marry my self and get those benefits.
-
basically, i think stormnut started this thread to say that if 2 dudes are gay and wanna live gay together, then he needs to witness them doing it raunchy butt-style.
but if one of the gay men had straight sex at one time does that disqualify them from gay marriage?
-
If the government is going to be in the marriage business, it needs to provide the same legal benefits equally to all people.
I should be able to marry my self and get those benefits.
oh jesus christ, stormnut
-
basically, i think stormnut started this thread to say that if 2 dudes are gay and wanna live gay together, then he needs to witness them doing it raunchy butt-style.
and he wants it to be a federal job that he gets paid for (great benefits too)
-
i don't think stormnut knows anything about gay people
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
so you're cool with gay marriage
More of a fan of Civil Unions as I believe marriage is a convent between god and the married couple. If anything I wish governments would remove the word marriage from there official documentation no matter who is getting joined.
lots of folks say this but it's bullshit. I mean I've never see any politician propose this, and politicians spew bullshit pretty freely.
-
I believe this was already addressed in the classic film "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry".
also if you stay fake gay married for long enough you will fall in gay love and be real gay married. I learned this from "the following" starring kevin bacon.
hmm, maybe it won't be as funny as I thought.
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
so you're cool with gay marriage
More of a fan of Civil Unions as I believe marriage is a convent between god and the married couple. If anything I wish governments would remove the word marriage from there official documentation no matter who is getting joined.
lots of folks say this but it's bullshit. I mean I've never see any politician propose this, and politicians spew bullshit pretty freely.
Why does it have to be marriage. All marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages. Solved easy.
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
so you're cool with gay marriage
More of a fan of Civil Unions as I believe marriage is a convent between god and the married couple.
What if two straight people have a different God than you do? Do you want to disqualify them from marriage, too?
-
You realize no one GAF about the title marriage, right? You realize that bigots are using this gov't calling crap marriage talking point as a way to angry up the relig base, right?
All this has ever been about is the right to join in a union that provides equal rights on things like benefits, property rights, end of life stuff, etc. None of which has anything to do with religion.
-
basically, i think stormnut started this thread to say that if 2 dudes are gay and wanna live gay together, then he needs to witness them doing it raunchy butt-style.
but if one of the gay men had straight sex at one time does that disqualify them from gay marriage?
How is the simplicity missing you? Marry who you like. it is no one else's business.
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
so you're cool with gay marriage
More of a fan of Civil Unions as I believe marriage is a convent between god and the married couple.
What if two straight people have a different God than you do? Do you want to disqualify them from marriage, too?
Guess they can call is what ever they want. Marriage is a religious institution. If anything the government should not be using this word as it is a violation of separation of church and state.
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
so you're cool with gay marriage
More of a fan of Civil Unions as I believe marriage is a convent between god and the married couple.
What if two straight people have a different God than you do? Do you want to disqualify them from marriage, too?
Guess they can call is what ever they want. Marriage is a religious institution. If anything the government should not be using this word as it is a violation of separation of church and state.
Marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years.
-
why do gay people frighten you, stormnut?
they don't. not one bit. I am just asking simple questions. I don't care how people live there lives. They can go to hell for all I care. I just want to make sure everyone is treated fairly.
so you're cool with gay marriage
More of a fan of Civil Unions as I believe marriage is a convent between god and the married couple. If anything I wish governments would remove the word marriage from there official documentation no matter who is getting joined.
lots of folks say this but it's bullshit. I mean I've never see any politician propose this, and politicians spew bullshit pretty freely.
Why does it have to be marriage. All marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages. Solved easy.
Why are you so hung up on words? So, let's pretend the government decided to go to all the trouble of renaming everything from marriage to civil unions. And they offer civil unions to gays and straights alike. Then, churches "marry" people. There are already churches that marry gay people. And if there wasn't, I would invent a church that would.
-
And if you call it marriage for straight people, you call it marriage for gays, too. I mean if it's just a word that gays shouldn't care about, it's just a word straights shouldn't care about, either. Oh but they do care. (both sides)
-
Stormy, when you have your self-wedding with there be dancing and an open bar?
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
-
basically, i think stormnut started this thread to say that if 2 dudes are gay and wanna live gay together, then he needs to witness them doing it raunchy butt-style.
but if one of the gay men had straight sex at one time does that disqualify them from gay marriage?
How is the simplicity missing you? Marry who you like. it is no one else's business.
So you are good with abolishing that laws on insest, marring minors, on marring more than one person.
-
nope!
-
Stormy, when you have your self-wedding with there be dancing and an open bar?
of course
-
basically, i think stormnut started this thread to say that if 2 dudes are gay and wanna live gay together, then he needs to witness them doing it raunchy butt-style.
but if one of the gay men had straight sex at one time does that disqualify them from gay marriage?
How is the simplicity missing you? Marry who you like. it is no one else's business.
So you are good with abolishing that laws on insest, marring minors, on marring more than one person.
Minors don't fit the argument. on the others, whatevs. doesn't effect me.
-
the fact that you think two adult consenting homosexuals in love is the same thing as an adult man and a 12 year old in love really says alot about where your argument is coming from.
-
I'm still waiting on the "marry your dog" argument. It should be coming at any time now.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
-
the fact that you think two adult consenting homosexuals in love is the same thing as an adult man and a 12 year old in love really says alot about where your argument is coming from.
No it was in direct response to the comment of letting people marry who ever they want. Don't condone any of those.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Now, you are being inconsistent.
I mean, if you are allowed to limit someone's rights based on your own moral beliefs, why stop at marriage? I mean, the right to fire gay ppl exists now, so it's not like you would be taking something away.
Why one and not the other?
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Unfortunately, the state of Kansas does.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Unfortunately, the state of Kansas does.
In the state of Kansas you don't have to give any reason for why you fire someone.If they say they fire someone because they are gay that can sue and win.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Now, you are being inconsistent.
I mean, if you are allowed to limit someone's rights based on your own moral beliefs, why stop at marriage? I mean, the right to fire gay ppl exists now, so it's not like you would be taking something away.
Why one and not the other?
/quote]
I have said I am for Civil Unions. Don't know how I am be inconsistent.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Unfortunately, the state of Kansas does.
In the state of Kansas you don't have to give any reason for why you fire someone.If they say they fire someone because they are gay that can sue and win.
If they don't need a reason, how could someone sue and win?
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Unfortunately, the state of Kansas does.
In the state of Kansas you don't have to give any reason for why you fire someone.If they say they fire someone because they are gay that can sue and win.
If they don't need a reason, how could someone sue and win?
If they state in public or writing that they are firing that person because they are gay. Most employers are smart in right to work states that they just tell you your fired and that is the end of it.
-
I could have sworn the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act passed in Kansas last year, but I guess it didn't. Good for Kansas.
-
which dinosaur would you most like to gay marry? I would go with stud Utahraptor.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Unfortunately, the state of Kansas does.
In the state of Kansas you don't have to give any reason for why you fire someone.If they say they fire someone because they are gay that can sue and win.
If they don't need a reason, how could someone sue and win?
If they state in public or writing that they are firing that person because they are gay. Most employers are smart in right to work states that they just tell you your fired and that is the end of it.
Yeah, you're wrong.
-
which dinosaur would you most like to gay marry? I would go with stud Utahraptor.
Apatosaurus
-
I could have sworn the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act passed in Kansas last year, but I guess it didn't. Good for Kansas.
Nope just 2 days ago. and I am not sure that firing someone that is gay is applicable.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Now, you are being inconsistent.
I mean, if you are allowed to limit someone's rights based on your own moral beliefs, why stop at marriage? I mean, the right to fire gay ppl exists now, so it's not like you would be taking something away.
Why one and not the other?
/quote]
I have said I am for Civil Unions. Don't know how I am be inconsistent.
Because a civil union isn't a marriage and doesn't come with the same rights and you know that as it was discussed above. So, thus you are ok with continuing to limiting rights. Inconsistent
Also, Salina just this year passed legislation that made it ok legally to fire someone for their sexual orientation due to religious morality beliefs.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Unfortunately, the state of Kansas does.
In the state of Kansas you don't have to give any reason for why you fire someone.If they say they fire someone because they are gay that can sue and win.
If they don't need a reason, how could someone sue and win?
If they state in public or writing that they are firing that person because they are gay. Most employers are smart in right to work states that they just tell you your fired and that is the end of it.
Yeah, you're wrong.
How so. Help me out here.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Now, you are being inconsistent.
I mean, if you are allowed to limit someone's rights based on your own moral beliefs, why stop at marriage? I mean, the right to fire gay ppl exists now, so it's not like you would be taking something away.
Why one and not the other?
/quote]
I have said I am for Civil Unions. Don't know how I am be inconsistent.
Because a civil union isn't a marriage and doesn't come with the same rights and you know that as it was discussed above. So, thus you are ok with continuing to limiting rights. Inconsistent
Also, Salina just this year passed legislation that made it ok legally to fire someone for their sexual orientation due to religious morality beliefs.
What rights would be limited in a Civil Union? I not for limiting any rights. Marriage is a religious institution hijack by the government.
-
Bigots are so interesting to me.
Stormy, please defend the right to fire gay ppl too.
Ready, go.
that is wrong. Can't defend an indefensible act.
Now, you are being inconsistent.
I mean, if you are allowed to limit someone's rights based on your own moral beliefs, why stop at marriage? I mean, the right to fire gay ppl exists now, so it's not like you would be taking something away.
Why one and not the other?
/quote]
I have said I am for Civil Unions. Don't know how I am be inconsistent.
Because a civil union isn't a marriage and doesn't come with the same rights and you know that as it was discussed above. So, thus you are ok with continuing to limiting rights. Inconsistent
Also, Salina just this year passed legislation that made it ok legally to fire someone for their sexual orientation due to religious morality beliefs.
And Salina thing is wrong by the way.
-
Good lord. I have responded to the civil union stupidity above.
-
We tried "separate but equal" with minorities, didn't work too well. Don't know why we should try it again with homosexuals.
-
Good lord. I have responded to the civil union stupidity above.
replace the word Marriage with Civil Unions in government documentation and be done. The only thing missing is the religious component which is not up to the government to give out.
-
We tried "separate but equal" with minorities, didn't work too well. Don't know why we should try it again with homosexuals.
but that is wrong and should not be supported. So I don't see your point.
-
By the way, the Defense of Marriage act is wrong and should be abolished. Just saying.
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Shouldn't be complicated, but a lot of people in the country are pretty big dumbasses when it comes to social issues. I'm really hoping the Supreme Court makes it so that what you said comes true. Partially because it's the right thing to do and partially because the reactions here in Kansas are going to be amazing.
-
This is pointless.
Whats funny is that if this useless change in semantics did ever occur, like someone else mentioned above, some churches will then marry gay ppl. Then you will be right where the religious ppl are arguing against now. So what is the point?
The issue that is being discussed nationally is the rights not the semantics.
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Agree. I mean, I had a catholic turn my wife and I away from using their gym for an event because we refused to convert to being catholic so we could use a rough ridin' gym. Same principle.
-
Stormy, when you have your self-wedding with there be dancing and an open bar?
Can he marry himself if he's ever had sex other than self-love?
Oh, what's that?
He's good then.
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Sound about right just call them Civil unions and I am good to go.
-
The bible didn't invent the word marriage.
-
This is pointless.
Whats funny is that if this useless change in semantics did ever occur, like someone else mentioned above, some churches will then marry gay ppl. Then you will be right where the religious ppl are arguing against now. So what is the point?
The issue that is being discussed nationally is the rights not the semantics.
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Agree. I mean, I had a catholic turn my wife and I away from using their gym for an event because we refused to convert to being catholic so we could use a rough ridin' gym. Same principle.
Sounds like crazy Catholics then. My brothers wedding reception (non denominational service preformed by my mom who is a Methodist minister) was in a Catholic meeting hall. Really the first time I have ever herd of that. Were you going to have a wild sex orgy or satanic sacrifice?
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Sound about right just call them Civil unions and I am good to go.
Then that couple will go get married at the nearby non-denominational church that already performs marriages for gay couples. Boom....Married. Right where you evidently don't want to be. Or should we call the joining of two individuals from a church different than yours a civil union too since it isn't in front of your version of your god? I am getting a little lost here.
-
The bible didn't invent the word marriage.
But we perfected it. (all religious orders)
-
This is pointless.
Whats funny is that if this useless change in semantics did ever occur, like someone else mentioned above, some churches will then marry gay ppl. Then you will be right where the religious ppl are arguing against now. So what is the point?
The issue that is being discussed nationally is the rights not the semantics.
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Agree. I mean, I had a catholic turn my wife and I away from using their gym for an event because we refused to convert to being catholic so we could use a rough ridin' gym. Same principle.
Sounds like crazy Catholics then. My brothers wedding reception (non denominational service preformed by my mom who is a Methodist minister) was in a Catholic meeting hall. Really the first time I have ever herd of that. Were you going to have a wild sex orgy or satanic sacrifice?
Even worse, a family gathering. The guy said he would be happy to let us use it, but wifey and I would have to spend 6mo min attending catholic church and going through some dumbass catholic classes, then after that period of time it would be up to the recommendation of some catholic priest/Nazi to tell the other guy if we were actually Catholics or not.
The bible didn't invent the word marriage.
But we perfected it. (all religious orders)
Dumb
-
The bible didn't invent the word marriage.
The Bible invented marriage and the US was founded on Christian beliefs. This is what I learned in Kansas.
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Sound about right just call them Civil unions and I am good to go.
Then that couple will go get married at the nearby non-denominational church that already performs marriages for gay couples. Boom....Married. Right where you evidently don't want to be. Or should we call the joining of two individuals from a church different than yours a civil union too since it isn't in front of your version of your god? I am getting a little lost here.
Yes it is and I guess in that case it is between them a god. I believe it will not be a marriage in the eyes of god, but who know I may be the one with a one way ticket to hell. I believe I am right and that is my faith.
-
The bible didn't invent the word marriage.
No, but maybe the Pope stole it. :dunno:
-
So, after all this legislation and changing of semantics and issuing of a different type of certificat and allowed exclusion for morality reasons we end up back with gay ppl being able to be married and "I guess it is between them and their god"?
Seems like a long trip to the same place rather than just allowing everyone to be married with regard to the current process.
I tell you what. Either way, when a gay couple tells you they are married, you can still hate on them to your other religious friends behind their back and tell each other that god doesn't agree. Deal?
-
This is pointless.
Whats funny is that if this useless change in semantics did ever occur, like someone else mentioned above, some churches will then marry gay ppl. Then you will be right where the religious ppl are arguing against now. So what is the point?
The issue that is being discussed nationally is the rights not the semantics.
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Agree. I mean, I had a catholic turn my wife and I away from using their gym for an event because we refused to convert to being catholic so we could use a rough ridin' gym. Same principle.
Sounds like crazy Catholics then. My brothers wedding reception (non denominational service preformed by my mom who is a Methodist minister) was in a Catholic meeting hall. Really the first time I have ever herd of that. Were you going to have a wild sex orgy or satanic sacrifice?
Even worse, a family gathering. The guy said he would be happy to let us use it, but wifey and I would have to spend 6mo min attending catholic church and going through some dumbass catholic classes, then after that period of time it would be up to the recommendation of some catholic priest/Nazi to tell the other guy if we were actually Catholics or not.
The bible didn't invent the word marriage.
But we perfected it. (all religious orders)
Dumb
Holly cow, were was this. I have never in my life as a Protestant and a new converted catholic herd of any catholic church making such a request. That is actually no even a biblical standing as the doors to gods church are open to all it just the sacraments of our religion that are restricted. Using the "gym" is not a sacrament the last time I checked. LOL. Sorry they were like that to you.
-
I laughed pretty hard at the guy as he was describing that process and ended up hanging up on him when he defended it.
Was in Kansas City
-
lol our hometown catholic school rented out the auditorium for a TuffMan style drunken brawl event.
-
man Religion is so 50+ years ago...
-
lol our hometown catholic school rented out the auditorium for a TuffMan style drunken brawl event.
Times are tough.
-
Holly cow, were was this. I have never in my life as a Protestant and a new converted catholic herd of any catholic church making such a request. That is actually no even a biblical standing as the doors to gods church are open to all it just the sacraments of our religion that are restricted. Using the "gym" is not a sacrament the last time I checked. LOL. Sorry they were like that to you.
The priest might have sprinkled some holy water in that gym for all we know.
-
So, after all this legislation and changing of semantics and issuing of a different type of certificat and allowed exclusion for morality reasons we end up back with gay ppl being able to be married and "I guess it is between them and their god"?
Seems like a long trip to the same place rather than just allowing everyone to be married with regard to the current process.
I tell you what. Either way, when a gay couple tells you they are married, you can still hate on them to your other religious friends behind their back and tell each other that god doesn't agree. Deal?
will not hate them but will pray for them.
-
I laughed pretty hard at the guy as he was describing that process and ended up hanging up on him when he defended it.
Was in Kansas City
Sorry they did that to you. Trully am. Wish some within my religion would understand that you can't force people to be Christians but you need to be receptive of them when they wish to be.
-
Holly cow, were was this. I have never in my life as a Protestant and a new converted catholic herd of any catholic church making such a request. That is actually no even a biblical standing as the doors to gods church are open to all it just the sacraments of our religion that are restricted. Using the "gym" is not a sacrament the last time I checked. LOL. Sorry they were like that to you.
The priest might have sprinkled some holy water in that gym for all we know.
Most likely and I would be willing to bet there is a piece of the dead saint that the church is named after in some part of the sanctuary.
-
When someone misspells "marrying" three times in one sentence, I pretty much ignore their POV.
-
When someone misspells "marrying" three times in one sentence, I pretty much ignore their POV.
I just get over it and don't care. Sorry your (you're) a bigot.
-
When someone misspells "marrying" three times in one sentence, I pretty much ignore their POV.
I just get over it and don't care. Sorry your (you're) a bigot.
ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE RIGHT STORMY!?!?
-
When someone misspells "marrying" three times in one sentence, I pretty much ignore their POV.
I just get over it and don't care. Sorry your (you're) a bigot.
ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE RIGHT STORMY!?!?
It as Adam and Eve in the Bible. I don't think there is a Steve in the Bible though.
-
So should atheists be able to marry? I mean if homosexuality is not the crux of the issue?
-
Also a JAG (just asking questions) troll is old hat.
-
So should atheists be able to marry? I mean if homosexuality is not the crux of the issue?
Don't see why not just not Holly matrimony. Civil Unions for all.
-
So should atheists be able to marry? I mean if homosexuality is not the crux of the issue?
Don't see why not just not Holly matrimony. Civil Unions for all.
Who should enforce this policy?
-
lol our hometown catholic school rented out the auditorium for a TuffMan style drunken brawl event.
You could have a NAMBLA convention at the Vatican (outside of a Cardinal Conclave) if the price is right. When it comes to money, the Catholic Church will find all sorts of exceptions to canon law. As witnessed by the two Methodist I witness married by a Methodist minister in a Catholic Church. Good times.
-
So should atheists be able to marry? I mean if homosexuality is not the crux of the issue?
Don't see why not just not Holly matrimony. Civil Unions for all.
Who should enforce this policy?
atheists do get "married" right now. Don't they?
-
lol our hometown catholic school rented out the auditorium for a TuffMan style drunken brawl event.
You could have a NAMBLA convention at the Vatican (outside of a Cardinal Conclave) if the price is right. When it comes to money, the Catholic Church will find all sorts of exceptions to canon law. As witnessed by the two Methodist I witness married by a Methodist minister in a Catholic Church. Good times.
Not true. And as far as I know that marriage was a okay. Again the house of god is open to all. Even gay people.
-
When someone misspells "marrying" three times in one sentence, I pretty much ignore their POV.
I just get over it and don't care. Sorry your (you're) a bigot.
ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE RIGHT STORMY!?!?
It as Adam and Eve in the Bible. I don't think there is a Steve in the Bible though.
There is, and he was stoned to death.
-
So you are good with abolishing that laws on insest, marring minors, on marring more than one person.
Minors can't legally give consent. Neither can dogs, in case that argument of "protecting the sanctity of marriage" comes up. Incest is illegal because it is dangerous in terms of procreation. How exactly does gay marriage cause you any harm?
-
Caught the wife watching Oprah channel yesterday and it was a "where are they now" show and it showed that lesbian couple where the transgender man carried the baby and it turned out THEY ARE NOW DIVORCED!
shattered my world view
-
Caught the wife watching Oprah channel yesterday and it was a "where are they now" show and it showed that lesbian couple where the transgender man carried the baby and it turned out THEY ARE NOW DIVORCED!
shattered my world view
If they were straight, they never would've gotten divorced
-
So you are good with abolishing that laws on insest, marring minors, on marring more than one person.
Minors can't legally give consent. Neither can dogs, in case that argument of "protecting the sanctity of marriage" comes up. Incest is illegal because it is dangerous in terms of procreation. How exactly does gay marriage cause you any harm?
It does no harm to anyone. They just think it's icky
-
The irony in all of this is that the demographic with the highest divorce rate in the US thinks it has the right to decide who should and shouldn't get married.
-
Convinced my ol' man, who is about as far right as they come, the gay marriage literally does no harm to anyone and that opposing it would make him look ignorant last week. I was pretty shocked.
-
"Everyone everywhere should have lots of guns an ammo which can hurt and kill lots of other people, BUT NOT EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET MARRIED BECAUSE IT AFFECTS ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE BESIDES THE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED!!"
-
have we talked about how chickenshit it is for the court to agree to hear cases and then deny them for lack of standing?
-
To answer the OP, the exact same as a straight marriage... Sign a document with a witness. :clac:
-
Remember in 1996 when Bill Clinton and an overwhelming majority of democrat and Republicans passed the DOMA? Remember how the homophone in chief and his assclown administration continues to enforce it?
Remember when California voters overwhelmingly crushed the notion of gay marriage in California?
Seems like "progressives" say one thing and do another.
-
lol our hometown catholic school rented out the auditorium for a TuffMan style drunken brawl event.
You could have a NAMBLA convention at the Vatican (outside of a Cardinal Conclave) if the price is right. When it comes to money, the Catholic Church will find all sorts of exceptions to canon law. As witnessed by the two Methodist I witness married by a Methodist minister in a Catholic Church. Good times.
Not true. And as far as I know that marriage was a okay. Again the house of god is open to all. Even gay people.
I was married in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest and all of my non-catholic friends partied their faces off all day in this joint. It just took a check. I could have bathed in the holy water for the right price.
Did you convert for your wife? Because you didn't have to.
-
Remember in 1996 when Bill Clinton and an overwhelming majority of democrat and Republicans passed the DOMA? Remember how the homophone in chief and his assclown administration continues to enforce it?
Remember when California voters overwhelmingly crushed the notion of gay marriage in California?
Seems like "progressives" say one thing and do another.
Remember when that straight married couple was less in love with each other and had a shittier marriage because some gay people also got married?
-
Bigotry and homophobia hidden under the guise of "What next? I can marry MY CAT! ?" Is awesome
-
the only explanation is bigotry
-
where are the laws for adultery? working on sundays? taking the lord's name in vein? those are sins. why no laws?
-
Can I marry a gun?
-
Can I marry a gun?
only certain types :curse:
-
Can I marry a gun?
only certain types :curse:
All anyone needs is a shotgun. A couple pumps in the backyard will scare anyone off.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
We tried "separate but equal" with minorities, didn't work too well. Don't know why we should try it again with homosexuals.
Dood, its just semantics, they're not going to different schools and using different restrooms and crap. Your analogy is actually dumber than they "why can't I marry my gun" slippery slope argument.
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.
-
can't wait to hear FSD's reasons for being against gay marriage.
-
FWIW, I don't think you should have to get the governments permission to get married. People should be free to live how they want.
-
can't wait to hear FSD's reasons for being against gay marriage.
Just because I have to explain everything to you chicken little dolts doesn't mean I disagree with your opinions, no matter how I'll advised or uninformed themanner is in which you reach them
-
Ok then, why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?
-
Ok then, why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?
Nobody should get tax breaks for being married or having kids.
-
Ok then, why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?
Because they're gays. Duh.
-
Ok then, why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?
.
-
So should atheists be able to marry? I mean if homosexuality is not the crux of the issue?
Don't see why not just not Holly matrimony. Civil Unions for all.
Who should enforce this policy?
atheists do get "married" right now. Don't they?
Confirmed. My wife (life partner) and I have been (married) unioned for over six years.
-
Ok then, why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?
Nobody should get tax breaks for being married or having kids.
Dude, diapers are rough ridin' expensive.
-
Bigotry and homophobia hidden under the guise of "What next? I can marry MY CAT! ?" Is awesome
Yeah. almost more than the bigotry, I'm annoyed by people who are bad at logic attempting to use it instead of just admitting they're bigots. This thread is a great DKS case study.
-
lol our hometown catholic school rented out the auditorium for a TuffMan style drunken brawl event.
You could have a NAMBLA convention at the Vatican (outside of a Cardinal Conclave) if the price is right. When it comes to money, the Catholic Church will find all sorts of exceptions to canon law. As witnessed by the two Methodist I witness married by a Methodist minister in a Catholic Church. Good times.
Not true. And as far as I know that marriage was a okay. Again the house of god is open to all. Even gay people.
I was married in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest and all of my non-catholic friends partied their faces off all day in this joint. It just took a check. I could have bathed in the holy water for the right price.
Did you convert for your wife? Because you didn't have to.
With our different religious backgrounds, my wife and I had a hell of a time finding a church. We just had an outdoor wedding.
-
In all seriousness, it's pathetic that a nation founded on freedom and equality hasn't gotten past this issue yet.
-
Ok then, why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?
Nobody should get tax breaks for being married or having kids.
there is an economic benefit to society when people reproduce in an environment where the children will be looked after.
-
In all seriousness, it's pathetic that a nation founded on freedom and equality hasn't gotten past this issue yet.
nation was founded for the freedom of land owning white dudes. it's a work in progress.
-
Ok then, why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?
Nobody should get tax breaks for being married or having kids.
there is an economic benefit to society when people reproduce in an environment where the children will be looked after.
Thanks, Hillary, but free abortions and birth control are available if you can't afford a baby right now.
-
In all seriousness, it's pathetic that a nation founded on freedom and equality hasn't gotten past this issue yet.
nation was founded for the freedom of land owning white dudes. it's a work in progress.
Then why do old balls people, and infertile people and people never have kids get those benefits automatically?
That is a pretty rediculous reason, and isn't much better than the cat example. I mean Christ, it's not like they ask if you are planning on reproducing? Married? Boom tax advantage.
-
stormnut, do you believe gays burn in eternal hellfire if they aren't sorry for being gay?
-
I was married in the Catholic Church next to campus by Keith and I'm not Catholic.
-
I was married in the Catholic Church next to campus by Keith and I'm not Catholic.
Hell for you
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.
Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses. I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same. It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue. :thumbs: for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue. We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.
-
Really debating which thread to put this in.
Came off Facebook.
I have the same right to voice my opinion about gay rights as they do.
1. It is not marriage.
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:27).
Old Testament- Leviticus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Gigantic brick of text.
-
"Natural Law" is fantastic.
-
I think it's hilarious how people are like "A CIVIL UNION IS THE SAME THING, WE JUST DON'T CALL IT MARRIQGE! IT'S SEMANTICS!" as if they're fighting for the word marriage rather than to be looked at in the same light as husband and wife.
-
I really like how they demonize sodomy.
Sodomy is actually pretty rough ridin' sweet. Who doesn't like a BJ every once in a while. Or even an old fashioned.
-
haha an old fashioned
-
Ok then, why shouldn't gay people get Tax breaks that every body else get?
Nobody should get tax breaks for being married or having kids.
there is an economic benefit to society when people reproduce in an environment where the children will be looked after.
Thanks, Hillary, but free abortions and birth control are available if you can't afford a baby right now.
my point is that there needs to be a future generation for the economy to grow(this is a big part of europe's problems) and that the next generation will be better off if it is raised by two parents rather than one. tax incentives for being married and/or having kids help make this happen.
-
I haven't said anything about this topic anywhere and the only reason I feel comfortable doing so here is that it is anonymous. So yeah, I'm a wuss.
That said, I do not care about SSM. I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own homes. I think it is backwards to try to get government to acknowledge our relationships in any way, shape or form. We should all be rallying to get government out of almost everything. I don't want them in my bedroom. I don't want them in my checkbook. I don't want them in my soda pop. Just get the hell out.
That means divorcing tax incentives of all kind from behavior.
I think it is patently dishonest to suggest that two male parents or two female parents are as good for a child as having a father and a mother. Yes, having two loving male parents is better than having a crack whore for a mom and a rapist for a dad, but let's be honest: That's rarely the choice and that's not what we're talking about. I would feel a whole lot better if we could concede that fact while we're having this conversation.
That said, fine. Life isn't always fair. Not all children get to have the best possible situation. Let's be honest and move on down the road. But let's not lie and say two loving parents of the same sex are as good as two loving parents of the opposite sex. It's so disingenuous.
Whew. I feel better. Feel free to DNR me. I just feel better putting it out into the world somewhere. So, thanks, gE.
-
I don't think its dishonest to think that two dude dads could be as good or better parents compared with a hetero mom dad situation.
-
I haven't said anything about this topic anywhere and the only reason I feel comfortable doing so here is that it is anonymous. So yeah, I'm a wuss.
That said, I do not care about SSM. I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own homes. I think it is backwards to try to get government to acknowledge our relationships in any way, shape or form. We should all be rallying to get government out of almost everything. I don't want them in my bedroom. I don't want them in my checkbook. I don't want them in my soda pop. Just get the hell out.
That means divorcing tax incentives of all kind from behavior.
I think it is patently dishonest to suggest that two male parents or two female parents are as good for a child as having a father and a mother. Yes, having two loving male parents is better than having a crack whore for a mom and a rapist for a dad, but let's be honest: That's rarely the choice and that's not what we're talking about. I would feel a whole lot better if we could concede that fact while we're having this conversation.
That said, fine. Life isn't always fair. Not all children get to have the best possible situation. Let's be honest and move on down the road. But let's not lie and say two loving parents of the same sex are as good as two loving parents of the opposite sex. It's so disingenuous.
Whew. I feel better. Feel free to DNR me. I just feel better putting it out into the world somewhere. So, thanks, gE.
Why is it disingenuous to think that same sex parents aren't as good for children as hetero parents?
I think, in general, adoptive parents are better for kids than non-adoptive. In a higher percentage of adoptive situations, parents have been screened and have thought about the decision for a long time. In biological parenting, theres a higher chance of crackhead parents or accidents to enormously unprepared parents. There aren't crackheads or enormously unprepared parents lining up to adopt (albeit there are probably some).
I don't think the gender effects the raising of a child. I think the preparedness of the parents does. I think same-sex couples, because they are put through a more rigorous process to have a child than just rough ridin', are in general better parents a higher percentage of the time.
-
But let's not lie and say two loving parents of the same sex are as good as two loving parents of the opposite sex. It's so disingenuous.
Let's not lie and say that two loving parents of the same sex are worse than two loving parents of the opposite sex. It's just wrong.
-
i think willsgirl had two dads and hated her parents
-
big shock, willesgirl is a bigot
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.
Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses. I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same. It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue. :thumbs: for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue. We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.
Bill Maher is that loud, boorish guy at a party that insults people and laughs at all his own jokes and when people tell him to chill out he's like "hey, i'm just being real. sorry you can't handle it."
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.
Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses. I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same. It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue. :thumbs: for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue. We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.
Bill Maher is that loud, boorish guy at a party that insults people and laughs at all his own jokes and when people tell him to chill out he's like "hey, i'm just being real. sorry you can't handle it."
dlewinjun
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.
Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses. I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same. It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue. :thumbs: for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue. We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.
Bill Maher is that loud, boorish guy at a party that insults people and laughs at all his own jokes and when people tell him to chill out he's like "hey, i'm just being real. sorry you can't handle it."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F0.tqn.com%2Fd%2Fpittsburgh%2F1%2F0%2Fa%2Fh%2Ffield_left.jpg&hash=6cf1ab29680b6c098aaeda087ee395f3f150bc7c)
-
This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite. I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot. That's not an argument. That's name-calling. And it's not true.
Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
Like I said, not stuff I typically talk about. I just read the research and listen. Again, I'm not suggesting we make decisions based on what the research suggests, I'm simply saying we shouldn't lie about it. And now, birther pit, I'm out. Flame away, children.
-
This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite. I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot. That's not an argument. That's name-calling. And it's not true.
Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
Like I said, not stuff I typically talk about. I just read the research and listen. Again, I'm not suggesting we make decisions based on what the research suggests, I'm simply saying we shouldn't lie about it. And now, birther pit, I'm out. Flame away, children.
I would be interested to see that research and who conducted it.
-
This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite. I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot. That's not an argument. That's name-calling. And it's not true.
I wasn't trying to argue, I was trying to call you a bigot.
-
This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite. I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot. That's not an argument. That's name-calling. And it's not true.
Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
Like I said, not stuff I typically talk about. I just read the research and listen. Again, I'm not suggesting we make decisions based on what the research suggests, I'm simply saying we shouldn't lie about it. And now, birther pit, I'm out. Flame away, children.
I would be interested to see that research and who conducted it.
http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf (http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf)
-
love when bigots say "i don't care if they get married, etc etc, BUT, let's all agree that they are evil and aren't equal to us normal, penis-to-vagina people"
shocker that fanning wackycat is a bigot :lol:
-
This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite. I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot. That's not an argument. That's name-calling. And it's not true.
Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
Like I said, not stuff I typically talk about. I just read the research and listen. Again, I'm not suggesting we make decisions based on what the research suggests, I'm simply saying we shouldn't lie about it. And now, birther pit, I'm out. Flame away, children.
I would be interested to see that research and who conducted it.
http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf (http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf)
I'm not reading that long rough ridin' thing, but pretty sure it says Willegirl's research that was provided by Westboro is false
-
That pretty much sums it up ChiCat
-
This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite. I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot. That's not an argument. That's name-calling. And it's not true.
Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
Like I said, not stuff I typically talk about. I just read the research and listen. Again, I'm not suggesting we make decisions based on what the research suggests, I'm simply saying we shouldn't lie about it. And now, birther pit, I'm out. Flame away, children.
...maybe they're not as good cause they can't marry?
who knows. This is not, and will never be, a scientific argument to favor both sides IMO. Just like you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God scientifically, neither can you prove who is the better parents. For to do so would require defining what is a "good" parent => which is obviously subjective and contingent upon societal morals and beliefs of what is good => which are mostly rooted in religion.
And don't be confused by the word religion. we all have a religion. for those of you stating you don't care what others do as long as it does not effect you - guess what, that is a belief that plays into how you view the world and conduct yourself (i.e. a religion). It's just a word, right? Also, saying you don't care what other people do as long as it does not impact you is technically a flawed logic - not to mention lazy. It implies that only what benefits you or your interests is right and anything denying you from your interests is wrong. this is pretty standard existential fallacy - as it is not scalable to everyone.
-
Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
just curious where you saw/read/heard about this research, link tia.
-
This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite. I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot. That's not an argument. That's name-calling. And it's not true.
Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
Like I said, not stuff I typically talk about. I just read the research and listen. Again, I'm not suggesting we make decisions based on what the research suggests, I'm simply saying we shouldn't lie about it. And now, birther pit, I'm out. Flame away, children.
I would be interested to see that research and who conducted it.
http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf (http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf)
I'm not reading that long rough ridin' thing, but pretty sure it says Willegirl's research that was provided by Westboro is false
j
not hard to skim and you are right. waiting willegirl's research from her church newsletter.
-
CONCLUSION
The social science consensus is both conclusive and
clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by
same-sex parents as when they are raised by oppositesex parents
-
This is why I don't talk politics in polite company -- most people aren't polite. I said something not particularly controversial and within seconds, I'm called a bigot.
Yeah, it's obviously easier for you to not discuss politics on here than to not be a bigot.
-
If you were stating an opinion that you believe same sex parenting isn't as effective as "traditional" parenting, that's one thing. But to say that we are lying to ourselves for thinking that a same sex couple is capable of raising a child as well as a mother and father is completely asinine.
-
I would be willing to look at research that suggests that a heterosexual couple provides a better home for an adopted child than a homosexual couple, because I could see how there might be some benefit from living with both a man and a woman. :dunno:
Here in the real world, though, that doesn't matter at all because there are more kids than parents willing to adopt, and I'm not at all willing to believe that it's better to just push kids through the foster system than it is to give them an adoptive family, regardless of sexual orientation.
-
As someone who studied prejudice in college, I'd just like to confirm that there is absolutely no evidence that says being raised by a heterosexual couple is better than being raise by a same sex couple.
-
As someone who studied prejudice in college, I'd just like to confirm that there is absolutely no evidence that says being raised by a heterosexual couple is better than being raise by a same sex couple.
What about being raised by smelly bigots?
-
As someone who studied prejudice in college, I'd just like to confirm that there is absolutely no evidence that says being raised by a heterosexual couple is better than being raise by a same sex couple.
What about being raised by smelly bigots?
9 times out of 10, the child is raised a smelly bigot. Very sad.
-
why is "gay" in "quotes"? "storm" nut, do you "think" that "gays" do not "exist'?'
-
As someone who studied prejudice in college, I'd just like to confirm that there is absolutely no evidence that says being raised by a heterosexual couple is better than being raise by a same sex couple.
What about being raised by smelly bigots?
9 times out of 10, the child is raised a smelly bigot. Very sad.
Sounds both sad and scientific.
-
the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
bullshit.
by the way, i agree with you, regarding the one sex parenting v. two sex parenting if you control for all other variables. it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but on that other discussion, i agree.
-
Though there is very limited research on the topic of same sex parenting, what research exists suggests that no, two same sex parents are not as good as two parents of the opposite sex. You'll note I never mentioned biological parents, because the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
The Regnerus study is probably the one that she is referring to...widely discredited and the researcher was under investigation for scientific misconduct. Oh, and he is also connected with some right wing groups. Hmmm.
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ut-investigates-professors-study-on-children-with-/nRp5t/
-
Whoa, there's a test in order to get married and have kids? eff that crap, stayin' single bros. :eye:
-
I don't understand why this is so complicated. The law should be that federal, state and municipal governments cannot deny a marriage license to two people based on their orientation, but religious organizations and/or people presiding over the ceremony do not have to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to do so. You would get some churches and pastors who perform same sex marriages and some that do not. Seems pretty simple.
Part of the reason you don't understand why the actual issue before the scotus is complicated is because you think there are federal marriage licenses.
Thanks FSD, obviously there are no federal marriage licenses. I should have left that out, but the point of the post still remains the same. It really is not that complicated of an issue and some solution like what I put forward should solve the problem while still allowing religious organizations to make choices as a congregation on the issue. :thumbs: for being a total douche though and thinking that you are the smartest person in the planet every time you make a post relating to some political issue. We get it man, you have all the answers and the rest of us are just too stupid to comprehend the complexity of anything.
I don't think you understand the actual issues before the court, either that or you don't understand its purpose.
-
the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
bullshit.
by the way, i agree with you, regarding the one sex parenting v. two sex parenting if you control for all other variables. it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but on that other discussion, i agree.
Anyone who know anyone that teaches elementary school or lower can testify to that. Kids with one sex parents don't "do as well" emotionally and psychologically.
I can't believe people still don't understand that social science is another term for partisan bullshit.
-
the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
bullshit.
by the way, i agree with you, regarding the one sex parenting v. two sex parenting if you control for all other variables. it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but on that other discussion, i agree.
Anyone who know anyone that teaches elementary school or lower can testify to that. Kids with one sex parents don't "do as well" emotionally and psychologically.
I can't believe people still don't understand that social science is another term for partisan bullshit.
I know a number of people that teach elementary school and none of them agree with that.
People who think science is partisan are retards
-
the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
bullshit.
by the way, i agree with you, regarding the one sex parenting v. two sex parenting if you control for all other variables. it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but on that other discussion, i agree.
Anyone who know anyone that teaches elementary school or lower can testify to that. Kids with one sex parents don't "do as well" emotionally and psychologically.
I can't believe people still don't understand that social science is another term for partisan bullshit.
If social science is "partisan bullshit", what is "posting random stuff on a message board that I literally just made up in an attempt to show that there is evidence for my opinion"?
-
the statistics suggest that adopted children in two parent (of the opposite gender) homes do best of all.
bullshit.
by the way, i agree with you, regarding the one sex parenting v. two sex parenting if you control for all other variables. it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but on that other discussion, i agree.
Anyone who know anyone that teaches elementary school or lower can testify to that. Kids with one sex parents don't "do as well" emotionally and psychologically.
I can't believe people still don't understand that social science is another term for partisan bullshit.
If social science is "partisan bullshit", what is "posting random stuff on a message board that I literally just made up in an attempt to show that there is evidence for my opinion"?
Social Science.
-
No FSD, I do understand the issues before the court. Perhaprs better than most seeing as how it is my job to know legal issues and that is my chosen profession. My solution was geared towards the entire issue of same sex marriage, not just the two cases before the court. You really are a ginormous d-bag who loves to try and be the message board tough guy. JFC
-
No FSD, I do understand the issues before the court. Perhaprs better than most seeing as how it is my job to know legal issues and that is my chosen profession. My solution was geared towards the entire issue of same sex marriage, not just the two cases before the court. You really are a ginormous d-bag who loves to try and be the message board tough guy. JFC
Looks like I've really struck a chord here. If you "get it" the wtf are you so confused about?
JFC, if anyone ever deserved to be PI'd all over a bbs its this little bitch.
-
I know many teach's too. Seems like bad parents are more often the problem when kids are under performing. Bad as in the ones who couldn't care less. Also, when emotional issues are the problem, it seems like it is usually due to a single parent issue(divorce, new stepwhatevs, etc).
It is silly to discuss children along with this issue. Heteros have been doing a bang up job rough ridin' kids up for the duration of history.
-
I know many teach's too. Seems like bad parents are more often the problem when kids are under performing. Bad as in the ones who couldn't care less. Also, when emotional issues are the problem, it seems like it is usually due to a single parent issue(divorce, new stepwhatevs, etc).
It is silly to discuss children along with this issue. Heteros have been doing a bang up job rough ridin' kids up for the duration of history.
I think kids were brought into this based on leftist strawman argument that if gays can't get married (civil union aside) then a gabagillion kids (who they'd prefer were aborted anyways) won't get adopted
But yeah, fair point one the one parent bad parent thing.
-
[quote author=Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
I think kids were brought into this based on leftist strawman argument that if gays can't get married (civil union aside) then a gabagillion kids (who they'd prefer were aborted anyways) won't get adopted.
[/quote]
no, children have been tacked into the discussion by religiofreaks who like to argue that the fundamental rationale for marriage, and for state promotion of marriage, is as a vehicle for producing and rearing children. not simply a union of two unrelated people into a legal family.
thus, they argue, people not capable of naturally reproducing with one another have no need of, or right to, marriage.
-
Different thread, but the whole procreation primacy thing annoys the eff out of me. I've been married 7 years and my wife's aunts from the old country are all "no kids? Perv." (<--with mean muggin old Downton lady face).
-
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-951202?hpt=hp_bn1 (http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-951202?hpt=hp_bn1)
-
Hey look there fundies, you are just as crazy as Aggies.
-
SEC! SEC! SEC!
-
Different thread, but the whole procreation primacy thing annoys the eff out of me. I've been married 7 years and my wife's aunts from the old country are all "no kids? Perv." (<--with mean muggin old Downton lady face).
They think you're a perv? That's bullshit.
-
Different thread, but the whole procreation primacy thing annoys the eff out of me. I've been married 7 years and my wife's aunts from the old country are all "no kids? Perv." (<--with mean muggin old Downton lady face).
They think you're a perv? That's bullshit.
they're foreigners, so it's OK. (Felix Rex used to mention his wife was Lebanese at every opportunity and I like to think I PI'ed him out of the habit but now I feel kind of bad for it).
-
Different thread, but the whole procreation primacy thing annoys the eff out of me. I've been married 7 years and my wife's aunts from the old country are all "no kids? Perv." (<--with mean muggin old Downton lady face).
They think you're a perv? That's bullshit.
they're foreigners, so it's OK. (Felix Rex used to mention his wife was Lebanese at every opportunity and I like to think I PI'ed him out of the habit but now I feel kind of bad for it).
I hope he trolls the rough ridin' crap out of them every second he's with them.
-
We seriously have an 8-page thread arguing over whether or not two consenting, loving adults can get married? This is not hard. Provide the same rights to everyone. Every adult has the right to get married to another consenting adult, regardless of gender.
On children: if a homosexual couple has passed adoption screening and wants a child, why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt? They want the child, have passed the screenings and will likely provide it a loving home based on the first two points. That is better than a large percentage of children get.
On the undertone of the "choice to be gay," in this thread. Stormnut and others, please try and change your sexual orientation on a whim and commit the sin of being gay. Start being attracted to other men. Report back to the American Psychological Association and see how it goes. If you can turn yourself from 100% straight to 100% gay (hint: this would be a statistical anomaly as most humans are at least partially bisexual but sway mostly one way or another), I bet they will give you a Nobel Prize. Or keep praying that your god will alter a person's sexual orientation so that they wake up one day being more attracted to the opposite sex. Good luck with that.
EDIT: last block of text, more not mpre. Damn fat fingers.
-
Why limit marriage to 2 people? Why can't it be a consenting group of adults?
-
We seriously have an 8-page thread arguing over whether or not two consenting, loving adults can get married? This is not hard. Provide the same rights to everyone. Every adult has the right to get married to another consenting adult, regardless of gender.
On children: if a homosexual couple has passed adoption screening and wants a child, why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt? They want the child, have passed the screenings and will likely provide it a loving home based on the first two points. That is better than a large percentage of children get.
On the undertone of the "choice to be gay," in this thread. Stormnut and others, please try and change your sexual orientation on a whim and commit the sin of being gay. Start being attracted to other men. Report back to the American Psychological Association and see how it goes. If you can turn yourself from 100% straight to 100% gay (hint: this would be a statistical anomaly as most humans are at least partially bisexual but sway mostly one way or another), I bet they will give you a Nobel Prize. Or keep praying that your god will alter a person's sexual orientation so that they wake up one day being more attracted to the opposite sex. Good luck with that.
EDIT: last block of text, more not mpre. Damn fat fingers.
Yeah but then people could marry dogs and cats
-
Different thread, but the whole procreation primacy thing annoys the eff out of me. I've been married 7 years and my wife's aunts from the old country are all "no kids? Perv." (<--with mean muggin old Downton lady face).
They think you're a perv? That's bullshit.
they're foreigners, so it's OK. (Felix Rex used to mention his wife was Lebanese at every opportunity and I like to think I PI'ed him out of the habit but now I feel kind of bad for it).
lol
-
Why limit marriage to 2 people? Why can't it be a consenting group of adults?
Mostly because polygamy rarely ends up in a polyandry situation. Given polygamy's history of ending up being basically a form of slavery for women, it would be a tough legalization. Although I have to say I don't really care if a group of consenting people want to get married. Really not my problem.
-
Would be fine with polygamy too. FWIW
-
BUT WHY DO YOU WANT TO FORCE ME TO MARRY MY IGUANA???
-
Iguana's need love too.
-
On the undertone of the "choice to be gay," in this thread. Stormnut and others, please try and change your sexual orientation on a whim and commit the sin of being gay. Start being attracted to other men. Report back to the American Psychological Association and see how it goes. If you can turn yourself from 100% straight to 100% gay (hint: this would be a statistical anomaly as most humans are at least partially bisexual but sway mostly one way or another), I bet they will give you a Nobel Prize. Or keep praying that your god will alter a person's sexual orientation so that they wake up one day being more attracted to the opposite sex. Good luck with that.
EDIT: last block of text, more not mpre. Damn fat fingers.
How do you go about being "partially bisexual", as the APA says most of us are. Seems like you either are or you aren't. And if you can't choose your sexual orientation what's with B & T people? Don't they know they're born one way or another? Furthermore, what about all these people who are like "I used to be straight" or "I was gay for a while in college"? Does the APA think these people are psychologically troubled, since they just switch whenever?
-
On the undertone of the "choice to be gay," in this thread. Stormnut and others, please try and change your sexual orientation on a whim and commit the sin of being gay. Start being attracted to other men. Report back to the American Psychological Association and see how it goes. If you can turn yourself from 100% straight to 100% gay (hint: this would be a statistical anomaly as most humans are at least partially bisexual but sway mostly one way or another), I bet they will give you a Nobel Prize. Or keep praying that your god will alter a person's sexual orientation so that they wake up one day being more attracted to the opposite sex. Good luck with that.
EDIT: last block of text, more not mpre. Damn fat fingers.
How do you go about being "partially bisexual", as the APA says most of us are. Seems like you either are or you aren't. And if you can't choose your sexual orientation what's with B & T people? Don't they know they're born one way or another? Furthermore, what about all these people who are like "I used to be straight" or "I was gay for a while in college"? Does the APA think these people are psychologically troubled, since they just switch whenever?
If you want more information on the sexuality scale, the Kinsey Institute can explain better than I can:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html
As for the "you either are or you aren't" thought, this is a common misconception about sexuality. It's not a black, white, gray process. There is a vast spectrum of sexuality.
Transgendered people stem back to the diffefencd between gender and sex. Just because you are born a boy does not mean you automatically identify with the male gender. Some people then choose to have a cosmetic operation to become transsexual and have a body that matches their gender.
Finally, on the people who "changed their orientation," it appears likely that the majority of all these cases are from social pressures to conform to heterosexuality. The homosexuality did not leave the person, they just do not act on it publicly for fear of social scorn. This leaves a person in a repressed state, never a good state.
As for "being gay only in college" 1. Performing homosexual acts is not the same as being a homosexual, just the same as performing heterosexual acts does not make a person heterosexual. 2. Again, sexuality is complicated, it doesn't fall into neat boxes. It is entirely possible that the person is attracted to the se sex se but the opposite sex more. Thanks to social pressure after college, they repress the lesser side.
-
So you can't choose to be gay except when you choose to be gay, and we're all bisexual even if we never do anything bisexual. Wow, that's sooooo complicated.
-
"“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.”
“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.”
"If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies."
-
:thumbs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdU3ooAZSH8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdU3ooAZSH8)
-
yeah, the new pope indeed sounds like a major stud
-
yeah, the new pope indeed sounds like a major stud
it's clear that he's totally gonna use his infallibility to troll the traditionalists. #teampopefrancis
-
"I am not a right winger" - New pope
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
god wills it.
-
That's a pretty big deal. :thumbs:
-
"I am not a right winger" - New pope
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
the pope continues to mush republican faces.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pope-francis-denounces-trickle-down-economic-theories-in-critique-of-inequality/2013/11/26/e17ffe4e-56b6-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html
“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
“Meanwhile,” he added, “the excluded are still waiting.”
(mods, maybe move to a new "the new pope is a rough ridin' stud" masterthread?)
-
"Meanwhile," America's historic prosperity would disagree. Our "poor" live better here than anywhere else on earth, and not just because of our bloated welfare programs. Goods and services are remarkably cheap and abundant due to capitalism
It's funny though, a lot of predominantly Catholic nations, such as Argentina, are much more heavily socialist. How's that working out for their poor?
Truth is, the Catholic Church has a long history of conflating government redristribution with charity. That doesn't mean it's right, any more than many other of the church's actions are right. The church, and the Pope, are not infallible. (Luckily, I'm not Catholic so I can say this).
-
"I am not a right winger" - New pope
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
the pope continues to mush republican faces.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pope-francis-denounces-trickle-down-economic-theories-in-critique-of-inequality/2013/11/26/e17ffe4e-56b6-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html
“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
“Meanwhile,” he added, “the excluded are still waiting.”
(mods, maybe move to a new "the new pope is a rough ridin' stud" masterthread?)
You and the pope need to understand that there is no "free market" and there never will be again.
-
Our "poor" live better here than anywhere else on earth.
it's hilarious that you believe this (just to be clear, i'm lolling @ your dataless patriotic provincialism, not your belief in the efficiency of capitalism).
-
Our "poor" live better here than anywhere else on earth.
it's hilarious that you believe this (just to be clear, i'm lolling @ your dataless patriotic provincialism, not your belief in the efficiency of capitalism).
Ya. Seems like the type of person who would insist that THIS IS THE MOST FREE NATION ON EARTH!!!!!!!1!!111!!! (while ignoring all the other free nations.)
-
Our "poor" live better here than anywhere else on earth.
it's hilarious that you believe this (just to be clear, i'm lolling @ your dataless patriotic provincialism, not your belief in the efficiency of capitalism).
Ya. Seems like the type of person who would insist that THIS IS THE MOST FREE NATION ON EARTH!!!!!!!1!!111!!! (while ignoring all the other free nations.)
We're absolutely not the most free nation on Earth. Good grief what are you Libtards talking about?
-
p1k3, i think that was the point, buddy. :cheers:
-
We're absolutely not the most free nation on Earth. Good grief what are you Libtards talking about?
we're agreeing with you, pike.
-
I think p1k3 isn't 100% sure what is going on in this thread.
-
I think p1k3 isn't 100% sure what is going on in this thread.
I've been drinking. 11am game and all.
-
I think p1k3 isn't 100% sure what is going on in this thread.
I've been drinking. 11am game and all.
Don't worry, knee jerks are involuntary reactions. Not your fault.
-
Our "poor" live better here than anywhere else on earth.
it's hilarious that you believe this (just to be clear, i'm lolling @ your dataless patriotic provincialism, not your belief in the efficiency of capitalism).
You're right, looks like Sweden, Canada, and Australia have us slightly beat, at least when you factor such intangibles as "civic engagement" and "community." :lol: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex)
But let's by all means quibble over a superlative that's generally true and ignore the larger point.
-
Our "poor" live better here than anywhere else on earth.
it's hilarious that you believe this (just to be clear, i'm lolling @ your dataless patriotic provincialism, not your belief in the efficiency of capitalism).
You're right, looks like Sweden, Canada, and Australia have us slightly beat, at least when you factor such intangibles as "civic engagement" and "community." :lol: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex)
But let's by all means quibble over a superlative that's generally true and ignore the larger point.
you mean one that's demonstrably false.
-
Our "poor" live better here than anywhere else on earth.
it's hilarious that you believe this (just to be clear, i'm lolling @ your dataless patriotic provincialism, not your belief in the efficiency of capitalism).
You're right, looks like Sweden, Canada, and Australia have us slightly beat, at least when you factor such intangibles as "civic engagement" and "community." :lol: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex)
But let's by all means quibble over a superlative that's generally true and ignore the larger point.
you mean one that's demonstrably false.
Yes, "demonstrably"! :lol: But by all means keep quibbling over a subjective determination, when the larger point remains.
-
shouldn't america's poor live quite a bit better than Uganda's?
-
shouldn't america's poor live quite a bit better than Uganda's?
Not when you factor in things like civic engagement and community, duh. Demonstrably.
-
you picked the link, dumbass. if you don't like the criteria they used to "demonstrate" people's standards of living, pick a different one you like better. link it up.
-
you picked the link, dumbass. if you don't like the criteria they used to "demonstrate" people's standards of living, pick a different one you like better. link it up.
Actually, that was the "best" I could find, and that's the point. It is a somewhat subjective standard, but there can be no dispute that the "poor" are better off in America than pretty much anywhere else on earth. Stop quibbling over such a trivial and non-quantifiable distinction between "best" and "one of the best."
-
there can be no dispute that the "poor" are better off in America than pretty much anywhere else on earth.
i'm disputing it. post your evidence.
-
there can be no dispute that the "poor" are better off in America than pretty much anywhere else on earth.
i'm disputing it. post your evidence.
I already did, such that it is. In addition, give this a try: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense)
-
If someone is unhappy with their income, then they should change jobs or STFU. End of argument. Glad I could help you guys out.
-
I already did, such that it is.
your link puts the us at 4th out of 7 peer countries. 4th out of 11 if you use a broader definition of peers. not first. pretty poor evidence.
-
Poor people have cell phones though sys, and most of them have a car.
-
Poor people have cell phones though sys, and most of them have a car.
i agree that poor people in the us are in pretty good shape. just like they are in most other developed countries.
-
The US scores terribly in "deep poverty" defined as making less than half of the poverty level - which us currently defined as $9,000 a year or less for a family of 3. There are currently 20 million people in the US who live in deep poverty according to US census.
Here's a chart from a study done in Luxembourg in 2002 comparing the US to other western nations using data from the 1990's
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prb.org%2Fimages2%2Fp-bulletingraph.gif&hash=ac41c12d7af410be5a98f783157d483fcf428b16)
-
that's really a statement of income inequality, though. not relative standard of living.
-
The US scores terribly in "deep poverty" defined as making less than half of the poverty level - which us currently defined as $9,000 a year or less for a family of 3. There are currently 20 million people in the US who live in deep poverty according to US census.
Here's a chart from a study done in Luxembourg in 2002 comparing the US to other western nations using data from the 1990's
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prb.org%2Fimages2%2Fp-bulletingraph.gif&hash=ac41c12d7af410be5a98f783157d483fcf428b16)
The US scores terribly in "deep poverty" defined as making less than half of the poverty level - which us currently defined as $9,000 a year or less for a family of 3. There are currently 20 million people in the US who live in deep poverty according to US census.
Here's a chart from a study done in Luxembourg in 2002 comparing the US to other western nations using data from the 1990's
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prb.org%2Fimages2%2Fp-bulletingraph.gif&hash=ac41c12d7af410be5a98f783157d483fcf428b16)
Just reading the legend at the bottom of that bar graph, they are defining "deep poverty" as less than 40% of median income, which in the US is around $50,000. Not a lot but much more than what you are representing. They also would get at least all of their income tax (minus FICO) back plus thousands in tax credits (earned income, child, etc.)
-
This will give you an idea of where the sanctity of marriage is taken very seriously.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-residents-thrice-wed-or-more-states
-
This will give you an idea of where the sanctity of marriage is taken very seriously.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-residents-thrice-wed-or-more-states
:thumbs:
-
heh. That shuts
-
This will give you an idea of where the sanctity of marriage is taken very seriously.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-residents-thrice-wed-or-more-states
Looks like the sanctity of marriage is driven by money, or lack thereof.
-
This will give you an idea of where the sanctity of marriage is taken very seriously.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-residents-thrice-wed-or-more-states
Looks like the sanctity of marriage is driven by money, or lack thereof.
In my personal research, it is driven by some ppl's need and ability to acquire more poon and the ability to figure out if more poon has been acquired.
-
Seems like ending a shitty marriage furthers the sanctity of it, no?
On the flip, why let a few bad apples (divorcés and gays) spoil it for everyone doing it right?
Maybe, if the government hadnt interjected its shitty self into marriage, gays wouldnt have to ask the government to get married. In fact, I'll get ordained online right now and go marry as many gay couples as you can find in Loose Park this Saturday, govt can't stop us.
Straight gay advocates are probably as annoying as animal rights weirdos.
-
Seems like ending a shitty marriage furthers the sanctity of it, no?
On the flip, why let a few bad apples (divorcés and gays) spoil it for everyone doing it right?
Maybe, if the government hadnt interjected its shitty self into marriage, gays wouldnt have to ask the government to get married. In fact, I'll get ordained online right now and go marry as many gay couples as you can find in Loose Park this Saturday, govt can't stop us.
Straight gay advocates are probably as annoying as animal rights weirdos.
Marrying and divorcing as many people as possible preserves the sanctity of marriage. Yup
-
If the many getting married are good marriages and the many divorces are bad marriages, then yes.
Duh, its rough ridin' amateur hour around here lately.
-
If the many getting married are good marriages and the many divorces are bad marriages, then yes.
Duh, its rough ridin' amateur hour around here lately.
No doubt. The sanctity of divorce is just as important. Jesus said that
-
Breaking a family up so that kids only get a part time father or mother is def the way to do it.
Which is odd, because that was a large anti-gay marriage crowd talking point. Kids not adjusting well and stuff.
-
Breaking a family up so that kids only get a part time father or mother is def the way to do it.
Which is odd, because that was a large anti-gay marriage crowd talking point. Kids not adjusting well and stuff.
Forget that inconsistency. The bible said divorce is a sacred splitting of a MAN and a WOMAN which scars their children and destroys the family.
-
Breaking a family up so that kids only get a part time father or mother is def the way to do it.
Which is odd, because that was a large anti-gay marriage crowd talking point. Kids not adjusting well and stuff.
Forget that inconsistency. The bible said divorce is a sacred splitting of a MAN and a WOMAN which scars their children and destroys the family.
Dropping a shitty significant other in the attempt to upgrade is a great lesson to kids. Never settle!
-
Breaking a family up so that kids only get a part time father or mother is def the way to do it.
Which is odd, because that was a large anti-gay marriage crowd talking point. Kids not adjusting well and stuff.
Forget that inconsistency. The bible said divorce is a sacred splitting of a MAN and a WOMAN which scars their children and destroys the family.
Dropping a shitty significant other in the attempt to upgrade is a great lesson to kids. Never settle!
It really is a sacred rite between man, woman and god.
-
Yeah, breaking up a marriage also results in net +1 apartment rent payments and additional money spent on gas driving back and forth to pick up scarrdd kids from therapy so its good for the economy, therefore sanctimonious, and you two can stop acting like dumbfucks now because you aren't making any good points.
-
Yeah, breaking up a marriage also results in net +1 apartment rent payments and additional money spent on gas driving back and forth to pick up scarrdd kids from therapy so its good for the economy, therefore sanctimonious, and you two can stop acting like dumbfucks now because you aren't making any good points.
Give a good reason to not allow same-sex marriage.
-
Yeah, breaking up a marriage also results in net +1 apartment rent payments and additional money spent on gas driving back and forth to pick up scarrdd kids from therapy so its good for the economy, therefore sanctimonious, and you two can stop acting like dumbfucks now because you aren't making any good points.
If everyone would get divorced right now, we could be recession proof in a couple months(not including cooling off period).
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
FSD is absolutely trolling everybody's faces off in here
-
FSD is absolutely trolling everybody's faces off in here
Well, yeah. Maybe I am not seeing something, but that is all he is ever doing, it seems.
-
Yeah, breaking up a marriage also results in net +1 apartment rent payments and additional money spent on gas driving back and forth to pick up scarrdd kids from therapy so its good for the economy, therefore sanctimonious, and you two can stop acting like dumbfucks now because you aren't making any good points.
If everyone would get divorced right now, we could be recession proof in a couple months(not including cooling off period).
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
and we would all be reaffirming the sanctity of marriage
-
Its basically the most patriotic thing you could do at this point. It takes a divorced village.
-
Its basically the most patriotic thing you could do at this point. It takes a divorced village.
But not for the gays tho.
-
Mods,
Please change the name of this thread to " Limestone top, CNS bottom"
TIA,
SD
-
wgaf about gay marriage? Blame the government for ever getting involved, not Republicans.
-
Oklahoma rep trying the "if we have to let you get married, then no one's getting married" ploy.
http://www.news9.com/story/24543033/lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-in-oklahoma (http://www.news9.com/story/24543033/lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-in-oklahoma)
-
Oklahoma rep trying the "if we have to let you get married, then no one's getting married" ploy.
http://www.news9.com/story/24543033/lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-in-oklahoma (http://www.news9.com/story/24543033/lawmakers-consider-preventing-all-marriage-in-oklahoma)
:lol:
They're even worse than our legislators!