(03-27-2013 09:27 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:23 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:20 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:15 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 08:52 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I don't buy the, "they'll start pushing homosexuality on the kids in school"/"They'll have gay history months" argument.

What? It's already being promoted and celebrated.

In relatively few places.

What sitcom doesn't have a likable gay character?

How many places are these sitcoms filmed? Still being promoted from relatively few places.

Now it is tolerated in many places, but promoted and celebrated is a bit much.

You and I are only debating over relatively.

(03-27-2013 09:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:20 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:15 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 08:52 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I don't buy the, "they'll start pushing homosexuality on the kids in school"/"They'll have gay history months" argument.

What? It's already being promoted and celebrated.

In relatively few places.

There are churches all over the place. Around here there's a church almost everywhere you look. People walk door to door trying to get you to come to their church, or switch to their religion. You have proselytizers on many street corners, shouting the word of God...

And not one single church pays any taxes. IMO if the church wants a say in government, they should pay for that right though taxes, like everybody else...

Welfare recipients pay to vote?

That depends. Are these welfare recipients whose family has been on welfare since its inception, or merely people who got on welfare because they are no longer able to support themselves?

But you do have a point...

I still think the best solution is to make service to the nation a part of the vetting process. Military service should be required for all those who wish to be a part of the process. If you don't serve the nation, you shouldn't have a say in government...

(03-27-2013 09:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:25 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:18 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:11 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:03 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  When they talk about gay sex in sex ed (which they will have to do), do you think they will explain the risks such as tissue tearing, blood, disease, and a 20 year cut in life expectancy? Or do you think it will be taught in a false light in which it is an acceptable lifestyle? Look, I have no problem letting consenting adults make their own decisions, but stay away from my kids.

Then keep your kids. It falls squarely on your shoulders.

No, if government isn't allowed to promote my religion, it shouldn't be able to promote yours as well just because God isn't recognized as a part of it.

God is a part of my religion. It's not necessarily going to be the government pushing it. In schools the main influence are the other kids. They'll be schooled in it by them. It's best that you get your kids close and prepare them to go to those environments.

I am well aware other kids will be influencing mine and all I can do is, to the best of my ability, teach right and wrong, good and evil, and moral philosophy to give them the tools to make decisions when my wife and I are not around (this is where religion plays in). I am not talking about other kids, I am talking about the schools and the government teaching against my own philosophy. As you know, between about the ages of 13 and 18, parents don't know anything.

That being said, I hope I wasn't being too abrasive with my comments. It's just one more thing parents have to worry about.

(03-27-2013 09:37 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:20 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:15 AM)Paul M Wrote:  What? It's already being promoted and celebrated.

In relatively few places.

There are churches all over the place. Around here there's a church almost everywhere you look. People walk door to door trying to get you to come to their church, or switch to their religion. You have proselytizers on many street corners, shouting the word of God...

And not one single church pays any taxes. IMO if the church wants a say in government, they should pay for that right though taxes, like everybody else...

Welfare recipients pay to vote?

That depends. Are these welfare recipients whose family has been on welfare since its inception, or merely people who got on welfare because they are no longer able to support themselves?

But you do have a point...

I still think the best solution is to make service to the nation a part of the vetting process. Military service should be required for all those who wish to be a part of the process. If you don't serve the nation, you shouldn't have a say in government...

What if you can't pass the physical?

(03-27-2013 09:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 07:11 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Not just gay marriage folks.

It started with fellatio in the WH. Then a black muslim socialist communist moves in, takes us to 2 wars and destorys the economy. Now gays are getting married. This is not the country that I grew up in anymore.

You miss my meaning. You aren't opening up marriage to just two people of the same sex. There wont be a valid reason to ban any combo that wants to get married.

(03-27-2013 09:44 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:37 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:20 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  In relatively few places.

There are churches all over the place. Around here there's a church almost everywhere you look. People walk door to door trying to get you to come to their church, or switch to their religion. You have proselytizers on many street corners, shouting the word of God...

And not one single church pays any taxes. IMO if the church wants a say in government, they should pay for that right though taxes, like everybody else...

Welfare recipients pay to vote?

That depends. Are these welfare recipients whose family has been on welfare since its inception, or merely people who got on welfare because they are no longer able to support themselves?

But you do have a point...

I still think the best solution is to make service to the nation a part of the vetting process. Military service should be required for all those who wish to be a part of the process. If you don't serve the nation, you shouldn't have a say in government...

What if you can't pass the physical?

Um...I'm not down with involuntary servitude. Sorry. This is were I get off the bus ride.

(03-27-2013 10:08 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 07:11 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Not just gay marriage folks.

It started with fellatio in the WH. Then a black muslim socialist communist moves in, takes us to 2 wars and destorys the economy. Now gays are getting married. This is not the country that I grew up in anymore.

You miss my meaning. You aren't opening up marriage to just two people of the same sex. There wont be a valid reason to ban any combo that wants to get married.

IMO this argument is a bit hyperbolic. I understand the point..but..We all know that people are not going to allow others to be married to non humans or multiple partners. It just is not going to happen. This is as far as we possibly are willing to go until the space aliens come down. Then maybe we look at it again.

If the SC rules in favor of gay marriage it would remove one of the issues dividing the GOP and leave liberals with less ammo to attack the right with. Without this issue the next election might more about fiscal substance rather than social agendas.

(03-27-2013 10:37 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  If the SC rules in favor of gay marriage it would remove one of the issues dividing the GOP and leave liberals with less ammo to attack the right with. Without this issue the next election might more about fiscal substance rather than social agendas.

Not necessarily. Roe v Wade didn't end the abortion wedge issue.

(03-27-2013 10:18 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 10:08 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 07:11 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Not just gay marriage folks.

It started with fellatio in the WH. Then a black muslim socialist communist moves in, takes us to 2 wars and destorys the economy. Now gays are getting married. This is not the country that I grew up in anymore.

You miss my meaning. You aren't opening up marriage to just two people of the same sex. There wont be a valid reason to ban any combo that wants to get married.

IMO this argument is a bit hyperbolic. I understand the point..but..We all know that people are not going to allow others to be married to non humans or multiple partners. It just is not going to happen. This is as far as we possibly are willing to go until the space aliens come down. Then maybe we look at it again.

What is this "as far as we possibly are willing to go"? "We" have on multiple occasions in many states said we aren't willing to go as far as gay marriage. It's not up to "we".

I wasn't referring to non humans. That's still beyond my lifetime. But multiple partners? Why not? Historically it's been the way of the world. Unlike gay marriage. It's not for me but I don't have much problem with it now for those who might choose that. My biggest problem would be a man collecting welfare to support his 3 wives. If he can support them, I don't much care. Non aggression Fo. And I certainly wont oppose it to the extent I have with gays. I don't see where a big opposition would come from. I think most would be like me. "What the hell, gays can do it."

(03-27-2013 10:38 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 10:37 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  If the SC rules in favor of gay marriage it would remove one of the issues dividing the GOP and leave liberals with less ammo to attack the right with. Without this issue the next election might more about fiscal substance rather than social agendas.

Not necessarily. Roe v Wade didn't end the abortion wedge issue.

You can make abortions illegal at any time, but once there are millions of married gays out there and it becomes commonplace it would be a little harder to undo.

Based on the procedural portion of arguments this morning there may be a greater chance they say the case has no business being in front of the SC and offer no ruling on it.

(03-27-2013 11:00 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Based on the procedural portion of arguments this morning there may be a greater chance they say the case has no business being in front of the SC and offer no ruling on it.

They seemed to hint at that both days. Why are the cases even in front of the court, then? Certainly intriguing.

(03-27-2013 09:44 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:37 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:20 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  In relatively few places.

There are churches all over the place. Around here there's a church almost everywhere you look. People walk door to door trying to get you to come to their church, or switch to their religion. You have proselytizers on many street corners, shouting the word of God...

And not one single church pays any taxes. IMO if the church wants a say in government, they should pay for that right though taxes, like everybody else...

Welfare recipients pay to vote?

That depends. Are these welfare recipients whose family has been on welfare since its inception, or merely people who got on welfare because they are no longer able to support themselves?

But you do have a point...

I still think the best solution is to make service to the nation a part of the vetting process. Military service should be required for all those who wish to be a part of the process. If you don't serve the nation, you shouldn't have a say in government...

What if you can't pass the physical?

There are other ways in which you can serve besides military service. Military service is merely the most obvious way to serve...

Fo, I agree that service should be voluntary. You can choose not to serve. But that would leave you without a voice in this case. IMO citizenship should be EARNED, and not given by accident of birth...

Anything given is taken for granted. But that which is earned is held dearly...

(03-27-2013 11:30 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:44 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:37 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  There are churches all over the place. Around here there's a church almost everywhere you look. People walk door to door trying to get you to come to their church, or switch to their religion. You have proselytizers on many street corners, shouting the word of God...

And not one single church pays any taxes. IMO if the church wants a say in government, they should pay for that right though taxes, like everybody else...

Welfare recipients pay to vote?

That depends. Are these welfare recipients whose family has been on welfare since its inception, or merely people who got on welfare because they are no longer able to support themselves?

But you do have a point...

I still think the best solution is to make service to the nation a part of the vetting process. Military service should be required for all those who wish to be a part of the process. If you don't serve the nation, you shouldn't have a say in government...

What if you can't pass the physical?

There are other ways in which you can serve besides military service. Military service is merely the most obvious way to serve...

Fo, I agree that service should be voluntary. You can choose not to serve. But that would leave you without a voice in this case. IMO citizenship should be EARNED, and not given by accident of birth...

Anything given is taken for granted. But that which is earned is held dearly...

I would have no problem with this if it was in the Constitution..which of course it isn't.

(03-27-2013 11:38 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 11:30 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:44 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:37 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Welfare recipients pay to vote?

That depends. Are these welfare recipients whose family has been on welfare since its inception, or merely people who got on welfare because they are no longer able to support themselves?

But you do have a point...

I still think the best solution is to make service to the nation a part of the vetting process. Military service should be required for all those who wish to be a part of the process. If you don't serve the nation, you shouldn't have a say in government...

What if you can't pass the physical?

There are other ways in which you can serve besides military service. Military service is merely the most obvious way to serve...

Fo, I agree that service should be voluntary. You can choose not to serve. But that would leave you without a voice in this case. IMO citizenship should be EARNED, and not given by accident of birth...

Anything given is taken for granted. But that which is earned is held dearly...

I would have no problem with this if it was in the Constitution..which of course it isn't.

The Constitution isn't perfect. It was written by men, and we are far from perfect...

(03-27-2013 10:08 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 07:11 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Not just gay marriage folks.

It started with fellatio in the WH. Then a black muslim socialist communist moves in, takes us to 2 wars and destorys the economy. Now gays are getting married. This is not the country that I grew up in anymore.

You miss my meaning. You aren't opening up marriage to just two people of the same sex. There wont be a valid reason to ban any combo that wants to get married.

Finally. One man + one car= awesome marriage.

(03-27-2013 05:50 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Just guessing here, but I suspect that they'll probably refuse to rule on Prop H8, effectively overturning it in California and then overturn DOMA in the Windsor case. Which would effectively legalize Gay marriage nationwide due to the full faith and credit clause.

I actually think marriage should NOT be left up to the states primarily to the full faith and credit clause. That said, if it comes to the point where churches are forced to perform same sex marriages, I will consider this to have gone too far.

No church has been forced to perform same sex marriages ANYWHERE in the world. So long as a church doesn't take taxpayer dollars or subsidies, they can do whatever they want.

All these 'supposed cases' of forcing churches to hold gay marriages are either overblown are just plain false.

In NJ, the owner of a business (happened to be a church) that received a tax abatement as a result of allowing one of their NON-CHURCH buildings to be used by the entire public, decided that it was persecution if the state pulled the tax subsidy for that NON-CHURCH property because they violated their agreement. In this case, the church could simply pay their property taxes and they'd be free to be as bigoted as they chose.

All these cases about Canadian religious schools. Well. In Canada, the state subsidizes religious schools (bet you didn't know that).

In DC, Catholic "Charities" (a phony 'charity' which receives over 4 BILLION (yes - that's with a B) of taxpayer direct payments (not tax deductible donations - but direct payments from the government) whines that it is persecution to ask that agencies receiving 70+ percent of their funding from the taxpayers be subject to non-discrimination in the execution of those activities the taxpayers are paying for. Be a real charity, don't take my taxdollars, and you can hate/discriminate against Gay people all you want I say. But this isn't a real charity.

However, if you are engaged in a business where you cannot legally discriminate on the basis of religion, you should not be able to legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

I'm not sure there are ANY real cases of persecution of any church by the government for not performing same sex marriages that hold any merit. And that's worldwide. Anyone is welcome to put up any phony case of persecution being pushed by Liberty Counsel, the FRC, World Nut Daily, or Fred Phelps. I'll be glad to skewer it.

Churches and other private clubs that are truly private and aren't taking taxpayer subsidies aren't going to have to do anything. I wouldn't worry about it.

(03-27-2013 10:08 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 09:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 07:11 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Not just gay marriage folks.

It started with fellatio in the WH. Then a black muslim socialist communist moves in, takes us to 2 wars and destorys the economy. Now gays are getting married. This is not the country that I grew up in anymore.

You miss my meaning. You aren't opening up marriage to just two people of the same sex. There wont be a valid reason to ban any combo that wants to get married.

Such as....

Let me guess.

Man - Dog? That's a favorite of Rick Santorum and other right wing jerks. But animals cannot consent. Therefore they can't get married. So that one is solved.

Man - Child? Again Consent would prevent that. Another one solved.

Man - Inanimate object. Again consent

Man - more than one other person. Not a consent issue. If anyone (of course there aren't any significant numbers of people trying to make polygamous relationships carry the same standing as marriage) actually tried to make a case out of it, they'd likely fail. Based upon the equal application of the law. You are safe there too.

Man - Relative. A lot of anti-Gay states have laws permitting you to marry your 14 year old first cousin. I think that since its already allowed (and has been before same sex marriage came into view) that it would be ridiculous to blame that on Gays. Why not blame that on your state legislators.