1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Same sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #321
    Nobody said you did. You made a trumped up claim that it was impossible to throw away 200 years of case law, and I simply accentuated the fact that marriage has NOTHING to do with constitutional law, and that we would sooner be able to withdraw from the marriage definition business, than to further expand on it. It was a point/counterpoint discussion, and you've begun the process of dodging and twisting words.


    No, not agreeing at all. It would be a stretch to conclude that I agreed with you at all. The point was, it's a contract that isn't enforced, as there are no real terms. Person A promises to do this, Person B promises to do that. But when they don't, the only real consequence, (if you want to call it that) is that the relationship ends. There exist no penalties for violating marriage terms that do not exist in non-married relationships. Even so-called "civil unions", commonlaw marriages, etc, are subject to the same financial and custody arrangements, upon dissolution of the relationship. There tends to be absolutely no weight given to whom is the guilty party in a violated marriage contract. Sometimes, even the innocent party is punished through dispersion of personal wealth/possessions, etc.

    So here's the point, pure and simple. Since marriage contracts are not held to the same standard as a business contract, they are pointless. Since it doesn't make sense to amp up the legal system to handle the squabbling of divorce couples, the marriage contract is again, pointless. In this modern day and age, in our country, marriage contracts make no sense. And with the value of marriage held in such low esteem, even more pointless. Break your marriage vows without burdening the taxpaying public, because it's obviously going to happen.

    So no, I agree with you in absolutely no point of that statement, nor have I contradicted myself.

    I know you are really desperate to gain support for your points. But I don't really believe that you can be as dense as you are portraying yourself. You can call yourself married, or whatever you want to be in your imagination, that's what you should be. But out here in the real world, you are still what you are.

    You "like" the idea of being in a certain tax status. Don't we all. I'm 100% in favor of tax code change, doing away with tax credits for particular statuses. Mind you, I'm the beneficiary of several of those. Once that is out of the way, these arguments go away. Because you know what? Other people would like to be part of that tax status, too. And I'd rather see a simplified tax code, than to see people pursuing things that cause our entire legal system a disproportional burden, just so they can claim a couple hundred dollars a year.

    Summary - tax code reformed, government defined marriage goes away, no special statuses, government out of relationship business.

    That ought to be easy enough to understand.

    Taking marriage out of the legal equation isn't the same as overhauling the laws pertaining to the government defined marriage. Or do you disagree with that, too?
    SEMrush
    Why don't you elaborate on that? Please, be very articulate...

    It occurs to me that my reasoning is at the very least, as well thought out as your reasoning for maintaining the status quo.

    I was married in a courthouse 15 years ago. Do you know what book I put my hand upon when I took my marriage vows? Give you a hint - it wasn't any of the works of Dr. Seuss...

    Religious people who have their faith to themselves are just fine. I see nothing wrong with that. After all, we can't all agree on everything, now can we? Just because I think people are wrong (like you) doesn't mean that I would do them harm, or think that there wasn't room for both of us.
     
    solid7, Nov 24, 2013 IP
    SEMrush
  2. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #322
    So in your mind, stating marriage has nothing to do with constitutional law is a legitimate counter point to the statement that marriage unions have the support of 200 years of case law? Do you consider the word "green" to be a valid counter point to the statement, "I like potatoes"?

    This is simply factually incorrect. You might want to acquaint yourself with the divorce law in your state. If you are referring to the palimony laws which address what is known as a common law marriage, they are most definitely not applicable to most non-married relationships. Even the relationships they apply to do not have the same dissolution rules a legal marriage does. Just try passing your possessions tax free to your live in girlfriend on your death.

    Unless you live in America, or most every other country on the planet.

    I agree. I want to be a green energy company that also gets subsidies for helping people navigate the new health care law, regardless of my prior felony convictions. If that isn't possible, I'd like to be a fairy princess.

    Now there is something we can agree on.

    The millions of existing laws pertaining to marriage specifically keep marriage in the legal equation. I believe that is the point I have been trying to make.

    What, you are unfamiliar with the state of the family unit in the black community? Given the copious amount of academic and legitimate news sources covering the topic, why not just use Google? Here, let me help you out. I just typed into the Google search bar the words, "Black family unit". Here are a few results from the top five. Take your pick.
    http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1990/4/90.04.06.x.html
    http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/s...cle_bb7ca1e9-8f2c-581b-bd0c-94e51c301277.html
    http://www.yourblackworld.net/2013/...rse-off-today-than-in-the-1960s-report-shows/

    Information. It is your friend.

    I'm curious. What book would you have them use today? Perhaps no book at all? You'll notice they use the same book when they swear in Court Justices.

    Right. You just want to erase any trace of their existence from the public square. No harm in that at all, is there?

    We need a world without Christmas trees, only holiday trees. A world without marriages and families, only people. A world without bibles, culture, or history, only the greater wisdom of the current living generation. There has been many a piece of classic literature written about such a world. Lets just say the descriptions have been less then flattering, but accurate in my opinion.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 24, 2013 IP
  3. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #323
    So any defender of traditional marriage is a homophobe. Got it. Just wanted to be sure I understood you.
    Do you consider 1950 to be biblical times, when it was still illegal in almost every state for a woman to divorce her husband unless she could prove adultery?
     
    Obamanation, Nov 24, 2013 IP
  4. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #324
    The point was that there would be no Constitutional barriers to abolishing it. And 200 years of case law doesn't mean dick, because case law is the easiest to challenge. IS that clear enough?

    I am quite familiar with the divorce laws in my state. And you should be able to pass your possessions to whomever you want upon your death. Remember that other point about changing tax laws? And I beg to differ, but the lines between marriage and other relationships are increasingly blur - especially with discussions like this one.

    Well, you really can't simplify the tax code with marriage in the equation. My simplification would be flat tax, which I'm guessing you also have a problem with. Everybody pays as they go, eezy peezy. Keep the complex bullshit for investors and capital gains.

    Yes, you have. Your mind is unable to picture America without all of that nonsense. It is unneccessary. We are already past the point of so-called moral decay, as our previous generations would have envisioned it. Let's live in the present day, not the Victorian era.

    No, I wanted to hear it from a human, replete with opinions and a well arranged thesis. You know you can do it...

    Even Google admits that a human repsonse beats an algorithm for certain matters. ;)

    That's a great question, and I'm glad you asked. How about Dr. Seuss, per my previous inference? At least I know that Dr. Seuss was real.

    What difference does a book make to someone who doesn't believe the contents? It was a historical assumption that people would somehow be deterred by the thought of lying on the word of their creator. As an atheist, would you think twice about lying on an oath taken with your hand on a Bible? And if your answer is that it's the oath that is important, rather than book being sworn on, then why do we need government defined marriage? Millions of people have proven that they don't need the permission of the state to be a perfectly functional couple. Rather, many are willing to lie on their oath, just to receive that "tax status". So let's get to the heart of the matter. What is marriage REALLY about? Is it about the man and the woman, or is it about the tax status, just so I'm clear...

    When in danger of losing a debate, distract and digress.

    I've said that I'm quite happy to tolerate anyone, of any persuasion, so long as they don't develop a superiority complex. When you adopt the strong arm stance, my resistance will increase. You are free to adopt any philosophical view you like, so long as you don't proclaim it mandatory for the masses. Sorry, but life just isn't that universal. And if that's your approach, then you have failed the basic tenants of living in a Democratic Republic.

    We can look back on our history, and recognize it for what it is. But that is NOT where we are today. We are not a common people, linked by common history or ideology.

    Wow, let's drive the car off the cliff.

    You want to be married, in the traditional sense? Great, I respect that! It's between you and your church. In fact, I would actually take offense to the fact that my government wants to tell me what I have to do to be married, when church says it's not even their domain. (if I were a churchy type person, that is - pretty sure that the concept of marriage predates America or Europe) Since when are religious people OK with handing a sacred concept over to mere mortals? And since when do atheists or non-believers think they need a religious concept imposed in their lives?

    I don't want your marriage, your family, your bible, your christmas tree, nothing. Live your life by whatever you choose. But you don't need a government protection for that stuff. If you want a bit of something to digest that fits your example above, then consider this: Whatever the government grants you, the government can take away. So why even ask them to give it to you in the first place?

    On the other hand, you have a group of people, who, whether you like it or not, raise families, have beliefs that are not your own, and even contribute - many times more than you ever will - to the well being of our economy. And yet, you think that you have some right to have a different status than them, just because you disagree with (what you like to call) their "lifestyle"? Methinks you really need to have the screws put to you in some particular area that affects you personally. You need a good healthy dose of sympathetic pain. Maybe the political correctness than is running rampant is the just rewards for the all the short-sightedness that we have in this country.
     
    solid7, Nov 24, 2013 IP
    Emma Pollard and gworld like this.
  5. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #325
    That was a mistake that should absolutely NEVER be repeated. That is slavery...
     
    solid7, Nov 24, 2013 IP
  6. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #326
    Way to double down. No law of physics or thermodynamics would block it from being abolished either.

    As I've pointed out repetitively, there are millions of federal, state, and municipal laws which also play off of marital status. But I digress. Just keep on rambling about the constitution and religion. Way to focus.



    You should be able to fly to the moon on a beam of light. You should be able to have any girl you want by simply flashing a smile. You should be able to order breakfast in Bangkok and have lunch on the Champs Eleyees.

    Stick with me now.... back to reality...... when you said (and I quote), "There exist no penalties for violating marriage terms that do not exist in non-married relationships", you were off your nut. That statement is as factually wrong as you can get.

    You can't? So you are saying you can't eliminate the carried interest laws that allow hedge fund managers to avoid having their salaries taxed as income without doing away with marriage? You are saying you can't change the federal income tax from a progressive 0-39% to a flat 15% without doing away with marriage? Wow.

    More accurately, you are anxiously waiting to call me a racist for mentioning black people. That kind of name calling is fairly standard when you have nothing else. Take Aiden on this thread for instance. His entire argument consisted of calling any and all opposing views "homophobic". Funny. Pathetic, but funny.

    It doesn't. The black robes and the gavel don't make the judge any more or less a judge either. Note my comment above about tradition, culture, etc.

    I've already shared my views. Scroll up if you would like to read them again. I agree that the answer to that question IS the heart of the matter. Its a question that you must figure out a well reasoned answer to on your own, as I suspect you are immune to external input on the matter. A few spoilers: Its not about religion. It involves a tax status, but it is not about a tax status.

    What a wonderful paragraph. Let me bullet it out.
    • You gladly tolerate anyone
    • You don't tolerate those with superiority complexes
    • People are welcome to their philosophy so long as they don't push it on everyone else
    • You want the millions of laws surrounding marriage in the US abolished, for yourself, and everyone else
    Freaking hilarious.

    Oh? What do we have in common then? Love of bombing foreign countries?

    Was that some kind of rant against our constitutional amendments? You know, the ones where the government granted us the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc? Perhaps you were thinking of the constitutional amendment granting a city the right to put up a Christimas tree in the town square.

    Martin, is that you?
     
    Obamanation, Nov 24, 2013 IP
  7. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #327
    None that can't be changed. None that a whole lot of people wouldn't be happy to see changed. ;)

    If all of those things were possible, we'd be having this debate over only a specific type of person (probably whatever type you are) being able to do them. Because that's really the crux of the matter. If you're not able to be inclusive of all members of the populace, then you ought not to benefit yourself.

    This is the point where, if I HAD to choose a stance on government defined marriage, I'd choose AGAINST your stance of "traditional" marriage. Because somehow, it seems to be OK to ask the same financial contributions from gays/lesbians, but yet, not give the same tax preference, DESPITE the fact that they may have the same burdens as a straight couple raising children. Certainly, as human beings, they have the same basic needs. (including healthcare)

    Shall we assume that you have an issue with gays/lesbians raising children, too? Because I don't have a problem with that, either...

    I have a friend who was unmarried, and helped a woman raise a child that was not his. When they split, the woman took him to court, and the court ruled him to be the "psychological parent", and ordered him to pay child support. Based on that example, how exactly am I "off my nut"?

    Now, then. In a typical business contract, you have conditions. Meet condition "A", or be faced with penalty "B". Where are the terms in a marriage contract? (pre-nuptials, which are not even mandatory, withstanding) Oh, what's that? There are NO prescribed penalties for violating a marriage contract? And furthermore, why would we ever want that? So doesn't that put us into a vicious cycle of circular reasoning? (hint: yes)

    Divorce court is a circus side-show. It is a mess of arbitrary judgements, at best, and illogical default judgements, at worst. So again, skip tort reform, get rid of government defined marriage.

    The tax benefits of marriage are gone in a flat tax system. So, in that scenario, one of two things could/should logically happen:

    1) government definition of marriage becomes irrelevant for purposes of taxation. (therefore, irrelevant)
    2) since married tax credits don't apply, gays and lesbians should be able to marry. (since it will be symbolic, rather than tax status)

    If we can eliminate certain types of tax benefits for people like CEOs - who, historically, are very influential people, and have a long tradition of building the infrastructure of our economy - then why can't we eliminate the tax status for married people? After all, the basis for the defense of marriage has always had its root in economics. (even some of our forefathers were not religious, but realized that "morality" was a vehicle for civil obedience and calm) The basic premise being, that protection of the nuclear family and paternal hierarchy was the foundation of building a strong workforce, and a civil populace.

    Since we no longer need to grow our numbers to sustain our national economy, surely we all can agree that the tax status afforded by marriage is obsolete...


    Oh, no, I won't say a word. I'd love just to listen. I'm not really a name caller. Could care less if you're a racist, homophobe, bigot, etc. - pick your word of the day, it doesn't matter. I don't think any of those words has much meaning, anymore, anyway.

    But by the same token, I don't think you have the balls to say what's really on your mind in regards to that ( ^ ) matter. Go ahead and elaborate, prove me wrong. :)

    Just because someone refuses to agree with YOU, it does not mean that they are closed minded. You seem to be painting yourself as somewhat of an authority, or final word on such matters. I, on the other hand, am willing to bear others who are not like myself. The difference is, I would rather see the world framed in context. Because we have broken from the culture and traditions of our forefathers, I have a hard time envisioning a country where society, in general, will accept certain premises without question or compromise. And by compromise, I mean that if you can't learn to find a middle ground with others, you will eventually be forced to give up something that matters to you, by alienating yourself from more level-headed and logical people. That's just how life works. ;)

    I see no problem with that. I'm not in favor of making the use of the term "marriage" a criminal offense. I just don't see how you can logically say that it needs to be protected by our legal system. The legal system is for ALL citizens. If you have such a problem with gays/lesbians using the term "marriage", then get it back in the religious realm, where it belongs. You want to be married? Great! Find a church, get "married", and then have a legal name change. (because EVERYONE can do that - it's fair) Since you agree with me on the flat tax, and the abolition of married tax credits, then there is no real need for it. Everyone can be bound to the same rules when it comes to relationships, custody, division of wealth, healthcare, etc.

    Or, you could just make a simple compromise, and let the gays/lesbians get married. But I'm guessing you feel the need to play hardball, so this battle will rage on for years and years. And you know what? It will not end the way you like. So you lose either way. ;)

    I do not love bombing foreign countries. That's another thing that needs to change.

    If you think America is a homogenous, functional society, you need to pull your head out of the sand. This isn't Colonial America, and the values and customs of our citizens is as different as night and day. It's called "multi-culturalism", but I'm sure you are already quite familiar with that term. Love it or hate it, my statement stands. We are NOT a country united by common history or ideology. Include values in that statement, too...

    No, that was a rant against your lunacy. It's not a "right" to put up a Christmas tree, but by the same token, I don't care if you do. I don't have a dog in that fight. What part of "I don't care what you do with your life", or "I am not seeking to deprive you of anything" do you not understand? You went on a semi-psychotic monologue about me wanting to take away your collective identity. And yet, you have no problem with denying it to somebody else. What's up with that?

    By taking away the legal definition of marriage, I am in absolutely no way depriving you of your "right" to be "married". If you don't understand that, then just consider the argument of "civil unions". People just like yourself, argue everyday, that gays/lesbians are not being denied the right to live happy lives together, just because they aren't allowed to be legally "married". Well, that ought to be good enough for you, too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say...
     
    solid7, Nov 24, 2013 IP
  8. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #328

    No, no quite. I wouldn't give a politician that much attention.

    But for you to miss the point (to which you were responding) so completely, has made me realize how futile it is to request empathy/sympathy from a person who is so comprehensively incapable of even understanding the concept.

    I suspect the point will sink in one day, when a new "civil rights" movement/era is ushered in, at which point you will lose much of your sacred ground. Although, more likely, you'll just go down fighting all the way. Again, like I said, the end result will be the same, and you're not going to like it. History - which repeats like a broken record - tells us that you are on the losing side of this battle.

    Just look at the bright side... We're on the verge of witnessing the legalization of cannabis in this country. You'll have an outlet to cope. :D
     
    solid7, Nov 24, 2013 IP
  9. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #329
    I think the broken record you are hearing is the sound of your own voice. As evidence to that fact, you've just burned three or four pages of print making the pro-gay marriage argument to me as if I am anti-gay marriage. Its funny, but a complete waste of my time.

    Other parts of your post you seem to argue with yourself. In one sentence you preach tolerance, the next intolerance. According to you, America is at once homogeneous, multi-cultural, and without a common bond.

    The most obvious indicator that this discussion is pointless is your fierce refusal to step away from your earlier misstatement, equating applicable law to married couples to that applied to those who are merely "dating". Its not a partisan issue, its not an issue subject to opinion or viewpoint. It is a simple matter of easily verifiable legal fact. You might as well be arguing the earth is flat.

    With that in mind, I am going to bow out and let your posts argue with themselves, as they have already effectively done. I wish you luck in your quest to drop the income tax for the wealthy by 25%, while raising the income tax on the poor by 15%. I wish you luck in your efforts to purge the bible from all government related ceremonies, perhaps you can get rid of those silly black robes as well. I wish you luck in your efforts to remove all vestiges of the religious from the public square, including Christmas trees and easter bunnies. I wish you luck in removing the laws that protect widows from inheriting their husbands assets without going through probate, and the laws that guarantee custody of children of a deceased to the partner remaining alive.

    Everyone should have some cause they believe in, this one just so happens to be yours. Cheers.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 25, 2013 IP
  10. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #330
    I have only made pro-gay marriage arguments as if I had only one option, if I couldn't have my own way. That's that compromise thingy I was talking about, lest you try again to falsely accuse me of not practicing what I preach. Because I don't believe in government in the marriage business. And I know that even if some don't like my solution, it is a logical approach. Not IDEO-logical, but logical.

    Sorry, you mixed my posts up with someone else, or you don't understand how to read. I didn't say that we were "homogenous". I said we couldn't be any more different. And I also said we're mult-cultural, and I also said we are not a united nation in the sense of culture and values. And I'm right about that.

    I gave you one example. And the longer the debate regarding gay marriage goes on, the more unmarried (gay and straight) couples will begin to look like legally married couples, in the eyes of the law. That IS happening, and will continue to happen. And no, it's not a partisan issue. You have absolutely no idea what my politics are, and I didn't mention them.

    It's OK, I knew you wouldn't be able to hang for long, anyway. You've only made the same points that have been made all along, and they are increasingly indefensible.

    How about you just wish me luck in my quest to end ALL income tax?

    Well, if it saves a tax spent dollar, I'd think it would be great to get rid of those robes. As for the "purge", you are the atheist, I'm guessing that was sincere...

    You are "off your nut", as you put it. Because I never said anything about doing such a thing. Lost your focus.

    Lost your focus again. That's what wills are for, and everybody should have one. Because without a will anyone can challenge that same widow's inheritance in probate court. But I never said anything about that, either.

    Lost your focus again. That's what wills are for, and everybody should have one. Because anyone can pass/challenge custody to a person of their choosing. But I never said anything about that, either.

    Actually, it's just an series of opinions given on an internet forum. Sorry if that confused you.


    To you, as well.
     
    solid7, Nov 25, 2013 IP
  11. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #331
    A little information for you, like water for a rock
    And. a bit more, on probate avoidance
    Good luck with your will. Your problem isn't lack of knowledge. It is that you know so much that isn't so.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 25, 2013 IP
  12. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #332
    I KNEW you couldn't resist coming back, even though you said you were done.

    If you throw out all of those "some states" and "joint ownership" clauses, which may or may not have anything to do with marriage, you still haven't proven me wrong. In fact, you've proven yourself wrong, better than I ever could have. None of that is applicable to all states. And notice that "same-sex" couples are included in some of the examples. They aren't LEGALLY MARRIED. You yourself, in attempting to prove the necessity of the protection of marriage, just gave an example of just how unnecessary it really is!

    MOST of those options in MOST states aren't exclusive to married people. In fact, the source you have pointed to, is for California. And California treats same sex couples as married, in the eyes of the law. (which is what I was saying earlier) For any protection and transfer of assets upon one's death, it's not nearly as much of an issue as you would suggest. Married or single, gay or straight, everyone should have a living will, a will or living trust, etc, for no other reason than to avoid problems for their surviving relatives. Much like internet debates, division of estates always seems to bring out the very best in people. ;)
     
    solid7, Nov 26, 2013 IP
  13. aidanriley629

    aidanriley629 Banned

    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    175
    #333
    1. I'm glad I could clarify.
    2. I don't understand the question. As such, I cannot provide an answer. Indicate the relevance of that particular year, please.
     
    aidanriley629, Nov 28, 2013 IP
  14. aidanriley629

    aidanriley629 Banned

    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    175
    #334
    My pleasure - I'll re-read it now.

    Done. My previous statement still stands.

    Thanks for complimenting the job I've done(?).
     
    aidanriley629, Nov 28, 2013 IP
  15. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #335
    1. So am I.
    2. It is not that particular year. It is any year that christian values are reflected in any portion of US law. By that measure, we are still living in "biblical times". It doesn't make the statement any less absurd.

    Using small words, opposition to gay marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with the bible, or "biblical times". I'm opposed to cousin marriage, a practice not at all uncommon among the Royalty of England that had nothing to do with the bible, yet a practice that is quite legal here in the US (mostly in blue states).

    Simplifying all arguments down to ad hominem attacks against those with opposing views simply demonstrates one's inability to explain their position using facts and logic, and that includes the slap at the religious (I so happen to be an atheist).

    By the way, the creation of the first amendment didn't separate church and state in America. It simply made it more official. Our founding fathers were as aware of the problems relating to the influence of the church on government as they were of the problems relating to a government that tries to disarm it's citizens, a government that spies on it's citizens, and a government that incarcerates/murder's it's citizens without due process. Welcome to America.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 29, 2013 IP
  16. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #336
    Are you trying to copy my posts?;):)
     
    gworld, Nov 30, 2013 IP
  17. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #337
    If you really believe what you've just typed, AND you're an atheist, what's your problem with telling the government to butt the hell out of the marriage business?

    I didn't make any attacks on any group of people, whatsoever, so perhaps you'll indulge me, seeing that my slate is clean. (just facts and logic, please)
     
    solid7, Nov 30, 2013 IP
  18. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #338
    I see you've recognized that he's a hypocrite. That's probably his best quality.
     
    Mia, Dec 3, 2013 IP
  19. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #339
    WTH man.
     
    Obamanation, Dec 3, 2013 IP
  20. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #340
    I wouldn't go so far as to say that. In fact, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. I would choose to believe that there are certain beliefs that this person holds that have come into conflict, and that person may not know how to resolve them, or even recognize them to be in conflict. It happens to most all of us, at some point or another, if we're being honest.
     
    solid7, Dec 4, 2013 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.