Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: KD5NRH on May 05, 2016, 05:16:53 PM
-
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/31888456/tow-truck-owner-bernie-sanders
Greenville Attorney Steve Sumner weighed in on the situation saying,"We may not like it and we may not agree with it but I don't believe any laws were broken."
Sumner said unlike race, sexuality, and religion, political affiliation is not a protected class.
As was pointed out elsewhere, this should mean you could just ask potential customers if they support legislation and/or candidates that would force you to do work that violates your beliefs, and refuse service if they say yes.
-
Yup. Not a protected class.
Best example was a developer who would not sell houses to lawyers. He, obviously, got sued by a lawyer. The lawyer lost
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
As was pointed out elsewhere, this should mean you could just ask potential customers if they support legislation and/or candidates that would force you to do work that violates your beliefs, and refuse service if they say yes.
Unless, of course, your work involves issuing marriage licenses or actually marrying people, in which case you are not allowed to discriminate against people whose beliefs violate your beliefs.
-
Unless, of course, your work involves issuing marriage licenses or actually marrying people, in which case you are not allowed to discriminate against people whose beliefs violate your beliefs.
For baking cakes or taking pictures
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Unless, of course, your work involves issuing marriage licenses or actually marrying people, in which case you are not allowed to discriminate against people whose beliefs violate your beliefs.
Not too many independent contractors or small business owners issue marriage licenses.
-
"Every business dealing in recent history with a socialist minded person I have not gotten paid," Shupe said. "Every time I deal with these people I get 'Berned' with an 'e' not a 'u'."
Not getting paid is a big motivator.
-
I'm totally ok with businesses refusing to do business for any reason.
-
Not too many independent contractors or small business owners issue marriage licenses.
He has been discriminated against IIRC.
By law he has to violate his conscience if he wants to keep his position with the government.
Secular egalitarianism is the state religion. You must bend your knee to the state as the only final authority. There are the people, who are all the same and equal, and the state; the state is more equal and is the final arbiter.
All other religion is a private matter that belongs in the box of your private thoughts, particularly traditional Christianity. It should not influence your daily life, particularly if you might expose someone to it by your deeds or words. You should be ashamed of your religious thought crimes. The state in its mercy will let you keep them...for now.
All hail the state.
-
He has been discriminated against IIRC.
By law he has to violate his conscience if he wants to keep his position with the government.
Secular egalitarianism is the state religion. You must bend your knee to the state as the only final authority. There are the people, who are all the same and equal, and the state; the state is more equal and is the final arbiter.
All other religion is a private matter that belongs in the box of your private thoughts, particularly traditional Christianity. It should not influence your daily life, particularly if you might expose someone to it by your deeds or words. You should be ashamed of your religious thought crimes. The state in its mercy will let you keep them...for now.
All hail the state.
Sounds better in the original Italian:
Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.
-
By law he has to violate his conscience if he wants to keep his position with the government.
If you take the king's shilling, you are the king's bitch. I'm more concerned with the right of small business owners and independent contractors to retain control over who gets the benefit of their labor and property.
-
If you take the king's shilling, you are the king's bitch. I'm more concerned with the right of small business owners and independent contractors to retain control over who gets the benefit of their labor and property.
You think small business and independent contractors will be spared the same fate as government employees? The military and government are the testing and proving grounds for the policies that are going to be foisted upon the population at large.
Your quaint notions about labor and property are cute considering you probably have zero philosophical grounds to support such notions. Post modernism demands progress, ie following the nihilistic philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Sorry, you owning anything including your labor just doesn't fit the new program.
The state owns (is) the economy.
Your labor is part of the economy.
The state owns your labor.
Your labor is your life.
The state owns you.
-
If you take the king's shilling, you are the king's bitch. I'm more concerned with the right of small business owners and independent contractors to retain control over who gets the benefit of their labor and property.
My views on the matter are in line with KD5NRH. In most cases the state was willing to let them get away with it until they started violating other people's beliefs and moved to block THEM from issuing the licenses, in line with law, either. As long as they could still get licenses from the county(and in at least one case that was the ONLY place to get them in the state; state rules is that you got your license from the county of your residence), the lawsuits and such were minimal.
To put it another way - should we tolerate the same official refusing to issue hunting licenses per state law because her 'religion' is in line with greenpeace, PETA, and them types?
If you are an employee, you should do what your employer is paying you to do, within 'reasonable' limits. If you're a Muslim and are so into it that you're unwilling to touch or sell packaged pork products, maybe employment in a grocery store or sub shop isn't for you. If you're a Mormon that you're unwilling to sell alcohol, smokes, or porn, maybe a position in a truck stop isn't for you.
You think small business and independent contractors will be spared the same fate as government employees? The military and government are the testing and proving grounds for the policies that are going to be foisted upon the population at large.
I view them as quite different.
-
Guess who just got put into my phone as my preferred tow contact?
-
If you're a Muslim and are so into it that you're unwilling to touch or sell packaged pork products, maybe employment in a grocery store or sub shop isn't for you. If you're a Mormon that you're unwilling to sell alcohol, smokes, or porn, maybe a position in a truck stop isn't for you.
If your job is marriage licensing, and you know what marriage is, issuing marriage licenses is no longer the job for you.
-
I view them as quite different.
Of course you do.
As a progressive you want to make sure that government employees tow the line and enforce secular egalitarianism, the religion of the left.
So in the government workplace only the moral code of progressives like you and KD5NRH are allowed. Basically telling all other groups, in particular Christians who hold traditional morality, that they are no longer welcome as government employees unless they pay fealty to the new moral code.
At least you are honest enough to admit you are allied with the forces that are tearing apart the fabric of the western world.
-
If you're a Mormon that you're unwilling to sell alcohol, smokes, or porn, maybe a position in a truck stop isn't for you.
Actually, I've known a few Mormons who have worked in or even owned businesses that sell alcohol, tobacco and may have Penthouse behind the counter. Avoiding something and not approving of others' use of it isn't the same as saying they shouldn't be allowed to have it, or refusing to profit from them obtaining it. Now, I don't think I've ever heard of one owning a business where any of those is a primary product, but in general, people do expect to find those items in certain business types (convenience stores, grocery stores, newsstands, video rental, etc.) that aren't primarily geared toward them.
-
If your job is marriage licensing, and you know what marriage is, issuing marriage licenses is no longer the job for you.
How bout if as an elected official you take an oath to uphold your states laws? And your state has a constitutional amendment that specifically says marriage is one man one woman?
-
If your job is marriage licensing, and you think you know what marriage is, issuing marriage licenses is no longer the job for you.
Corrected that for you. You see, you and the clerks involved are getting confused. Marriage to you is a religious thing. Marriage to the government is a contract involving a license. It's a lawyer type thing, or where a scientific 'theory' is a very different thing than a personal theory.
As a progressive you want to make sure that government employees tow the line and enforce secular egalitarianism, the religion of the left.
Now you're just getting insulting. After years in the military, I expect employees to do their job. Government employees to do their job as dictated by the laws of the state. IE If it says to hand out marriage licenses, you hand out the marriage licenses per the applicable rules and regulations.
So in the government workplace only the moral code of progressives like you and KD5NRH are allowed. Basically telling all other groups, in particular Christians who hold traditional morality, that they are no longer welcome as government employees unless they pay fealty to the new moral code.
Did you miss the part where I was fine with them getting a pass so long as the work got done by somebody? You also set up a strawman with the whole 'no longer welcome as government employees'. I doubt the road department particularly cares about your views on marriage. They could transfer into an office where they don't have to issue marriage licenses.
At least you are honest enough to admit you are allied with the forces that are tearing apart the fabric of the western world.
Well, I am on this board.
Actually, I've known a few Mormons who have worked in or even owned businesses that sell alcohol, tobacco and may have Penthouse behind the counter.
Go back to the Muslim thing about handling pork. I've known plenty of Muslims willing to handle the packaging and sell the stuff, even if they won't eat it themselves. It's when they start wanting to be a special snowflake and not even touch it or impose their beliefs on others to the point that it interferes with the performance of their job that it becomes an issue.
I was just using the Mormans as a second example. I know full well that many are willing to sell that stuff, and a few that aren't. Just like there are Muslims who will happily ring up pork products and use alcohol based hand sanitizer, even as there's a few who won't.
Avoiding something and not approving of others' use of it isn't the same as saying they shouldn't be allowed to have it, or refusing to profit from them obtaining it.
I agree. I consider myself a libertarian. I might not be a good one, but it's the closest fitting party. I do not smoke or drink, but I believe that people should be allowed to. I think California raising the smoking age to 21 is a mistake.
Now, I don't think I've ever heard of one owning a business where any of those is a primary product, but in general, people do expect to find those items in certain business types (convenience stores, grocery stores, newsstands, video rental, etc.) that aren't primarily geared toward them.
Well yes. I'm just of the thinking that if a store sells smokes, they're generally a small but important byline - they're higher profit than most of the rest of the stuff in the store. The owner isn't going to want customers trying to guess when Employee X is on the counter because he won't sell them.
How bout if as an elected official you take an oath to uphold your states laws? And your state has a constitutional amendment that specifically says marriage is one man one woman?
In that case they shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Where it gets complicated is when the courts, the designated interpreters of that constitution, say it isn't valid.
-
Corrected that for you. You see, you and the clerks involved are getting confused. Marriage to you is a religious thing. Marriage to the government is a contract involving a license. It's a lawyer type thing, or where a scientific 'theory' is a very different thing than a personal theory.
Those dogs do not hunt. You can't blame religion or "personal theories" for the ubiquitous heterosexuality of marriage.
-
How bout if as an elected official you take an oath to uphold your states laws? And your state has a constitutional amendment that specifically says marriage is one man one woman?
The drawback to those oaths is that they're not locked in to the current laws; you have to be prepared to either continue to follow laws as they change or resign the position for which you took the oath.
So in the government workplace only the moral code of progressives like you and KD5NRH are allowed.
Nope. In a workplace, only the moral code of the employer is truly relevant. If you're a sole proprietor, then you should have the absolute right to set the moral code to which everyone must adhere. In a partnership, (especially at the extreme of a democratic government that is - in theory - just a grossly unprofitable partnership with 300 million partners, most of whom don't actually work there) there will have to be major, and often ugly compromises in establishing a single moral code for all employees.
Go back to the Muslim thing about handling pork. I've known plenty of Muslims willing to handle the packaging and sell the stuff, even if they won't eat it themselves. It's when they start wanting to be a special snowflake and not even touch it or impose their beliefs on others to the point that it interferes with the performance of their job that it becomes an issue.
And that's one of those cases where the employer should be asking up front as a part of the application if you are willing and able to do each of the normally expected tasks, with a focus on things like handling known allergens and items known to be objectionable to major religious groups. Then they need the lawyers and the guts to stand behind firing someone for telling a substantial lie on the application. When job circumstances change after hire, then look at accommodating the employee, but if, for example a non-observant Jew has a sudden...uhhh...(what do Jews have instead of come-to-Jesus moments?) then the employee should be the one asking whether they can continue with what they originally agreed to, or leave of their own volition if the employer is unwilling to alter the agreement upon request.
-
Those dogs do not hunt. You can't blame religion or "personal theories" for the ubiquitous heterosexuality of marriage.
Again - to the government 'marriage' is a contract, not a religious term. Contract terms can be changed. Personally, if you want to get married, find a priest or whatever, the government should only do civil unions. Separation of church and state.
That being said, you also have dogs that don't hunt. What affair of yours is the marriage of people who are not you, your relatives, or your religion?
That's not a progressive view, by the way, that's a libertarian view. What others do that don't affect you beyond your desire to stick your nose into their affairs shouldn't matter. Are they harming people other than themselves? No? Leave them be.
The drawback to those oaths is that they're not locked in to the current laws; you have to be prepared to either continue to follow laws as they change or resign the position for which you took the oath.
Life sucks. Sometimes you have to leave your comfort zone, or perhaps that guaranteed job isn't quite so guaranteed as you thought.
Nope. In a workplace, only the moral code of the employer is truly relevant. If you're a sole proprietor, then you should have the absolute right to set the moral code to which everyone must adhere. In a partnership, (especially at the extreme of a democratic government that is - in theory - just a grossly unprofitable partnership with 300 million partners, most of whom don't actually work there) there will have to be major, and often ugly compromises in establishing a single moral code for all employees.
I agree.
but if, for example a non-observant Jew has a sudden...uhhh...(what do Jews have instead of come-to-Jesus moments?)
With all religions, I'd go with words like 'radicalization', or 'fundamentalization'. You see, I've learned that Muslims in Muslim dominated countries are often LESS religious than the special snowflakes here, because they can't afford to be. They're taking advantage of their religious freedom here to be even more fundie than most of the fundies back home.
-
Again - to the government 'marriage' is a contract, not a religious term. Contract terms can be changed. Personally, if you want to get married, find a priest or whatever, the government should only do civil unions. Separation of church and state.
:rofl: There's nothing religious about the fact that marriage is heterosexual. You're the one who keeps bringing religion into it. Empirically, factually; cultures with differing attitudes about sex, sexuality, religion, and everything else still know/knew that marriage is predicated on a heterosexual relationship (even when individual participants were homosexual).
That being said, you also have dogs that don't hunt. What affair of yours is the marriage of people who are not you, your relatives, or your religion?
That's not a progressive view, by the way, that's a libertarian view. What others do that don't affect you beyond your desire to stick your nose into their affairs shouldn't matter. Are they harming people other than themselves? No? Leave them be.
Then why are you arguing for the government to be involved? I continue to :rofl:
-
:rofl: There's nothing religious about the fact that marriage is heterosexual.
And there's very little non-religious keeping it that way.
Then why are you arguing for the government to be involved? I continue to :rofl:
Recognition of the current state of affairs shouldn't imply approval of it. We also need some sort of governmental recognition of pair-bonding so long as the government is handing out benefits for it and having it be codified into the legal system for things like custody, medical rights(power of attorney), inheritance, etc...
Again, what's the bug up your butt about the flavors of junk in somebody's drawers when it comes to them signing a particular contract between each other? It's not like you're the one licking them. [barf]
-
The downstream affect of codifying the perversion as normal marriage is that it will further erode the right of freedom of association and then (sooner rather than) later the freedom of religion.
Proprietors of businesses are already forced to associate with folks they would prefer not to deal with and religious institutions are next.
Eventually churches will have to bow to the authority of the state and violate their conscience. They will be forced to recognize same sex couples as married, perform the marriages and will be persecuted by the state if they preach against homosexuality.
It's not about anyones junk or what they lick. It is about the power of the state.
You fail as a libertarian.
-
The downstream affect of codifying the perversion as normal marriage is that it will further erode the right of freedom of association and then (sooner rather than) later the freedom of religion.
Okay, you're going to have to explain the first to me better. How does letting queers marry erode 'freedom of association'? Because it seems the opposite to me.
Now, freedom of religion does have some points for it - but I think that you have to be careful. I think that imposing restrictions on the actual freedom of one group in order to prevent theoretical losses in the freedom of others requires an extraordinary amount of evidence.
Would I be correct in assuming that your evidence of the latter would be businesses being forced to provide services to gay couples doing things? Because, if so, there's the fun with Hobby Lobby getting it's way, and the idea that I don't support going that far, though I acknowledge that it has in hyper-liberal areas. Remember - libertarian, not liberal. I'm generally trying to maximize freedom for everybody.
Proprietors of businesses are already forced to associate with folks they would prefer not to deal with and religious institutions are next.
Should have read ahead, I guess... ;) BTW, the religious institutions have the 800 pound gorilla of the constitution behind them.
Eventually churches will have to bow to the authority of the state and violate their conscience. They will be forced to recognize same sex couples as married, perform the marriages and will be persecuted by the state if they preach against homosexuality.
That, I think, would get slapped down rather hard by the supremes.
You fail as a libertarian.
Meh. The strawmen people keep setting up are libertarian failures. Should I start making snarky comments about how you guys are just pissed that you can't harass people doing things you don't agree with? :old:
-
Again, what's the bug up your butt about the flavors of junk in somebody's drawers when it comes to them signing a particular contract between each other? It's not like you're the one licking them. [barf]
Oh, I didn't realize I had to justify my being involved in this discussion. You realize, of course, that your question is puerile. If we're going to play that game, why should you care about same-sex unions?
And there's very little non-religious keeping it that way.
That would only make sense if one religion had made marriage heterosexual, and kept it that way, across millennia, and across the globe. That is not the case.
Recognition of the current state of affairs shouldn't imply approval of it.
Yet you clearly approve of government recognizing homosexual couplings, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Also, recognizing that marriage is, as a matter of fact, heterosexual, shouldn't imply that homosexuality is wrong, or that homosexuals are bad people.
We also need some sort of governmental recognition of pair-bonding so long as the government is handing out benefits for it and having it be codified into the legal system for things like custody, medical rights(power of attorney), inheritance, etc...
If anyone really cared about that, they would have addressed it long ago, w/o tying it to something most people found (at best) distasteful.
This all makes much more sense when you think it about it rationally, instead of trying to be on "the right side of history."
-
The faithful promised churches would not be forced to do gay marriages and yet less than a decade after the start that has proven to be a lie.incremental attacks
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The faithful promised churches would not be forced to do gay marriages and yet less than a decade after the start that has proven to be a lie.incremental attacks
Citation?
Oh, I didn't realize I had to justify my being involved in this discussion. You realize, of course, that your question is puerile. If we're going to play that game, why should you care about same-sex unions?
I don't, really. Other than:
1. Seeing it as an overall increase in freedom.
2. It's none of other's people's business as to saying who can marry who, other than 'competent consenting adult'.
That would only make sense if one religion had made marriage heterosexual, and kept it that way, across millennia, and across the globe. That is not the case.
Nope, you have all sorts of marriage traditions. Most were generally 1 man and 1 women. Some were 1 man and multiple women. Some were multiple men and 1 women. Some had multiples of both. Some made it for limited periods of time. Some don't bother.
Yet you clearly approve of government recognizing homosexual couplings, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Also, recognizing that marriage is, as a matter of fact, heterosexual, shouldn't imply that homosexuality is wrong, or that homosexuals are bad people.
2 adults wanting to get married. Why should I care? Okay, here's a question for you: Would you be willing to accept a 'civil union' that had identical government benefits as marriage, but just wasn't called that?
What if they go to their religious organization and said organization recognizes them as being married? Are you not going to recognize that? Are you going to throw a fit if their religion doesn't recognize YOUR marriage because it doesn't meet some requirement of theirs?
If anyone really cared about that, they would have addressed it long ago, w/o tying it to something most people found (at best) distasteful.
Like I said, I was in support of saying 'get rid of marriage in government, civil unions for everybody!' I got outvoted/overrulled.
This all makes much more sense when you think it about it rationally, instead of trying to be on "the right side of history."
Actually, I don't really care about being on the 'right side of history', and my 90% logical brain(tested! I hardly ever make 'emotional' decisions, to the point that it hurts me in life), came up with letting them get married is the correct decision. Maximum freedom, remember?
I'm going to point out that, thus far, your argument against gay marriage has amounted to 'but we aren't allowed to discriminate against them!'
Stick 'black' in for 'gay' and can you see why your viewpoints are getting poor ratings?
You know, I thought conservatives were supposed to be better at predicting liberal thought? So why are you doing so lousy with me? Could it be that I'm not actually liberal?
-
Cite
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/gay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/gay-couple-is-suing-to-force-a-church-to-hold-their-wedding/
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I'm going to point out that, thus far, your argument against gay marriage has amounted to 'but we aren't allowed to discriminate against them!'
Stick 'black' in for 'gay' and can you see why your viewpoints are getting poor ratings?
As a self-professed libertarian, do you advocate the government prohibiting discrimination by private parties or companies based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, hair color, music tastes or any other factor?
-
The faithful promised churches would not be forced to do gay marriages and yet less than a decade after the start that has proven to be a lie.incremental attacks
They're not being forced to perform gay marriages. They're just being "persuaded" to see the light ...
As to incremental attacks: I'm a justice of the peace in my state. We are appointed for four-year terms, which happen to coincide with the term of office of the President. So I was past sworn in in January of 2013. At that time, I asked the municipal clerk (who is the official who swears us in) what the deal was on same-sex marriages. The answer in January of 2013 was, "You don't have to perform them if you don't want to."
A few months ago I read something that disturbed me, so I called and asked the question again. New answer: "You can't refuse to perform a wedding for a same-sex couple, so if it violates your conscience just tell them you're not available on that date." (In other words -- lie.) I have just over six months to decide whether or not I'll continue as a J.P. I can perform almost all the other functions of a J.P. if I become a notary public, and as an ordained minister I can perform marriages without being a J.P., so I'm leaning toward just becoming a notary.
But, yes ... we are being subjected to "creeping incrementalism."
-
Cite
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/gay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding
I fail to see how declining to perform a same sex wedding is gender discrimination.
If the pastor was willing to marry two lesbians but not two males, that would be gender discrimination. If he was willing to marry two males but not two lesbians, that would be gender discrimination. If he's simply not performing same-sex weddings, he's treating both genders the same. No discrimination.
-
CSD your cites are usually better than that.
The first has nothing to do with government at all. The Pastor is being accused of going against the rules of his own denomination. The complaint was filed internal to the UMC. If the UMC says they church does gay weddings, and he's a UMC Pastor than the church has every right to "Stick with our doctrine or GTFO". I'm sure other denominations with large governing bodies do the same thing over all kinds of issues. Either way it's an internal UMC issue, not a freedom/.gov overreach one.
The second is closer, except that it's in the UK, which lacks much of our separation of church and state laws and tradition, and is much more likely to default to gov coercion. It's also 3 years old with no (easily googleable) outcome, so it seems like it's not going all that well.
-
We were assured that never would clergy be asked to perform a wedding that went outside the tenants of their faith. It took less than a decade
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
http://eaglerising.com/6712/government-forces-church-perform-gay-marriage/
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Denmark too
http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/gay-couple-is-suing-to-force-a-church-to-hold-their-wedding/
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
As a self-professed libertarian, do you advocate the government prohibiting discrimination by private parties or companies based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, hair color, music tastes or any other factor?
The more I see stuff like this the more I want to see all bans on discrimination by private parties eliminated. Bringing all that out in the open might be a good thing.
-
The more I see stuff like this the more I want to see all bans on discrimination by private parties eliminated. Bringing all that out in the open might be a good thing.
I agree. While well-intentioned, anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary and wrong.
-
Guess who just got put into my phone as my preferred tow contact?
Where is the 'Like' button for this post?
-
Where is the 'Like' button for this post?
I'm not kidding, he's local for me.
Let's steer this thread back towards a whiny Bernie bitch getting her comeuppance. Note the tolerant, peace loving leftists who are all about some death threats and bomb threats over this.
-
As a self-professed libertarian, do you advocate the government prohibiting discrimination by private parties or companies based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, hair color, music tastes or any other factor?
No. Government positions are one thing-they're government employees. Take out the trash, hand out marriage licenses, hunting permits, etc... Refuse to do your job, get fired.
Private parties and companies should be allowed to be discriminatory if they want to be. Much like places with no carry signs, I will simply take my business elsewhere if they're bad enough. This is doubly true for small businesses such as sole proprietors.
Cite
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/gay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding
Why are people so proud of tapatalk and what phone they are using?
Anyways, internal church politics. Form your own denomination if you want.
2nd link isn't even in the USA and involves the church of England, which is kinda-sorta part of the government over there.
3rd is Denmark(which has a state church if I remember right)
4th is a repeat of the second.
5th is a repeat of the 3rd
You could have also put them all in 1 post.
For all the fearmongering in the articles, none of the quoted countries have our tradition of separation of church and state.
-
No. Government positions are one thing-they're government employees. Take out the trash, hand out marriage licenses, hunting permits, etc... Refuse to do your job, get fired.
Private parties and companies should be allowed to be discriminatory if they want to be. Much like places with no carry signs, I will simply take my business elsewhere if they're bad enough. This is doubly true for small businesses such as sole proprietors.
Why are people so proud of tapatalk and what phone they are using?
Anyways, internal church politics. Form your own denomination if you want.
2nd link isn't even in the USA and involves the church of England, which is kinda-sorta part of the government over there.
3rd is Denmark(which has a state church if I remember right)
4th is a repeat of the second.
5th is a repeat of the 3rd
You could have also put them all in 1 post.
For all the fearmongering in the articles, none of the quoted countries have our tradition of separation of church and state.
But in all those countries the same basic players have assured everybody from the beginning that never never would somebody be forced perform a wedding that went against their beliefs and they lieed and I have no reason to suspect that they're not going to lie here
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
But in all those countries the same basic players have a short everybody from the beginning that never never would somebody be forced perform a wedding that went against their beliefs and they lieed and I have no reason to suspect that they're not going to lie here
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Everyone will be forced to prostrate themselves before the religion the western ruling elite has imposed upon them (radical secular egalitarianism). Of course like all systems there needs to be a Priestly class who the masses will look to for direction. Our ruling elites have unselfishly taken it upon themselves to shepherd us into this Utopia.
-
Oh, some of them are undoubtedly lying. It's not like the activists are some homogeneous Borg collective. Even if the main players weren't lying there's sure to be some ahole that'll drop a lawsuit. Like those two in the UK. You got any info on the outcome of that suit? I googled a bit but couldn't find anything other then it was filed before I lost interest.
That said, you could apply that rational (The group has some aholes that will push it too far) to ANY argument for expanding freedoms. It's worth being aware of, and planning to make sure the slide is stopped, but it's not, as an argument, reason to never advance freedom.
I'm starting to think that this will end with churches stopping the issuance of marriage licenses. The church(es) will do their thing, and make a relationship right with whichever God or Gods, and if the couple would like to involve the government as well they can wander on down to the court house and do that as well, or not. Or if a couple wants to be joined in the eyes of the law, they can go down to the court house. If they want they can then go down to the church and become right with them, or not.
Not sure that will be better or worse, but it seems the outcome we're aiming at.
-
And there's very little non-religious keeping it that way.
Well, nothing except biology and human practice going back to the dawn of history. I am reminded that a problem with progressivism, libertarianism, and other utopian creeds is that they are at war with both nature and reality.
==========
You fail as a libertarian.
To be fair, so do libertarians, who have become the party of "What on our nihilistic agenda can we get gov't to enforce with the threat of violence?
==========
Stick 'black' in for 'gay' and can you see why your viewpoints are getting poor ratings?
Your "90% logical" brain is failing you on that one. Bye Awl Oh Gee.
This is how its done:
I fail to see how declining to perform a same sex wedding is gender discrimination.
==========
That said, you could apply that rational (The group has some aholes that will push it too far) to ANY argument for expanding freedoms. It's worth being aware of, and planning to make sure the slide is stopped, but it's not, as an argument, reason to never advance freedom.
Maybe so, but homosexual pseudomarriage is not an expanded freedom. It is an increase in intervention by gov't--in an of itself--and it has lead to the abridgment of freedom for orders of magnitude of folk more than will ever partake of its "benefits."
-
Why are people so proud of tapatalk and what phone they are using?
I'm not! I wish I could find a better alternative to Crapatalk than using a mobile browser.
-
I'm starting to think that this will end with churches stopping the issuance of marriage licenses.
In the U.S., churches don't issue marriage licenses. I don't think they do anywhere in the world. Marriage licenses are issued by civil authorities, typically either municipal or county. Marriages are performed in (not by) churches, by clergymen. In some countries, a marriage isn't fully complete until there has been a church wedding AND a civil wedding.
-
But in all those countries the same basic players have assured everybody from the beginning that never never would somebody be forced perform a wedding that went against their beliefs and they lieed and I have no reason to suspect that they're not going to lie here
1. Somebody will always sue. You'll get lawsuits for not performing gay weddings, you'll get lawsuits for performing them. The government will get sued for not issuing marriage licenses, etc...
2. Do you have citations that people are being forced to perform weddings? Worst I see is people suing to get to hold their wedding in their church.
3. No real word as to whether they've been successful.
As dogmush said, it's not like they're the Borg. Just like us, there's a variety of people and viewpoints.
I'm starting to think that this will end with churches stopping the issuance of marriage licenses.
Churches, other than the Catholic, don't really issue them. They'll record that they performed the wedding, and in most states a priest can sign the marriage certificate attesting that they are now married, just like a justice of the peace, county clerk, or whatever.
As I said before, you get married in a church, you get a civil union from the government. That the latter ended up being called 'marriage' as well just muddies up the waters.
Well, nothing except biology and human practice going back to the dawn of history. I am reminded that a problem with progressivism, libertarianism, and other utopian creeds is that they are at war with both nature and reality.
Biology, human practice, dawn of history? You do realize that gays have been around since then, right? They've never been the majority outside of a few cultures(and those cultures are rather alien to our own). That many cultures actually have spots for them? Hell, biology wise they've identified homosexual pairings for just about every species that pair-bonds to begin with. Homosexual Penguins, for example. Ended up giving them an egg from a straight couple that 'weren't getting it' and were leaving the egg alone. They took very good care of that chick. Out in the wild they've caught them taking eggs from abandoned nests(predators always get a few...)
To be fair, so do libertarians, who have become the party of "What on our nihilistic agenda can we get gov't to enforce with the threat of violence?
You know, I keep seeing this sort of stuff and I'm reminded of a study - everybody likes to think that they're operating from a position of kindness, but their opponents are all operating from cruelty/evil.
I'm starting to find this sorts of vague accusations given as a reason that we must deny rights, 'keep them down', and such to be very tiring. Here you are accusing libertarians of wanting to use violent government action to get their way!
Please, stop with the vague attacks and strawmen. What specific part of the 'nihilistic agenda' are we attempting to get the government to enforce with violence and the threat therein?
Maybe so, but homosexual pseudomarriage is not an expanded freedom. It is an increase in intervention by gov't--in an of itself--and it has lead to the abridgment of freedom for orders of magnitude of folk more than will ever partake of its "benefits."
Hm... Okay. So how is gays not being able to enter into the same sort of contracts as a straight couple not an expanded freedom? Please explain this to me.
Also, please explaing how it's abridging your freedoms. Please be specific, but be aware that I do not consider your ability to NOT be butthurt over them getting 'married' an abridgement. You do NOT have the freedom to not be offended. And that's mostly what I've been seeing here. Now, I agree with you that the small wedding cake shop that didn't want to cater a gay wedding because of their owner/operator's beliefs shouldn't have been punished like they were. But that's a reason to pass a law protecting small businesses when they have closely held beliefs, not to ban gay weddings.
Keep in mind that literally thousands of gay weddings happen without the gayroller coming by and generating a lawsuit. Hell, there's probably more issues with brides not showing up, just plain lousy service, scam artists, and such.
We argue that we shouldn't be held responsible for the occasional idiot. I'd argue that we need to extend them the same courtesy.
Kind of like those who, fortunately not here, tried to argue that gay marriage would harm the institution of marriage.
-
I hadn't noticed anyone suing a pastor to force them to perform a wedding in the US yet, but I think it is only a matter of time. The activists are headed that direction.
-
I hadn't noticed anyone suing a pastor to force them to perform a wedding in the US yet, but I think it is only a matter of time. The activists are headed that direction.
It did happen, I think in Nevada. But it was a somewhat unique case. The man was (is, I guess) a properly ordained Christian minister, but he operated a for-profit wedding chapel, he wasn't serving as the pastor of a regular church. The court ruled that his chapel was a place of public accommodation, not a church, and therefore he couldn't discriminate.
-
All the homophilia in society isn't really the problem.
It's just a downstream result of a much more malignant disease.
Organizing society around a mechanistic secular anti-philosophy view of reality will debase our culture even more than our current masturbation and butt sex culture and will create horrific travesties even more disgusting and dehumanizing than our abortion mills.
-
Interesting perspective on the gay rights movements.
https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/gays-against-the-homosexual-agenda-and-gay-marriage-2/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Interesting perspective on the gay rights movements.
https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/gays-against-the-homosexual-agenda-and-gay-marriage-2/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yep, gay relationships aren't really the same as normal relationships no matter how much the progressives on the right and left insist otherwise.
A very small percentage of homosexuals actually pursue marriage.
Of them the overwhelming percentage of homosexual marriages are lesbian marriages.
Gay men might talk a good game about wanting LTR's but in the end the high rates of disease and the tiny percentage who actually get married tell a different story.
-
Organizing society around a mechanistic secular anti-philosophy view of reality will debase our culture even more than our current masturbation and butt sex culture and will create horrific travesties even more disgusting and dehumanizing than our abortion mills.
Pilling up buzzwords doesn't help, and isn't really an argument
For example, I find "Social Justice Warriors", professional butthurts on behalf of other people, to be a much bigger issue. For example, they got all butthurt over the 'cultural appropriation' because a Mexican restaurant was giving out free plastic miniature sombreros. They got upset over a college student dressing up as a Marachi, said he was appropriating Mexican culture, was all ready to censure him and make him attend special classes. He pointed out that he's a Venezuelan student(might be the wrong SA country) and that he was dressed up as a Venezuelan Marachi. I kinda wish he'd broken down in tears then about their inability to tell the difference...
It did happen, I think in Nevada. But it was a somewhat unique case. The man was (is, I guess) a properly ordained Christian minister, but he operated a for-profit wedding chapel, he wasn't serving as the pastor of a regular church. The court ruled that his chapel was a place of public accommodation, not a church, and therefore he couldn't discriminate.
Hmm... Do you have a citation for that? Thus far, it's just hearsay. If true, what probably broke him was that, like you said, no congregation and he was probably marrying everybody up until that point anyways.
Interesting perspective on the gay rights movements.
https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/gays-against-the-homosexual-agenda-and-gay-marriage-2/
Interesting, yes, but still only a single source. Personal anecdote.
A very small percentage of homosexuals actually pursue marriage.
Is it really fair to ding them when we don't even have a good decade of open research, and hell, the number of gays in total is somewhat in question even today?
Of them the overwhelming percentage of homosexual marriages are lesbian marriages.
Should we deny them their marriages in order to block the guys?
Gay men might talk a good game about wanting LTR's but in the end the high rates of disease and the tiny percentage who actually get married tell a different story.
Then shouldn't we support those that do? Also, what does "LTR" stand for in this context?
-
LTR = long term relationship(s)
As I mentioned earlier. This issue is a downstream result of bigger problems with our culture.
Sort of like a death rattle cough of a dying person.
-
For example, I find "Social Justice Warriors", professional butthurts on behalf of other people, to be a much bigger issue. For example, they got all butthurt over the 'cultural appropriation' because a Mexican restaurant was giving out free plastic miniature sombreros.
And yet, where's their outrage over the paper pirate hats at Long John Silver? McDonald's appropriates clown culture with impunity.
-
:rofl: There's nothing religious about the fact that marriage is heterosexual. You're the one who keeps bringing religion into it. Empirically, factually; cultures with differing attitudes about sex, sexuality, religion, and everything else still know/knew that marriage is predicated on a heterosexual relationship (even when individual participants were homosexual).
"A perfect marriage of form and function," "A harmonious marriage of perfect ingredients resulting in a product greater than the sum of its parts," "A marriage of components providing both strength and reduced weight,".
I've seen all of these uses of the word marriage, and many, MANY others, in just my lifetime.
The term covers far more than simply a religious, or even secular, ceremony joining two peoples' lives together.
Heterosexuality has about nothing to do with any of them.
Arguing that the word means precisely one thing ignores the fact that it's NEVER meant just that one thing.
-
Nope, you have all sorts of marriage traditions. Most were generally 1 man and 1 women. Some were 1 man and multiple women. Some were multiple men and 1 women. Some had multiples of both. Some made it for limited periods of time. Some don't bother.
And virtually all of those marriage traditions required at least one member of each sex. It's almost as if there were something other than religion, something unaffected by religious beliefs, that made heterosexual pairings different from homosexual pairings, regardless of anyone's moral approval or condemnation of the latter. So do you see why it's hard to blame religion for limiting marriage to opposite-sex relationships? It's a bit like blaming religion for all those misguided laws that penalize theft, and murder, and embezzlement.
2 adults wanting to get married. Why should I care? Okay, here's a question for you: Would you be willing to accept a 'civil union' that had identical government benefits as marriage, but just wasn't called that?
You've got two issues going on here, and I refuse to decide one on the basis of the other.
On the one hand, you have people irrationally demanding that obvious non-marriages (non-marrriages, because they exclude one of the sexes) be legally regarded as marriages. That's idiotic on its face, but many have bought into it.
On the other hand, we have the idea that government doesn't need to recognize or enforce marriage. I'm open to the idea, but acting on it right now has too much the flavor or blackmail. Let's first stop entertaining obvious falsehoods about marriage (see above), and then we'll be able to think clearly about the costs and benefits of having Hawkmoon sign off on our marriages.
I'm going to point out that, thus far, your argument against gay marriage has amounted to 'but we aren't allowed to discriminate against them!'
As I've pointed out before, no argument is possible against a non sequitur. The "argument" in favor is merely one of assertion.
You know, I thought conservatives were supposed to be better at predicting liberal thought? So why are you doing so lousy with me? Could it be that I'm not actually liberal?
I don't recall saying you were a liberal.
-
"A marriage of components providing both strength and reduced weight,"
Lousy metaphor; I have yet to see a marriage of any sort result in weight reduction.
-
"A perfect marriage of form and function," "A harmonious marriage of perfect ingredients resulting in a product greater than the sum of its parts," "A marriage of components providing both strength and reduced weight,".
I've seen all of these uses of the word marriage, and many, MANY others, in just my lifetime.
The term covers far more than simply a religious, or even secular, ceremony joining two peoples' lives together.
Heterosexuality has about nothing to do with any of them.
Arguing that the word means precisely one thing ignores the fact that it's NEVER meant just that one thing.
Did you really just try to claim that figurative uses of the word " marriage " should tell us how an actual marriage (the thing, not the word) works? This is why I can't take you people seriously. If you'd really like to go there, I'll just point out why "marriage" is so often used that way. It's because marriage is a pairing of two unlike things. Hence the impossibility of same-sex "marriage."
-
Did you really just try to claim that figurative uses of the word " marriage " should tell us how an actual marriage (the thing, not the word) works?
Of course, because no one would ever stretch metaphors, like calling a virgin a motherf____, or anything not actually composed of feces a piece of s___.
-
Hmm... Do you have a citation for that? Thus far, it's just hearsay. If true, what probably broke him was that, like you said, no congregation and he was probably marrying everybody up until that point anyways.
Does the Washington Times count? (Idaho, not Nevada)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/
Also there's the Los Vegas Review-Journal, but they are talking in hypotheticals rather than actual cases.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/wedding-chapels-can-t-say-no-same-sex-marriages-aclu-warns
-
Does the Washington Times count? (Idaho, not Nevada)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/
Can't recall which ordinance I was looking at, but at least one of them was worded such that it sure sounded like you could get around it by saying "we will happily marry a gay man and a lesbian to each other, but we don't perform same-sex marriages." The language was very specific about prohibiting denying the person, rather than the specific service.
-
LTR = long term relationship(s)
Thanks. I'm always amazed at the overlap in acronyms. Still remember a briefing by the guard about their operations - every TLA they used we had a computer one that used the same letters. Caused some hilarity in the "mad libs" sense.
As I mentioned earlier. This issue is a downstream result of bigger problems with our culture.
Sort of like a death rattle cough of a dying person.
Eh, I figure that we're stronger than that. Every generation swears they're dying culturally. If not their own, the ones after them.
And virtually all of those marriage traditions required at least one member of each sex.
"Almost" goes a long ways though. I'm not suggesting that we get rid of heterosexual marriage, require gay marriage to be in the majority or anything.
It's almost as if there were something other than religion, something unaffected by religious beliefs, that made heterosexual pairings different from homosexual pairings, regardless of anyone's moral approval or condemnation of the latter.
Well yeah, biology made most of us straight.
So do you see why it's hard to blame religion for limiting marriage to opposite-sex relationships? It's a bit like blaming religion for all those misguided laws that penalize theft, and murder, and embezzlement.
I'm not blaming them for the limitation. I'm blaming them for seeking to continue the prohibition in the government realm even as they enter conflict with other religions that support gay marriage.
On the one hand, you have people irrationally demanding that obvious non-marriages (non-marrriages, because they exclude one of the sexes) be legally regarded as marriages. That's idiotic on its face, but many have bought into it.
You're defining marriage using your own terms, and appealing to tradition. As Eric said, there's a lot more to 'marriage' than just 'one man one woman'.
Other than that, I'm going to have to ask again: Where is it harming you? Why does every marriage have to conform to the majority? Hell, other than your being upset about gays getting the same ability as you, specifically to marry somebody they actually want to have sex with, how is it even really affecting you?
On the other hand, we have the idea that government doesn't need to recognize or enforce marriage. I'm open to the idea, but acting on it right now has too much the flavor or blackmail. Let's first stop entertaining obvious falsehoods about marriage (see above), and then we'll be able to think clearly about the costs and benefits of having Hawkmoon sign off on our marriages.
Like I've said before, marriage, to the government, is a contract. It's a very hefty contract that affects a person's taxes, benefits(surviving spouse payments, for example), insurance(healthcare). It amounts to two people signing up for a new default will, inheritance, medical power of attorney, burial benefits, child care, etc...
As we're seeing in today's society, marriage is not a requirement for reproduciton, nor is many marriages about reproduction either; plenty of non-reproductive marriages between men and women.
I once read that a lawyer estimated that attempting to cover all of the aspects of marriage using non-marriage contracts would run between $10k and $30k and still wouldn't catch everything, while most marriage certificates are under $100.
As I've pointed out before, no argument is possible against a non sequitur. The "argument" in favor is merely one of assertion.
What's the non-sequitur?
I don't recall saying you were a liberal.
Others have accused me of such.
-
Does the Washington Times count? (Idaho, not Nevada)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/
Also there's the Los Vegas Review-Journal, but they are talking in hypotheticals rather than actual cases.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/wedding-chapels-can-t-say-no-same-sex-marriages-aclu-warns
Hmm... Can anybody really say that a Vegas wedding chapel isn't a commercial businesses?
As for the city ordinance, I hope it gets shot down.
-
Eh, I figure that we're stronger than that. Every generation swears they're dying culturally. If not their own, the ones after them.
No, not every culture swears that. And, a lot of those who were concerned about their culture dying were right. Oftentimes, it just took longer than they foresaw.
Further, a whole lot of those prophets were Cassandras, because no one wanted to listen.
It's ok, though, it was just bad luck that wiped those tribes off their icefields and made the lights go out in Rome. I'm sure we won't be in for any of that.
-
Hmm... Can anybody really say that a Vegas wedding chapel isn't a commercial businesses?
Don't really care; it's not financed by the public, so it's still someone's property, purchased, improved and maintained by the fruits of their own labor, that they deserve to be able to limit the use of by any criteria they care to apply. This isn't a pub on a desolate road which would put someone at risk of starvation if they were refused, so there's no legitimate societal need to force them to serve everyone. As long as there are competitors, the market will deal with the issue.
-
Don't really care; it's not financed by the public, so it's still someone's property, purchased, improved and maintained by the fruits of their own labor, that they deserve to be able to limit the use of by any criteria they care to apply. This isn't a pub on a desolate road which would put someone at risk of starvation if they were refused, so there's no legitimate societal need to force them to serve everyone. As long as there are competitors, the market will deal with the issue.
I agree, actually. Sometimes I forget to point this stuff out when I'm only really looking to point out a technical difference.
I said earlier that I'm for businesses being able to set their rules. Though if they're not going to serve certain customers they should probably be forced to put that on a sign at the entrance and/or on any advertisements so said people don't waste their time messing with them.
-
Lousy metaphor; I have yet to see a marriage of any sort result in weight reduction.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgiphy.com%2Fgifs%2Forson-welles-citizen-kane-a-deadly-adoption-UTT6QbG4EPOIE&hash=60fbd154966712a13111392b6504ff6bd09f304e)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgiphy.com%2Fgifs%2Forson-welles-citizen-kane-a-deadly-adoption-UTT6QbG4EPOIE&hash=60fbd154966712a13111392b6504ff6bd09f304e)
You screwed up your attempt at the image:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/UTT6QbG4EPOIE/giphy.gif)
-
What's the non-sequitur?
A "marriage" that only includes one sex. It is nonsensical.
"Almost" goes a long ways though. I'm not suggesting that we get rid of heterosexual marriage, require gay marriage to be in the majority or anything.
Well yeah, biology made most of us straight.
I'm not blaming them for the limitation. I'm blaming them for seeking to continue the prohibition in the government realm even as they enter conflict with other religions that support gay marriage.
First of all, there wasn't a "prohibition," except in the sense that the people in some of the states made their governments agree with you, by officially not caring about same-sex unions. Those state governments were prohibited from intervening in same-sex relationships. There was no prohibition on anyone's individual right to have such unions privately; have "weddings," etc.
Secondly, the minority status of homosexuals is not the most obvious explanation for the almost total lack of same-sex marriage in human history. And there's really nothing about minority status that would keep people from recognizing same-sex unions. The simple fact is that there is no reason for anyone to "care" about same-sex unions, because they have no particular impact on anyone else. This differs from opposite-sex unions, for obvious reasons.
You're defining marriage using your own terms...
:laugh: False.
, and appealing to tradition.
Pffft. And you're appealing to what, exactly?
As Eric said, there's a lot more to 'marriage' than just 'one man one woman'.
As we've seen, Eric's argument was garbage. Also, I've said nothing about the number of partners. I'm talking about the genders involved.
Other than that, I'm going to have to ask again: Where is it harming you? Why does every marriage have to conform to the majority? Hell, other than your being upset about gays getting the same ability as you, specifically to marry somebody they actually want to have sex with, how is it even really affecting you?
:rofl: He keeps going on about this. He's obviously reading nothing I say, so what does it even matter what I say here? kumquat sally ontology breakfast Right?
Hello?!
It's because homosexual couplings do not affect me, or anyone else, that I. Want. You. And. Your. Government. To. Stay. Out. Of. It. Please repeat the phrase "fistful does not want government to intervene in same-sex relationships," if you read and comprehended what I just said. Thank you.
Also, no one has any new "ability" as a result of Obergefell, unless you count the ability to scam the government with a new class of fake marriages. I could do the same, if I wanted to. It would just get in the way of my real marriage, is all.
Like I've said before, marriage, to the government, is a contract. It's a very hefty contract that affects a person's taxes, benefits(surviving spouse payments, for example), insurance(healthcare). It amounts to two people signing up for a new default will, inheritance, medical power of attorney, burial benefits, child care, etc...
Blah, blah, blah; that doesn't explain why marriage should be expanded to cover non-marital relationships.
As we're seeing in today's society, marriage is not a requirement for reproduciton[sic]...
Are you trying to say that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage? Because marriage has never really been a requirement for reproduction.
Also, FWIW, I've been in a childless marriage for over ten years, now. The thing is, heterosexual relationships naturally result in children. Homosexual relationships don't naturally result in children, and there's no reason to expect or want them to. That wouldn't make sense.
Others have accused me of such.
Cool story, bro.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgiphy.com%2Fgifs%2Forson-welles-citizen-kane-a-deadly-adoption-UTT6QbG4EPOIE&hash=60fbd154966712a13111392b6504ff6bd09f304e)
Wallet got 80 k lighter when wife 1 escaped.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Discussion overheard between two divorce lawyers.
"I saw you on the news at the same sex marriage rally."
"Yep. I support it."
"But you're straight, and Catholic."
"And I'm a divorce lawyer. Gay marriage means gay divorce. Most have two incomes, no kids, and lots of money to spend on attorney fees when the marriage goes to hell."
For the record, I could care less about gay marriage. Got other things that matter more to me to worry y about.
-
A "marriage" that only includes one sex. It is nonsensical.
Then I'd suggest working on it. Nonsensical would be a marriage with only 1 person in it.
There was no prohibition on anyone's individual right to have such unions privately; have "weddings," etc.
True, but none of the benefits either.
Secondly, the minority status of homosexuals is not the most obvious explanation for the almost total lack of same-sex marriage in human history. And there's really nothing about minority status that would keep people from recognizing same-sex unions. The simple fact is that there is no reason for anyone to "care" about same-sex unions, because they have no particular impact on anyone else. This differs from opposite-sex unions, for obvious reasons.
And my thing is that the 'almost total lack' is merely an appeal to history, not a valid argument. We had slavery, bloodletting, cannibalism, lead used as a sweetener, human sacrifice, etc in the past.
As you say, they don't affect others. Well, except in inheritance, healthcare, survivor benefits, visitation and taxes. So that legal document actually benefits those getting it quite a bit. But, as you mention, it doesn't affect you much. So why do you care so damn much.
Deflection, not an argument.
Pffft. And you're appealing to what, exactly?
Freedom, equality of opportunity, stuff they told me in school that this country was founded on and made us great.
:rofl: He keeps going on about this. He's obviously reading nothing I say, so what does it even matter what I say here? kumquat sally ontology breakfast Right?
I'll stop asking when you stop deflecting and actually answer. Or can't you?
It's because homosexual couplings do not affect me, or anyone else, that I. Want. You. And. Your. Government. To. Stay. Out. Of. It. Please repeat the phrase "fistful does not want government to intervene in same-sex relationships," if you read and comprehended what I just said. Thank you.
So why do you care about a certificate issued to somebody else, whom you don't even know? Do you want government intervening in opposite sex relationships? Of you're for equality, I'm good with that.
Explanation for expansion, attempt 3? BENEFITS. $10k worth of contracts done with minimal hassle.
Also, FWIW, I've been in a childless marriage for over ten years, now. The thing is, heterosexual relationships naturally result in children. Homosexual relationships don't naturally result in children, and there's no reason to expect or want them to. That wouldn't make sense.
So children aren't a requirement for marriage. Or are we going to annul yours?
-
You screwed up your attempt at the image:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/UTT6QbG4EPOIE/giphy.gif)
I have never been able to post images, for some reason. I copied and pasted the URL in between the IMG tags, just like always, and got the same broken-image icon out of it.
I don't care THAT much, though it'd be nice if I understood what I'm doing wrong.
-
As we've seen, Eric's argument was garbage. Also, I've said nothing about the number of partners. I'm talking about the genders involved.
:rofl: He keeps going on about this. He's obviously reading nothing I say, so what does it even matter what I say here? kumquat sally ontology breakfast Right?
Hello?!
It's because homosexual couplings do not affect me, or anyone else, that I. Want. You. And. Your. Government. To. Stay. Out. Of. It. Please repeat the phrase "fistful does not want government to intervene in same-sex relationships," if you read and comprehended what I just said. Thank you.
So, you're agitating damned hard to get govt out of hetero marriages too, then, right? Immediate removal of all govt recognition and privileges and favors for ANY marriage, right? Including that $10-30K worth of legal contracts done up for the price of a marriage license paid to the county clerk (I forget how much mine was back in '08 - but I paid it in cash, from what I had in my pocket. And my fiance and I then went to lunch, and I *STILL* had cash left over).
Because otherwise, your statement makes you out to be a hypocrite. If it's okay for hetero marriages, it *MUST* be okay for homo marriages.
Marriage is a term applied to all sorts of things other than "one man one woman." This has been the case for CENTURIES. At least. It's nowhere near a new or novel concept, no matter how much you'd like it to be considered as such. So your attempted appeal to tradition falls flat on its face.
And as has been mentioned, current government recognition of marriages violates the 14th Amendment. That needs to be fixed. We can acknowledge that the government can treat all marriages equally, or we can go whole-hog and get government out of marriage entirely. The former is a good start, the latter is the end-goal. IMO, we probably need to pass through the former before we can get to the latter, though I'd be pleased to be proven wrong.
So, what's it going to be? Intellectual honesty, or protection of existing, unConstitutional privilege for some but not others?
-
"And I'm a divorce lawyer. Gay marriage means gay divorce. Most have two incomes, no kids, and lots of money to spend on attorney fees when the marriage goes to hell."
I need to remember to pick on our extremely conservative Baptist DA for helping out with at least the county's, and possibly Texas' first lesbian marriage when he was fairly new to the legal profession. Long before it was legal for lesbians to marry.
Seems he just assumed that helping his married client get a sex change legally acknowledged would somehow inherently void the marriage. Afterward, the judge pointed out that while they couldn't get married, there was nothing on the books that would invalidate an existing marriage.
-
Marriage is a term applied to all sorts of things other than "one man one woman." This has been the case for CENTURIES. At least. It's nowhere near a new or novel concept, no matter how much you'd like it to be considered as such. So your attempted appeal to tradition falls flat on its face.
Please list some. I am curious what sorts of things you are referring to.
-
So, what's it going to be? Intellectual honesty, or protection of existing, unConstitutional privilege for some but not others?
I wasn't aware that the constitution required that all privileges extended by the government to one person must apply to all others.
Excuse me while I go apply for some minority scholarships, women-owned business grants, and veteran benefits.
-
So, you're agitating damned hard to get govt out of hetero marriages too, then, right? Immediate removal of all govt recognition and privileges and favors for ANY marriage, right? Including that $10-30K worth of legal contracts done up for the price of a marriage license paid to the county clerk (I forget how much mine was back in '08 - but I paid it in cash, from what I had in my pocket. And my fiance and I then went to lunch, and I *STILL* had cash left over).
Actually, yes. And fix the tax code while we are at it to remove the tax incentives (preferred tax code is a whole different discussion, of course.)
And 10-30k worth of legal contracts for what exactly? Will? Medical power of attorney/directive? Nuptial agreement spelling out the terms of the union? Short of maybe a prenup/nuptial agreement that only certain people really need now, I can't see any documents needed that a person shouldn't already have now regardless of orientation.
Give it a week and there'll be a section in every big box office store with generic fill in your names documents, internet legal services, and lawyers offering a pencil whipping package for a lot less than 10-30k that will cover 99% of folks. Toss in a fee to the county in areas where you need to put such documents on file. Take your pick on how generic/customized you want it to be.
-
I have never been able to post images, for some reason. I copied and pasted the URL in between the IMG tags, just like always, and got the same broken-image icon out of it.
I don't care THAT much, though it'd be nice if I understood what I'm doing wrong.
Okay, I think I know what the problem is. You're pasting the page url, not the image url. Page url is up on top in the bar. Image url is a touch more complicated.
Page url: http://giphy.com/gifs/orson-welles-citizen-kane-a-deadly-adoption-UTT6QbG4EPOIE
Image url: https://media.giphy.com/media/UTT6QbG4EPOIE/giphy.gif
A image url will(in my experience) always end in a dot something - .gif/.jpg/.jpeg/.png type stuff. HTML might or might not have the period, or will end in stuff like .htm/.html/.php/.asp/...
If you're using firefox(or similar), you want to right-click on the image you want to link to and select "copy image location". The address on the bar is incorrect unless you're ONLY seeing the image.
-
I wasn't aware that the constitution required that all privileges extended by the government to one person must apply to all others.
Ideally speaking, it shouldn't be arbitrarily discriminatory about it. IE your race/sex/religion shouldn't factor into it.
Excuse me while I go apply for some minority scholarships, women-owned business grants, and veteran benefits.
I actually oppose 2 out of the 3 of those outright, and am generally opposed to the 3rd.
Actually, yes. And fix the tax code while we are at it to remove the tax incentives (preferred tax code is a whole different discussion, of course.)
The heteros would scream at that one. They fought hard for that benefit. Called it the 'marriage penalty' when it would cost a dual-income family more in taxes than if they filed as singles.
And 10-30k worth of legal contracts for what exactly? Will? Medical power of attorney/directive? Nuptial agreement spelling out the terms of the union? Short of maybe a prenup/nuptial agreement that only certain people really need now, I can't see any documents needed that a person shouldn't already have now regardless of orientation.
"Yes, and more". One SHOULD always have a will, but a marriage certificate comes with a default one that's different than for a single person. Most marriages don't involve a pre-nup, because in 'most cases' the default terms for ending the contract are good enough for most people. If you're not getting a marriage certificate, that all has to be drawn up manually. You don't just have medical powers of attorney, you also have financial ones to worry about. There's also the cost of the name change(not everybody who gets married takes the option, but it's there and effectively at no additional cost). There's paperwork that needs to be filed for any property that's becoming joint - house, cars, etc... There's paperwork for things like retirement funds. It amounted to not just pointing out how gays were being 'screwed over' - it also pointed out how 'oh *expletive deleted*it' deep reaching a marriage license actually runs. It affects pretty much everything. Hell, consider a criminal trial - can a gay guy be forced to testify against his paramour, where a wife can not be forced to testify against her husband?
Now, I'll admit that I can't find the source document anymore and I think that they were doing something of a 'worst case' for a couple that could be considered middle class. They might have even included some money for the value of benefits that just can't be duplicated by contracts. Survivor benefits, for example, would have to be replaced by a life insurance policy.
And yes, you could probably get 90% of the effectiveness at 10% of the cost, as things go.
Give it a week and there'll be a section in every big box office store with generic fill in your names documents, internet legal services, and lawyers offering a pencil whipping package for a lot less than 10-30k that will cover 99% of folks.
Well, this article predated most of the 'fill in the boxes' legal documentation preparation packages. Also, as you noted, it was non-standard for the time, and now that they can just get married, it'll stay that way. Part of the problem noted in the article was that even documents professionally prepared by lawyers were being disregarded. Marriage documents were proving to be stronger. Said documents were particularly disregarded by medical providers, who would often default back to the parents even as the 'spouse' presented the professionally prepared medical power of attorney. That's an issue in and of itself, I think, gay or otherwise. I can easily see somebody who's single, but estranged from his parents, selecting his best friend(male, non-sexual friendship) to be his medical backup for choices if something difficult happens.
Toss in a fee to the county in areas where you need to put such documents on file. Take your pick on how generic/customized you want it to be.
And how likely is that fee alone to match the cost of a marriage license?