This was unconstitutional

[Revoltingest]

And so it begins...
EXCLUSIVE: County Clerk Resigns Instead of Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses | Todd Starnes

I heartily approve.
Can I give a frubal to someone not on RF?

 

[Jainarayan]

I heartily approve.
Can I give a frubal to someone not on RF?

Yeah, it's called Like on Facebook.

 

[freethinker44]

And so it begins...

EXCLUSIVE: County Clerk Resigns Instead of Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses | Todd Starnes

Good riddance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess they didn't talk about it much because gay marriage was virtually unheard of back then. They've seen gay relationships but no one could even comprehend gay marriage even in the 19th century.

I guess it should not matter if it is allowed. Most gays won't stay married for long anyway. I'm not saying this to be mean, but more often than not, gay relationships are promiscuous and they usually break up soon. There are promiscuous straight people but it's more common among the gay population. If you've talked to gays and seen their relationships you probably know what I'm talking about.

I have seen gay relationships and I do not know what you are talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I might care if people actually did point it out. You haven't done much better either. Anyone can say" you are a stupid head! Lolz" but it takes effort to actually debate. Religions overall are against it too and it wasn't just because it was different. Gays are more promiscuous and therefore spread more disease. Why do you think aids was more common in gays. Gays adopting children is bad because there is no balance and it disrupts the family. Not too many happy families have existed through gay adoption. Excuse me if I'm not spoon fed half truths like you and the others. I research.

If you did any research at all, you'd know that what you're saying is garbage.

 

[Jainarayan]

And now we have this sort of hysteria. I almost feel sorry for her (almost, but not quite). This is the sort of thing her religion has driven her to?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And now we have this sort of hysteria. I almost feel sorry for her (almost, but not quite). This is the sort of thing her religion has driven her to?

I wouldn't say the religion itself inherently, but the dogmatic clinging. She's so upset....damn.

I wanna give her a Big Squishy Hug.

 

[Jainarayan]

I wouldn't say the religion itself inherently, but the dogmatic clinging.

Yes, I agree with you. The teachings of Jesus, when really delved into, are quite beautiful. It turned into a structured twisted dogmatic religion by later followers, namely the "church fathers" of the following centuries. They stressed and overthought theology. In fact, they injected theology when Jesus never spoke of anything except becoming close to and loving God, and the love of the God he understood. It never ceases to amaze me at how humans can turn everything they touch to [you know what goes here].

I wanna give her a Big Squishy Hug.

If that doesn't work, an Airplane! type slap will do.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I agree with you. The teachings of Jesus, when really delved into, are quite beautiful. It turned into a structured twisted dogmatic religion by later followers, namely the "church fathers" of the following centuries. They stressed and overthought theology. In fact, they injected theology when Jesus never spoke of anything except becoming close to and loving God, and the love of the God he understood. It never ceases to amaze me at how humans can turn everything they touch to [you know what goes here].



If that doesn't work, an Airplane! type slap will do.

Glorious reference.

 

[sojourner]

Not to put to fine a point on it but where did you get the idea that marriage is a right? How would you explain laws against polygamy or incestual marriages?

Laws against polygamy are in place to prevent convoluted understandings of property and inheritance rights, among other things that could be confusing. Incest is illegal because it tends to produce offspring with no limbs, three eyes and an IQ lower than my shoe size.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And now we have this sort of hysteria. I almost feel sorry for her (almost, but not quite). This is the sort of thing her religion has driven her to?

I lost it when she started screaming Obama is a Muslim, and more laughs when the "the Founders were Bible Thumpers" came, and he insistence that we should be subjected to her particular religious views gives me no sympathy towards her. She's like a little kid throwing a tantrum because she is told she has to share.

 

[Jainarayan]

I lost it when she started screaming Obama is a Muslim, and more laughs when the "the Founders were Bible Thumpers" came, and he insistence that we should be subjected to her particular religious views gives me no sympathy towards her. She's like a little kid throwing a tantrum because she is told she has to share.

It alternates between hilarious and painful to watch. I was laughing and thought a little pee was going to come out.

 

[LuisDantas]

And now we have this sort of hysteria. I almost feel sorry for her (almost, but not quite). This is the sort of thing her religion has driven her to?

Holy Gosh. It hurts to see how passionate she is. And how deeply wrong as well.

 

[BSM1]

Laws against polygamy are in place to prevent convoluted understandings of property and inheritance rights, among other things that could be confusing. Incest is illegal because it tends to produce offspring with no limbs, three eyes and an IQ lower than my shoe size.

So why do you think the government should be involved in the life decisions of consenting adults?

 

[sojourner]

So why do you think the government should be involved in the life decisions of consenting adults?

Because that's what government does. "Should I speed?" No! "Should I kill someone today?" No! Government is there to protect the common good. When individual rights usurp that good, those rights take a back seat. I don't have the individual right to do whatever I want to to do, if it poses a real threat of harm to others. Since homosexual marriage doesn't pose such a threat, it is a right that needs to be granted.

 

[BSM1]

Because that's what government does. "Should I speed?" No! "Should I kill someone today?" No! Government is there to protect the common good. When individual rights usurp that good, those rights take a back seat. I don't have the individual right to do whatever I want to to do, if it poses a real threat of harm to others. Since homosexual marriage doesn't pose such a threat, it is a right that needs to be granted.

So if a homosexual couple has a child that has "...no limbs, three eyes and an IQ lower than my shoe size..." should that marriage be dissolved by a government decree?

 

[muichimotsu]

Now you're throwing in a red herring: the homosexual couple in itself isn't an issue, and a child born with birth defects is not always a product of incest and cannot be punished anymore than being punished for being homosexual. The government's interests are the common good: one child born with something that may have been outside the parent's control is not something to be condemned

Marriages are only dissolved by annulment (in that they aren't legitimate, since there wasn't informed consent, etc) or divorce (in that one party finds fault tor both parties mutually agree to the separation). Having a child born with Down's syndrome is not some disqualification for a married couple anymore than them not having children at all

 

[columbus]

So if a homosexual couple has a child that has "...no limbs, three eyes and an IQ lower than my shoe size..." should that marriage be dissolved by a government decree?

If a homosexual couple adopts a child with that many problems they should get a medal and a stipend.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

Now you're throwing in a red herring: the homosexual couple in itself isn't an issue, and a child born with birth defects is not always a product of incest and cannot be punished anymore than being punished for being homosexual. The government's interests are the common good: one child born with something that may have been outside the parent's control is not something to be condemned

Marriages are only dissolved by annulment (in that they aren't legitimate, since there wasn't informed consent, etc) or divorce (in that one party finds fault tor both parties mutually agree to the separation). Having a child born with Down's syndrome is not some disqualification for a married couple anymore than them not having children at all

What you said.

 

[BSM1]

Because that's what government does. "Should I speed?" No! "Should I kill someone today?" No! Government is there to protect the common good. When individual rights usurp that good, those rights take a back seat. I don't have the individual right to do whatever I want to to do, if it poses a real threat of harm to others. Since homosexual marriage doesn't pose such a threat, it is a right that needs to be granted.

So how about the right to refuse to bake a cake? Should the government force to go against your religious or moral beliefs?