Started By
Message
re: The Rainbow Flag Is Now Flying Over Alabama
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:40 am to Alahunter
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:40 am to Alahunter
quote:
My argument would be that two parent homes were much more prevalent percentage wise, before people began relying on govt intervention and incentives to the degree they do now.
My counter is there's a correlation here that I'm not sure leads to a causation. The decline in lasting marriages is cultural and socioeconomic in our inner cities.
quote:
A tax credit for being married doesnt make mean marriages will last or be the glue that keeps it.
Well no, it isn't going to be the glue. It does help those functioning families though. It's an investment in future generations. Plus any little thing to help keep family units together.
quote:
Its just another bone to keep folks voting certain groups in.
Well...I can't say you're wrong about that. Republicans and Democrats are both going to keep that going.
1
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:43 am to pvilleguru
quote:
When it comes to issues like slavery, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage, the Feds need to step in.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:44 am to Alahunter
quote:
Not when the Constitution grants them certain rights. Whats good for California may not be for North Dakota may not be for New York. Federal intervention has overstepped so much, folks think its appropriate for any reason now.
So North Dakota should be able to infringe on the rights of some of its people because it's "good" for them?
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:48 am to Gladius Veritas
Yeah, one of those is not like the others. In fact, it's like comparing apples to Volkswagens.
I know you and Stonehog have been wanting to tie the knot, and I support that union, as unholy as it is, but stop trying to equate gay marriage with slavery.
I know you and Stonehog have been wanting to tie the knot, and I support that union, as unholy as it is, but stop trying to equate gay marriage with slavery.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:48 am to Alahunter
Stonehog's MO is to take a very valid argument from the other side and act like they didn't understand what he meant. Then disregard and deny everytime even though it's exactly what he meant, it's just counterproductive to his argument
Rinse
Wash
Repeat
You absolutely did equate slavery to gay marriage, you turd burglar.
Now all of that being said, as a Christian who does think homosexuality is icky, I'm happy to see states legalize it, but not force it through from the courts. Christians and republicans need to realize they're alienating people based on a single issue and get over it. Churches in particular need to be a safe place for the LBGT community to go to.
Rinse
Wash
Repeat
You absolutely did equate slavery to gay marriage, you turd burglar.
Now all of that being said, as a Christian who does think homosexuality is icky, I'm happy to see states legalize it, but not force it through from the courts. Christians and republicans need to realize they're alienating people based on a single issue and get over it. Churches in particular need to be a safe place for the LBGT community to go to.
This post was edited on 1/24/15 at 10:53 am
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:48 am to Gladius Veritas
Where in the Constitution is marriage a right and why should the govt be involved in it at all? Why not leave it a personal/religious moment and get a lawyer for contracts on all other issues, like power of attorney in case of illness/death, disbursement of property in case of separation...etc
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:52 am to Alahunter
I agree that marriage should not be left up to the government at all. Right now it is up to the govenment though, so if straight people are allowed to marry, gay people should be afforded the same opportunities.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:52 am to 3nOut
quote:
You absolutely did equate slavery to gay marriage, you turd burglar
No I didn't.
Alahunter said gay marriage should be left up to the states.
I said slavery was a state right.
Then he stretched that into comparing gays getting married to human bondage. I never made that comparison.
I see you misunderstood entirely, just like Alahunter.
This post was edited on 1/24/15 at 10:54 am
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:55 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
Licking shite off a dick is not normal.
Yeah considering that doing that can make people deathly ill, I'm pretty sure that it isn't common among the gay community.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:56 am to Duke
If you cant say there is a coorelation between govt intervention and more problems, how do you draw a conclusion of govt intervention being beneficial in marriage?
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:57 am to Alahunter
quote:
get a lawyer for contracts on all other issues, like power of attorney in case of illness/death, disbursement of property in case of separation...etc
Alahunter is a big fan of trial lawyers huh?
I see your point here, but I don't see how this is more efficient with better outcomes than a blanket law governing the rules on matters of marriages. There's already room for contracts that go above and beyond those laws anyway. A system of everyone making their own contracts sounds better on it's face, but the end result will be more costly legal disputes because of the lack of standard. Some judges will rule differently than others...
It would be a shitshow.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:58 am to CatFan81
As asked earlier though. If one is wrong, why add to the problem and doubl down on wrong?
Posted on 1/24/15 at 11:00 am to Alahunter
quote:
how do you draw a conclusion of govt intervention being beneficial in marriage?
I'm saying acts to create incentive in positive behaviors is helpful to society. Now the how, the cost/benefit, and scope of it's usefulness are legitimate questions.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 11:02 am to Stonehog
So.... Again, the other side doesn't get your argument, so you're right?
I know you're not saying being gay is like slavery, but you're dangerously close to comparing the two on the need of federal government to intervene on a moral level.
One is not like the other when it comes to a moral question or a legality question. I understand just because it's legal doesn't make it right (slavery before late 1800's) and just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong (being gay and wanting to get married.)
I know you're not saying being gay is like slavery, but you're dangerously close to comparing the two on the need of federal government to intervene on a moral level.
One is not like the other when it comes to a moral question or a legality question. I understand just because it's legal doesn't make it right (slavery before late 1800's) and just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong (being gay and wanting to get married.)
This post was edited on 1/24/15 at 11:04 am
Posted on 1/24/15 at 11:04 am to Duke
Contract lawyer. It doesnt drive a wedge in class warfare issues and lessens tax burdens. Federal law shouldnt be based on issues not granted to the States, and of course there would be different rulings at times. How is that different from today? Anything that lessens federal control when they have no jurisdiction is a good thing, imo.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 11:04 am to 3nOut
quote:
I know you're not saying being gay is like slavery, but you're dangerously close to comparing the two on the need of federal government to intervene on a moral level.
There were a lot more reasons to end slavery besides morality...
Posted on 1/24/15 at 11:04 am to Sentrius
Good. 50 years from now the gay rights movies won't be set in Alabama.
Besides, it's long been established as the gayest place in America.
Besides, it's long been established as the gayest place in America.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 11:06 am to Duke
Welfare, unemployment and SS were acts originally created as incentives and to help out. How have those turned out?
Posted on 1/24/15 at 11:07 am to Stonehog
quote:
There were a lot more reasons to end slavery besides morality...
Do tell.
Posted on 1/24/15 at 11:19 am to Alahunter
quote:
How have those turned out?
I'd argue they've accomplished their goal pretty well. The problems with welfare and SS are partially design (benefit cliffs on welfare for example) and specifically with welfare too many different programs overseen by various different departments. The goal of social insurance to mitigate the risk of destitution has been met. Lowering the risk of changing jobs or starting new business makes for a stronger economy.
The freeloaders are always going to be a problem, but I think it cheaper to pay them off than have them decide to get their food and money by force.
The devil as always is in the how and that it is designed by politicians. Hence the overly expensive system with design flaws that act to keep people on the dole.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News