All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Google evil, Bing, not quite so evil, yet (that I know of).

    And I know how you feel. I, too, remember all kinds of stuff. Even stuff I never knew. ;-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't waste too much time. Just curious as to whether there had been a legal entity that actually recognized such absurdities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I believe they were ceremonial. If memory serves they weren't in the US. I'll see if I can find the links.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not sure what you're asking here. Civil Union is a secular non-religious binding - If I cared one way or the other, I'd have no issue with that. Marriage is a religious institution (regardless of its historical context). If a church wishes to marry same sex couples and it doesn't go against their tenants then they should. If a church chooses not to, because of their tenants, then its perfectly fine. Neither side should be pushing the other into doing anything they do not want to do of their own accord.

    That said, I can easily see someone going crazy screaming like that maniac college kid that I posted about how its not fair and its hate speech for preaching the Bible and refusing to perform a gay wedding. IN fact I fully expect the ACLU, the government, the left, and many others (won't go into it) having fits whenever someone is denied a wedding or a cake because the pastor, baker, photographer wishes no part of a gay union.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am a devout Christian, so don't take this the wrong way. Your answer presupposes that all others also believe in God. That is problematic, especially for a citizen of the US, where we have freedom of religion, including freedom not to have a religion. Thus, you need some mechanism that works for all citizens.
    That doesn't mean that "anything goes" as you seem to imply. I think that a rational society can devise rules/limits that are reasonable. I, for one, prefer in this instance to apply contract law. That at least gets us to people and limits insanities like this person proposes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. If this is a pro-gay union ploy then its to say "if a man can marry a a computer then why not...." if its an anti-gay union ploy then it basically saying "if you consider this absurd then ..."

    Personally I think the government has no place in Marriage at all and should be limited strictly to contractual agreements (civil unions). This said, I've read of a woman marrying a dolphin and a man marrying a tree. Go figure.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't see how you can stretch "freedom of association" to a regulation of marriage. If anything, that would point to the gov't NOT being able to rule on such - that whole FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION thingy.

    And, I can recognize that a contract exists in another state without acting on the same in my state. Thus, when I transit a state line I must obey the speed limit in the state that I am in, regardless of whether my home state has a different speed limit, or helmet law, or laws regarding smoking, etc. ad nauseum.

    And, if marriage were reverted to contract law, there is a very distinct history to follow for guidance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "where I am >3SD from the human norm." Is that to the right or the left of the arithmetic mean? :-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Cool. That's my profession. Getting ready to do a DOE on a cheese dryer in central MN.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't see how how legally that would work. 2 Consenting Adults. Legally recognizing gay unions does not involve inanimate objects. The government should not be involved in it period. Common law addresses it nicely
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The US Constitution was developed by man and not the proper level to discuss this....see below.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would not say that I 'understand' statistics...more like I drool uncontrollable and start twitching when confronted with them. But I was a medical technologist for 17 years and I _did_ statistics on a daily basis. Yes, labs have affirmed a 6-Sigma approach to lab work.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1st Amendment covers marriage.

    Why do homosexuals want the absurdity of "gay marriage"?

    1) to destroy the cultural tradition of real marriage, perhaps out of resentment; more likely because of leftist political philosophy

    2) to avoid recognizing their own illness.

    3) to gain social and political power (see 1)

    if marriage was an enumerated power, then it would be at the state level. But, I don't see where, simply because it's not enumerated in the Constitution, it should instantly come within the purview of the States.

    The problem with granting the power to the States:

    "Article. IV.

    Section. 1.

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

    There you go. There's the enumeration you were looking for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And when the computer achieves sentience (or better, sapience)?

    And when the "pet" is a Chimpanzee or other ape who *can* give consent? Or will we deny the right to marriage to human mutes because they too speak in sign language?

    A marriage is not simply a prenuptial agreement.

    a marriage is the mating of a human male and a human female, not simply a contract.

    We wouldn't have this problem if it weren't for the tolerance patrol. We're not supposed to point out that homosexuals have mental/emotional problems; instead we're supposed to ignore the evolutionary reality of mammalian species.

    Pica:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

    ": an abnormal desire to eat substances (as chalk or ashes) not normally eaten "

    We're allowed to define a desire to mis-use our digestive systems as "abnormal", but a desire to mis-use our reproductive organs, we're expected to think that normal and healthy.

    I refuse to call a tail a leg and try to walk on it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 11 months ago
    I consider that the traditional involvement of the government in marriage is a matter of power, not of propriety. When you socially incapacitate each gender so that they cannot exist as complete individuals but must be paired with a partner of the opposite sex in order to function, then controlling permission to make that partnership is a major power card. Let me explain: Think back in our history. Men were almost exclusively the 'breadwinners', but they were taught from early years to be emotionally incompetent and socially handicapped. Women were largely excluded from being self-supporting; their realm of expertise was almost exclusively the social and emotional. In order to make a complete 'person unit', a man and a woman must marry. Thus, the gatekeeper of that pairing had a lot of power - and this power was exercised with respect to class and inheritance as well as to the modern selection of 'gender'.

    I do not think that the government should be involved in the 'marriage business' at all. If individuals want to marry in front of their god, then that is their choice. There should not be a government subsidy for marriage - ie IRS benefits.

    We now consider it proper for a man and woman of different classes or races to marry, but whether or not people of different number, ages, species or genders can marry is under discussion. These pairings are neither more nor less logical than a Regency 'mesalliance' marriage. May I remind you that animalism, pedophilia, and group marriages are all part of the historical and religious traditions in Western Europe.

    Personally, I am rather baffled that someone would ever want to be 'married'. If I am with someone, it is because I want to be...the idea of desiring to hand some element of control over that relationship to an outside party leaves me puzzled. But most people seem to want this, so I acknowledge that it is yet another place where I am >3SD from the human norm.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    SHORAD my first iteration (Vulcan/Stinger) and then assigned to Patriot - but never went to a unit as I ended up getting out.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly. There will be a day (not too far away) where churches will lose their tax exempt status for refusing to participate in gay "weddings". Same story for pastors speaking God's Truth about homosexuality.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo