You assume that the only way to show commitment in a relatioship is through marriage. This is just wrong. Untrue. False.
You also seem to be suggesting that the purpose of a husband is to supply money and nothing else; else how could someone have the government for a husband?
I find this archaic attitude far more frightening then couples of whatever sex living together with emotional commitment but no marriage. As Joni sang, "We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall keeping us tight and true."
I didn't assume the only way to show commitment was via marriage. You didn't name another way they showed their commitment to each other. He simply stated they lived together. Show me their different form of commitment and we can discuss the validity of it.
Lastly I didn't suggest the purpose of a husband was only to supply money and nothing else. Those women have two husbands because in each case one supplies what the other cannot. One supplies the sperm, love and companionship, and the other (government) supplies the benefits and money. That is why I said each was half a man.
As for what Joni Mitchell sang, if you want to base your life off of song lyrics, that is up to you.
where you equated free speech with murder and pedophilia.
Interesting tactic, trumptman. You just say things that are so insane all we can do is sit in shock.
The doctors let you use computers?
giant,
People can read and comprehend. They can read and discuss. You distort and distract. They can see past what you do. When you care to do the two former instead of the one latter, then you will be contributing to the discussion again.
As for the doctors, they let me reply to you because they are convinced you are a spambot.
People can read and comprehend. They can read and discuss. You distort and distract. They can see past what you do. When you care to do the two former instead of the one latter, then you will be contributing to the discussion again.
As for the doctors, they let me reply to you because they are convinced you are a spambot.
Good job at trying to avoid responsibility for saying that the state condoning free speech in religion is equal to the state condoning murder and pedophila.
From what I understood in both of our examples, none of the parties were married. How is that a legal commitment?
WIC and housing laws are legal contracts engaged in by the parties in the examples we each mentioned. In order to accept WIC, a party is legally obligated to follow the rules of acceptance. To be a landlord in Chicago, a party is legally obligated to follow Chicago housing laws.
Good job at trying to avoid responsibility for saying that the state condoning free speech in religion is equal to the state condoning murder and pedophila.
Why would I take responsibility for your distortions?
WIC and housing laws are legal contracts engaged in by the parties in the examples we each mentioned. In order to accept WIC, a party is legally obligated to follow the rules of acceptance. To be a landlord in Chicago, a party is legally obligated to follow Chicago housing laws.
And in both instances all they do is distort the size of their household which of course distorts the income.
I mean how can you prove the missing party in both cases is part of the "household" when there is no legal commitment which binds them?
Why would I take responsibility for your distortions?
Nick
let's take a look:
Quote:
giant:
But you also advocated state control of religion.
Let's look at the 1st three points of the 1st ammendment
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
What you advocate (not allowing religions to 'marry' same-sex couples) is in direct violation of the first three major elements of american democracy.
Quote:
dumbman:
I suppose when we don't allow human sacrifice, polygamy, and pedophilia when religions desire it then we are stomping on the first amendment as well.
And then I correctly pointed out how you are equating free speech in religion (ability to use the word 'marriage' for same sex unions that have equal standing in the eyes of the state as different-sex unions) to murder and pedophilia.
And then I correctly pointed out how you are equating free speech in religion (ability to use the word 'marriage' for same sex unions that have equal standing in the eyes of the state as different-sex unions) to murder and pedophilia.
No what I pointed out is that if what a religion DOES (not speaks) won't sit well with our laws, then we do pass laws against religion even though the Constitution declares that we should not have state control over religion. (Not just religious speech)
The first amendment does not relate to just religious speech. It relates to religion as a whole. That means religious actions, not just religious speech.
No what I pointed out is that if what a religion DOES (not speaks) won't sit well with our laws, then we do pass laws against religion even though the Constitution declares that we should not have state control over religion. (Not just religious speech)
The first amendment does not relate to just religious speech. It relates to religion as a whole. That means religious actions, not just religious speech.
Nick
I was trying to figure out your argument here, but then I realized that of course your argument makes no sense. Equating free speech in religion to murder and pedophila is what crazy people do.
Plus, you seem totally incapable of understanding why things like drunk driving, murder and pedophilia are actually illegal. Last I checked the distinguishing feature between man and beast was the ability to make this kind of distinction. So maybe you're not crazy; maybe you are just a dumb animal.
Not a personal attack or anything, as you like to say.
I was trying to figure out your argument here, but then I realized that of course your argument makes no sense. Equating free speech in religion to murder and pedophila is what crazy people do.
Plus, you seem totally incapable of understanding why things like drunk driving, murder and pedophilia are actually illegal. Last I checked the distinguishing feature between man and beast was the ability to make this kind of distinction. So maybe you're not crazy; maybe you are just a dumb animal.
Not a personal attack or anything, as you like to say.
No problem. Insults from the ignorant never sting. It's like a personal attack from my cat. Except for I don't own a cat. However if I did, it would probably be trained to use the toilet much like yourself.
No problem. Insults from the ignorant never sting. It's like a personal attack from my cat. Except for I don't own a cat. However if I did, it would probably be trained to use the toilet much like yourself.
Nick
still avoiding responsibility for equating free speech in religion to murder and pedophilia by saying stupid shit. You are just making more of a fool of yourself, especially when you display your pitiful lack of creativity in your mronic insult (at least I think it's an insult. It's really so stupid it's hard to tell what it is). I just shows the desperation of a man who is too crazy to make a distinction between using the word 'marriage' and killing someone or raping children.
People like you that can't make that distinction should be locked up in a facility.
still avoiding responsibility for equating free speech in religion to murder and pedophilia by saying stupid shit. You are just making more of a fool of yourself, especially when you display your pitiful lack of creativity in your mronic insult (at least I think it's an insult. It's really so stupid it's hard to tell what it is). I just shows the desperation of a man who is too crazy to make a distinction between using the word 'marriage' and killing someone or raping children.
People like you that can't make that distinction should be locked up in a facility.
Obviously you seek continual breaking of the posting guidelines in an attempt to get the thread closed.
Since you can't win a debate on merits, you might as well silence everyone. Typical. If you can't understand the words that come out of my mouth or the even more detailed explanation afterward that is your problem. You repeat the same lie hoping it will become true.
Well it seems alot of assumptions have been made about me or people who choose to be together but don't make it "legal".
1. I can't support myself or my girlfriend?
My girlfriend doesn't need my support... and she would be insulted by the assumption that she would need a man OR the governemnt to get by.
2. I wouldn't be able to raise a child with common sense or the ability to take care of herself?
I think my children would learn some very healthy lessons from the example me and my "partner" set.
It seems you have some archaic notions about marriage and women. So is chauvinism another one of your endearing qualities? and I wouldn't go bragging about being a landlord either.
Obviously you seek continual breaking of the posting guidelines in an attempt to get the thread closed.
Since you can't win a debate on merits, you might as well silence everyone. Typical. If you can't understand the words that come out of my mouth or the even more detailed explanation afterward and yet you repeat the same lie hoping it will become true.
Your tactics show your true intent.
Nick
How am I breaking the posting guidlines? You equated using the word marriage with 'human sacrifice' and 'pedophilia,' not me. Those are your words.
What's my tactic? I'm calling you out on what you said: that a religion using the word 'marriage' is equal to murder and peodphelia.
Is there anyone (other than trumtman) here that thinks that equating use of the word 'marriage' to murder or pedophelia is anything other than a sign of insanity? I don't mean this as an insult, it just the way things are. Seriously. Anyone at all?
I think it's clear that the inability to make a distinction between using the word marriage and the rape of children is very, very dangerous. Is there anyone here that disagrees? Seriously. Anyone?
How is anyone supposed to respond to someone who says this?
How am I breaking the posting guidlines? You equated using the word marriage with 'human sacrifice' and 'pedophilia,' not me. Those are your words.
What's my tactic? I'm calling you out on what you said: that a religion using the word 'marriage' is equal to murder and peodphelia.
Is there anyone (other than trumtman) here that thinks that equating use of the word 'marriage' to murder or pedophelia is anything other than a sign of insanity? I don't mean this as an insult, it just the way things are. Seriously. Anyone at all?
I think it's clear that the inability to make a distinction between using the word marriage and the rape of children is indicative of a dangerous person. Is there anyone here that disagrees? Seriously. Anyone?
Is there anyone else here who seriously cannot comprehend that the first amendment relates to civil free speech and civil laws "respecting" both the actions and speech of religious institutions.
I'll tell you what giant. Please show your own hypocracy here. If a church wants to engage in polygamy as part of their religious expression. Which amendment would they challenge it under?
Religious expression includes more than speech. Until you admit that you convince no one. You are throwing up the worlds most obvious straw man and no matter how many times you knock it down, you will not convince.
Human sacrifice, polygamy and pedophilia would not be allowed by our society even if a church declared that they were a vital part of their religious expression and beliefs. Even though we have the first amendment which protects, (come on you can comprehend this) not just religious SPEECH, but religious EXPRESSION of beliefs via actions, that does not mean we will always honor that seperation of church and state.
The state must prove a compelling reason to override the first amendment and tell a church that their beliefs cannot be followed because it harms society as a whole. Murder, polygamy, etc are examples of this.
So we have two points, around the first amendment. First the state cannot tell churches they must marry homosexuals or call commitment ceremonies marriage. Secondly even if there is a church out there that declares it does want to marry homosexuals, society as a whole might declare that the church cannot practice it's beliefs if they are viewed to harm society as a whole. (ie murder) That would still be up to the courts to determine, but since I don't consider polygamy to really be harming anyone, the bar must be lower for certain types of beliefs than others.
Of course right after this we will watch you quote a sentence from my post and repeat your lies over and over.
Well it seems alot of assumptions have been made about me or people who choose to be together but don't make it "legal".
1. I can't support myself or my girlfriend?
My girlfriend doesn't need my support... and she would be insulted by the assumption that she would need a man OR the governemnt to get by.
2. I wouldn't be able to raise a child with common sense or the ability to take care of herself?
I think my children would learn some very healthy lessons from the example me and my "partner" set.
It seems you have some archaic notions about marriage and women. So is chauvinism another one of your endearing qualities? and I wouldn't go bragging about being a landlord either.
No only in your worldview would providing affordable housing for working class folks be a "bad" thing. Meanwhile you declare you won't commit to or support anyone and expect us to applaud. Typical. To me it is chauvanism to give women money for having children outside of marriage or for being "single"
1. As for your girlfriend being insulted, she is welcome to be just that. I don't live in a world where someone's feelings change the facts. If you want to declare yourself committed to someone and the declare that you two have built nothing together, committed no resources toward each other nor invested anything in each other, that is fine. However that is also not the definition of commitment. So in otherwords be offended or insulted all you want. I see the way the world works and your "offense" doesn't change that.
Likewise way to step around the issue. Your girlfriend (can't you think of a better name after 12 years?) doesn't need your support. You still don't say you are capable of supporting her do you. Likewise she can be "insulted" all the way to the bank with the assumption while still making use of the various programs available.
2. As for whether your child would have common sense, simply ask how common it is to have two people live together but commit none of their resources to each other. When your daughter brings home a man someday and he declares he loves her in words, but will have none of his actions reflect that we will see how well that sits with you.
Lastly as for the lessons that you and your partner have set. What would they be? Be nice or Daddy can leave Mommy at any time? Guess what, Mommy can't be sure that if Daddy dies that his assets and insurance won't be tied up in probate court since she has no legal claim? How about love is a verb, but to me it is just a word.
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
You assume that the only way to show commitment in a relatioship is through marriage. This is just wrong. Untrue. False.
You also seem to be suggesting that the purpose of a husband is to supply money and nothing else; else how could someone have the government for a husband?
I find this archaic attitude far more frightening then couples of whatever sex living together with emotional commitment but no marriage. As Joni sang, "We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall keeping us tight and true."
I didn't assume the only way to show commitment was via marriage. You didn't name another way they showed their commitment to each other. He simply stated they lived together. Show me their different form of commitment and we can discuss the validity of it.
Lastly I didn't suggest the purpose of a husband was only to supply money and nothing else. Those women have two husbands because in each case one supplies what the other cannot. One supplies the sperm, love and companionship, and the other (government) supplies the benefits and money. That is why I said each was half a man.
As for what Joni Mitchell sang, if you want to base your life off of song lyrics, that is up to you.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
preceeded by
where you equated free speech with murder and pedophilia.
Interesting tactic, trumptman. You just say things that are so insane all we can do is sit in shock.
The doctors let you use computers?
giant,
People can read and comprehend. They can read and discuss. You distort and distract. They can see past what you do. When you care to do the two former instead of the one latter, then you will be contributing to the discussion again.
As for the doctors, they let me reply to you because they are convinced you are a spambot.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
My point is that those who don't make any legal commitments shouldn't act offended when people question their commitments.
Based on both of our examples, legal commitments are no stronger than any other.
Originally posted by bunge
Based on both of our examples, legal commitments are no stronger than any other.
From what I understood in both of our examples, none of the parties were married. How is that a legal commitment?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
giant,
People can read and comprehend. They can read and discuss. You distort and distract. They can see past what you do. When you care to do the two former instead of the one latter, then you will be contributing to the discussion again.
As for the doctors, they let me reply to you because they are convinced you are a spambot.
Good job at trying to avoid responsibility for saying that the state condoning free speech in religion is equal to the state condoning murder and pedophila.
Originally posted by trumptman
From what I understood in both of our examples, none of the parties were married. How is that a legal commitment?
WIC and housing laws are legal contracts engaged in by the parties in the examples we each mentioned. In order to accept WIC, a party is legally obligated to follow the rules of acceptance. To be a landlord in Chicago, a party is legally obligated to follow Chicago housing laws.
Originally posted by giant
Good job at trying to avoid responsibility for saying that the state condoning free speech in religion is equal to the state condoning murder and pedophila.
Why would I take responsibility for your distortions?
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
WIC and housing laws are legal contracts engaged in by the parties in the examples we each mentioned. In order to accept WIC, a party is legally obligated to follow the rules of acceptance. To be a landlord in Chicago, a party is legally obligated to follow Chicago housing laws.
And in both instances all they do is distort the size of their household which of course distorts the income.
I mean how can you prove the missing party in both cases is part of the "household" when there is no legal commitment which binds them?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would I take responsibility for your distortions?
Nick
let's take a look:
giant:
But you also advocated state control of religion.
Let's look at the 1st three points of the 1st ammendment
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
What you advocate (not allowing religions to 'marry' same-sex couples) is in direct violation of the first three major elements of american democracy.
dumbman:
I suppose when we don't allow human sacrifice, polygamy, and pedophilia when religions desire it then we are stomping on the first amendment as well.
And then I correctly pointed out how you are equating free speech in religion (ability to use the word 'marriage' for same sex unions that have equal standing in the eyes of the state as different-sex unions) to murder and pedophilia.
Originally posted by giant
let's take a look:
And then I correctly pointed out how you are equating free speech in religion (ability to use the word 'marriage' for same sex unions that have equal standing in the eyes of the state as different-sex unions) to murder and pedophilia.
No what I pointed out is that if what a religion DOES (not speaks) won't sit well with our laws, then we do pass laws against religion even though the Constitution declares that we should not have state control over religion. (Not just religious speech)
The first amendment does not relate to just religious speech. It relates to religion as a whole. That means religious actions, not just religious speech.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
No what I pointed out is that if what a religion DOES (not speaks) won't sit well with our laws, then we do pass laws against religion even though the Constitution declares that we should not have state control over religion. (Not just religious speech)
The first amendment does not relate to just religious speech. It relates to religion as a whole. That means religious actions, not just religious speech.
Nick
I was trying to figure out your argument here, but then I realized that of course your argument makes no sense. Equating free speech in religion to murder and pedophila is what crazy people do.
Plus, you seem totally incapable of understanding why things like drunk driving, murder and pedophilia are actually illegal. Last I checked the distinguishing feature between man and beast was the ability to make this kind of distinction. So maybe you're not crazy; maybe you are just a dumb animal.
Not a personal attack or anything, as you like to say.
Originally posted by giant
I was trying to figure out your argument here, but then I realized that of course your argument makes no sense. Equating free speech in religion to murder and pedophila is what crazy people do.
Plus, you seem totally incapable of understanding why things like drunk driving, murder and pedophilia are actually illegal. Last I checked the distinguishing feature between man and beast was the ability to make this kind of distinction. So maybe you're not crazy; maybe you are just a dumb animal.
Not a personal attack or anything, as you like to say.
No problem. Insults from the ignorant never sting. It's like a personal attack from my cat. Except for I don't own a cat. However if I did, it would probably be trained to use the toilet much like yourself.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
No problem. Insults from the ignorant never sting. It's like a personal attack from my cat. Except for I don't own a cat. However if I did, it would probably be trained to use the toilet much like yourself.
Nick
still avoiding responsibility for equating free speech in religion to murder and pedophilia by saying stupid shit. You are just making more of a fool of yourself, especially when you display your pitiful lack of creativity in your mronic insult (at least I think it's an insult. It's really so stupid it's hard to tell what it is). I just shows the desperation of a man who is too crazy to make a distinction between using the word 'marriage' and killing someone or raping children.
People like you that can't make that distinction should be locked up in a facility.
let's um... be a bit civil about this.
no more attacks or I'll close this.
Originally posted by giant
still avoiding responsibility for equating free speech in religion to murder and pedophilia by saying stupid shit. You are just making more of a fool of yourself, especially when you display your pitiful lack of creativity in your mronic insult (at least I think it's an insult. It's really so stupid it's hard to tell what it is). I just shows the desperation of a man who is too crazy to make a distinction between using the word 'marriage' and killing someone or raping children.
People like you that can't make that distinction should be locked up in a facility.
Obviously you seek continual breaking of the posting guidelines in an attempt to get the thread closed.
Since you can't win a debate on merits, you might as well silence everyone. Typical. If you can't understand the words that come out of my mouth or the even more detailed explanation afterward that is your problem. You repeat the same lie hoping it will become true.
Your tactics show your true intent.
Nick
1. I can't support myself or my girlfriend?
My girlfriend doesn't need my support... and she would be insulted by the assumption that she would need a man OR the governemnt to get by.
2. I wouldn't be able to raise a child with common sense or the ability to take care of herself?
I think my children would learn some very healthy lessons from the example me and my "partner" set.
It seems you have some archaic notions about marriage and women. So is chauvinism another one of your endearing qualities? and I wouldn't go bragging about being a landlord either.
Originally posted by trumptman
Obviously you seek continual breaking of the posting guidelines in an attempt to get the thread closed.
Since you can't win a debate on merits, you might as well silence everyone. Typical. If you can't understand the words that come out of my mouth or the even more detailed explanation afterward and yet you repeat the same lie hoping it will become true.
Your tactics show your true intent.
Nick
How am I breaking the posting guidlines? You equated using the word marriage with 'human sacrifice' and 'pedophilia,' not me. Those are your words.
What's my tactic? I'm calling you out on what you said: that a religion using the word 'marriage' is equal to murder and peodphelia.
Is there anyone (other than trumtman) here that thinks that equating use of the word 'marriage' to murder or pedophelia is anything other than a sign of insanity? I don't mean this as an insult, it just the way things are. Seriously. Anyone at all?
I think it's clear that the inability to make a distinction between using the word marriage and the rape of children is very, very dangerous. Is there anyone here that disagrees? Seriously. Anyone?
How is anyone supposed to respond to someone who says this?
Originally posted by giant
How am I breaking the posting guidlines? You equated using the word marriage with 'human sacrifice' and 'pedophilia,' not me. Those are your words.
What's my tactic? I'm calling you out on what you said: that a religion using the word 'marriage' is equal to murder and peodphelia.
Is there anyone (other than trumtman) here that thinks that equating use of the word 'marriage' to murder or pedophelia is anything other than a sign of insanity? I don't mean this as an insult, it just the way things are. Seriously. Anyone at all?
I think it's clear that the inability to make a distinction between using the word marriage and the rape of children is indicative of a dangerous person. Is there anyone here that disagrees? Seriously. Anyone?
Is there anyone else here who seriously cannot comprehend that the first amendment relates to civil free speech and civil laws "respecting" both the actions and speech of religious institutions.
I'll tell you what giant. Please show your own hypocracy here. If a church wants to engage in polygamy as part of their religious expression. Which amendment would they challenge it under?
Religious expression includes more than speech. Until you admit that you convince no one. You are throwing up the worlds most obvious straw man and no matter how many times you knock it down, you will not convince.
Human sacrifice, polygamy and pedophilia would not be allowed by our society even if a church declared that they were a vital part of their religious expression and beliefs. Even though we have the first amendment which protects, (come on you can comprehend this) not just religious SPEECH, but religious EXPRESSION of beliefs via actions, that does not mean we will always honor that seperation of church and state.
The state must prove a compelling reason to override the first amendment and tell a church that their beliefs cannot be followed because it harms society as a whole. Murder, polygamy, etc are examples of this.
So we have two points, around the first amendment. First the state cannot tell churches they must marry homosexuals or call commitment ceremonies marriage. Secondly even if there is a church out there that declares it does want to marry homosexuals, society as a whole might declare that the church cannot practice it's beliefs if they are viewed to harm society as a whole. (ie murder) That would still be up to the courts to determine, but since I don't consider polygamy to really be harming anyone, the bar must be lower for certain types of beliefs than others.
Of course right after this we will watch you quote a sentence from my post and repeat your lies over and over.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well it seems alot of assumptions have been made about me or people who choose to be together but don't make it "legal".
1. I can't support myself or my girlfriend?
My girlfriend doesn't need my support... and she would be insulted by the assumption that she would need a man OR the governemnt to get by.
2. I wouldn't be able to raise a child with common sense or the ability to take care of herself?
I think my children would learn some very healthy lessons from the example me and my "partner" set.
It seems you have some archaic notions about marriage and women. So is chauvinism another one of your endearing qualities? and I wouldn't go bragging about being a landlord either.
No only in your worldview would providing affordable housing for working class folks be a "bad" thing. Meanwhile you declare you won't commit to or support anyone and expect us to applaud. Typical. To me it is chauvanism to give women money for having children outside of marriage or for being "single"
1. As for your girlfriend being insulted, she is welcome to be just that. I don't live in a world where someone's feelings change the facts. If you want to declare yourself committed to someone and the declare that you two have built nothing together, committed no resources toward each other nor invested anything in each other, that is fine. However that is also not the definition of commitment. So in otherwords be offended or insulted all you want. I see the way the world works and your "offense" doesn't change that.
Likewise way to step around the issue. Your girlfriend (can't you think of a better name after 12 years?) doesn't need your support. You still don't say you are capable of supporting her do you. Likewise she can be "insulted" all the way to the bank with the assumption while still making use of the various programs available.
2. As for whether your child would have common sense, simply ask how common it is to have two people live together but commit none of their resources to each other. When your daughter brings home a man someday and he declares he loves her in words, but will have none of his actions reflect that we will see how well that sits with you.
Lastly as for the lessons that you and your partner have set. What would they be? Be nice or Daddy can leave Mommy at any time? Guess what, Mommy can't be sure that if Daddy dies that his assets and insurance won't be tied up in probate court since she has no legal claim? How about love is a verb, but to me it is just a word.
Nick