skyrider 0 #126 December 10, 2010 Quote >They have the right to be domestic parteners Agreed. They just don't have the right to marry. >with all the same legal rights No. Federal law lists 1,138 protections afforded to married couples that are not afforded to domestic partners. All states recognize marriage; very few states recognize each other's domestic partnership agreements. >The Military does not allow many Open life styles, Gay is just one of them! Show me the rule that prohibits openly heterosexual soldiers from serving, then. "Marriage" is a religious term.....Meaning a man and woman....Ya can't rewrite relegion....and I dont; even believe in it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 104 #127 December 10, 2010 Quote Quote >They have the right to be domestic parteners Agreed. They just don't have the right to marry. >with all the same legal rights No. Federal law lists 1,138 protections afforded to married couples that are not afforded to domestic partners. All states recognize marriage; very few states recognize each other's domestic partnership agreements. >The Military does not allow many Open life styles, Gay is just one of them! Show me the rule that prohibits openly heterosexual soldiers from serving, then. "Marriage" is a religious term.....Meaning a man and woman....Ya can't rewrite relegion....and I dont; even believe in it! Since when is the government supposed to be sanctioning and giving special treatment to citizens who believe in certain religious ceremonies. Oh wait, they aren't! So the ideal solution would be for the government to get out of marriage altogether and issue civil unions to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. But, that will not happen anytime soon. So, until it does I guess we should give the religious folx special treatment and not care that it doesn't afford gays and lesbians the same rights?Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #128 December 10, 2010 Quote Quote Quote >They have the right to be domestic parteners Agreed. They just don't have the right to marry. >with all the same legal rights No. Federal law lists 1,138 protections afforded to married couples that are not afforded to domestic partners. All states recognize marriage; very few states recognize each other's domestic partnership agreements. >The Military does not allow many Open life styles, Gay is just one of them! Show me the rule that prohibits openly heterosexual soldiers from serving, then. "Marriage" is a religious term.....Meaning a man and woman....Ya can't rewrite relegion....and I dont; even believe in it! Since when is the government supposed to be sanctioning and giving special treatment to citizens who believe in certain religious ceremonies. Oh wait, they aren't! So the ideal solution would be for the government to get out of marriage altogether and issue civil unions to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. But, that will not happen anytime soon. So, until it does I guess we should give the religious folx special treatment and not care that it doesn't afford gays and lesbians the same rights? It is not just religious A JP can marry a man and a woman and no religion is involved"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #129 December 10, 2010 Well, since much liek every subject, it has to become about Gays, (damn they whine a lot) Can a gay person claim sexual assault by the TSA, if they are searched by a same sex agent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #130 December 10, 2010 Quote Since when is the government supposed to be sanctioning and giving special treatment to citizens who believe in certain religious ceremonies. Oh wait, they aren't! So the ideal solution would be for the government to get out of marriage altogether and issue civil unions to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. But, that will not happen anytime soon. So, until it does I guess we should give the religious folx special treatment and not care that it doesn't afford gays and lesbians the same rights? I like your solution better than what we currently have but frankly there is no need for government to be involved in people's personal relationships at all and no need for them to treat people in different ways based on their relationship status."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 104 #131 December 10, 2010 QuoteI like your solution better than what we currently have but frankly there is no need for government to be involved in people's personal relationships at all and no need for them to treat people in different ways based on their relationship status. I completely agree, all I am saying is that as long as the govt is sticking their nose in it, they just need to do it equally for everyone. I would prefer they got out of the relationship business altogether but that isn't very likely.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 104 #132 December 10, 2010 QuoteIt is not just religious A JP can marry a man and a woman and no religion is involved I agree, I was just responding to Skyrider's statement. You can't have it both ways. Either it is about religion and the govt should stay out of it, or it isn't and they should treat everyone the same.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #133 December 10, 2010 QuotePost 76. "Apparently you think YOU do." - Implication that rush is making a decision about whose religion gets disrespected, when he's advocating treating everyone equally. Holy crapola, Mike. You choose to read THAT into it? The implication, given all his previous statements, was: "So, your way is the only way?" QuoteStill waiting on the explanation of how treating everyone equally is 'close-minded' or inane. I'm sorry you choose to equate "treating everyone equally" to "close-minded". You missed the point by 1.375 miles. Re-read post 79 and this time don't split up the two sentences representing one thought...like you did in post 81. It tells you what I think close-minded means with respect to his statements. Quote"Hard to argue against that, eh? -Well, not if you might think flying is a "right" of some sort, I guess." It's not. Bingo! At least you got that part right. Quote"-Well, not if you might want to accommodate people so they CAN fly." They *can* fly - they just have to go through the same security procedures as everyone else. Damn! Two in a row! Congrats! The choices are: 1. Fly, but in order to do so you must have your personal sense of propriety violated....and that goes beyond just the religion aspect. 2. Take some other mode of transportation. It's really, really simple, Mike. There are many ways to handle the problem. One is currently in use. There ARE other, workable options. If it's beyond you to consider other options, then yes, you may be considered to be close-minded. Me? I say let's look at those other options. Can you think of any? I made light of one of those options taken to the extreme when I put in the blurb about the many, many doors down the hallway. I thought it was funny. Others may not. Are we clear here? If not, please let it go. I am unwilling to re-clarify to alleviate your misunderstanding. Is that close-minded? You bet!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #134 December 10, 2010 >"Marriage" is a religious term.....Meaning a man and woman.... It used to be a religious term meaning between two people of the same race. We changed that, which was a good thing. It used to be a religious term meaning between a man and a woman. We're changing that, too - which is a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #135 December 10, 2010 Quote Well, since much liek every subject, it has to become about Gays, (damn they whine a lot) Can a gay person claim sexual assault by the TSA, if they are searched by a same sex agent? I dunno, but if you bust a nut while they are patting you down YOU could be arrested for assault on THEM. This is a situation where staying power is really, really needed...save it for the bathroom just beyond the pat-down area. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #136 December 10, 2010 Quote>"Marriage" is a religious term.....Meaning a man and woman.... It used to be a religious term meaning between two people of the same race. We changed that, which was a good thing. It used to be a religious term meaning between a man and a woman. We're changing that, too - which is a good thing. Could it be that man-sheep is not too far out in the future? Would human-human be too restrictive? Just sayin', going along with the drift...My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #137 December 10, 2010 QuoteQuotePost 76. "Apparently you think YOU do." - Implication that rush is making a decision about whose religion gets disrespected, when he's advocating treating everyone equally. Holy crapola, Mike. You choose to read THAT into it? The implication, given all his previous statements, was: "So, your way is the only way?" QuoteStill waiting on the explanation of how treating everyone equally is 'close-minded' or inane. I'm sorry you choose to equate "treating everyone equally" to "close-minded". You missed the point by 1.375 miles. Re-read post 79 and this time don't split up the two sentences representing one thought...like you did in post 81. It tells you what I think close-minded means with respect to his statements. Quote"Hard to argue against that, eh? -Well, not if you might think flying is a "right" of some sort, I guess." It's not. Bingo! At least you got that part right. Quote"-Well, not if you might want to accommodate people so they CAN fly." They *can* fly - they just have to go through the same security procedures as everyone else. Damn! Two in a row! Congrats! The choices are: 1. Fly, but in order to do so you must have your personal sense of propriety violated....and that goes beyond just the religion aspect. 2. Take some other mode of transportation. It's really, really simple, Mike. There are many ways to handle the problem. One is currently in use. There ARE other, workable options. If it's beyond you to consider other options, then yes, you may be considered to be close-minded. Me? I say let's look at those other options. Can you think of any? I made light of one of those options taken to the extreme when I put in the blurb about the many, many doors down the hallway. I thought it was funny. Others may not. Are we clear here? If not, please let it go. I am unwilling to re-clarify to alleviate your misunderstanding. Is that close-minded? You bet! Boy you sure are twisting away My point was You want to fly you dont get special treatment which you seem to agree with here So, after all your posts here I have not a clue what you mean anymore You getting enough sleep?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #138 December 10, 2010 QuoteQuote Since when is the government supposed to be sanctioning and giving special treatment to citizens who believe in certain religious ceremonies. Oh wait, they aren't! So the ideal solution would be for the government to get out of marriage altogether and issue civil unions to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. But, that will not happen anytime soon. So, until it does I guess we should give the religious folx special treatment and not care that it doesn't afford gays and lesbians the same rights? I like your solution better than what we currently have but frankly there is no need for government to be involved in people's personal relationships at all and no need for them to treat people in different ways based on their relationship status. We have a winner...Exactly... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #139 December 11, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I have longtime gay and minority friends White guy: I was born a black man in Mississippi... \And here YOU DO what you post you despise Do as I say? Oki Great post says a bunch WAFJAmazon pulled that shit on me too Was easy to prove her wrong you just pick something and you know they are lies impressive Context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Vp9fQ616k Every year when the Phone Books appear on my front porch I have to restrain myself from running around while waving one over my head and yelling "THE NEW PHONE BOOKS ARE HERE, THE NEW PHONE BOOKS ARE HERE""There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #140 December 11, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote I have longtime gay and minority friends White guy: I was born a black man in Mississippi... \And here YOU DO what you post you despise Do as I say? Oki Great post says a bunch WAFJAmazon pulled that shit on me too Was easy to prove her wrong you just pick something and you know they are lies impressive Context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Vp9fQ616k Every year when the Phone Books appear on my front porch I have to restrain myself from running around while waving one over my head and yelling "THE NEW PHONE BOOKS ARE HERE, THE NEW PHONE BOOKS ARE HERE" Dont need the link as I know the referenceBut I am glad it works for you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #141 December 23, 2010 Quote Let's get some beers and talk. Beer summit complete. I had PBR and Labrys had miller light. We talked gays, voip, swooping, and the florida keys. Kelly didn't let me spend a dime either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #142 December 24, 2010 Hey....we also discussed the Clark Belt.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
