View Full Version : G.O.P. Senators Are Stalled in Talks on Marriage Bill
ALBANY — Anguished Senate Republicans held a four-hour meeting on Wednesday at which they were unable to decide even whether they would bring same-sex marriage to a vote, stalling a last-minute drive by supporters of the legislation.
The long-debated marriage measure, which has overshadowed all other issues in the final days of this legislative session, remained one vote shy of the number they needed for passage in the Republican-controlled Senate. The Democratic-controlled Assembly approved the legislation late Wednesday, by a vote of 80 to 63, and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is a strong supporter.
Dean G. Skelos, the Senate majority leader, emerged from his caucus’s meeting on Wednesday afternoon to say that Republicans had not decided how to proceed on the marriage bill, but would continue discussions on Thursday.
“We haven’t resolved anything other than that we’re going to continue our conference,” said Mr. Skelos, a Long Island Republican.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/nyregion/gop-senators-stalled-in-talks-on-gay-marriage-bill.html?ref=nyregion
Note: Published: June 15, 2011
The long-debated marriage measure, which has overshadowed all other issues in the final days of this legislative session, remained one vote shy of the number they needed for passage in the Republican-controlled Senate.
[Bold added by me]
This is such a frustration; everything grinds to a halt because of an issue that has no real bearing on the economic situation of the state, the pressing needs of the citizens or is even in the primary thoughts or condsiderations of the voters. As was so well-said back in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid". These little dog-and-pony sideshows do nothing to resolve the real problems. First, fix what's really broken, then take up whoever's pet issues. Shame on both sides for this sort of nonsense.
It ought to be noted that this is the New York State Senate the article is talking about not the United States Senate.
GoldenRivet
06-16-11, 05:49 PM
It ought to be noted that this is the New York State Senate the article is talking about not the United States Senate.
agreed
also....
let the gays get married for Christs sake... who really gives a damn?
seriously!
show of hands as to who gives a damn about this?
does anyone here really - truly - honestly care if gays get married?
is that what we are down to?
:nope: :haha:
This may be in New York, but the same situations are happening all over the US. Here in California, we are near statewide bankruptcy, countywide bankruptcy, and municipal bankruptcy. Yet, again and again, some fringe element (and I include both parties, in this) comes along and seemingly demands that everything stop until they get what they want. What is needed is a clearly defined establishment of priorities that is worked through in order of pressing importance to the greater whole of the citizens. After real issues are dealt with, then other, narrower needs can be dealt with; all it takes is for someone to take the lead.
[humor after the rant:
Minister: "We need to take up the tax"
Groucho: "I'd like to take up the carpet."
Minister: "I still insist we take up the tax."
Groucho: "He's right - you've gotta take up the tacks before you can take up the carpet."
Groucho Marx in Duck Soup
gimpy117
06-16-11, 06:13 PM
Rivet I agree, why is this such a big deal?
it's really none of our business!
Platapus
06-16-11, 07:50 PM
Gays should be allowed to marry.
Why should they have all the fun in life? :yep:
Ok then, you flip the bill for all the benifits these married couples will receive. I don't think the taxpayer should be on the hook for sexual behaviour.
Buddahaid
06-16-11, 11:37 PM
Ok then, you flip the bill for all the benifits these married couples will receive. I don't think the taxpayer should be on the hook for sexual behaviour.
Perfect. We should just outlaw marriage then as that involves sexual behavior and welfare children that will draw benefits.
Is there in this case any rules that he does not get married in NC, :hmmm:
Perfect. We should just outlaw marriage then as that involves sexual behavior and welfare children that will draw benefits.
Sounds good to me. People shouldn't get tax breaks for having children. If anything they should pay a penalty tax to cover the increased amount of public resources they will utilize.
Well it sounds like you would rather take care of gay couples, than take care of children and struggling families it's your money knock yourself out. Oh by the way we're broke.
mookiemookie
06-17-11, 09:41 AM
The inevitable march of history and equality continues, no matter how much the backward and fearful try to stop it.
And this could be just the shot in the arm that the economy needs. The wedding planning business will be booming with new clients. Affluent, childless clients. :ping:
Well it sounds like you would rather take care of gay couples, than take care of children and struggling families it's your money knock yourself out. Oh by the way we're broke.
I don't want to take care of any of them, gay or straight. I especially don't like being forced to do so by my government.
:cool:well you need to tell that, too your governmental represenitives, I'm the one that just throws gasoline onto a housefire, too see what runs out. If anyone thinks this economically vieable, watch what businesses and the insurance companies do.
mookiemookie
06-17-11, 08:16 PM
:cool:well you need to tell that, too your governmental represenitives, I'm the one that just throws gasoline onto a housefire, too see what runs out. If anyone thinks this economically vieable, watch what businesses and the insurance companies do.
What, you mean the $100 million that gay marriage has made for Massachusetts? (http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/BusinessBoost.pdf") Or the $63.8 million that legalizing gay marriage in California would bring to the state? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07marriage.html). Legalizing marriage for more people brings tourism and weeding planning dollars in to an economy. This is basic business sense and economics.
If you truly cared about the economics of gay marriage, you'd be all for it instead of using it as an excuse for your bigotry.
This is basic business sense and economics.
Now, now!
You can't go bringing things like logic and facts into this debate!
What, you mean the $100 million that gay marriage has made for Massachusetts? (http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/BusinessBoost.pdf%22)
Woah.
First off Massachusetts has not made 100 million on gay marriage. That is just an estimate of what it might make if they overturn the old law against out of stater unsanctioned marriage and a pretty unrealistic estimate at that.
Also, making that money depends on no other state also getting into the gay marriage game. Nobody is going to travel all the way out here if they can find a similar situation closer (like say, California for example?)
In short it's a pipe dream fantasy being pushed to promote a political agenda.
mookiemookie
06-17-11, 09:17 PM
Woah.
First off Massachusetts has not made 100 million on gay marriage. That is just an estimate of what it might make if they overturn the old law against out of stater unsanctioned marriage and a pretty unrealistic estimate at that.
According to a 2008 article in The Boston Globe, gay marriage has pumped over $100 million into the Massachusetts economy, with $5 million coming from marriage license fees and sales and occupancy taxes. (http://www.missourirecord.com/news/index.asp?article=10072)
If you want to go back and buy the Boston Globe reprint of the article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/07/15/state_sees_economics_of_gay_marriage/), have at it.
Secondly, you may be right if marriage for all was legalized nationwide. But the fact still remains that money would still be spent on marriage, providing an economic boost to whereever it was spent. And finally, equal rights doesn't need a "pipe dream fantasy" for justification. It's just simply the right thing to do and any argument to the contrary is based in bigotry.
According to a 2008 article in The Boston Globe, gay marriage has pumped over $100 million into the Massachusetts economy, with $5 million coming from marriage license fees and sales and occupancy taxes. (http://www.missourirecord.com/news/index.asp?article=10072)
If you want to go back and buy the Boston Globe reprint of the article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/07/15/state_sees_economics_of_gay_marriage/), have at it.
Secondly, you may be right if marriage for all was legalized nationwide. But the fact still remains that money would still be spent on marriage, providing an economic boost to whereever it was spent. And finally, equal rights doesn't need a "pipe dream fantasy" for justification. It's just simply the right thing to do and any argument to the contrary is based in bigotry.
Don't tell me what my argument is based on mookie. Name calling and belittling those that hold different opinions does not prove anything besides the degree of rudeness your side is prepared to demonstrate to achieve your divisive ends.
Your link points to a 2009 article written by a Democrat party operative and references a 2008 liberal newspaper article about repealing a 100 year old law that prohibits the state from marrying out of staters who cannot marry according to the laws of their home state, not how much Massachusetts made on gay marriage before, during or since.
mookiemookie
06-18-11, 07:01 AM
Don't tell me what my argument is based on mookie. Name calling and belittling those that hold different opinions does not prove anything besides the degree of rudeness your side is prepared to demonstrate to achieve your divisive ends.
Denying people equal rights based on their innate, inborn characteristics is bigotry. The solution isn't for me to not point that out - the solution is for people not to hold bigoted beliefs. I'm usually respectful of differing beliefs, but when it comes to equal rights, I have no respect for someone who doesn't believe in them.
And to attempt to make this party politics? Equal rights are not a left vs right issue. That means we're done here.
That means we're done here.
Fine, run away then. You spout blatant propaganda, then when I point it out you start making insulting personal comments. It's a typical liberal tactic. Well trying to make the argument about me does not make that crap you posted any less the crap that it is.
Your 100 million claim is based on a 2009 article written by a Democrat party operative and references a 2008 liberal newspaper article about repealing a 100 year old law that prohibits the state from marrying out of staters who cannot marry according to the laws of their home state, not how much Massachusetts made on gay marriage before, during or since.
Now either that is accurate or not, but ignoring it and resorting to personal attacks only shows that you can't debate the facts.
mookiemookie
06-18-11, 09:51 AM
Fine, run away then. You spout blatant propaganda, then when I point it out you start making insulting personal comments. It's a typical liberal tactic. Well trying to make the argument about me does not make that crap you posted any less the crap that it is.
Your 100 million claim is based on a 2009 article written by a Democrat party operative and references a 2008 liberal newspaper article about repealing a 100 year old law that prohibits the state from marrying out of staters who cannot marry according to the laws of their home state, not how much Massachusetts made on gay marriage before, during or since.
Now either that is accurate or not, but ignoring it and resorting to personal attacks only shows that you can't debate the facts.
The fact is bigots want to deny the same rights enoyed by others to a certain group of people based on an inborn characteristic. If you are in support of that, you're a bigot. Everything else is irrelevant details. Sorry if you think it's personal, but if the shoe fits...
The fact is bigots want to deny the same rights enoyed by others to a certain group of people based on an inborn characteristic. If you are in support of that, you're a bigot. Everything else is irrelevant details. Sorry if you think it's personal, but if the shoe fits...
No, the fact is that you post blatantly false propaganda, and when a resident of the state in question calls you on it you completely ignore the point and resort to personal insults. :shifty:
Tribesman
06-18-11, 11:04 AM
Name calling and belittling those that hold different opinions does not prove anything besides the degree of rudeness your side is prepared to demonstrate to achieve your divisive ends.
Its the pot I tell ya and it is somewhat darkened.
Its always that side, it is them that is divisive.
Its always liberals liberals liberals that are the problem, never wingnuts wingnuts wingnuts.
Simple equation though on a financial side that was raised, would Elton John spend more on a marriage than Madonna .....ask the florist:rotfl2:
Its the pot I tell ya and it is somewhat darkened.
Its always that side, it is them that is divisive.
Its always liberals liberals liberals that are the problem, never wingnuts wingnuts wingnuts.
Simple equation though on a financial side that was raised, would Elton John spend more on a marriage than Madonna .....ask the florist:rotfl2:
http://toppun.com/Gay-Lesbian-Pride/Marriage-So-GAY.gif
:rotfl2:
mookiemookie
06-18-11, 12:49 PM
No, the fact is that you post blatantly false propaganda, and when a resident of the state in question calls you on it you completely ignore the point and resort to personal insults. :shifty:
Again, irrelevant details. Even if legalizing marriage for everyone did not provide an economic benefit...even if it cost money overall, it's still the right thing to do because denying rights to people based on who they are is bigotry. If someone advocates denying someone equal rights, that. person. is. a. bigot.
Again, irrelevant details.
So in other words the ends justifies the means eh? :nope:
mookiemookie
06-18-11, 02:27 PM
So in other words the ends justifies the means eh? :nope:
Equality for equality's sake is all that matters.
What's being missed here is the time and effort being taken by the politicians on a non-priority issue. Ultimately, the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be settled by the courts, probably the Supreme Court. There are already a number of cases and suits making their way up the appeal chain. Adding another is not going to expedite the process or clarify the issue. What is happening is politicians with a narrow agenda taking away from the legislative process with what amounts to, in essence, a nuisance issue. Just as they attempt to attach whatever issue they espouse (same-sex marriage, abortion, prayer in school, etc.) to any and all attempts at meaningful, productive legislation aimed at vital, priority issues (the economy, jobs, etc.), they are like little nuisance leeches, attempting to gain political capital with their narrow constituency (or, at least, who they percieve to be their consituency). While the vast majority of the population, in general, and the voting public, in particular, couldn't give a monkey's about their fetishes, they insist on bringing everything to a grinding halt just because they can.
Buddahaid
06-18-11, 02:48 PM
What's being missed here is the time and effort being taken by the politicians on a non-priority issue. Ultimately, the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be settled by the courts, probably the Supreme Court. There are already a number of cases and suits making their way up the appeal chain. Adding another is not going to expedite the process or clarify the issue. What is happening is politicians with a narrow agenda taking away from the legislative process with what amounts to, in essence, a nuisance issue. Just as they attempt to attach whatever issue they espouse (same-sex marriage, abortion, prayer in school, etc.) to any and all attempts at meaningful, productive legislation aimed at vital, priority issues (the economy, jobs, etc.), they are like little nuisance leeches, attempting to gain political capital with their narrow constituency (or, at least, who they percieve to be their consituency). While the vast majority of the population, in general, and the voting public, in particular, couldn't give a monkey's about their fetishes, they insist on bringing everything to a grinding halt just because they can.
I agree it's just smoke to avoid the tough issues and seem diligent at the same time. Class A trash the lot.
@Buddahaid: Just noted the "SF Giants" in your sig; as a born & bred San Franciscan, I applaud your choice of team; I am now living in Los Angeles (Hollywood area); we Giants fans here now apparently have to live in fear of our lives... ;)
Molon Labe
06-18-11, 04:47 PM
I think we should allow "civil unions" to swallow the institution of marriage as far as the government is involved. Any couple, gay or straight, would be able to receive the same civil union and whatever benefits and recognition that comes with it.
Marriage would still exist, but it would exist outside of government, probably only in churches.
PS, earlier in the thread someone mentioned that this is going to end up decided by the Supreme Court. I say not very likely. This is a public policy debate and is highly polarizing--exactly the kind of mess the Court likes to stay far, far away from. They are going to duck the issue for as long as they possibly can, letting the political process take its course.
PS, earlier in the thread someone mentioned that this is going to end up decided by the Supreme Court. I say not very likely. This is a public policy debate and is highly polarizing--exactly the kind of mess the Court likes to stay far, far away from. They are going to duck the issue for as long as they possibly can, letting the political process take its course.
I think there might still be a very good possibility a future court would rule. If you look at the Court based on it's current composition and leadership, they rather might "duck the issue". If you take into account future vacancies and the persons who might fill those voids and their possible leanings, a stronger chance for a ruling exists. Add to this the growing sentiment in favor of a sort of "laissez-faire" approach to same-sex unions and the public's growing weariness with the issue, the Court making the decision to rule or not may be less influenced by a dwindling opposition to the issue. Currently, it may not be taken up directly by the Court. But there will be lower appeals court rulings and, given past decisions, the rulings will most likely not be in the bible-thumpers favor. There is then the possibilty of the Court, in essence, not directly ruling on the case(s), instead just allowing the lower appeals court(s) ruling(s) to stand. If enough states were to allow same-sex unions, the issue would then shift to equal-protection issues across the States.
Platapus
06-18-11, 06:26 PM
I kinda like the way marriage is done in Germany.
The Frau tells me that everyone gets a civil ceremony by a government official. This establishes the legal state of marriage.
Then the couple can, if they want, have a second marriage ceremony at a religious place. This establishes a spiritual or religious state of marriage.
The problem in the US is that in the past we have merged the legal state of marriage and the spiritual state of marriage. The two should be separate.
That way gay couples can get legally married and religions still have the right to refuse to marry who they don't like.
Win win.
Gays get what they want, and no one is interfering with the rights of religious organizations.
Seems like a simple solution to me.
Equality for equality's sake is all that matters.
Well just remember that your standard justifies all sorts of evil. When it happens you will be partly at fault.
I think we should allow "civil unions" to swallow the institution of marriage as far as the government is involved. Any couple, gay or straight, would be able to receive the same civil union and whatever benefits and recognition that comes with it.
Marriage would still exist, but it would exist outside of government, probably only in churches.
Put your helmet on Molon. The last time I advocated the exact same idea here at the GT I was immediately attacked by several people.
Put your helmet on Molon. The last time I advocated the exact same idea here at the GT I was immediately attacked by several people.
Civil marriage sounds reasonable.
Why should you get attacked?
If someone is for guy marriage and against civil one sort of contradict himself.
Civil marriage sounds reasonable.
Why should you get attacked?
If someone is for guy marriage and against civil one sort of contradict himself.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183178&highlight=civil+union&page=2
Start at my post number 29.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183178&highlight=civil+union&page=2
Start at my post number 29.
I don't get it.
same people who do yada yada about separating church from government want to force church to marry gays.
It sound like they want to force on religion about anything for the heck of it.
I know in Judaism there are fraction that allow guy marriage and in Christianity possibly as well.
The couple may have their religious ceremony with them.
If the mainstream decides some day to do it as well the let it be.
Whats the big deal?
AS FOR NOW ITS AGAINST MAINTREAM RELIGUS BELIFS.
ITS THEIR RIGHT TO VIEW IT AS WRONG THING.
mookiemookie
06-18-11, 08:53 PM
AS FOR NOW ITS AGAINST MAINTREAM RELIGUS BELIFS.
ITS THEIR RIGHT TO VIEW IT AS WRONG THING.
Indeed it is, but it is completely abhorrent for a secular government to view it as wrong and disallow it.
same people who do yada yada about separating church from government want to force church to marry gays.
I don't remember seeing anyone say that the government should force any church to perform a wedding the church does not agree with. For my first marriage, I had to comply with what that church asked of me before they would perform the wedding.
AS FOR NOW ITS AGAINST MAINTREAM RELIGUS BELIFS.
ITS THEIR RIGHT TO VIEW IT AS WRONG THING.
Any church is free to believe and require whatever they feel they need to, and no church should be forced to conduct a ceremony that goes against their doctrine.
My point in that thread was that creating separate civil unions independent from marriages opens up a number of possible questions, and that that process will lead, within a few years, to both civil unions and marriages being considered "marriage". Simply, language will shift to match with usage. Why not just go ahead and let it happen, instead of fighting vocabulary? Aside from that, it is a workable solution, and if that's what it takes, then so be it.
Edit:
Indeed it is, but it is completely abhorrent for a secular government to view it as wrong and disallow it.
Wouldn't this be a case of the government not allowing churches to conduct gay marriages, even if the church feels it is appropriate?
Whats the big deal?
I dunno. You got people like Mookie saying that the ends justify the means, others who see no problem with the government performing the same rites as religions. Who knows to what lengths they will go?
and that that process will lead, within a few years, to both civil unions and marriages being considered "marriage". Simply, language will shift to match with usage.
No the common usage will shift to "Civil Union", or whatever other secular name they come up with to describe a secular government license.
Leave the word "Marriage" to religion and you undercut their moral argument against including gays.
No the common usage will shift to "Civil Union", or whatever other secular name they come up with to describe a secular government license.
I would expect people to use the more familiar and established term, rather than some new phrase. It's possible, but I don't see it as likely.
Leave the word "Marriage" to religion and you undercut their moral argument against including gays.
Except that "marriage" is not an exclusively religious term even now, nor has it ever really been an exclusively religious concept.
No the common usage will shift to "Civil Union", or whatever other secular name they come up with to describe a secular government license.
Leave the word "Marriage" to religion and you undercut their moral argument against including gays.
Probably you will have two guys or girls saying lets get married and then they will sign civil union certificate.:yeah:
Problem solved.
Some still may claim that basic values go to hell and end is near but if that's the biggest problem then everything will be OK.
Some gays will probably want the pope to wear pink robe but who cares.
I would expect people to use the more familiar and established term, rather than some new phrase. It's possible, but I don't see it as likely.
At one time "thee" and "thou" were the more familiar and established terms so I don't buy that argument.
Except that "marriage" is not an exclusively religious term even now, nor has it ever really been an exclusively religious concept.
If you believe in separation of church and state then government has no business sharing any kind of rites or ceremonies with religion.
mookiemookie
06-19-11, 07:09 AM
Wouldn't this be a case of the government not allowing churches to conduct gay marriages, even if the church feels it is appropriate? Freedom of religion works both ways. No religion in government, no government in religion. That's true. But it also works both ways in the fact that the government can allow gays to marry and the church can view it as not valid, just as the other way around.
If you believe in separation of church and state then government has no business sharing any kind of rites or ceremonies with religion.
So why can any man and woman of any religious or non-religious persuasion get married by the JOP and have it viewed as valid? Because marriage is not a religious institution and is not viewed that way by the government. In your world of marriage being a strictly religious thing, you'd have the Baptists saying the Catholic marriage wasn't valid, and the Catholics saying Jewish marriages don't count, and the Muslims saying none of the others were true marriages in the eyes of Allah.
These are the same old tired arguments that have been addressed a kajillion times before:
Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage
Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
So why can any man and woman of any religious or non-religious persuasion get married by the JOP and have it viewed as valid?
For the same reason that the government shouldn't be conducting bar-mitsvas or communions or baptisms or any other religious rite. Oh that's right, you'd be in favor of that because after all "Equality for equality's sake is all that matters"... :roll:
Tribesman
06-19-11, 12:07 PM
For the same reason that the government shouldn't be conducting bar-mitsvas or communions or baptisms or any other religious rite.
Whoda thunk that August was in favour of sharia law in America:har::har::har::har::har:
After all if the government has to stay out of such things as "religious" marriage it can have no say in divorce inheritance or custody as that must be left to religious courts, I suppose this will lead of course to two year olds getting married and the unborn being traded as a future business commodity between families by religious elders who have wisdom from some old tale they pretend to have read and undertood.
mookiemookie
06-19-11, 01:01 PM
For the same reason that the government shouldn't be conducting bar-mitsvas or communions or baptisms or any other religious rite. Oh that's right, you'd be in favor of that because after all "Equality for equality's sake is all that matters"... :roll:
What kind of mental gymnastics did you go through to come up with that? And furthermore, what point are you even trying to make? You've twisted things so much that I have no idea what you're even on about now. In your attempt to twist my words to mean something I didn't mean (and that's a petty and immature way to argue a point), you've now entered the realm of the incomprehensible.
Marriage is not solely a religious institution. I doubt any same sex couple cares if their marriage is viewed as valid by a religious organization. All that matters is that they have the same right to marry as everyone else and have it viewed as valid by the government. Equality is a bedrock value of our country. Anyone that tries to deny that to others is a bigot and deserves all the scorn and shame in the world.
Bakkels
06-19-11, 01:32 PM
This thread is turning a little bit in the direction of personal attacks I think :hmmm: And I'm having a major déja vu here. Didn't we have the exact same discussion just a couple of weeks ago? Ah what the heck.
I got to agree with Mookie, August. What exactly is your point on this? Do you think gays shouldn't be allowed to be married? Or are you saying that they can, but that they can't call it marriage?
I really can't make it out...
Well anywyay, I say let them marry. Churches can decide for themselves if they want to allow gay marriages within their own church. The most important factor imo is that you are born gay. It's not a choice. You can't deny anyone a basic right because they are different by birth.
I agree with August on this by the way:
Sounds good to me. People shouldn't get tax breaks for having children. If anything they should pay a penalty tax to cover the increased amount of public resources they will utilize.
And there are already too many people inhabiting this earth.
Whoda thunk that August was in favour of sharia law in America:har::har::har::har::har:
After all if the government has to stay out of such things as "religious" marriage it can have no say in divorce inheritance or custody as that must be left to religious courts, I suppose this will lead of course to two year olds getting married and the unborn being traded as a future business commodity between families by religious elders who have wisdom from some old tale they pretend to have read and undertood.
I heard somewhere the above usually doesn't happen.
Its reserved only for really small group of people that is so small that almost doesn't exist.
Do you really try to read what August says or you looking for opportunity to add some smileys.
Carry on....
FIREWALL
06-19-11, 02:30 PM
:o...
Tribesman
06-19-11, 05:24 PM
Do you really try to read what August says or you looking for opportunity to add some smileys.
I read it, did you?
Then again you have shown today how hard you find it to even understand what you have written yourself.
But hey I will give you a chance to try and show that you have a point and are not just being a troll again.
If as August suggests governments should have no role in "religious" rites how many areas of legal disputes does the government therefore give over to solely religious law for settlement?
August. What exactly is your point on this?
All I wanted to do is point out that the 100 million dollars that mookie claims my state made from gay marriage is bull. But apparently that doesn't matter much to him since he feels the goal of gay equality justifies anything including outright lies to get there. It sorta went downhill from there.
Do you really try to read what August says or you looking for opportunity to add some smileys.
Carry on....
Of course he doesn't. He's here to troll and that's all he does. I put him on ignore long ago. Now if you people would just stop quoting his flame bait it'd be like he wasn't even here.
Bakkels
06-19-11, 05:46 PM
I read it, did you?
Then again you have shown today how hard you find it to even understand what you have written yourself.
But hey I will give you a chance to try and show that you have a point and are not just being a troll again.
If as August suggests governments should have no role in "religious" rites how many areas of legal disputes does the government therefore give over to solely religious law for settlement?
Trolling? Something about a pot and a kettle. Jeez Tribesman, I think we agree on this topic but you're making that very hard for me. Most threads you enter it usually takes only two posts or less before you start to personally attack people who don't agree with you, belittle them and resort to name-calling.
I haven't got a clue what you find so pleasing about doing this. Because it happens almost every time. Not just the occasional emotional slip-up, but almost every thread ends in you being obnoxious and rude.
I know this probably won't help one single bit, but I had to get that off my chest. Goodnight.
*edit* Just saw your post August. I've never put anybody on my ignore list in a forum before, but there's a first time for everything I guess.
Tribesman
06-19-11, 05:52 PM
Of course he doesn't. He's here to troll and that's all he does.
Pointing out that August wants sharia law is not trolling, its showing his position to be what it is.
The simple fact that he has left himself with a position which is indefensible shows that he hasn't thought much on the topic at all and is just spouting nonsense.
I put him on ignore long ago
Ignorance is bliss, I think those religous courts August is seemingly in favour of would agree with that sentiment, after all they wouldn't want thinking people involved in strictly religeous matters like marriage and divorce, far better for them to stick their fingers in their ears and live in their imaginary bubble:rotfl2:
BTW when you put me on "ignore" was that by any chance when you got a warning for trolling?:yeah:
Tribesman
06-19-11, 05:59 PM
Jeez Tribesman, I think we agree on this topic but you're making that very hard for me.
What is hard, if someone is taking a stance that government should have no role in marriage and extending it to be that government should have no role in any "religious rites" then they are supporting the introduction of religious courts to rule legally over a wide aspect of life and society.
It isn't hard to see that such a view is indefensible and can only be made by someone who either is a religious nut(which I don't think August is) or someone who simply is spouting a very strong view without thinking about it at all.
mookiemookie
06-19-11, 05:59 PM
But apparently that doesn't matter much to him since he feels the goal of gay equality justifies anything including outright lies to get there.
The only reason I brought up that article was to counter yubba's rambling about gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because he thinks it would cost the country money to allow that. You act as if refuting that article is the be all and end all of the marriage equality argument. It's not. I don't buy it, but even if allowing everyone to marry costs money, it's still the right thing to do. There is no price on civil rights.
You act as if refuting that article is the be all and end all of the marriage equality argument.
Nope. That's something you have projected on me which you seem to do fairly often. Personally unless it costs me money I don't really care but if you're going to resort to making fallacies to support your argument on a public forum then expect someone to call you on it.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.