Andy95W Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Scott- totally agree. Marriage IS a religious thing. Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser's, render unto God that which is God's. Classic seperation of Church and State. My marriage to my wife is between me and God. When I file my taxes with the government as "Married" that is a contract with the government. If gays want that right, go ahead; if their church supports gay marriage, that is between them and God; if their church doesn't support gay marriage, then they can find a different church.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 So what you really want is to take the "marriage" out of "marriage". Just a business contract? I agree with getting Marriage out of the government. It is a legal contract, but so can whatever gays do to make their "arrangement" legally binding. There should be no tax advantage or disadvantage based on "being married". Marriage is a religious "thing". Gays say they want "in" on the marriage thing because of the advantages. O.K. get rid of any tax advantage or disadvantage of "marriage". Don't make religion's change "their ways" for others. Let others have their own LLC/contract... Don't get "marriage" just because they want to be included at the cost of religious belief... Courts say they can "co-opt" the word. Classic Progressive... WRONG. Bullshit Scott, Marriage is not a religious thing, not for everyone. 16% of married Americans are not religious and did not have a religious marriage. I did not. We had a civil marriage with all the rights it entails. It's still a marriage, well, maybe not in the eyes of the Lord but his opinion does not matter here. For all intents and purposes, it is a marriage, in the yes of the law. We did not steal the word from the Catholic church. The concept existed long before the church did. Did people marry BC? Yes they did. Under Roman law, it was a civil contract. No one in the LGBT community wants to force any church to recognize anything by the force of law. The churches are private institutions and can do as they please. Nothing stops the LGBT community from lobbying said churches and some are more open to the idea than others. It's called freedom. But for as long as government offers goodies to married couples, the government has no right to deny any two people that right. Actually, that is incorrect. I am a strong believer the states have a right to deny anyone a right to get married in their state. However, due to equal process clause of the constitution, even the states that deny a right to get married in their states to certain group, must still recognize marriages performed in another states for all purposes of their laws. Some states allow cousins to marry, some don't, but all will divorce them. Should be identical with gay marriage. Let's get the state out of the marriage business and out of the church business. Tax everyone equally.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 I say marriage is a religious thing and you get all "Bullshit Scott". Why? We agree here more than we don't. I will re-state. For many that are religious...marriage is a "religious thing". I am not a practicer of organized religion. Got married in a Catholic church, took some classes, because my wife was Catholic. Whatever. To many the union of marriage is directly tied to their religion. I have no problem with them wanting to exclude others from their club. I do not wish to be in "their club" anyway. I don't like others forcing others to allow them into their club and calling it discrimination. They are "free to join" if they follow the "clubs" guidelines. If not....NOPE. Go start your own club... Cause I like saying "Bullshit, Scott". Might even get a bumper sticker.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 "No one in the LGBT community wants to force any church to recognize anything by the force of law"...I WILL CALL BULLSHIT RIGHT BACK AT YOU. You use past tense on marriage...Divorced? Show me where a law was proposed to force any church to marry or recognize any marriage? How would you even go about it? Well, yes, as marriage actually happens, at least from the legal point of view, to be most important when it's in or about to be in past tense, as in divorce or death.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 I say marriage is a religious thing and you get all "Bullshit Scott". Why? We agree here more than we don't. I will re-state. For many that are religious...marriage is a "religious thing". I am not a practicer of organized religion. Got married in a Catholic church, took some classes, because my wife was Catholic. Whatever. To many the union of marriage is directly tied to their religion. I have no problem with them wanting to exclude others from their club. I do not wish to be in "their club" anyway. I don't like others forcing others to allow them into their club and calling it discrimination. They are "free to join" if they follow the "clubs" guidelines. If not....NOPE. Go start your own club... The fed and/or state government are unfortunately not a club you get to opt out off, as much as it pains both of us...The only proven afterlife so far is the probate court...
John Pleisse Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 I say marriage is a religious thing and you get all "Bullshit Scott". Why? We agree here more than we don't. I will re-state. For many that are religious...marriage is a "religious thing". I am not a practicer of organized religion. Got married in a Catholic church, took some classes, because my wife was Catholic. Whatever. Well, it is a religious sacrament to some, an institution to others and a highly sought after prize of the LBGT community. No matter who you are, it is the one thing people do, whether religious or not, in front of their maker and anybody that means anything to them. And when people do it, it is their greatest hope. Why be so jaded? You're a good boy for marrying Catholic.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 highly sought after prize of the LBGT community. Why be so jaded, John. You know it's possible that most of them are not doing it just to piss you off...
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 All this too shall pass. What are we going to be arguing about 10 years from now? Personally I think it will be whether the Canadians really deserve all that now empty but not longer covered by permafrost land. I'm all for it. Let's invade Canada.
John Pleisse Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 All this too shall pass. What are we going to be arguing about 10 years from now? Personally I think it will be whether the Canadians really deserve all that now empty but not longer covered by permafrost land. I'm all for it. Let's invade Canada. Well...the same issues. In 1972 (Rv.W), the medical, scientific and feminist establishments said, don't worry, society will progress...everybody will get it eventually. Well, 43 years later, it remains our most divisive issue with the exact same percentages of supporters and opponents. They are now saying the same thing about gay marriage. In 2024, your blood pressure will be off the charts after 8 years of Gov Scott Walker.
flyboy0681 Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Well...the same issues. In 1972 (Rv.W), the medical, scientific and feminist establishments said, don't worry, society will progress...everybody will get it eventually. Well, 43 years later, it remains our most divisive issue with the exact same percentages of supporters and opponents. They are now saying the same thing about gay marriage. In 2024, your blood pressure will be off the charts after 8 years of Gov Scott Walker. I'm amazed at how quickly the gay movement progressed since Stonewall was only 44 years ago.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 I welcome an education in the origin of the word marriage. What was the concept pre-dating its use by the church? Could you marry a cow? Homosexual "marriage" back in Rome/Greece/Egypt? Until that education befalls me I will remain ignorant in my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. You're free to believe what you want. We've had in Iowa for how long now? Years. Two two dogs and cats are still not sleeping together.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Well...the same issues. In 1972 (Rv.W), the medical, scientific and feminist establishments said, don't worry, society will progress...everybody will get it eventually. Well, 43 years later, it remains our most divisive issue with the exact same percentages of supporters and opponents. They are now saying the same thing about gay marriage. In 2024, your blood pressure will be off the charts after 8 years of Gov Scott Walker. Actually, my blood pressure was just fine during the 8 years of Bush. Didn't affect me one bit. I cashed out of the market in early 2007. I hopefully will never be needing an abortion but should than need arise, it's amazing what money will buy. Let's ban abortion, let's ban birth control. Let it run wild for a while. Then watch your blood pressure explode when it your early 60's you are taxed to absolute death when the poor masses decide to vote themselves 70% of your wealth to support their meager existence. Be careful what you wish for. Also, don't hold your breath, the religious right is losing it's grip pretty quickly. Remember who owns Scott Walker. If Koch brothers ever have their way, IUDs will be mandatory for everyone. Scott W doesn't do anything without first checking in with the mahouts.
John Pleisse Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Actually, my blood pressure was just fine during the 8 years of Bush. Didn't affect me one bit. I cashed out of the market in early 2007. I hopefully will never be needing an abortion but should than need arise, it's amazing what money will buy. Let's ban abortion, let's ban birth control. Let it run wild for a while. Then watch your blood pressure explode when it your early 60's you are taxed to absolute death when the poor masses decide to vote themselves 70% of your wealth to support their meager existence. I'll be drained and concealed by then. 70%? I'din't gonna happen. we already are....gas, groceries, cable, phone, etc.
John Pleisse Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Seriously...How is what I have written worthy of calling me "jaded"? I am hardly tired of organized religion or the institution of marriage. I don't disagree with anything you wrote EXCEPT for calling me jaded. Really? Thought I replied to Andy's post...yer not jaded. I know this. 1
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 I'll be drained and concealed by then. 70%? I'din't gonna happen. we already are....gas, groceries, cable, phone, etc. So you're not denying that your dream reality is filled with poor, starving masses looking forward to their Sunday sermons to be spoon feed fairy tales of reward in the afterlife for their suffering. Just making sure we see the future the same way. John, yes, I am jaded. My appetite for bullshit from left or right is zero. You serve bullshit. They serve bullshit. My world is run by cold hard numbers.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Solomon was an "unwanted" child. His mother was Bathsheba. She committed adultery with Solomon's father, David. Got pregnant. David arranged the death of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, one his loyal mighty men, after he didn't "get with" his wife, Bathsheba, on a visit home, to cover-up the affair. Solomon was such an unwanted child. He became an unwanted adult. King of Israel. Wisest man on earth. Richest man on earth. To bad they didn't do abortion back then! David could have just taken Bathsheba to the Planned Parenthood clinic and taken care of their unwanted child! Like Obama says, "Why should they be punished with a child?" Dave, Once again. Get you facts straight. At the time when King Salamon supposedly had 3 more goats than everyone else around him, there already existed civilizations that were vastly superior, advanced and considerably wealthier than anything the desert goat herders could ever imagine. It's a nice fairy tale, but that's all it is. At least the Catholics are considerably more scholarly. Everything you stated, would be laughed at by any historian worth his salt, including many christians ones. It's a myth, in a same way that minotaur is a myth. Good story to unify a lost desert tribe. Next thing you're going to tell me the earth is 6000 years old and evolution never happened even with them pesky mitochondria around.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 You guys remind of a Christian oil geologist I once met and talked to. He believed earth was 6000 year old unless of course he was looking for oil. Then the latest scientific theory prevailed. He honestly believed in both at the same time. I'm starting to look forward to our Chinese overlords taking over...Can't happen fast enough for me... 1
flyboy0681 Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Jesus was an "unwanted child." His mother got pregnant while engaged. But she swore up and down that she didn't "do the deed." Joseph, was being kind and was going to quietly cancel the marriage. They ended up having get married quick and leave town! Joseph had to quickly move them to Bethlehem, all because of some "unwanted child." Then some angel even told them what his name was to be! Couldn't even name the "unwanted child" that wasn't even his! Then Jesus, he certainly became an "unwanted adult" some might say? If only they had planned parenthood in Jerusalem back in the day? Like Obama says, "Why (should a single young lady) be punished with a child?" Just pull it out of the womb, punch a hole in it's little head and suck those baby brains right out! Who said you liberals aren't compassionate people! I always thought that perhaps she just sat on the wet spot. Anything can happen.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Jesus was an "unwanted child." His mother got pregnant while engaged. But she swore up and down that she didn't "do the deed." Joseph, was being kind and was going to quietly cancel the marriage. They ended up having get married quick and leave town! Joseph had to quickly move them to Bethlehem, all because of some "unwanted child." Then some angel even told them what his name was to be! Couldn't even name the "unwanted child" that wasn't even his! Then Jesus, he certainly became an "unwanted adult" some might say? If only they had planned parenthood in Jerusalem back in the day? Like Obama says, "Why (should a single young lady) be punished with a child?" Just yank "it" ("it" is not a person - right?) out of the womb, punch a hole in it's little head, start the vacuum and suck those baby brains right out! Then throw "it" in the trash. Who said you liberals aren't compassionate people! It's just not a good time for you right now ... That's all! Are you saying Mary never consented? But obviously it was not legitimate since woman's body has a way to shut that whole thing down. So she was probably lying then? She was 14, so she probably was lying, like all teenagers. You know what we call people who make 14 years pregnant, don't you? So while possibly not legitimate, it was definitely statutory. What's you take John? Was there any IVF involved? Or good old fashioned in and out? 1
flyboy0681 Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 But obviously it was not legitimate since woman's body has a way to shut that whole thing down. You just gave me the greatest laugh of the week! Thanks for making my day.
flyboy0681 Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Yeah, so too bad they couldn't just go to the nearest Planned Parenthood - yank "it" out by the neck, stab a suction rod through "its" little skull and turn on the suction? Then just throw the "unwanted" "blob" in the trash! You got it all figured out ... I always thought it was just a clump of cells.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Yeah, and what is the big deal over that big Temple Solomon built in Jerusalem? Just a wall left there now ... with some mosque built in the spot. And they cry a lot there? Oh, it seems that part was true. Really was a big temple built there ... Now wasn't there? Any historian worth his salt would know that. Was torn down by the Romans about 70 AD ... Yeah, any historian worth his salt would know that ... You're confusing locations. There is no archeological evidence what so ever of said temple. It appears that any temple built there was build by Herod, an actually historical figure. David and Salomon are as real as King Arthur. According to the Hebrew Bible, Solomon's Temple was built atop what is known as the Temple Mount in the 10th century BCE and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE,[15] and the Second Temple completed and dedicated in 516 BCE. Around 19 BCE Herod the Great began a massive expansion project on the Temple Mount. In addition to fully rebuilding and enlarging the Temple, he artificially expanded the platform on which it stood, doubling it in size. Today's Western Wall formed part of the retaining perimeter wall of this platform. In 2011, Israeli archaeologists announced the surprising discovery of Roman coins minted well after Herod's death, found under the foundation stones of the wall. The excavators came upon the coins inside a ritual bath that predates Herod's building project, which was filled in to create an even base for the wall and was located under its southern section.[16] This seems to indicate that Herod did not finish building the entire wall by the time of his death in 4 BCE. The find confirms the description by historian Josephus Flavius, which states that construction was finished only during the reign of King Agrippa II, Herod’s great-grandson.[17] Given Josephus' information, the surprise mainly regarded the fact that an unfinished retaining wall in this area could also mean that at least parts of the splendid Royal Stoa and the monumental staircase leading up to it could not have been completed during Herod's lifetime. Also surprising was the fact that the usually very thorough Herodian builders had cut corners by filling in the ritual bath, rather than placing the foundation course directly onto the much firmer bedrock. Some scholars are doubtful of the interpretation and have offered alternative explanations, such as, for example, later repair work. Herod's Temple was destroyed by the Romans, along with the rest of Jerusalem, in 70 CE,[18] during the First Jewish-Roman War.
AndyFromCB Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Says you ... You would not believe it if you were hit over the head with the cornerstone ... I don't need that evidence ... I have better things to do to spend hours posting archeological evidence of Solomons Temple or the history of "unwanted children" to make a case to you. Hope you are right, about the brain cells dying and that is it? That judgement day thingy could get just a little uncomfortable ... And know you finally admitted it: YOU DON'T NEED EVIDENCE. You don't need evidence for anything. Including WMDs in Iraq. And here lies the entire problem with the Republican party and why they will never get my vote even though deep down inside I am a libertarian. EVIDENCE. Instead we get faith based governance and the worse it's working out, the deeper you dig in your heels. I got what I wanted. You sure that's what you want in your elected leaders, Scott? 1
flyboy0681 Posted February 4, 2015 Report Posted February 4, 2015 Don't attribute that to me. What an idiotic thing to say ... I assume that you are aware of where Andy got that phrase from.
Recommended Posts