So let me get this straight Impy the Impiuos Imp, are you implying that the implications of this might implicitly implicate his imperfect tax record instead of the impeccable impersonation of an honest business man? Sorry man I couldn't resist.
Ours is the first society to revere homosexuals. Most societies only tolerated "taboo" sex and some, even today, view it as a major crime. This is irrespective of whether or not the "desert goat herder" religions had ever been taught. With anything negative publicly being said about homosexuals declared "hate speech" leaders of most major religions will find their first amendment rights severely restricted and may find their holy texts censored.
Holy fuck are you ignorant of the facts. I think you are confusing "revere" with "not reviled." Let me drop some information on you:
"Leaders of major religions" are not going to have their rights curtailed if they are preaching hate speech. They should, but they won't. Eventually they'll catch on to society and pull their own heads out of their asses, it will take a while, but it'll happen. Not too many of them spout bulllshit regularly about "niggers not having souls" anymore either but they used to, it just took them a while to figure out their audience.
Hey here's another small tidbit of information, Inheritance is about Property so not only is your post completely false, any valid point you almost made had already been covered.
Why does anyone consider Mitt Romney's 2010 worth anything at all, and what in the bleeding blue hell is so bad on these that it's considered ransom-able?
Women as property as in, you'll marry my daughter and then give me some land and livestock. She will marry you because I own here and she has no choice. Also I agree with your assertion that marriage existed before the church.
We may not agree with religion, but like the other rights protected under the constitution, it is a basic right. People are free to believe and practice their faith, even if we don't agree with it. Telling millions of people that what their faith teaches them about marriage is wrong, well, how is that any different then telling to lesbians their life style choices are wrong?
I can appreciate this argument. I think the core of that issue is separate but equal which we all know doesn't work, and the attempts of the church to usurp the power of the state and use it in an abusive and bigoted way. The freedom to practice religion, like all other rights granted by the constitution, ends when religion starts to negatively impact the lives of people not included in the church. Individuals have a right to worship, but not to inquisition. The basis of 99% of the argument against gay marriage or a gay lifestyle in general is and always will be "the (insert your favorite religious text) says it's wrong." That means that if you are trying to make an argument in support of religion in the face of the state, you lose on the basis of the freedom of religion. Gay people are not actively persecuting religious people the way religious people have been actively persecuting gay people which is a violation of their freedom of religion. That means if your faith is teaching you that something is wrong when it has been defined by the state as perfectly legal, then the church is likely the one that is wrong, therefore it's teachings are wrong.
Taking the word "Marriage" away from the state is not going to solve any problems or change anything. Much like segregation in the south, the only thing that will solve this issue is time. Making concessions to bigots is never going to help you advance your position which is why gay marriage advocates have never settled with "civil unions." Anything less is an insult in the same vein of separate drinking fountains.
Taking the word "Marriage" away from the state is not going to solve any problems or change anything. Much like segregation in the south, the only thing that will solve this issue is time. Making concessions to bigots is never going to help you advance your position which is why gay marriage advocates have never settled with "civil unions." Anything less is an insult in the same vein of separate drinking fountains.
First off, the west has not been christian for 2000 years, probably closer to 1500 and pagan cultures have nothing to do with it. Marriage has been an administrative way to manage and finalize certain property transactions for over 4000 years of history. The fact that a bunch of zealots have co-opted the term and tried to make it theirs doesn't give them rights to it. Let the churches have sectarian unions and leave marriage where it belongs, with the state.
I think people are too ready to make the concession of handing the word "marriage" over to the sectarians when the root of the establishment of marriage is civil and not religious. I personally don't think secular people should make concessions to the sectarians at all let alone over who you love or to whom you choose to make a legal contract with.
Concessions to the church on the grounds of redefinition of the word marriage smacks of Jim Crow to me. If people want to have non sanctioned religious union ceremonies, they are more than welcome to that already, but marriage is now, has been, and always should be the milieu of the the state.
If we're going to go down that road, it really seems like the church should be making the concessions to the state and not the other way around. I've never heard anyone argue for "sectarian unions" so why should civil liberties be the ones to cede the word when the church has inappropriately co-opted the word. As always, you do have some good points though, thank you.
How about we just abolish the churches and marriage at the same time and kill two very ugly birds with the same stone? We could end the debate on the side of the law instead of superstition.
That's why we needed the civil rights act in the first place. Now we're going to need a marriage rights act to make the backwoods hillbilly assholes in 'Murica to forcibly recognize that Marriage is Marriage regardless of the sex of the people involved.
Wouldn't that be great, just abolish marriage as a whole. Cohabitation is the ultimate goal. This is pretty apparent in the tax code. I'm married (technically) but I pay my taxes like I'm single and it doesn't make a fucking bit of difference.
That's cool, you go drink from that fountain over there. It's just as good as this one but you can't drink from this one, only that one over there. Also, you can ride the bus but only in the back, all the seats up front aren't for you, just me. I don't know why you'd complain, your seats in the back are just as good as the ones up here. Also, your kids can't go to the same school as mine. Their schools will be just as good as the ones mine go to but I don't want your kids going to my school. Also go ahead and marry your own kind, but you can't call it marriage because nig, I mean fag, you guys aren't quite the same as us and you can't really get married because we own that word and that makes me uncomfortable when you use it.
Does that put it in plainer terms to you now you ignorant fuck? The whole purpose is when you start making small divisions it keeps the door open for larger ones. If congress can legally differentiate two words or phrases, they will. That's why we have a civil rights act and a voting rights act. Thinking like yours is why we will need a marriage rights act too.
Marriage, by a church, is a religious ceremony. The government has no control over the church.
By the same token, a religious ceremony means exactly jack shit to the state without a marriage license which can only be granted by the state. I can have a ceremony at the courthouse and it has the exact same significance to the state as one in a church, as long as you sign the contract at the end with a legal witness and representative.
Marriage has about as much to do with christianity as toilet paper does to taking a shit. People were shitting long before it's invent and won't stop when it goes out of style.
If you really want to make concessions we should abolish all marriages and get the church out of the institution entirely.
Those rights are provided by the government. The right of paying less tax than others was a right granted to a group of people, usually a group of no more or less than 2, that were bearing offspring. Marriage was the churches answer to make sure that a child had a father to maturing age.
Holy fuck are you ignorant of the facts. Marriage originated as a means of property management, i.e. women as property. They were ordained by the churches originally because they were more often than not, the local magistrates. Also the churches, especially messianic types have a very vested interest in keeping the power in the hands of the patriarchy. Marriages of love, in a historical sense are pretty rare and are mostly a modern invention.
The state now, has a vested interest in encouraging cohabitation because such couples tend to spend more money and participate in the economy more than single people. Kids in the mix are just a bonus. Parents spend more money regardless of the gender of the couple. To encourage unions like this, the state offers tax incentives, much like they offer farm subsidies for planting certain crops over others. The raising of children is really incidental to the institution of marriage. People living together over long periods of time and occasionally fucking will eventually produce children, which is important to the economy, but really has nothing to do with marriage other than one is more likely to cause the other.
The rise of divorce rates is directly attributed to the empowerment of women in a through education and economics, it doesn't have shit to do with the church outside of women breaking the bounds of oppressive religion.
The state now gives the churches a semblance of dominion over marriage, but make no mistake, it is now solely an institution of the state. Any minister of any church must be recognized by the state as having a legitimate claim to ordination before any action they take towards performing a marriage ceremony (which is all it is, a meaningless ceremony) and then signing the legal document (the actual thing that makes a marriage legal). Without that the marriage would be null and void. If the person is not recognized by The State as having been given the authority by the state to do sign the paper, it isn't legal regardless of the participants gender.
Geniuses like GP here are the reason why the congress is allowed to run roughshod over all of our rights and point to the executive and legislative branches like they are the problem. "My congressman is fighting for my rights that OBAMA is trying to take away!" Utter bullshit. Congress is the real problem. They're the ones that authorized the NSA's budget and all of the spying. I'm not saying the executive is not part of the problem, but the roots lie in congress.
This is exactly my thoughts. If the people do want the help then they should help themselves first by trying to eliminate these radical elements of society. Of course, you can crow all day about "innocent bystanders" and "the extremists are the minority" but the real question should be: Are they really? Are the majority of the people so in favor of aid that they would do something if it would help? I think the clear and resounding answer to that is "no". No they wouldn't, won't, and will not help because they simply don't care.
This is a good point. The IRS doesn't have a vested interest in putting drug dealers out of business if they are paying taxes. Any money they receive is money they can use, I don't think they have to worry about the whole "illicitly attained income" bullshit and it's not like the DEA is going to make them give the money back. I never thought about it this way.
This was really interesting and informative, thanks for bringing it up.
I'm not going to get in a long protracted flame war over whether bitcoins are actual currency or not, so I'll just focus on this point.
The whole of Battle.net is owned and managed by Blizzard. In what sense does Blizzard have too much control? They have exclusive control as is their rights by creation and provision of the service.
Slashdot Mirror
Dafuq? Your whole statement is a non sequitur. Just because you succeed at something doesn't make it "not stupid." here is an example.
Here's a pro tip asshole, it's not cool when we do it either.
So let me get this straight Impy the Impiuos Imp, are you implying that the implications of this might implicitly implicate his imperfect tax record instead of the impeccable impersonation of an honest business man? Sorry man I couldn't resist.
Ours is the first society to revere homosexuals. Most societies only tolerated "taboo" sex and some, even today, view it as a major crime. This is irrespective of whether or not the "desert goat herder" religions had ever been taught. With anything negative publicly being said about homosexuals declared "hate speech" leaders of most major religions will find their first amendment rights severely restricted and may find their holy texts censored.
Holy fuck are you ignorant of the facts. I think you are confusing "revere" with "not reviled." Let me drop some information on you:
Homosexuality in ancient Rome
Homosexuality in ancient cultures
"Leaders of major religions" are not going to have their rights curtailed if they are preaching hate speech. They should, but they won't. Eventually they'll catch on to society and pull their own heads out of their asses, it will take a while, but it'll happen. Not too many of them spout bulllshit regularly about "niggers not having souls" anymore either but they used to, it just took them a while to figure out their audience.
Hey here's another small tidbit of information, Inheritance is about Property so not only is your post completely false, any valid point you almost made had already been covered.
Why does anyone consider Mitt Romney's 2010 worth anything at all, and what in the bleeding blue hell is so bad on these that it's considered ransom-able?
If you get married in say, Russia, and then one partner comes to the United States, the U.S. recognizes the marriage as valid and legal.
Well now it is, but until they overturned DOMA then that was not the case unless you had a non-same sex marriage.
Women as property as in, you'll marry my daughter and then give me some land and livestock. She will marry you because I own here and she has no choice. Also I agree with your assertion that marriage existed before the church.
We may not agree with religion, but like the other rights protected under the constitution, it is a basic right. People are free to believe and practice their faith, even if we don't agree with it. Telling millions of people that what their faith teaches them about marriage is wrong, well, how is that any different then telling to lesbians their life style choices are wrong?
I can appreciate this argument. I think the core of that issue is separate but equal which we all know doesn't work, and the attempts of the church to usurp the power of the state and use it in an abusive and bigoted way. The freedom to practice religion, like all other rights granted by the constitution, ends when religion starts to negatively impact the lives of people not included in the church. Individuals have a right to worship, but not to inquisition. The basis of 99% of the argument against gay marriage or a gay lifestyle in general is and always will be "the (insert your favorite religious text) says it's wrong." That means that if you are trying to make an argument in support of religion in the face of the state, you lose on the basis of the freedom of religion. Gay people are not actively persecuting religious people the way religious people have been actively persecuting gay people which is a violation of their freedom of religion. That means if your faith is teaching you that something is wrong when it has been defined by the state as perfectly legal, then the church is likely the one that is wrong, therefore it's teachings are wrong.
Taking the word "Marriage" away from the state is not going to solve any problems or change anything. Much like segregation in the south, the only thing that will solve this issue is time. Making concessions to bigots is never going to help you advance your position which is why gay marriage advocates have never settled with "civil unions." Anything less is an insult in the same vein of separate drinking fountains. Taking the word "Marriage" away from the state is not going to solve any problems or change anything. Much like segregation in the south, the only thing that will solve this issue is time. Making concessions to bigots is never going to help you advance your position which is why gay marriage advocates have never settled with "civil unions." Anything less is an insult in the same vein of separate drinking fountains.
First off, the west has not been christian for 2000 years, probably closer to 1500 and pagan cultures have nothing to do with it. Marriage has been an administrative way to manage and finalize certain property transactions for over 4000 years of history. The fact that a bunch of zealots have co-opted the term and tried to make it theirs doesn't give them rights to it. Let the churches have sectarian unions and leave marriage where it belongs, with the state.
I think people are too ready to make the concession of handing the word "marriage" over to the sectarians when the root of the establishment of marriage is civil and not religious. I personally don't think secular people should make concessions to the sectarians at all let alone over who you love or to whom you choose to make a legal contract with.
Concessions to the church on the grounds of redefinition of the word marriage smacks of Jim Crow to me. If people want to have non sanctioned religious union ceremonies, they are more than welcome to that already, but marriage is now, has been, and always should be the milieu of the the state.
If we're going to go down that road, it really seems like the church should be making the concessions to the state and not the other way around. I've never heard anyone argue for "sectarian unions" so why should civil liberties be the ones to cede the word when the church has inappropriately co-opted the word. As always, you do have some good points though, thank you.
You must be a republican from texas!
How about we just abolish the churches and marriage at the same time and kill two very ugly birds with the same stone? We could end the debate on the side of the law instead of superstition.
That's why we needed the civil rights act in the first place. Now we're going to need a marriage rights act to make the backwoods hillbilly assholes in 'Murica to forcibly recognize that Marriage is Marriage regardless of the sex of the people involved.
Wouldn't that be great, just abolish marriage as a whole. Cohabitation is the ultimate goal. This is pretty apparent in the tax code. I'm married (technically) but I pay my taxes like I'm single and it doesn't make a fucking bit of difference.
That's cool, you go drink from that fountain over there. It's just as good as this one but you can't drink from this one, only that one over there. Also, you can ride the bus but only in the back, all the seats up front aren't for you, just me. I don't know why you'd complain, your seats in the back are just as good as the ones up here. Also, your kids can't go to the same school as mine. Their schools will be just as good as the ones mine go to but I don't want your kids going to my school. Also go ahead and marry your own kind, but you can't call it marriage because nig, I mean fag, you guys aren't quite the same as us and you can't really get married because we own that word and that makes me uncomfortable when you use it.
Does that put it in plainer terms to you now you ignorant fuck? The whole purpose is when you start making small divisions it keeps the door open for larger ones. If congress can legally differentiate two words or phrases, they will. That's why we have a civil rights act and a voting rights act. Thinking like yours is why we will need a marriage rights act too.
Marriage, by a church, is a religious ceremony. The government has no control over the church.
By the same token, a religious ceremony means exactly jack shit to the state without a marriage license which can only be granted by the state. I can have a ceremony at the courthouse and it has the exact same significance to the state as one in a church, as long as you sign the contract at the end with a legal witness and representative.
Marriage has about as much to do with christianity as toilet paper does to taking a shit. People were shitting long before it's invent and won't stop when it goes out of style.
If you really want to make concessions we should abolish all marriages and get the church out of the institution entirely.
Those rights are provided by the government. The right of paying less tax than others was a right granted to a group of people, usually a group of no more or less than 2, that were bearing offspring. Marriage was the churches answer to make sure that a child had a father to maturing age.
Holy fuck are you ignorant of the facts. Marriage originated as a means of property management, i.e. women as property. They were ordained by the churches originally because they were more often than not, the local magistrates. Also the churches, especially messianic types have a very vested interest in keeping the power in the hands of the patriarchy. Marriages of love, in a historical sense are pretty rare and are mostly a modern invention.
The state now, has a vested interest in encouraging cohabitation because such couples tend to spend more money and participate in the economy more than single people. Kids in the mix are just a bonus. Parents spend more money regardless of the gender of the couple. To encourage unions like this, the state offers tax incentives, much like they offer farm subsidies for planting certain crops over others. The raising of children is really incidental to the institution of marriage. People living together over long periods of time and occasionally fucking will eventually produce children, which is important to the economy, but really has nothing to do with marriage other than one is more likely to cause the other.
The rise of divorce rates is directly attributed to the empowerment of women in a through education and economics, it doesn't have shit to do with the church outside of women breaking the bounds of oppressive religion.
The state now gives the churches a semblance of dominion over marriage, but make no mistake, it is now solely an institution of the state. Any minister of any church must be recognized by the state as having a legitimate claim to ordination before any action they take towards performing a marriage ceremony (which is all it is, a meaningless ceremony) and then signing the legal document (the actual thing that makes a marriage legal). Without that the marriage would be null and void. If the person is not recognized by The State as having been given the authority by the state to do sign the paper, it isn't legal regardless of the participants gender.
Geniuses like GP here are the reason why the congress is allowed to run roughshod over all of our rights and point to the executive and legislative branches like they are the problem. "My congressman is fighting for my rights that OBAMA is trying to take away!" Utter bullshit. Congress is the real problem. They're the ones that authorized the NSA's budget and all of the spying. I'm not saying the executive is not part of the problem, but the roots lie in congress.
Mine runs on hopes and dreams. That's why I get people hopes up and then crush their dreams.
This is exactly my thoughts. If the people do want the help then they should help themselves first by trying to eliminate these radical elements of society. Of course, you can crow all day about "innocent bystanders" and "the extremists are the minority" but the real question should be: Are they really? Are the majority of the people so in favor of aid that they would do something if it would help? I think the clear and resounding answer to that is "no". No they wouldn't, won't, and will not help because they simply don't care.
Maybe, the jury might have a good reason to let you go after reading his post.
Is there anything that the US Government won't try to tax?
Rich people and Corporations.
This is a good point. The IRS doesn't have a vested interest in putting drug dealers out of business if they are paying taxes. Any money they receive is money they can use, I don't think they have to worry about the whole "illicitly attained income" bullshit and it's not like the DEA is going to make them give the money back. I never thought about it this way.
This was really interesting and informative, thanks for bringing it up.
Battle.net Blizzard has to much control.
I'm not going to get in a long protracted flame war over whether bitcoins are actual currency or not, so I'll just focus on this point.
The whole of Battle.net is owned and managed by Blizzard. In what sense does Blizzard have too much control? They have exclusive control as is their rights by creation and provision of the service.