The Call

[UAL_TECH]

How about do unto others? How about if it does not infringe on your rights, leave it alone? If we are to base laws on your religious beliefs what about the beliefs of all the others out there? You seem to believe that religion is the basis of morality. I dissagree with that. Morality is based on self interest. I do not want to be murdered, so I will not murder someone else in the hope that I will not be hurt. I will not steal your stuff so you don't steal my stuff. You driving 100mph on a race track does not affect me so why should I care? You smoking in the privacy of your home does not affect me so why should I care? You wanting to run around naked at a nudist camp does not affect me so why should I care. Why should a law be imposed to restrict any of those actions? I may not agree with them and I may find your actions 'morally' objectionable but it does not affect me and I have no right to restrict you actions.

Sam sex marriage does not affect me. It does not affect the status of my marriage. It does not affect my beliefs. Two of my best friends got married and my life has not changed one iota. Two of my hetero friends got divorced and my life has not been affected one iota. Why should a law be imposed to prohibit either action?

For me it is a very simple question. Were I in the other persons shoes, would I feel the same way. If someone told you that you could not marry the person you loved, would that be OK with you? I know my answer would be no. Emphatically no. So if it is not OK for me, then I see no reason why I should think it is OK for you or any one else.

You know Kitty, it isn't always about you. 😛h34r:
B) xUT

 

[UAL_TECH]

If you have a child (or pet) that is chewing on the electric cord, what would you do?

A ) Unplug the cord, let them continue to chew and buy extra cords for baby to chew on (not thinking that they will chew on live cords in the future)?
B ) Admonish their behavior to not chew on electric cords now or in the future.

Does performing decision B make the baby angry (at least at first)? Does it make the parents feel guilty? Are the parents doing it out of Love or Hate?

I find this no different than the GBLT…XYZ issue.

The GBLT…XYZ reminds me of spoiled teenagers that want to stay out till 1:00 AM and play a guilt trip on Mom and Pop to get their way.

xUT ain't buying it.

B) xUT

 

[Garfield1966]

xUT ain't buying it.

B) xUT

You know UAL, it isn't always about you.

 

[UAL_TECH]

You know UAL, it isn't always about you.

I agree, it never was and/or is about me.

*** WARNING ***

This link contains no bad language, but may be offensive for the spiritually challenged. 😛

None but Jesus

View attachment 8358

View attachment 8359

View attachment 8360

GOD Bless!

B) xUT

 

[Garfield1966]

Believe in what ever you choose to believe in. I have the right to choose a different path. And as long as the path I choose does not affect your life, you should have no right to impede that path by legal means.

Would you accept someone dictating to you how you conduct your private life?

If it was not about you, then you should not have said

UT ain't buying it.

You are UT so the statement was your opinion and it was about you.

 

[does this plane go to paris]

Marriage is (still) a vow before God to join
a Man and a Woman.
[/quote]

Sharon, in the Old Testament, Abraham, (who is claimed by the Jewish faith, Christians and Muslim's) took a vow of marriage between himself and 3 wives, all at one time. Which one was the most holiest?

Solomon, according to the bible, had 700 wives and over300 concubines. Out of the 700, which one was THE vow with God? How did the concubine's fit into this equation?

When someone is divorced, what happens to that vow?

 

[tech2101]

Marriage is (still) a vow before God to join
a Man and a Woman.


Sharon, in the Old Testament, Abraham, (who is claimed by the Jewish faith, Christians and Muslim's) took a vow of marriage between himself and 3 wives, all at one time. Which one was the most holiest?

Solomon, according to the bible, had 700 wives and over300 concubines. Out of the 700, which one was THE vow with God? How did the concubine's fit into this equation?

When someone is divorced, what happens to that vow?

I fail to see why some cannot separate the difference between a religious marriage and a legal one.

Laws cannot be based on religion...period.

A marriage may be performed outside of a religious setting, therefore there is a
separation. Otherwise, agnostics and atheists could not marry.

Marriage can be BOTH a state issue and a religious issue. But the elements of the
governmental marriage are different than the issues of the religious marriage. If there
were no difference than it would not be possible for someone to marry outside of a
religious setting.

The Iowa court decision did nothing to change the religious definition of marriage - as each
religion is free to define marriage as it desires.

Hypothetical example:

I am Catholic. My wife and I were divorced by the courts several years ago. That ended my civil marriage and
I am free to marry someone else. However, the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize that I am free to marry again. If I were to re-marry the church would not recognize it. To be able to re-marry in the eyes of the Catholic Church, I must end my
religious marriage through the CHURCH'S annulment process.

Just because religious people who want to force their religious beliefs on others say that
there is no separation between religious and civil marriage, does not mean that there is
no separation.

 

[does this plane go to paris]

Hypothetical example:

I am Catholic. My wife and I were divorced by the courts several years ago. That ended my civil marriage and
I am free to marry someone else. However, the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize that I am free to marry again. If I were to re-marry the church would not recognize it. To be able to re-marry in the eyes of the Catholic Church, I must end my
religious marriage through the CHURCH'S annulment process.


The fevor that is being brewed up is that two men or two women are gonna walk into some baptist church in the deep south and demand to get married and if that church doesn't marry them, then that church will be sued for discrimination. I find it hard to believe that if gays are allowed to marry, then they will beat a path to the Thomas Road Baptist Church.

If the 1,000 or so tax laws that apply to marriage are granted in some form of marriage or civil union, along with the other benefit's, then civil union's would be fine. I happend to believe that eventualy, in 50 years or less, this debate will be in the history books, as the next 2 or 3 generations will be discussing how unfair this was, just as segragation is in the history books.

 

[Garfield1966]

Religious institutions are private. They cannot be sued for discrimination (as far as I am aware of). Were that the case, I cold sue the Catholic church for not marrying my wife and I who are not Catholic. That would make no sense. Although I must say given the legal institution in this country that might make perfect sense.. who knows.

I agree with you on the 50 yrs deal. Equal rights will be granted and we will look back and wonder how the world continued to turn on it's axis.

 

[Garfield1966]

Washington expands Domestic Partnership rights


Now the hypocrisy is really starting to show. The Washington bill had nothing to do with marriage. The republicans still voted against it.

The Democratic-controlled House approved the Senate-passed measure on a mostly party-line 62-35 vote after nearly two hours of debate. It next goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire, who said she will sign it into law.

Gee, I thought the right was only worried about marriage and that domestic partnerships were fine? I guess not......

Opponents said the measure would have a detrimental effect on traditional marriage.

"We cannot elevate the legal standing of domestic partnerships to equate with marriage and not have profound impact on the status of marriage in this state," said Rep. Jay Rodne, R-Snoqualmie.

I knew the true colors would shine through eventually.

 

[eolesen]

I do not believe in your god or your religion. Your god and your religion have no business in state affairs.

And likewise, states have no business trying to steal control over what is a religious institution/sacrament for their purposes.

Marriage is an institution has survived longer than any man made government or society has. And yes, plural marriage is a historic fact which predates Joseph Smith and Big Love.

At the end of the day, it's a religious principle, sacrament, and commitment.

Rather than try to redefine marriage in a secular fashion, which is what so many people in the US have tried to do, it's time to get the government out of it altogether.

Grandfather everyone already married with an implied civil union, and require civil unions for everyone going forward if you want the legal benefits which today are associated to married couples...

Yes, that opens the door to legalized plural marriage -- there's nothing requiring someone married by their church to also have a recognized civil union, and as long as children aren't being abused in the process, who gives a rats ass how many wives (or husbands) someone has?...

 

[delldude]

I do not believe in your god or your religion. Your god and your religion have no business in state affairs. Slowly but surely religion is being removed from public affairs and being made private as faith should be.

Your nation was founded upon Religion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you do not believe in God or Religion then you must not have these rights :blink:

 

[Garfield1966]

And likewise, states have no business trying to steal control over what is a religious institution/sacrament for their purposes.

Marriage is an institution has survived longer than any man made government or society has. And yes, plural marriage is a historic fact which predates Joseph Smith and Big Love.

At the end of the day, it's a religious principle, sacrament, and commitment.

Rather than try to redefine marriage in a secular fashion, which is what so many people in the US have tried to do, it's time to get the government out of it altogether.

Grandfather everyone already married with an implied civil union, and require civil unions for everyone going forward if you want the legal benefits which today are associated to married couples...

Yes, that opens the door to legalized plural marriage -- there's nothing requiring someone married by their church to also have a recognized civil union, and as long as children aren't being abused in the process, who gives a rats ass how many wives (or husbands) someone has?...

Then get government out of religion. It's not my fault that religion seeded power to government to get help enforcing religious practices. Funny how religion had no problem with government control over their institution as long as government played along. As soon as the government (the people) want to adapt a government institution to advancing life then all of a sudden religion has an issue.

I believe, someone else pointed out that that if you take a look at history, marriage was not about love. It was about property, status and material goods. Monarchies pimped out their children to form alliances. Daughters were/are sold for dowries. Wealthy families arraigned marriages with other wealth families to solidify power. Women were considered property in most cultures. Women did not even have equal rights in this country till the 1920's. For the longest time they were not allowed to own property because they were property. Marriage was also more about an heir to the family fortune/name. That is why a male child was so important and that people give dowries for females and not males. Bottom line, the present day concept of marriage for love is a new concept so please do not try and argue that 'marriage' has been around for a long time. It has not.

I agree with you that government should get out of the marriage industry. However, if you read the link about the Washington bill, you will find that the right (if Washington is an accurate representation) has no interest in allowing same sex unions to go forward regardless of the name.

 

[Garfield1966]

The RNC needs to listen to this man.

McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'

John McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign urged fellow Republicans on Friday to warm up to gay rights and warned that the GOP risks becoming the "religious party" with its opposition to same-sex marriage.

"If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said. "And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party."

Schmidt predicted gay marriage will create a bigger and bigger divide between the GOP and the electorate in the years ahead. He said that as young voters age, they may adopt conservative views on the economy and national security -- but they will not abandon liberal, social beliefs.

The RNC needs to join the 21st century if they intend to remain a viable party. Prejudice is no longer accepted as it once was and the RNC needs to put its foot down and take back the party from the religious right wing.

 

[Seatacus]

The RNC needs to listen to this man.

McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'






The RNC needs to join the 21st century if they intend to remain a viable party. Prejudice is no longer accepted as it once was and the RNC needs to put its foot down and take back the party from the religious right wing.

I could give a rip what that loser's strategist thinks. First: he ran a losing campaign, second: McCain is not a Republican.