http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34209592/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001
I don't have much to say about this I think the story speaks for itself. Why can't people just live and let live...
Discussion on:
Always fun when someone points out hypocrisy in the world
View:
Show:
I see two outcomes should something like this ever pass.
1. Decrease in the number of people getting married.
2. Increase in homicides.
1. Decrease in the number of people getting married.
2. Increase in homicides.
If after a month, can I return it for a different model?
Don't you read failblog?
http://trevorsarchives.selfip.net/funpics/images/blackpeople21.gif
Have a look. (Cant find the image that showed the search query
)
http://trevorsarchives.selfip.net/funpics/images/blackpeople21.gif
Have a look. (Cant find the image that showed the search query
)
This is just another of those stupid ideas that would never get very far.
If it even makes the ballot (doubtful), Californians would never pass this.
I can see making it a bit more difficult to get a divorce, but there are many valid reasons for them. Trying to make them ilegal just seems like someone got bent outta shape when they were hit with papers.
If it even makes the ballot (doubtful), Californians would never pass this.
I can see making it a bit more difficult to get a divorce, but there are many valid reasons for them. Trying to make them ilegal just seems like someone got bent outta shape when they were hit with papers.
His point is to make a point.
From the website:
"The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce."
Its not so different than Ralph Nader or Dick Barr running for President. They know they won't win, but they have points to make.
James
From the website:
"The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce."
Its not so different than Ralph Nader or Dick Barr running for President. They know they won't win, but they have points to make.
James
I'm sure I'll for get to follow the story but it would be interesting to hear the retort from those who led the charge against gay marriage based upon the sanctity of marriage. Bet they never saw that one coming... 
I was wondering if anyone actually got it. Not like there's anything to 'get', his intent was made pretty clear.
It seems to have created knee jerk reactions to what was clearly meant as a joke to make a point.
It seems to have created knee jerk reactions to what was clearly meant as a joke to make a point.
1. fault-divorce (with teeth) make a comeback. If a contract is broken, there should be consequences... or
2. The government just stay the hell out of the marriage business altogether.
2. The government just stay the hell out of the marriage business altogether.
If people want a marriage see a religious organization. If they want out, go back to that org and abide by their rules, or suffer their consequences.
James
James
If government wants to offer breaks, exemptions, and legal status to couples, it should drop all references to the word 'marriage' and refer only to state-sanctioned civil pairings. Leave the word and institution of marriage to the religious organizations.
I've never read an explanation of how any outsiders can harm my marriage; my wife and I are the only people who can affect it. I don't see how homosexuals can do the institution any more harm than heterosexuals have done to it.
"Legalize Gay Marriage: let them suffer too!"
I've never read an explanation of how any outsiders can harm my marriage; my wife and I are the only people who can affect it. I don't see how homosexuals can do the institution any more harm than heterosexuals have done to it.
"Legalize Gay Marriage: let them suffer too!"
More specifically the second paragraph?
It's a joke, he's not serious he's just making a point.
It's a joke, he's not serious he's just making a point.
At the least, I'd love to see a debate televised on this. The hemming and hawing would be epic.
Get the guy who thinks the Constitution says in it "...one nation under God..." 
Just googling about the pledge of allegience and came across this:
http://www.arktimes.com/articles/articleviewer.aspx?ArticleID=2f5d7a3b-c72a-446b-8d20-3823aa79c021
Things that make you go Hmmmmm.
James
http://www.arktimes.com/articles/articleviewer.aspx?ArticleID=2f5d7a3b-c72a-446b-8d20-3823aa79c021
Things that make you go Hmmmmm.
James
I think it's sad. I was like that though, although my mother wouldn't usually stand for that kinda thing.
I did one time in high school (my senior year) refuse to admit to something I didn't do. The principal called my mother at work...and, I audibly heard my mother use swear words at him. Evidently, mom told him that I was 18, an adult, and that if I said I didn't do something he could either prove me wrong or stop harassing me.
Of course, later on after that we had another encounter that went like this:
Principal: Hello, [my first name]
Me: Well hello, Bill.
Principal: Excuse me?
Me: I said Hello, Bill.
Principal: You need to address me as Mr. [his last name] because I am your principal, young man.
Me: Well, only my friends and family address me by my first name.
*i walk away*
He called my mom again. She told him I was an adult, and as such he should show me the respect of an adult.
I was already on a first name basis with several of my teachers I liked, but I would always address them as Mr. or Mrs./Ms. out of respect in school.
But yeah, often adults assume they are right and kids are wrong. Really sad when a child has more ability to observe and comprehend that an "educated adult".
I did one time in high school (my senior year) refuse to admit to something I didn't do. The principal called my mother at work...and, I audibly heard my mother use swear words at him. Evidently, mom told him that I was 18, an adult, and that if I said I didn't do something he could either prove me wrong or stop harassing me.
Of course, later on after that we had another encounter that went like this:
Principal: Hello, [my first name]
Me: Well hello, Bill.
Principal: Excuse me?
Me: I said Hello, Bill.
Principal: You need to address me as Mr. [his last name] because I am your principal, young man.
Me: Well, only my friends and family address me by my first name.
*i walk away*
He called my mom again. She told him I was an adult, and as such he should show me the respect of an adult.
I was already on a first name basis with several of my teachers I liked, but I would always address them as Mr. or Mrs./Ms. out of respect in school.
But yeah, often adults assume they are right and kids are wrong. Really sad when a child has more ability to observe and comprehend that an "educated adult".
I'm thinking someone should start an ad campaign saying something along the lines of, "Gay marriage should be legal... why should THEY get to have all the fun?!?!"
And anyway, my vows do say "til death do us part," which means ONE of us has to DIE...
And anyway, my vows do say "til death do us part," which means ONE of us has to DIE...
anyone cares to inquire about his whereabouts....
If there is nobody looking, then all is OK!
If there is nobody looking, then all is OK!
I noticed a marked increase in those "Troy-bilt Chipper/Shredder" commercials 
Civil service in front of a Danish judge. We got the "quick, quick" version:
"Do you?" "Yes."
"Do you?" "Yes."
"Good. You're married!"
"Do you?" "Yes."
"Do you?" "Yes."
"Good. You're married!"
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
___________________
"The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage."
Yes, he thinks people should live and let live too, which is the root of his jokingly presented activism.
___________________
"The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage."
Yes, he thinks people should live and let live too, which is the root of his jokingly presented activism.
First of all we all know how media creates stories from nothing. This could really have been something very small that was picked up on and made to sound like a real activist event.
He's just a web designer that had an idea the press ran with.
"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said. Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures. He needs 694,354 valid ones by March 22."
So he made a comment, got dozens of signatures (towards more than the half million required) and it's in he news, no biggie really.
Have to admit, he has a point. as always we are faced with hypocrisy in religion, you must marry a woman to have a sanctios marriage, yet you can divorce here and marry another despite your vows.
Unfortunately religion still holds a firm grasp on our laws, something which is supposed to never be connected, government and religion. That simple fact of life, in what we deem free countries, is hypocrisy in itself.
He's just a web designer that had an idea the press ran with.
"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said. Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures. He needs 694,354 valid ones by March 22."
So he made a comment, got dozens of signatures (towards more than the half million required) and it's in he news, no biggie really.
Have to admit, he has a point. as always we are faced with hypocrisy in religion, you must marry a woman to have a sanctios marriage, yet you can divorce here and marry another despite your vows.
Unfortunately religion still holds a firm grasp on our laws, something which is supposed to never be connected, government and religion. That simple fact of life, in what we deem free countries, is hypocrisy in itself.
Religion or morality.
There is no "church" control of government. That part of the constitution has worked well. And government (for the most part) has kept its hands off of the churches. So the two are seperate.
But, a nation's laws are an extension of its morality. Morality being defined as a common set of rules/guidelines to which all submit.
Also, most religions abhor divorce. Divorce is simplified by the law, not religion.
Just a few thoughts...
There is no "church" control of government. That part of the constitution has worked well. And government (for the most part) has kept its hands off of the churches. So the two are seperate.
But, a nation's laws are an extension of its morality. Morality being defined as a common set of rules/guidelines to which all submit.
Also, most religions abhor divorce. Divorce is simplified by the law, not religion.
Just a few thoughts...
GWB when he was enforcing his resoning for denying gay marriage, commentd that whiel he doesn't oppose gay lifestyles at all, HIS RELIGION lead him to recognize marriage as a union between man and a women.
Certainly NOT a case of religion controlling politics there.
Every piece of money printed in the United States says In God We trust. God is calitalized implying "God" as a the Christian God and not just god as in any god.
Although the United States has a constitutional barrier separating church and state, the vast majority of Americans want their leaders to be religious. Religion is a serious consideration for most American voters, as we saw when Obama's chosen religion was pulicly interrogated.
Whether you accept it or not, Americans, US politics and religion are all VERY closely tied together. The US is still very focused on Christianity, much moreso than most other free nations where Christianity would account for the common faith.
From a poll taken during the Bush campaign:
>72% of Americans say the president should have strong religious beliefs
>65% say churches should not endorse candidates
>51% say churches should express views on political matters
>41% say there is too little expression of faith and prayer by political leaders
How can you separate religion from politics when there are so many who have little to no exposure to evolutionary science and are subjected to the constant enforcement of "faith and belief"? (faith and belief don't hold water when faced with science)
I had a post on this some time back, how it is noted that the US doesn't support such scientific programming and how most people don't have access to view such realities that other nations spend a lot of time and resources focused on. In many other nations, scientific focus is strongly supported and new theories and findings are always uncovered and aird in order to better educate public on more realistic possibilities.
It's as if the rest of the world has realized that religious faith is a nice way to help yourself feel good but is not realistic or proven in any way.
Certainly NOT a case of religion controlling politics there.
Every piece of money printed in the United States says In God We trust. God is calitalized implying "God" as a the Christian God and not just god as in any god.
Although the United States has a constitutional barrier separating church and state, the vast majority of Americans want their leaders to be religious. Religion is a serious consideration for most American voters, as we saw when Obama's chosen religion was pulicly interrogated.
Whether you accept it or not, Americans, US politics and religion are all VERY closely tied together. The US is still very focused on Christianity, much moreso than most other free nations where Christianity would account for the common faith.
From a poll taken during the Bush campaign:
>72% of Americans say the president should have strong religious beliefs
>65% say churches should not endorse candidates
>51% say churches should express views on political matters
>41% say there is too little expression of faith and prayer by political leaders
How can you separate religion from politics when there are so many who have little to no exposure to evolutionary science and are subjected to the constant enforcement of "faith and belief"? (faith and belief don't hold water when faced with science)
I had a post on this some time back, how it is noted that the US doesn't support such scientific programming and how most people don't have access to view such realities that other nations spend a lot of time and resources focused on. In many other nations, scientific focus is strongly supported and new theories and findings are always uncovered and aird in order to better educate public on more realistic possibilities.
It's as if the rest of the world has realized that religious faith is a nice way to help yourself feel good but is not realistic or proven in any way.
to mention 'faith' and 'proof' in the same sentence, as they are mutually exclusive concepts.
However, what do we base our political decisions on? Or more accurately what SHOULD we base political decisions on?
Science based on fact?
or
Faith based on belief?
Science based on fact?
or
Faith based on belief?
I'm not sure "science as fact" and politics can co-exist.
BTW, either I've missed it, or I'm marveling at the apparent silence on the subject here
BTW, either I've missed it, or I'm marveling at the apparent silence on the subject here
Slow down that wagon.
Have you read your own post?
I wrote that the two were not controlling one another. They most assuredly interact.
The "seperation of church and state" is about authority, not influence.
How do you propose to have individuals, which attach to a faith, make choices or vote without an influence from this faith? Our belief systems dictate our moral basis. From our moral basis we make decisions and prescribe laws.
Now your belief system can be tied to scientific, faith, or any other source. But it is still the corner stone of each individuals operation.
Have you read your own post?
I wrote that the two were not controlling one another. They most assuredly interact.
The "seperation of church and state" is about authority, not influence.
How do you propose to have individuals, which attach to a faith, make choices or vote without an influence from this faith? Our belief systems dictate our moral basis. From our moral basis we make decisions and prescribe laws.
Now your belief system can be tied to scientific, faith, or any other source. But it is still the corner stone of each individuals operation.
From Tony: "Jesus said that the only acceptable reason for getting a divorce is infidelity of the other partner."
So we use are to use religion to explain law?
This is just one comment (sorry, ut I am really not picking on you Tony)that illustrates how Americans allow religion to dictate what laws should echo.
To even state that religious belief dosn't influence law in the US is to be completely blind to reality.
"There is no "church" control of government. That part of the constitution has worked well.
the church doesn't need to control government, it just needs to influence the citizens and thus the politicians who pass laws that don't adhere to their religious beliefs.
American laws are based on people's religious faith, not on scientific facts, not on reality, not on an individual basis but blanket laws based loosely on some far off religious ramble etched in stone soem 2000+ years ago, the result is the complete and utter farce we call politics and law.
Seriously if they PROVED tomorrow that there was absolutely no way that Jesus could have lived and that God is a figment of our imagination, yes there are still many who need proof, then SO many laws could be changed for the better. Society would progress immensely as if just let out after being locked up for 2000 years, we would see SO much progression in society that it would be a blur of positive actions. Every marriage would have a prenup, without religious belief we would see that everyone leaves with what they came with and contributed towards (no more divorce lawyers cashing in on another's misery, YAY!!).
No more religious wars, no more faith based healign and religious scams that makes minister's filthy rich at the expense of those who elieve in them.
Laws would e based on common sense and logic, not a group of delusional followers of ancient scriptures.
life would be so much clearer and purified for so many, without the cloudy dregs of religion that needs to be updated with new versions of a bible in order to remain credible as society changes.
So we use are to use religion to explain law?
This is just one comment (sorry, ut I am really not picking on you Tony)that illustrates how Americans allow religion to dictate what laws should echo.
To even state that religious belief dosn't influence law in the US is to be completely blind to reality.
"There is no "church" control of government. That part of the constitution has worked well.
the church doesn't need to control government, it just needs to influence the citizens and thus the politicians who pass laws that don't adhere to their religious beliefs.
American laws are based on people's religious faith, not on scientific facts, not on reality, not on an individual basis but blanket laws based loosely on some far off religious ramble etched in stone soem 2000+ years ago, the result is the complete and utter farce we call politics and law.
Seriously if they PROVED tomorrow that there was absolutely no way that Jesus could have lived and that God is a figment of our imagination, yes there are still many who need proof, then SO many laws could be changed for the better. Society would progress immensely as if just let out after being locked up for 2000 years, we would see SO much progression in society that it would be a blur of positive actions. Every marriage would have a prenup, without religious belief we would see that everyone leaves with what they came with and contributed towards (no more divorce lawyers cashing in on another's misery, YAY!!).
No more religious wars, no more faith based healign and religious scams that makes minister's filthy rich at the expense of those who elieve in them.
Laws would e based on common sense and logic, not a group of delusional followers of ancient scriptures.
life would be so much clearer and purified for so many, without the cloudy dregs of religion that needs to be updated with new versions of a bible in order to remain credible as society changes.
In more ways than I care to count.
Dwdino but fired an opening salvo.
Amazes me how you flip from your best to your utter worst.
Dwdino but fired an opening salvo.
Amazes me how you flip from your best to your utter worst.
How your two-bit commentary, as opposed to relevant comments, fails to recognize that what I said was only said because I know it is supported.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
