GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[TDPerk]

It is a typical practice of government and 3000 some years old.

It only took a serious damage as a concept around 1775. It would have been an excellent thing if we'd kept up with that, instead of progressively adopting the error of Rousseau.

We're quite far down that one's rabbit hole now, it remains only to be seen how many bodies we need to crawl over to get out.

You never magnify the state beyond reason without a body count owed.

'Though frequently not paid by the one's who sign up for it.

[ladajo]

Well, he is spouting off on the beer verse drugs thing again, which has been shown to be a recurring propaganda lie a number of times. Being out of touch with reality is a sign.

[TDPerk]

Eh, in vino, veritas.

[GIThruster]

Eh, in vino, veritas.

Don't be ridiculous. There's no truth in the prattling above.

It will not get right until Americans get right with God. By any means necessary. It is not the means - it is the end. If Woden works for you. Praise Woden. If Jesus works for you. Praise Jesus. And God forbid if LSD or some such works to calm your spirit. Praise LSD.

You're not seriously suggesting there is truth in this, Perky?
This is exactly why we can't have a sensible discussion about drugs. simon isn't sensible. He's stoned all the time. Why would anyone expect him to make sense? And despite Joe has specifically instructed him to knock off dragging his druggie nonsense into every thread, he continues right on.

[TDPerk]

"Don't be ridiculous. There's no truth in the prattling above."

Considering how ridiculous you are, I'm not laughing with you.

[palladin9479]

The fight over "marriage rights" will never be finished because at it's core it's a fight over religious dogma and beliefs. The government has no business dictating what is and what is not acceptable religious dogma.

The only way to end the battle is to separate the governmental function of social unions from the religious function of marriage. Essentially all social contracts between two adult participants need to be legally defined as unions with the term "marriage" removed entirely from law. If two consenting adults want to acquire the tax / legal (as debatable as those are) benefits of cohabitation then they can take a stroll down to the court house and fill out the paperwork. If they want to go around using the term "marriage" then that's 100% on them and whatever religious beliefs they have. Basically the government should not have the right to tell someone they can't form a social union with another person, nor should it have the right to tell someone that their religious beliefs must accept homosexuality in the definition of "marriage".

Of course this will never happen as it requires both sides "lose" their war on the others religious belief.

[GIThruster]

"Don't be ridiculous. There's no truth in the prattling above."

Considering how ridiculous you are, I'm not laughing with you.

Perky, you're treading the line of what amounts to stalking. I understand you and I disagree, but if you don't stop assaulting me for chuckles, I'll have a talk with Joe about banning you.

There are now 6 instances of you assaulting me verbally and making no contribution to the discussion at hand, especially including you noting I was banned in another forum, every instance of which was because you're stalking me. If you don't stop, Joe will stop you.

[TDPerk]

GIT, I'm sure your use of the moniker "Perky" for a bestiality license seeker was done solely in good fun, and has in no way resembles the behavior that has gotten you booted off boards for incivility...
...the very childishness I see in you.

I well remember your argument for grotesquely out of proportion copyright extensions and penalties for vague copyright offenses, amounts to being that you think someone infringed your IP, so the world can burn as long as someone with a $1.15 illegally downloaded song gets a $5,000,000.00 bill from the RIAA, or some such nonsense. Likewise, you think you were hurt by recreational drug use, so you want to keep it illegal regardless of what useless harm that does.

I stand by my statement you are emotionally disturbed, retaining unbecoming childishness.

Go ahead, be the bully running snot nosed to the teacher.

" every instance of which was because you're stalking me"

You don't know what you're talking about, I had nothing to do with that and hadn't even been on that board yet, to the best of my knowledge. You got yourself shut out of NASASpaceFlight just by being you, I had nothing to do with it. It's the same sort of thing that has me not laughing with you.

And posting beside the point digressions like this:

"No they're not. For instance, married folk are forbidden to marry others."

I don't see you can complain about threadjacking. Where exactly, was it claimed marriage was not an enforceable contract if written exclusively between two people*? You made that up as if it were a material objection.

*The advent of no fault divorce momentarily set aside.

Although, since it should just be a be contract in the government's eyes, why shouldn't it be non-exclusive if the contracting parties so specify?

" So I'll ask again, why do you propose this change where social contracts are utterly set aside for the sake of individual liberty?"

Because unless the authorization for them to be enforced in law is present in the organic law applying, they are already outside the power of government to enforce. That was the meaning of 1775. Government of law and not men or their customs; unless those customs were thought important enough were important enough to be written into a constitution, whether national or state.

The reason DOMA should be amended or be repealed is, the national government has no power to issue law in this realm of jurisprudence.

" how do your libertarian ideals protect children from the reckless and irresponsible behavior of adults?"

No, the question is, how does your everything is forbidden unless it is compulsory approach do it better?

The answer is it doesn't.

[TDPerk]

The only way to end the battle is to separate the governmental function of social unions from the religious function of marriage. Essentially all social contracts between two adult participants need to be legally defined as unions with the term "marriage" removed entirely from law.

With it granted that other individuals as individuals are free to extend or withhold privileges they grant to those they consider to be married as their conscience dictates, I'm quite sold on that idea.

My chief objection to "gay marriage" is that the lack of it generally pisses off people I like to see pissed off, and I think they really mean to use it to sue their political enemies out of existence.

The gay marriage proponents in this case seem generally to confuse the legal recognition of gay marriage or civil unions as excuses to destroy the 1st amendment rights of the people who do not recognize such. I think that "confusion" is deliberate and the real point of it for most of them, and unless settling the issue protects those rights, I'd rather it were an unsettled one.

[GIThruster]

I well remember your argument for grotesquely out of proportion copyright extensions and penalties for vague copyright offenses, amounts to being that you think someone infringed your IP

You're whacked, Perky. My only IP is an award winning screenplay. It is in no way subject to theft as you're proposing.

If you don't stop the character assassinations and stalking now, I will file a formal protest and have you removed from this forum

[TDPerk]

I don't think I mistaking you for some other poster here, GIT.

Please go ahead with your threats.

Whatever occurs, I have full confidence time heals all wounds, and wounds all heals.

And really, "character assassination"?

Self harm in your case.

And say, aren't you replying "off topic"?

!


It is meet if not practical, for your every sneer to be thrown back in your teeth, howsoever cordially.

[Diogenes]

GIT likes to conflate arguments.
He avoids consideration of the word 'consenting'.
Children and animals cannot consent.

Yes they can. The legal system simply does not recognize their consent. You know, the way it used to not recognize consent in the case of homosexuality. Now i'm sure you'll tell me that in this case, it's different, and i'm here to point out, no, it isn't.

The issue with incestual relationships is the genetic consequences for the children.

So you are saying the government should be involved in the gene pool? Why?

[Diogenes]

And again, this is the problem with all libertarians. No common sense.

That statement basically sums up the discussion.

[Diogenes]

So why are the kids going libertarian? The are not (or less) living in fear.

Because they've never lived in a society that operated on those principles (and there is a very good reason for that) and because they are foolish.




No great mystery that naive people will do foolish things.

[Diogenes]

And just for kicks and grins.




Many Unitarians would prefer that their polyamory activists keep quiet




But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”





The UUPA has received its share of attention over the years – a PBS interview, a San Francisco Chronicle article – but mostly it has caused anguish and dissent among Unitarians. In 2007, a Unitarian congregation in Chestertown, Md., heard a sermon by a poly activist named Kenneth Haslam, arguing that polyamory is the next frontier in the fight for sexual and marriage freedom. “Poly folks are strong believers that each of us should choose our own path in forming our families, forming relationships, and being authentic in our sexuality.”



http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... ml?hpid=z4