DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
I never said anything about the black community other than they have their own problems because of the way a few of them act.
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
You guys disappoint me ;)
- Thread starter WB9YZU
- Start date
I never said anything about the black community other than they have their own problems because of the way a few of them act.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
Agreed Aaron.
I guess in a nut shell I am just not a fan of retards. It doesn't matter what ethnic, religious or other group they belong to.
souske
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The land of competition
It should be legal to run those asshats over.
At least the pride parade has a permit to be obnoxious
- Location
- Central Maine
So now you hate assless chaps? Where does your bigotry end?
souske
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The land of competition
Bicyle shorts and asslless chaps are.on the same level of look at me type behaivior
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
I am pretty sure if a trucker says they hate assless chaps they get fired or at least relegated to lot lizard duty
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
Yes I know by the nature of their design all chaps are assless you know what I'm talking about though. The guys prancing around in chaps with nothing on under them.
Vanimal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- escondido, ca
So where are you seeing this stuff? Are you going to these parades? searching for it on the internet? spank bank? Or is this just what you assume they're like because that's the gay stereotype? I mean they don't just show bare asses on the news....
I mean how much of this stuff are you actually seeing? Must be a lot if you want to condem an entire group for it.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
Again...you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not condemning an entire group. I never said anything like that.
MT Mike
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Helena, MT
Vanimal is just mad because he's queer and you're calling him and all his queer buddies assclowns.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
These sweeping changes of law enacted by the people and now struck down by the Supreme Court.
And not a word from the peanut gallery about ""activist judges""?
Do I know you guys?
I'm for elected judges......with a term limit.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
Vanimal is just mad because he's queer and you're calling him and all his queer buddies assclowns.
Ya I was thinking that. Couldn't find the right words. You nailed it.
joe_peters
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grants Pass, OryGun
Agree.
joe_peters
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grants Pass, OryGun
Agree.
Marriage should be a strictly RELIGIOUS service without LEGAL consequences.
Want LEGAL (government) recognition--get a civil union. Want RELIGIOUS recognition--get married.
Want both? Do both.
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
There ya' go.
WB9YZU
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Madison, WI
Funny how a number of folks don't seem to realize this but:
This already exists.
If you go down to the Judge and get "Married". That is a legal partnership.
You have filled out papers indicating your legal partnership and why you are forming it. It is legally binding and all laws and rights that go with that partnership now apply. Your ""Marriage License"" is your incorporation papers.
All that has to be done is that it be witnessed by someone who is authorized by the Sate to do so. In the case of a Civil wedding, the Judge does this.
In the case of a Religious wedding. The Minister or other prime religious representative performs both the Religious Marriage (""Rite""), and is a is the witness for the State.
In most cases, ""The Church"" ( used here to incorporate your fav religion) will not recognize a Civil Wedding as a "Marriage" because no rite was performed.
However, it is still legally binding in the State where it was performed.
So you see, they are already separate issues.
This blow up about ""Gay Marriage"" has got absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the Church, and everything to do with what these folks perceive as ""Equality"" under the law. The fact of the matter is that they are not being discriminated against, anymore than a Hetro couple that has not decided to become a legal entity is discriminated against.
But they want the right to be able to inherit property, to have some say in "community assets" (Fancy term for combined income and property), to adopt children (Or raise their own from a past Hetro arrangement). And the part which affects the rest of us, is the part where they want tax breaks, health care benefits from their partners workplace.
I guess I'm not too wowed about this costing taxpayers money, but have come around to the idea that though this isn't a real "Moral" thing from my personal perspective, it's probably the best for the long term interest of the community as a whole to have the ability for any 2 humans to be able to enter into a legal Union.
Still gives me the heebe jeebies when I see two guys holding hands.
This already exists.
If you go down to the Judge and get "Married". That is a legal partnership.
You have filled out papers indicating your legal partnership and why you are forming it. It is legally binding and all laws and rights that go with that partnership now apply. Your ""Marriage License"" is your incorporation papers.
All that has to be done is that it be witnessed by someone who is authorized by the Sate to do so. In the case of a Civil wedding, the Judge does this.
In the case of a Religious wedding. The Minister or other prime religious representative performs both the Religious Marriage (""Rite""), and is a is the witness for the State.
In most cases, ""The Church"" ( used here to incorporate your fav religion) will not recognize a Civil Wedding as a "Marriage" because no rite was performed.
However, it is still legally binding in the State where it was performed.
So you see, they are already separate issues.
This blow up about ""Gay Marriage"" has got absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the Church, and everything to do with what these folks perceive as ""Equality"" under the law. The fact of the matter is that they are not being discriminated against, anymore than a Hetro couple that has not decided to become a legal entity is discriminated against.
But they want the right to be able to inherit property, to have some say in "community assets" (Fancy term for combined income and property), to adopt children (Or raise their own from a past Hetro arrangement). And the part which affects the rest of us, is the part where they want tax breaks, health care benefits from their partners workplace.
I guess I'm not too wowed about this costing taxpayers money, but have come around to the idea that though this isn't a real "Moral" thing from my personal perspective, it's probably the best for the long term interest of the community as a whole to have the ability for any 2 humans to be able to enter into a legal Union.
Still gives me the heebe jeebies when I see two guys holding hands.
joe_peters
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grants Pass, OryGun
My only issue with "gay marriage" is when it comes, and it will, and a Catholic priest, Christian minister, or Jewish Rabbi is sentenced to prison for refusing to "marry" a same sex couple.
Trust me, this will come to be on our current course.
Trust me, this will come to be on our current course.
WB9YZU
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Madison, WI
I think that is a null fear.
Religious Marriage is a Rite (not a Right). And because it is so, it follows the rules of the religion, not the law.
Religious Marriage is a Rite (not a Right). And because it is so, it follows the rules of the religion, not the law.
joe_peters
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Grants Pass, OryGun
Except, in our country, government got into the marriage business and it never should have.
Lets have civil unions for all--grandfather in all "marriages" before a certain date--but after the cut off date you MUST have a civil union for legal purposes, then get "married" for religious reasons if you feel the need, and there is a church willing to wed you.
WB9YZU
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Madison, WI
Yah, the legal words are an issue.
But frankly, the folks who passed these laws 150-200 years back could never have envisioned Gay Marriage. Infact, just the sexual act was illegal until just a decade or two ago and still illegal but not enforced in many States currently.
Not sure if you can use "Civil Union" though. It already has the definition of "a not exactly a legal marriage, but something we could pass without calling it "Marriage" "
But frankly, the folks who passed these laws 150-200 years back could never have envisioned Gay Marriage. Infact, just the sexual act was illegal until just a decade or two ago and still illegal but not enforced in many States currently.
Not sure if you can use "Civil Union" though. It already has the definition of "a not exactly a legal marriage, but something we could pass without calling it "Marriage" "
Similar threads
