–Secretary of State John Kerry, who served
Apparently 300,000-400,000 turned out for the People’s Climate March in New York City, Sunday.
NEW YORK — More than 300,000 people marched through the streets of New York City on Sunday in what organizers called the largest climate-change demonstration in history.
With banners, flags, floats and drums, protesters at the “People’s Climate March” overwhelmed midtown Manhattan in flocks of vivid color, demanding action ahead of the United Nations Climate Summit this week.
And as typically seems to be the case, the aftermath belies the message espoused.
Noah Rothman at Hot Air has the scoop:
“We live in a grotesque era where we have everything we want right now,” one protester told Foster, graciously packaging her entire movement up in one self-hating nutshell.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY[/youtube]
There appear to be two strains of protesters who attended the People’s March. Some cling desperately to the ideals of Marx and who repeat rhetoric and slogans which have largely remained unchanged since the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. These folks ironically consider themselves “progressives.” The other strain of protester who spoke with Foster seemed lost, misplaced, left behind in a world which no longer made much sense.
It is a condition as old as time; the aimless in search of personal meaning complement the ranks of a movement which promises personal purpose. The revolution is over, but the tragically committed revolutionaries persist.
What Foster uncovered in New York City was what so many on the right have known for years, but the public rarely sees. The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism. It is no wonder, then, that so few climate change devotees in government and the media go out of their way to make sure you never hear from their grassroots supporters.
And today:
NEW YORK, Sept 22 (Reuters) – Hundreds of protesters plan to risk arrest on Monday during an unsanctioned blockade in New York City’s financial district to call attention to what organizers say is Wall Street’s contribution to climate change.
~~~ Flood Wall Street organizers said they wanted to use the momentum gained by Sunday’s march to “highlight the role of capitalism in fueling the climate crisis.”
I remember attending a couple of anti-war rallies in Los Angeles. These protests were full of fringies spouting all sorts of sideshow agendas that had little to nothing at all to do with what the rally was organized for.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
@Smorgasbord #382:
“All I am trying to say is that being gay is not a choice. Nobody has ever said to themselves, “I think I will try this gay thing and see if I like it.””
That is correct, of course, and a point I’ve repeatedly made.
It baffles me how so many “religious” people presume to tell me ALL about homosexuality, not from any internal understanding that they might have, but from the perspective of things that were said several thousands of years ago, as if more was known about sexuality THEN than it is NOW. When taken with their absolute refusal to accept the accounts of the lives of people who have actually grown up gay and who KNOW that it wasn’t a choice, the religious position on homosexuality is reduced to a pathetically irrelevant view of something that never existed: a remarkably persistent sociopathic choice to “sin” against God in spite of millennia of violent persecution.
Just as it took the Church 400 years to admit that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong over the Christian view of a geocentric universe, it will take Christians an embarrassingly long time to admit that they are wrong about homosexuality. In both cases, the erroneous precepts that the Church clings to are seen to be essential supporting pillars to more important doctrine that cannot be sacrificed simply because they are wrong.
In the case of homosexuality, it MUST be a choice because if it is not, and God made homosexuals the way they are, how can it be the sin that the Bible says it is? (Note that NOWHERE in the Bible does the phrase “Hate the sin, love the sinner” appear, not in any form.) The Church’s continuing objection to homosexuality is nothing more than a desperate attempt to conserve the consistency of the liturgical message.
@Redteam #395:
“I have seen reports of studies that show different levels of intelligence of different races.”
” I suspect most of those tests indicate education level, not intelligence. ”
BINGO!!!!!
Correctomundo!
I’m worried about you, Redteam.
All of a sudden, you’re saying intelligent stuff.
Please say something teeth-grindingly stupid so that I’ll know that you aren’t dying.
@Ditto #398:
“Looks like George succeeded once again in his usual compulsive- obsessive goal of diverting conversations into yet another boring discussion about homosexuality.”
Last time I looked, it still takes two to tango.
Perhaps if you aren’t interested in the course that a spirited conversation between 4 or more people is taking, you shouldn’t join in.
@George+Wells: #402
I figure the gay thing this way: I have never heard of ANYBODY being harmed in ANY way because someone was gay, so what difference does it make if they are?
@Smorgasbord #405:
Did you notice the news today?
Today the Supreme Court of the United States refused to reverse the decisions of the three circuit courts that had already decided in favor of gay marriage.
The SCOTUS action means that the Court could not muster four votes (even including from among its conservative justices: Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito) to hear the gay marriage case on its merits as a constitutional issue.
(The conservative justices knew that Kennedy was going to side with the liberal wing of the court, and hearing the case would have resulted in the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states, all at once. The Court prefers to move slowly on such important changes whenever possible – the reason that the liberal justices did not vote to hear the case.)
The effect of this SCOTUS action immediately increases the number of states in which gay marriage is legal to 30.
This means that 60% of the people in the United States are now eligible to marry members of the same sex.
OMG! This is happening faster than I ever dreamed possible!
Thank you, voters; thank you, legislatures; thank you, state, federal, appeals and Supreme Court justices for helping to end the injustice that gays have suffered at the hands of the majority for so very long!
God Bless America!
@George+Wells:
“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” MLK Jr
@Richard Wheeler #407:
I am crying for joy.
Some thirty years ago, Chief Justice Warren Burger told me that equal rights for gays would be realized “in the fullness of time.” I was comforted a measure by his assurance, but I certainly had no confidence that the “fullness of time” would occur during my life.
MLK’s arc of the moral universe took an unexpectedly sharp turn in the direction of justice today. I was confident enough in the eventual outcome of the push for gay marriage to predict it’s complete success, but I failed to anticipate the speed of its arrival. It is now quite safe to predict that all 50 states will have gay marriage by the end of 2015.
Awesome!
@George+Wells:
Today the Supreme Court of the United States refused to reverse the decisions of the three circuit courts that had already decided in favor of gay marriage.
There is no indication that was the case:
How ironic that you deride those who follow His teachings, yet call out His name in celebration of your hollow victory.
What could not be attained in the court of public opinion is achieved by judicial fiat. Divorce lawyers all across the nation are popping champagne corks.
@George+Wells: Congratulations!!
The rights of ALL sentient beings. The fight against speciesism. Underway.
“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.”
@RICHARD WHEELER:
Nope
If you clicked on that link, you’ll see that I picked the teams that I thought would most likely win. I’m in a competition and I figured, for example, as in the Miss State case. They had played a great game against LSU and A&M had struggled against Ark, so I figured, being at home, they were gonna edge A&M. What did logic say when I picked with you? A&M was likely to beat MSU (hard for them to have two great games in a row) Why did I pick Ole Miss? Ala has not been playing well, Miss had. I wasn’t real confident so I only picked it for 2 points. When you play ‘Pickem” if everyone picks all the same teams, you can’t get ahead. There are 8 teams in the league, no one else got more than 5 correct. After 6 weeks, I’m in first place, where I’ve been every week but one.
@Smorgasbord: 399
Smorg, you can make or create as many situations as you like to accomplish what you want to. But take this situation. Go to a large High School in the USA, in Louisiana. Find 100 black kids and 100 white kids with the following stipulations. Every one had to be born into a 2 parent family in the state of Louisiana. Every one had to attend integrated public schools for all 12 years. Give all 200 of them the exact same IQ test. I would bet you some serious money that the average grade for the white kids would be higher than the black kids. If you changed any of those conditions, I would not bet on the outcome. I would also bet you that you would have both white and black kids in the 90+ percentile range and at least one of each in the ‘dumb’ range.
Obviously you can’t take a person that can’t read or speak English and give him an IQ test in English and expect him to do well. On the other hand, I would likely score very low on an IQ test given in Russian language. When you are seriously trying to determine someone’s brain power, you have to do it in conditions that individuals are familiar with.
@Richard Wheeler #410:
Thanks, Richard.
There are a number of very interesting possibilities that this SCOTUS action suggests:
1. That the SCOTUS is presently inclined to grant a constitutional right of marriage to gay people. This much is fairly certain, as the states that were covered by the various cases being appealed will begin allowing gay marriages ASAP, and the legal muck-up that would ensue should those marriages be reversed would be catastrophic. If the SCOTUS had the votes to overturn the appellate decisions before it, it would have taken at least one of those cases.
2. It has already been “announced” that the SCOTUS WILL hear at least one case, IF one of the pending cases under appeal gets decided in favor banning gay marriage. Thanks, Ginsberg, for that heads-up.
3. If and when an appeals court upholds a ban, and the case DOES go to the SCOTUS on appeal, the appellate decision WILL be reversed for the reason noted in #1 above.
4. The conservative wing of the SCOTUS appreciated that Kennedy would join the 4 liberal justices in IMMEDIATELY allowing gay marriage in all 50 states IF any of the present cases were heard, even though the court would prefer to move ahead slowly. (This is why the liberal wing didn’t vote to hear any of the cases already before it.) The conservative justices took the route that they did because it presented them with the SLOWEST path to national gay marriage rights to which they had access.
5. So long as the SCOTUS DOESN’T actually hear the case AND render a decision on its merits, it leaves the matter open. The SCOTUS could wait for the balance of liberal and conservative justices to change before accepting a gay marriage case for review. In terms of precedent, a decision to not review is less compelling than a decision that might need to be overturned. “Stare decisis” is not a binding rule, but it is a powerful consideration.
6. Even if the make-up of the court WAS to change, and a gay marriage case WAS to come before a less sympathetic court, a decision against gay marriage would be unlikely. This is because of the large and nearly unanimous number of decisions that have already come down on the side of gay marriage, because of the complete, 50-state right to gay marriage that by then would be in place, and because of the chaos that a reversal would create across the entire nation. The SCOTUS takes the least disruptive route whenever possible.
@retire05 #409:
“The conservative justices knew that Kennedy was going to side with the liberal wing of the court”
“There is no indication that was the case”
The indication that this is the case doesn’t come in the form of a statement from the court. It comes from the logic that can’t be disputed:
If there were 5 justices who wanted to ban gay marriage, the SCOTUS would have taken one of the cases. The only SCOTUS justice who could have tilted the court would have been Kennedy.
“God Bless America!”
“How ironic that you deride those who follow His teachings, yet call out His name in celebration of your hollow victory.”
How ironic that you confuse the perfect God with his outrageously flawed followers.
I cheer God.
I scorn stupid people.
@Redteam: What are your weighted picks today?
How bout K.C. WOW—Are you still piking them over Orioles–you can get good odds.
N.D. #6—Think state of Miss. loses 2 on Sat and Irish get in hunt at #4 with win over N.C. Play Fla State on the road in 2 weeks.
@All:
Notice the question at the top of this thread:
“What is the Climate Change Movement really all about?”
Go ahead and read it again.
Now think…
The answer is: GAY MARRIAGE!
@George+Wells:402
Interesting statement George. Would you accept the statement from 4000 years ago that to kill someone is a sin? Do you think more is known about killing someone today than back then? Why would that be different if the subject were changed to gay sex? I’m going to assume that you do feel as if murdering someone is a sin. See the conflict?
@George+Wells:
Yet you thwart His laws.
And in both the Old and the New Testament, God scorns the sodomist.
@Redteam: Are you saying that given the EXACT SAME conditions white kids score higher than black kids? Your reasoning?
@Smorgasbord: 405
because ‘affirmative action’ is discrimination and discrimation is wrong, doesn’t matter if it’s for color or gayness. It can be phrased many ways, but there are few gays that do not want ‘special conditions’ because they are gay. Yes, there may be exceptions, but not many.
@Redteam #417:
Redteam, you like to dredge up questions about human behavior in terms that were relevant 4000 years ago, and you certainly have a right to ask those questions. However, I don’t have a responsibility to answer your questions about current law in archaic terms.
I don’t CARE what people 4000 years ago thought about “sin,”n and I don’t care about what you and Retire05 think about “sin” either. I am constitutionally protected from your opinions about “sin. Thank God.
“I’m going to assume that you do feel as if murdering someone is a sin. See the conflict?”
Nope. I don’t have ANY “feelings” about “sin,” and there is no conflict.
@retire05 #418:
The Bible and the “laws” there-in were written by MEN, not GOD.
Here in the United States, I am not bound by the myths and half-truths that are perpetrated in that book.
I am bound by the laws of man, and bestowed with the right to work to change them as I see fit.
Today there has been great progress in this arena.
How’s your Bible doing?
@George+Wells: 413.
The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws. Not to make grants.
The Supreme court’s job is to interpret laws, not to ‘allow’ or ‘not allow’ marriages.
Just a question George. If 2% of the population is gay, do you suspect that most of that 2% will marry in a same sex union? What % of the 2% do you think will marry another gay person?
@Richard+Wheeler:
on Pickem? haven’t even looked at it yet. Don’t even know who’s playing who.
yep, Wow. will go with KC 4-3. Each winning all home games except KC taking the rubber match (refuse to lose mentality)
I know you like the Golden domes but they are over rated. only won on a hope and prayer Saturday at home to a lower ranked team (though Stanford is good) Even if they win over NC, so what? NC is terrible. They will likely get there butts handed to them when they play Fla State, another overranked team. barely beat NC State, which doesn’t seem to have a football team this year (based on Sat’s play)
I’m going with MSU to defeat Auburn this weekend, Dak will Attack. Old Miss will lose to A&M.
and on your favorite, as I said, ND over NC, this won’t be much of a game unless ND leaves a lot of their players at home.
@Redteam #423:
“The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws.”
That’s REASONABLY accurate.
The Supreme court is the court of last resort, deciding conflicts of the law when opponents are not satisfied with the answers received from lower courts. The SCOTUS DOES decide whether laws are constitutional or not, and in the case of anti-gay marriage laws, the courts at the state, federal and appellate levels have agreed that those laws are unconstitutional, with near unanimity, and the SCOTUS decided today NOT to overturn their findings. Does this “grant” a right of gay marriage? Technically, no, for the reason that you suggest: The supreme court doesn’t “grant” many things other than a review of a case that it chooses to review. Just like the word “grant” isn’t being accurately used when someone says that they will “grant that you are right’ about something. (The word “stipulate” or “agree” would be more accurate in that case.)
But in effect, the SCOTUS decision in this case DOES allow gay marriage to spread across another 20% of the nation that didn’t have it yesterday, and for a great many people, this news will be no different from having been “granted” a right that was previously withheld.
Regarding what percentage of gays might want to get married, I would estimate that someday perhaps 20 or 30% will choose to marry. I think that the final percentage would be somewhat lower than for heterosexuals because heterosexuals are a bit more into the business of having children than the average gay person, and marriage has a lot of children focus for a lot of people. Countering that bias, though, would be the other benefits of marriage that come automatically, like hospital, joint property and inheritance rights. Time will tell how the cultural influence of marriage translates into the gay experience. Likely they will change each other a bit.
Let’s say that only one gay couple decides to get married. Does that one gay marriage destroy yours? Or does it take a larger number of gay marriages to ruin it for you? What is the point beyond which you think marriage is no longer appealing? Then are you going to just hoar around like you think all gays did before AIDS scared them or gay marriage gave them another option?
@Richard+Wheeler:
Yes. Common sense and life’s experiences. Are you saying you don’t believe that? The reason why education is so bad in the US is that kids are being taught to the level of the dumbest people. Dumbing everyone down, so to speak. This started with school integration. They don’t have school integration in Japan.
@George+Wells: 421
Let me test that. Two persons get married, let’s assume that they love each other. One of them has an affair (actually has sex with someone they are not married to) You don’t have ‘any’ feelings about that? Note: I’m not asking if you think anything should be done about it, or if it’s legal or any of that BS, just do you have “any feelings” about it?
@Redteam: “Leave their players at home” As they should being game is in South Bend. LOL N.D with one of non SEC toughest schedules will finish #4 even with only loss coming to Fla. St. A win is a win—ask K.C. Orioles end K.C. run 4-1.
You told me you made weighted College picks last Mon. I’ll look for yours tomorrow. Mine will follow. You say Miss State on road over Auburn–you’re dreaming.
LSU looks dead–who starts at Q.B. next game?
@George+Wells:
No you’re not. The constitution does not say anything about my opinions of sin except that I have the free will to practice my religion and if my religion says I should condemn you for a sin, then I am constitutionally guaranteed the right to have that opinion and to so state that I have that opinion. So how are you ‘protected’ from that? You have two choices, you can 1. like it or 2. not like it. That’s about it.
Besides, I’m not the one to make judgments about sins, that’s God’s job and I suspect he will take it seriously whether you do or not. But that’s between you and Him.
@George+Wells: 421
nope George in 402 you said:
So it’s you that brought up what was happening thousands of years ago, not me.
@Redteam: Thanks for definition of affair.
Re 426 Exact same education, stable family, same geographical birth site etc. scores will be similar. My experiences. Note Whites are not superior to Blacks.
“They don’t have school integration in Japan.” Absurd statement
@Redteam #427:
“Nope. I don’t have ANY “feelings” about “sin,” and there is no conflict.”
“Let me test that. Two persons get married, let’s assume that they love each other. One of them has an affair (actually has sex with someone they are not married to) You don’t have ‘any’ feelings about that? Note: I’m not asking if you think anything should be done about it, or if it’s legal or any of that BS, just do you have “any feelings” about it?”
I think that you are confusing several different things. The word “wrong” means one thing, and the word “sin” means another. Maybe you think that these two word mean exactly the same thing, but I don’t.
The Bible doesn’t say all sorts of things about behaviors that are “wrong,” but it spends a great amount of time talking about “sin.” I think that the word “sin” refers to bad behaviors that the Bible says God doesn’t like. The same is not true for the word “wrong”.
Our laws talk about what behaviors are “wrong.” Our laws don’t talk about behaviors that are “sinful.”
It is enough that I pay close attention to the laws of man that guide my behavior.
I leave the matter of determining what “sin” is – and what the punishments for being “sinful” should be – to God.
I can use the words “sin” and “abomination” just as freely as Retire05 does, but my use of those words is casual-conversational, and not technically accurate. I do not recognize or use either of those two words in the same context that evangelical Christians use them.
@Redteam:
Except when you’re not, as in the case of the bakers. Or when the radical gays want to cost you your job, financial security or business, or for that matter, your personal safety. If you want to exercise your First Amendment rights, you will be duly punished by the Gay Mafia.
I suspect the 6th Circuit will rule in favor of the same-sex marriage ban case in front of it now. At that point, the SCOTUS will take it up due to a split in Circuit court rulings. And remember, Kennedy is a full supporter of the 1oth Amendment.
@George+Wells:
Why do you feel the need to drag me into a debate you are having with another? Are you so insecure that you can’t present your own opinions without trying to back them up with another’s words?
@George+Wells:
another technicality, which as silly as it seems is important. The decision is not what allows gay marriage to spread. the decision prevents laws that prevent the spreading. If it were simple lawyers wouldln’t have jobs and might all be on the bottom of the oceans.
Sounds about right. Just speculaton, but I think the overall result will be even less straight couples getting married. More people will accept the Court decision that nobody thinks marriage is important anymore so less people will be interested. The old “hell and handbasket” argument.
I don’t think those things are significant, if they were, more couples would have been getting married, but that’s not the trend, is it?
@Redteam #429:
“I am constitutionally protected from your opinions about “sin.”
“No you’re not. The constitution does not say anything about my opinions of sin except that I have the free will to practice my religion and if my religion says I should condemn you for a sin, then I am constitutionally guaranteed the right to have that opinion and to so state that I have that opinion. So how are you ‘protected’ from that? You have two choices, you can 1. like it or 2. not like it. That’s about it.”
I neither like nor dislike your opinion about sin. It is irrelevant to me. I am PROTECTED from your opinion of sin by my constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, which prevents you from IMPOSING your opinion of sin on me. Yes, you have a free speech right to say what your opinion is, and I can listen to it if I want, but I am PROTECTED from any harm which you may wish upon me because I violate your silly notion of “sin”. “Sin” doesn’t enter into the Law.
“Sin”: 1. an offence against religious or moral law, 2: a transgression against the law of God. (Webster’s New Collegiate)
I do not recognize “sin”.
@Redteam #435:
“hospital, joint property and inheritance rights.”
“I don’t think those things are significant”
You don’t think that they are “significant” because you already have them.
You would think differently if you had them taken away from you.
And the anti-gay-marriage laws that are in the process of being overturned were specifically written in many cases to void the legal instruments that Retire05 has suggested could create the same benefits. (She lies a lot.)
@Richard+Wheeler:
Auburn is on the road (on my schedule). I going to say ND loses to FSU, ASU and USC. Note USC would lose that game at SouthBend, but not in Cal.
new Pickem not out yet, I’ll give you my picks when it comes out.
Same sex marriage does NOT guarantee those things;
Hospital: All hospitals now require a HIPA form to be filled out and signed. That form designates who the hospital can discuss your treatment, surgery, medicine therapy and condition with.
Joint property: achieved by title or deed. My sister inherited my mother’s home as my mother put it in both names (joint ownership) with rights of survival. They were not married to each other.
Inheritance: There are states that are community property states and some are not. Some states grant a “child’s share”, some do not. People are free to bequeath their property to anyone they want in a simple will.
Cute, coming from someone who derides the religion of others. Another example of a small, small person who happens to be male.
@George+Wells: 437
likely, but that wasn’t my point. which was: If those rights are important and have always been available to a man and a woman that gets married, why is the number of men and women getting married declining? If those rights are worth marrying for, wouldn’t everyone that could get married to get them?
@retire05 #434:
“Why do you feel the need to drag me into a debate you are having with another?”
Because you are the quintessential example of a bigot.
You lie repeatedly and err often, always making mistakes that favor your position.
When proven wrong, you abandon your position and assume another, ever “moving the goal post.”
When all else fails, you spit and insult, as if such sour grapes can rescue a lost cause.
You are the perfect target.
How can I not love you?
@George+Wells:
Ah, the ever reliable term “bigot.” Thrown out with so much abandonment that it now becomes moot.
Nope, and your saying so doesn’t make that true. You are the one who obfuscates, refuses to answer questions and changes your story as the need arises.
You lie, as I do not do that. I am firm in my convictions consequently eliminating the need to “move the goal post.”
But calling someone a “bigot” is a term of endearment? Pot, meet kettle.
At least I am not a sodomist.
You do not love me, so stop being superficial. I find you a despicable person, and not because you are gay, but because you are a dishonest broker of a dishonest agenda.
@retire05 #439:
“Same sex marriage does NOT guarantee those things;”
Hospital:
Joint property:
Inheritance:
Another of your lies.
We have already covered the fact that Virginia’s now-overturned constitutional amendment expressly voided every option that gay couples had to access the rights above. Today we gained those rights, and about a thousand others. As of today, I no longer need to hire a lawyer, construct legal documents and then worry about whether or not the State of Virginia will nullify them at its pleasure.
Only someone who already had such rights would so callously trivialize them.
@Richard+Wheeler: 431
Didn’t define ‘affair’ only stipulated that within the affair someone actually had sex with someone not their married partner.
You only attempted to ‘restate’ what I said. I said scores would be similar, but that white avg would be higher than black, just as I think Asian would be higher than either. (do you or do you not believe factual data that shows these things) Your experiences have obviously been different than the average American.
My statement about school integration in Japan was not clear. By it I meant that everyone in Japan’s schools are Japanese. If everyone is same race, they’re not ‘integrated’. In Japan, the population is 98.5% Japanese. Who are they ‘integrated’ with? As far as I can find, most foreigners in Japan are Filipino, Korean and Chinese (all Asian). Couldn’t find that they have any white or black citizens, if so it’s a very small number. Chinese, the 3rd largest group is only .4 of 1 percent. So I think the statement that schools aren’t ‘integrated’ is accurate. Do you have other evidence?
“It can occur that a surviving spouse will not be the sole owner of the principal family residence following the death of their spouse.
This can occur if the principal family residence is titled only in the name of the decedent spouse and the decedent spouse does not leave their entire estate or the residence to the surviving spouse. Or, perhaps the decedent spouse died intestate and is survived by children who are not children of the surviving spouse, in which case the surviving spouse will only receive a share of the estate.”
http://virginiaestatelaw.com/main/chapters/spousal/residence.shtml
@George+Wells: 432
I’ve said the same thing and that’s not what the discussion is about, just your attempt to change the direction. First you said:
and then I asked the question :
Now I simply described a sin and asked you if you have any feelings about it. You try to change the point to describing it as a sin and that you don’t ‘judge’ sins. That was not the question. How do you feel about a married persons cheating on their mate?
@retire05: 446 Retire, there are many, many situations where ‘just being married’ doesn’t change a damn thing. Yes, I think the gays want to believe they just inherited heaven (even though most of them claim not to believe in it) but most of those laws that they are celebrating still can have many ‘if’s, and’s and but’s’ and only lawyers will have won by the gay court decisions. I know of a male/female couple that got married in Florida. A few years later he died. A court took the house because of a debt.(that he had made before they got married) Didn’t make any difference that they were married. Seems as if George is under the impression the gay marriage would make all those laws go away. Some awakening is coming……..
@Redteam: In RT speak is “higher” the same as “similar”?
Think my experiences pretty much average American white guy—don’t feel superior to anyone– except racists.
Game is in Starksville–still like Tigers by 7+
@George+Wells: 436 you said:
Here’s the conflict that willl have to be resolved. It’s strange that you can say:” I am PROTECTED from your opinion of sin by my constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, which prevents you from IMPOSING your opinion of sin on me. ” BUT that at the same time, I can not say: ” I am PROTECTED from your opinion of sin by my constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, which prevents you from IMPOSING your opinion of sin on me. ” This opinion as you interpret it says that now I have to accept what it is that you were claiming is ‘right’ and I don’t have any right but to accept your opinion of that. So why am I being discriminated against at the expense of having your Opinion being accepted and My Opinion being ignored?
@retire05 #433:
“I suspect the 6th Circuit will rule in favor of the same-sex marriage ban case in front of it now. At that point, the SCOTUS will take it up due to a split in Circuit court rulings. And remember, Kennedy is a full supporter of the 1oth Amendment.”
First two sentences: Correct.
Third sentence, a lie.
Kennedy is a supporter of EVERY amendment to the Constitution, not just the 10th. But what is a “FULL” supporter?
If Kennedy had any intention of siding with the four conservative justices on the SCOTUS, he would not have let another 13 states start having gay marriages today. He would have voted to hear at least one of the cases submitted to the court, and he would eventually have agreed to overturn the appellate decisions. He didn’t.
Either you are intentionally misleading Redteam (lying), or you are astonishingly logic-impaired, or incredibly stupid.