HitsRus;1080126 wrote:^^^you haven't said anything of value in the whole fucking thread. As fish said...Your arguement and logic is faulty, based on generalizations and an obsession to bash religion.

That pretty much sums it up.

HitsRus;1080126 wrote:^^^you haven't said anything of value in the whole fucking thread. As fish said...Your arguement and logic is faulty, based on generalizations and an obsession to bash religion.

LOL Sorry, but I have yet to see an argument which trumps anything I've ever written.

Keep the circle jerk going though fellas, you aren't winning and you never will.

sleeper;1080165 wrote:LOL Sorry, but I have yet to see an argument which trumps anything I've ever written.

Keep the circle jerk going though fellas, you aren't winning and you never will.

Your pathological need to claim victory every post is awesome. It only adds to your legend of idiocy.

Con_Alma;1079598 wrote:Licensing is granting approval or permission. There is not reason for it. One should be able to marry without State involvement. A relationship contract should be no different than a business contract. A license should not be required.

Americans and other peoples see state sanctioned marriage as a valuable basic right and feel it should be rewarded. The large majority of nations offer it. In America the prerequisites and the cost are minimal. The option of co-habitation is available. And if a couple wishes to reinforce their cohabitation with a contract, they can.

I Wear Pants;1079882 wrote:If you're arguing that you don't think the state should be involved in marriage at all then we agree.

...

I am and have been for quite some time now.

isadore;1080206 wrote:Americans and other peoples see state sanctioned marriage as a valuable basic right and feel it should be rewarded. The large majority of nations offer it. In America the prerequisites and the cost are minimal. The option of co-habitation is available. And if a couple wishes to reinforce their cohabitation with a contract, they can.

All of those things can still be available even without State sanctioning. With State sanction we provide the ability for discriminatory practices of what you have shown is a basic right.

Con_Alma;1080295 wrote:All of those things can still be available even without State sanctioning. With State sanction we provide the ability for discriminatory practices of what you have shown is a basic right.

But with state sanctioning we can also provide equality in marriage.

You're acting as if it's the sanctioning of marriage that is providing the discrimination. But sanctioned marriage wouldn't be discriminatory if we allowed gay marriages as well.

I mean I agree that there's no need for sanctioned marriages but as long as we're going to have them we should allow LGBT people to be married as well.

Pretty simple argument for Gay marriage. Since State Sanctioned Marriage is going nowhere(wish it would). The State should allow Gay Marriage, Civil Unions whatever you want to call it. However if a Church doesnt want to marry a gay couple that is their right. So in short, who cares.

And just so you know, the Catholic church will deny marrying Staright couples for certain reasons also.

pmoney25;1080600 wrote:Pretty simple argument for Gay marriage. Since State Sanctioned Marriage is going nowhere(wish it would). The State should allow Gay Marriage, Civil Unions whatever you want to call it. However if a Church doesnt want to marry a gay couple that is their right. So in short, who cares.

And just so you know, the Catholic church will deny marrying Staright couples for certain reasons also.

This.

"Pretty simple argument for Gay marriage. Since State Sanctioned Marriage is going nowhere(wish it would). The State should allow Gay Marriage, Civil Unions whatever you want to call it. However if a Church doesnt want to marry a gay couple that is their right. So in short, who cares."

It does sound simple, but it might not be. What if the the gay lobby wants to end tax-exempt status for churches that refuse to perform gay marriages?

Manhattan Buckeye;1080704 wrote:It does sound simple, but it might not be. What if the the gay lobby wants to end tax-exempt status for churches that refuse to perform gay marriages?

Simple. Since churches would no longer be tax-exempt, they could form their own Christian Brotherhood PAC and lobby Congress for federal funding to pay for church construction since pastors and priests would - in essence - become a quasi-governmental employees at that point.

I Wear Pants;1080399 wrote:But with state sanctioning we can also provide equality in marriage.

You're acting as if it's the sanctioning of marriage that is providing the discrimination. But sanctioned marriage wouldn't be discriminatory if we allowed gay marriages as well.

I mean I agree that there's no need for sanctioned marriages but as long as we're going to have them we should allow LGBT people to be married as well.

It's not just a gay marriage thing. What do you tell polygamists?

State sanctioned isn't necessary. All the benefits can be had be anyone interested in entering into a relationship contract.

sleeper;1080165 wrote:LOL Sorry, but I have yet to see an argument which trumps anything I've ever written.

Keep the circle jerk going though fellas, you aren't winning and you never will.

"The tendency to whining and complaining may be taken as the surest sign symptom of little souls and inferior intellect."

HitsRus;1080126 wrote:^^^you haven't said anything of value in the whole ****ing thread. As fish said...Your arguement and logic is faulty, based on generalizations and an obsession .

I think that that is what the ol sleeper is stating about religion.....

pmoney25;1080600 wrote:Pretty simple argument for Gay marriage. Since State Sanctioned Marriage is going nowhere(wish it would). The State should allow Gay Marriage, Civil Unions whatever you want to call it. However if a Church doesnt want to marry a gay couple that is their right. So in short, who cares.

And just so you know, the Catholic church will deny marrying Staright couples for certain reasons also.

Even as a conservative Christian, this has been my stance for a LONG time. I do not agree with homosexuality but at the same time it is not my place to enforce my beliefs on others. So, let them have civil unions, but part of the law needs to protect churches from civil lawsuits when they refuse to marry a homosexual couple.

Con_Alma;1080295 wrote:All of those things can still be available even without State sanctioning. With State sanction we provide the ability for discriminatory practices of what you have shown is a basic right.

The state is providing a desired service. To receive this service people have to fulfil a few prerequistes. With the exception of not allowing gays to wed they are hardly onerous. Hopefully the ban against gay marriage will soon be lifted, may be even polygamists.
Who then is being discriminated against.
"Who may contract a marriage?
Male persons of the age of 18 years and female persons of the age of 16 years, not nearer of kin than second cousins and not having a husband or wife, may be joined in marriage. A minor must first obtain the consent of his or her parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction"
Incestuous couples and minors, the last two barriers. I take it you would want them eliminated.

http://www.ohiobar.org/Pages/LawFactsPamphletsDetail.aspx?itemID=35

Actually, gay marriage should be two issues.

A binding civil union sanctioned by the government.

A religious ceremony applied by the churches.

Two issues that both parties should stay the hell out of each others issues.

A pretty simple issue if you ask me ( which you didn't of course)

fish82;1079063 wrote:Do any of the current conditions of participation clash with the First Amendment? I'll help you....the answer is no.

Try again. Usually the stuff that I've been doing for 25 years, I'm a little better at...but I guess that's just me.

You need to stop embarrassing yourself. State and local governments and their regulatory agencies for years have (read before Obama) passed all sorts of regulations that clash with religious teachings, and First Amendment rights. This is why the Mormons can't legally practice polygamy and David Koresh is not F***ing little boys and collecting guns. You border on narcissistic personality disorder with some of your rants.

Bigdogg;1080990 wrote:You need to stop embarrassing yourself. State and local governments and their regulatory agencies for years have (read before Obama) passed all sorts of regulations that clash with religious teachings, and First Amendment rights. This is why the Mormons can't legally practice polygamy and David Koresh is not F***ing little boys and collecting guns. You border on narcissistic personality disorder with some of your rants.

None of those have jack to do with the question I asked you, which was regarding the conditions of participating in Medicare/Medicaid. But since you brought those up, the Mormons voluntarily abolished Polygamy in 1890 after telling the feds to stick it for 30 years after the law was passed, and those laws were on the books for quite awhile before Koresh was even born. Here we're talking about a religious practice that has been in place for a hundred years, and completely accepted by the government...until now.

I'll take being amateurishly diagnosed by the guy who physically threatens people on the internetz as a badge of honor....many thanks!

isadore;1080776 wrote:The state is providing a desired service. To receive this service people have to fulfil a few prerequistes. With the exception of not allowing gays to wed they are hardly onerous. Hopefully the ban against gay marriage will soon be lifted, may be even polygamists.
Who then is being discriminated against.
"Who may contract a marriage?
Male persons of the age of 18 years and female persons of the age of 16 years, not nearer of kin than second cousins and not having a husband or wife, may be joined in marriage. A minor must first obtain the consent of his or her parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction"
Incestuous couples and minors, the last two barriers. I take it you would want them eliminated.

http://www.ohiobar.org/Pages/LawFactsPamphletsDetail.aspx?itemID=35

Unless you are very forgetful you know my answer to your question for we have discussed it before. Minors are not able to enter into a legal contract.

Can you provide one reason an incestuous couple or a polygamist adult should be restricted from such a basic human right as marriage?

A State need not provide the service for there's no service required to get married other than a signature on a contract. Contracts are executed daily without State sanctioning. It is simply not needed. State involvement creates a potentially prejudice authority based on the the requirements defined in order to gain their permission of such a basic right.

fish82;1081058 wrote:None of those have jack to do with the question I asked you, which was regarding the conditions of participating in Medicare/Medicaid. But since you brought those up, the Mormons voluntarily abolished Polygamy in 1890 after telling the feds to stick it for 30 years after the law was passed, and those laws were on the books for quite awhile before Koresh was even born. Here we're talking about a religious practice that has been in place for a hundred years, and completely accepted by the government...until now.

I'll take being amateurishly diagnosed by the guy who physically threatens people on the internetz as a badge of honor....many thanks!

Evidently you are not capable of understanding or just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Anywho I really don't care. As for my diagnosis of you, pretty sure it is spot on. If you would like a more professional one just send me a check. According to the great state of Ohio, I am well qualified to offer my opinion. I just can't prescribe you medication to make you better, and your not capable of developing the insight required to change your ways

I am not sure how an anonymous person on the internet can make you feel threatened. Do you also have feelings of persecution? Are you hearing voices? If so, I think you need more help than I can give you.

Bigdogg;1081199 wrote:Evidently you are not capable of understanding or just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Anywho I really don't care. As for my diagnosis of you, pretty sure it is spot on. If you would like a more professional one just send me a check. According to the great state of Ohio, I am well qualified to offer my opinion. I just can't prescribe you medication to make you better, and your not capable of developing the insight required to change your ways

I am not sure how an anonymous person on the internet can make you feel threatened. Do you also have feelings of persecution? Are you hearing voices? If so, I think you need more help than I can give you.

Now you're babbling again. Meltdown to follow.

Captain Cavalier;1075968 wrote:Wow.

If you believe in birth control, abortion or sterilizations is not the issue.

Mandating religious instituions to offer them against their faith is the issue...and is wrong.

If one doesn't agree with their views then don't work there.

It is well established in First Amendment Jurisprudence that the government may regulate general conduct and is not required to provide exemptions from governmental regulations for persons whose religious beliefs prevent them from complying with the requirements of the law. The law regulates all providers of health insurance and not just Catholic employers and under the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence such laws are totally fine.

For instance, there was a case wherein an employer challenged the federal minimum wage law arguing that minimum wages interfered with its members' religious desires to work without compensation and the Court said the government didn't have to exempt them from paying the minimum wage.

Religious Persons are mandated to comply with laws that violate their religious beliefs all the time.

Furthermore, 28 States already require Catholic Organizations to cover Contraception and yet I don't hear much uproar about any of that.

(Now perhaps somebody will say that this is a Federalism issue but that's not why Catholics are up in arms over this.)

tk421;1076004 wrote:If Obama mandated that any other religion than Christianity had to do something like this, it'd be all over the news and there'd be big trouble. No one cares about the Christians, but I'd like to see Obama mandate that Islamic organizations have to do something that is against their religion.

The Law isn't singling out Catholics...it applies to all health insurance providers. It just isn't allowing certain Catholic Health Insurance providers to be exempt from a rule that it is applicable to all health insurance providers.

majorspark;1076773 wrote:You gloss over the power of taxation. Tax law is one step below martial law. One controls by monitary force the other by physical force.

Taxation in a representative democracy is not anything close to the arbitrary imposition of military rule by military authorities in which the citizenry nor their representatives have any say because the military as consumed all the power of the former legislative, executive and judicial branches...which is what full-scale martial law is.