Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

HHS mandate on Catholic and other religious institutions

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ HHS mandate on Catholic and other religious institutions
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 12, 2012 2:42 AM
Drunk driving isn't a basic human right. There is no reason an adult can't enter into a contract with reards to a relationship. None. It should not require the permission of the State.
Feb 11, 2012 9:42pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Feb 12, 2012 3:27 AM
Con_Alma;1083321 wrote:Drunk driving isn't a basic human right. There is no reason an adult can't enter into a contract with reards to a relationship. None. It should not require the permission of the State.
When the damage from allowing an action is apparent then the government must act.whether it is drunk driving or incestuous marriages.
Feb 11, 2012 10:27pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 12, 2012 10:24 AM
isadore;1083364 wrote:When the damage from allowing an action is apparent then the government must act.whether it is drunk driving or incestuous marriages.
The government should not be able to act against a Basic Human right ever.
Feb 12, 2012 5:24am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Feb 12, 2012 4:32 PM
Con_Alma;1083529 wrote:The government should not be able to act against a Basic Human right ever.
The government should act to protect off spring and to protect family members. This stuff just doesn't work out, ask Oedipus.
Feb 12, 2012 11:32am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 13, 2012 12:12 AM
isadore;1083616 wrote:The government should act to protect off spring and to protect family members. This stuff just doesn't work out, ask Oedipus.
Denying a basic right doesn't protect offspring. That's ridiculous and quite a leap.

Is the government protecting offspring by denying polygamists the right to enter into relationship contracts? Of course not.
Feb 12, 2012 7:12pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 13, 2012 12:22 AM
Con_Alma;1082797 wrote:Not polygamists or incestuous relations. There's no guarantee that they will be unhealthy and they should not be denied the right to marry any more than a gay person should. We don't need the government denying a basic right from anyone.
I don't think comparing gay people to incestuous relationships is a very accurate comparison. There are obvious genetic problems with incestuous relationships.
Feb 12, 2012 7:22pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Feb 13, 2012 12:38 AM
Con_Alma;1083981 wrote:Denying a basic right doesn't protect offspring. That's ridiculous and quite a leap.

Is the government protecting offspring by denying polygamists the right to enter into relationship contracts? Of course not.
Of course it protect potential off spring from a variety of genetic problems. Then the obvious problems within a family in relationships between parents and children, siblings in this context.
Feb 12, 2012 7:38pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 13, 2012 2:01 AM
There are not obvious problems permitting polygamy anymore than there are permitting homosexual marriage or heterosexual marriage of two individuals.
Feb 12, 2012 9:01pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Feb 13, 2012 2:25 AM
Con_Alma;1084120 wrote:There are not obvious problems permitting polygamy anymore than there are permitting homosexual marriage or heterosexual marriage of two individuals.
Now do we get your ringing endorsement for incestuous marriages.
Feb 12, 2012 9:25pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 13, 2012 3:24 AM
Con_Alma;1084120 wrote:There are not obvious problems permitting polygamy anymore than there are permitting homosexual marriage or heterosexual marriage of two individuals.
I would agree.
Feb 12, 2012 10:24pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 13, 2012 10:46 AM
isadore;1084149 wrote:Now do we get your ringing endorsement for incestuous marriages.
You get my "ringing endorsement" for any and all adults being able to enter into a contract.

You are denying them their basic right.
Feb 13, 2012 5:46am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Feb 13, 2012 1:55 PM
Con_Alma;1084412 wrote:You get my "ringing endorsement" for any and all adults being able to enter into a contract.

You are denying them their basic right.
yes I am denying the right of a deviant father to seduce marry is 18 year old daughter. State sanctioned marriage with incestuous marriage forbidden can prevent it.
Feb 13, 2012 8:55am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 13, 2012 2:49 PM
isadore;1084451 wrote:yes I am denying the right of a deviant father to seduce marry is 18 year old daughter. State sanctioned marriage with incestuous marriage forbidden can prevent it.
So it's OK to deny a basic right to those whom society deems deviant? Who gets to choose what deviant is?
Feb 13, 2012 9:49am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Feb 13, 2012 3:17 PM
Con_Alma;1084480 wrote:So it's OK to deny a basic right to those whom society deems deviant? Who gets to choose what deviant is?
I know it is not to you, but to me a father marrying is 18 year old daughter is deviant, a mother marrying her young son is deviant. Easily recognized as deviant, harmful to off spring and family members.
As I said we put limits on the right to vote, a basic right for the benefit of society. And we should continue limits on incestuous marriage because of the harm to off spring and members of the family.
Feb 13, 2012 10:17am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 13, 2012 3:32 PM
isadore;1084494 wrote:I know it is not to you, but to me a father marrying is 18 year old daughter is deviant, a mother marrying her young son is deviant. Easily recognized as deviant, harmful to off spring and family members.
As I said we put limits on the right to vote, a basic right for the benefit of society. And we should continue limits on incestuous marriage because of the harm to off spring and members of the family.
Who gets to decide what i and isn't deviant?

A father marrying his 18 year old daughter is deviant behavior to me. I don't get to decide that.

In your world who and how do we decide what is deviant? It's the crux of this issue.
Feb 13, 2012 10:32am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Feb 13, 2012 4:52 PM
Good to hear the priest yesterday read the letter from the bishop during Mass ---- this is so far from over it is almost funny. I still don't think the obama regime understands what a drastic mistake they have made.
Feb 13, 2012 11:52am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Feb 13, 2012 9:08 PM
The First Amendment of the Constitution provides the individual freedom of worship, but it also has an equal clause that prohibits the government from recognizing a state religion upon which policy flows. In other words, no sharia law, or Catholic law, either. We are required to be respective of citizen’s religious believes, but that doesn’t require the rest of us to adhere to them.
Although the employer provides health insurance for its employees (which gives the employer a tax benefit), the policy is strictly between the employee and the insurer. The Obama compromise takes away any legitimate question about religious liberty. What the Catholic bishops now want (and Republicans in Congress have indicated they are willing to give) is secular employers to have the legal right to impose their moral and religious values on their employees. That is not a right the U.S. Constitution provides.
http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/02/12/in-gop-land-its-okay-to-have-your-employer-get-in-the-way-of-making-medical-decisions-for-you/


Spot on even though a few of you dismiss it because of the source.
Feb 13, 2012 4:08pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Feb 13, 2012 9:50 PM

A family member is a founding editor/ contributor of Plunderblund. I mentioned that his site is cited all the time on a politics forum I moderate. He laughed and wanted me to remind the posters who cite it that it is a biased opion website.
Feb 13, 2012 4:50pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Feb 13, 2012 11:52 PM
LJ;1084929 wrote:A family member is a founding editor/ contributor of Plunderblund. I mentioned that his site is cited all the time on a politics forum I moderate. He laughed and wanted me to remind the posters who cite it that it is a biased opion website.
So I should not post my opinion which happen to be in line with some of the things on Plunderblund. Wonderful insight by the king moderator of a biased opinion political forum. You are an amazing individual LOL! Top of your class no doubt!!!
Feb 13, 2012 6:52pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Feb 14, 2012 12:25 AM
Bigdogg;1085016 wrote:So I should not post my opinion which happen to be in line with some of the things on Plunderblund.
You are the one who said that people would dismiss it because of the source. I was merely explaining to you that is how it should be, since it is admittedly a biased opinion website, not an impartial news source
Wonderful insight by the king moderator of a biased opinion political forum. You are an amazing individual LOL! Top of your class no doubt!!!
Ah yes, people on both sides of the aisle calling this forum biased, that means I am doing it right. Your only problem is that you constantly get infracted for name calling (as do others) so you see the need to whine about it.

I'll let you get your last word in, but after that, back on topic.
Feb 13, 2012 7:25pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Feb 14, 2012 12:58 AM
LJ;1085035 wrote:You are the one who said that people would dismiss it because of the source.
So anything that comes from a source you don't like is automatically discounted even if it has sound reasoning? Sounds about right for you.
LJ;1085035 wrote:Your only problem is that you constantly get infracted for name calling (as do others)
Oh no I got infracted:o Well that will teach me!!! Do you realize how silly that whole concept make you look! What's the record for infractions? I would like to go for it!
Feb 13, 2012 7:58pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Feb 14, 2012 1:40 AM
Con_Alma;1084511 wrote:Who gets to decide what i and isn't deviant?

A father marrying his 18 year old daughter is deviant behavior to me. I don't get to decide that.

In your world who and how do we decide what is deviant? It's the crux of this issue.
When the great damage to others is obvious and extensive, the off spring, the family
Feb 13, 2012 8:40pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Feb 14, 2012 3:27 PM
An incredible assault on the First Amendment; the dictator's rules will get crushed in court, but his true colors continue to be revealed.
Feb 14, 2012 10:27am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 14, 2012 3:42 PM
isadore;1085098 wrote:When the great damage to others is obvious and extensive, the off spring, the family
If if this were the case it doesn't take a State sanctioning of marriage to enforce such a desire. Keeping the State involved in the licensing procedure has enabled prejudiced practices and it is simply not needed.
Feb 14, 2012 10:42am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Feb 14, 2012 3:53 PM
Bigdogg;1085016 wrote:So I should not post my opinion which happen to be in line with some of the things on Plunderblund.
Perhaps you'd be better served to find others who share your opinions who aren't widely acknowledged as blithering idiots, and provide links to them instead. Associating your opinions with ninnies makes your opinions look foolish without regard to their substance.
Feb 14, 2012 10:53am