Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:14 PM
Government should only be involved in civil unions. Doesn't matter if it's woman/man, man/man or woman/woman. Marriage should be left to the church, and they can decide whom to marry.

That should make all happy.
Dec 30, 2013 2:14pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:15 PM
WebFire;1559198 wrote:It's in response to this...





Benefits. That's all they want. They don't care about "marriage". They care about the benefits. Has nothing to do with lifestyle.
Assuming your one-size-fits-all grocery list of assumptions you can't prove were correct, so what? What would be your justification in denying these benefits (I have no idea what they are) to anyone based on sexual preference?
Dec 30, 2013 2:15pm
M

MontyBrunswick

Dec 30, 2013 2:16 PM
Who cares? Next year it will be the same shit. 4-12 after three years chud will be fired along with banner and Lombardi then we will switch back to the 4-3.
Dec 30, 2013 2:16pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:16 PM
WebFire;1559202 wrote:Government should only be involved in civil unions. Doesn't matter if it's woman/man, man/man or woman/woman. Marriage should be left to the church, and they can decide whom to marry.

That should make all happy.
Marriage predates many popular religions by centuries (including the predominant one in this country). Not sure why they get to "own" the concept.
Dec 30, 2013 2:16pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:16 PM
gut;1559199 wrote:...The vast majority of the marriage "benefits" should probably be eliminated and reconstituted strictly as tax breaks for dependents (because population growth is vital to economic growth). In that scenario, anyone who adopts or has children qualifies.
This has always been my position. I would support this immediately.

Any additional needs or desires can easily be legally clarified just as living wills are.
Dec 30, 2013 2:16pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:18 PM
queencitybuckeye;1559208 wrote:Marriage predates many popular religions by centuries. Not sure why they get to "own" the concept.
The civil union would satisfy your concern.
Dec 30, 2013 2:18pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:18 PM
queencitybuckeye;1559205 wrote:...What would be your justification in denying these benefits (I have no idea what they are) to anyone based on sexual preference?
Right now the justification would be based on the law. That's the issue isn't it?
Dec 30, 2013 2:18pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:20 PM
Con_Alma;1559212 wrote:Right now the justification would be based on the law. That's the issue isn't it?
It's also a textbook example of circular reasoning.
Dec 30, 2013 2:20pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:20 PM
queencitybuckeye;1559205 wrote:Assuming your one-size-fits-all grocery list of assumptions you can't prove were correct, so what? What would be your justification in denying these benefits (I have no idea what they are) to anyone based on sexual preference?
My "grocery list" is the same list presented from the other side. This is where things fail, IMO. It seems gays only think there side is correct. I personally don't have a strong opinion about gays, but I do think they push to be right about something all the time. Why can't they just be gay, just like I am heterosexual?
Dec 30, 2013 2:20pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:21 PM
queencitybuckeye;1559205 wrote:What would be your justification in denying these benefits (I have no idea what they are) to anyone based on sexual preference?
I am only justifying denying them based on marriage. Do as I posted and they get all the same benefits.
Dec 30, 2013 2:21pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:23 PM
queencitybuckeye;1559214 wrote:It's also a textbook example of circular reasoning.
...if one was actually basing their reasoning on it....sure.
Dec 30, 2013 2:23pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:24 PM
WebFire;1559218 wrote:.... Do as I posted and they get all the same benefits.
Exactly. No claims of discriminatory action could be made.
Dec 30, 2013 2:24pm
GoPens's avatar

GoPens

Senior Member

2,339 posts
Dec 30, 2013 2:47 PM
thavoice;1559082 wrote:And you are probably right.
The only difference that I can think of though is that one situatio is face based, and the other was a man-made culturally based.
The slipperly slope of always allowing and in many cases supporting poor, immoral behavior is not a good thing.
thavoice;1559093 wrote:You mean like how the gay population has been trying to push their morals and lifestyle on the rest of the normal population for the last 20 years?
Of course it is immoral. Just because more people are doing it or accepting it doesnt change it.

Divorce is a sin and immoral. The fact that nowadays it is more accepting and they say 50% of marriages end in divorce doesnt change that it is a sin or immoral, it is just that those immoral behaviors are becomeing more accepted.
thavoice;1559115 wrote:That is because marriage was only to be a man and a woman. Then the gays pushed and pushed and pushed their lifestyle upon everyone else to make it more acceptable.
It is OK if you want to support the perverted ****** lifestyle. It is your choice. Go right ahead. People everday make wrong choices and support things that are just plain wrong.
HOpe you enjoy the Gay America you are all promoting.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Exhibit A
It's Stone Age thinking like this that explains why church membership is declining in the United States and around the world.
Dec 30, 2013 2:47pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 30, 2013 6:57 PM
Con_Alma;1559143 wrote:I think first there has to be a consensus of the points of contention actually being rights. I think we are getting closer to that State by State.
I don't think basic rights should be a popularity contest. Supreme Court said marriage was a basic right nearly 50 years ago.
Dec 30, 2013 6:57pm
T

Tiernan

Senior Member

13,021 posts
Dec 30, 2013 7:49 PM
Now there's video from 2009 of Phil telling 20 yr old men to marry 15 & 16 yr old girls. Phil is Phucked.
Dec 30, 2013 7:49pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:07 PM
isadore;1559356 wrote:I don't think basic rights should be a popularity contest. Supreme Court said marriage was a basic right nearly 50 years ago.
Nor do I but they've also allowed States to determine what marriage is.
Dec 30, 2013 8:07pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:19 PM
Tiernan;1559382 wrote:Now there's video from 2009 of Phil telling 20 yr old men to marry 15 & 16 yr old girls. Phil is Phucked.
video of Phil speaking at a 2009 "Sportsmen's Ministry" event
"Make sure that she can cook a meal, you need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out," he said. "Make sure she carries her Bible. That'll save you a lot of trouble down the road. And if she picks your ducks, now, that's a woman."
"They got to where they're getting hard to find," Robertson remarked. "Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em. Look, you wait until they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket."
The Duck Commander company founder added: "You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16, they'll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that of course."
Dec 30, 2013 8:19pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:21 PM
Con_Alma;1559392 wrote:Nor do I but they've also allowed States to determine what marriage is.
In the 1967 Loving Case they stopped states from preventing mixed race marriages long before many states were willing to do it.
Dec 30, 2013 8:21pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:28 PM
Yeah, I'm familiar with the case, It's means nothing if a State can define what a marriage is so it fits their desire.

It's happening today.
Dec 30, 2013 8:28pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:35 PM
Con_Alma;1559413 wrote:Yeah, I'm familiar with the case, It's means nothing if a State can define what a marriage is so it fits their desire.

It's happening today.
if states are offering special benefits to married straight couple, gay couples should have access to the same benefits.
Dec 30, 2013 8:35pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:37 PM
isadore;1559418 wrote:if states are offering special benefits to married straight couple, gay couples should have access to the same benefits.
Agree and it's why the Loving case is irrelevant if States are permitted to define what marriage is.

Get rid of the benefits and get the State out of marriage. Problem solved.
Dec 30, 2013 8:37pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:38 PM
Louisiana: If either party to the marriage is between the ages of 16 and 18, the presence and signatures of both parents are required.
<dl><dd>If a parent has legal custody in a divorce, a certified copy of the judgement must be presented.</dd><dd>If either party is under the age of 16, a court order is required in order to obtain a license.</dd></dl>
Dec 30, 2013 8:38pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:39 PM
Yep...and many states don't recognize gay marriages because they are permitted to define what marriage is.
Dec 30, 2013 8:39pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:42 PM
Con_Alma;1559421 wrote:Agree and it's why the Loving case is irrelevant if States are permitted to define what marriage is.

Get rid of the benefits and get the State out of marriage. Problem solved.
Are you using state as a way to describe the 50 governmental units that make up our nation? Or are you using state as a way to describe the action of any government?

The Loving case was an example of the Supreme Court interfering with states ability to define what a marriage was, saying the partners did not have to be of the same race.
Dec 30, 2013 8:42pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 30, 2013 8:46 PM
isadore;1559426 wrote:Are you using state as a way to describe the 50 governmental units that make up our nation? Or are you using state as a way to describe the action of any government?

The Loving case was an example of the Supreme Court interfering with states ability to define what a marriage was, saying the partners did not have to be of the same race.
The 50 States.

I am familiar with the Loving case's intervention into the States administering of marriage, As we stand today States continue to define what a marriage is resulting in some States providing sanctioning of gay marriage while others do not.

Isn't that what people are fighting?
Dec 30, 2013 8:46pm