Alien life found. turns out it's gay.
03-14-2011, 09:06 PM
#161
Don't worry, civil union will happen. But the people don't want it yet. It is a state decision, it was left to the people. It was a vote on the TN ballot. I voted against it, as did most Tennesseans. So, there you have it. America doesn't want it. All the representatives are doing is their job, and conveying the peoples voice. Live together.. fine. I don't care. I am fine with the don't ask don't tell being repealed too. It will happen, when the people decide that it isn't a threat to them.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 06:27 AM
#163
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I would say not likely. Many people are too narrow minded. "Bacteria, big deal, where is ET". People don't understand how important this is, though I think it is no surprise at all. At least now there is proof, though I'm sure a lot of people will try to disprove it or explain it away *cough* hard core religious people.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 09:57 AM
#164
I would say not likely. Many people are too narrow minded. "Bacteria, big deal, where is ET". People don't understand how important this is, though I think it is no surprise at all. At least now there is proof, though I'm sure a lot of people will try to disprove it or explain it away *cough* hard core religious people.
Proof of what? 150 year old rocks have contamination? What would alien bacteria prove? Did you just skip everything? It was determined infact that it wasn't bacteria. I also think that all of the "hard core religious people" said that there is no explaining that needs to be done. In our book that you think is so stupid, It doesn't say that there isn't life or even poop bacteria in space or other planets. I would be psyched if it were for real. I love finding out new things. You would do great in a deployed location, we always need someone to stir the pot of burning ****. You seem to accel at it.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 10:26 AM
#165
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Don't worry, civil union will happen. But the people don't want it yet. It is a state decision, it was left to the people. It was a vote on the TN ballot. I voted against it, as did most Tennesseans. So, there you have it. America doesn't want it. All the representatives are doing is their job, and conveying the peoples voice. Live together.. fine. I don't care. I am fine with the don't ask don't tell being repealed too. It will happen, when the people decide that it isn't a threat to them.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 11:59 AM
#166
I am surprised that it hasn't happened actually. I thought Cali would do it before. To me there is a huge difference between marriage and civil union. I don't care either way these days. I know how you all feel about the religion thing, but that is why I voted the way I did. If it passed, well, I could care less. I am kind of indifferent to it. I see your arguement and I agree to an extent. Women overcame, and black people overcame, it will happen. I don't support it, but there are more important things for me to focus on to waste my time protesting against it. I don't see much coming from it other than tax benifits, but I know that it is more than that. It is about equal rights. But the guys running things put it to a vote, so I voted. But this is also a state that didn't have a seat belt law up until 6-7 years ago.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 01:12 PM
#170
I am surprised that it hasn't happened actually. I thought Cali would do it before. To me there is a huge difference between marriage and civil union. I don't care either way these days. I know how you all feel about the religion thing, but that is why I voted the way I did. If it passed, well, I could care less. I am kind of indifferent to it. I see your arguement and I agree to an extent. Women overcame, and black people overcame, it will happen. I don't support it, but there are more important things for me to focus on to waste my time protesting against it. I don't see much coming from it other than tax benifits, but I know that it is more than that. It is about equal rights. But the guys running things put it to a vote, so I voted. But this is also a state that didn't have a seat belt law up until 6-7 years ago.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 01:22 PM
#171
I don't see why civil unions should be allowed without undergoing the same reasoning for state-recognized marriages. Namely, tax and legal benefits are in place because the state believed that more marriages created a more stable and productive society -- therefore, the state made it its business to provide incentives to marry.
Now, one of two things needs to happen:
(1) If we continue to assume government has the proper authority to encourage marriage on these grounds, then it must be determined if civil unions also result in a more stable and productive society.
(2) If we reject the notion that government has the proper authority to encourage or discourage marriage, then we ought to tell the state to leave our personal relationships alone. This, of course, would result in the loss of any tax and legal benefits for married couples, which many (even libertarians) are loathe to pursue.
Now, one of two things needs to happen:
(1) If we continue to assume government has the proper authority to encourage marriage on these grounds, then it must be determined if civil unions also result in a more stable and productive society.
(2) If we reject the notion that government has the proper authority to encourage or discourage marriage, then we ought to tell the state to leave our personal relationships alone. This, of course, would result in the loss of any tax and legal benefits for married couples, which many (even libertarians) are loathe to pursue.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 01:36 PM
#172
I don't see why civil unions should be allowed without undergoing the same reasoning for state-recognized marriages. Namely, tax and legal benefits are in place because the state believed that more marriages created a more stable and productive society -- therefore, the state made it its business to provide incentives to marry.
Now, one of two things needs to happen:
(1) If we continue to assume government has the proper authority to encourage marriage on these grounds, then it must be determined if civil unions also result in a more stable and productive society.
(2) If we reject the notion that government has the proper authority to encourage or discourage marriage, then we ought to tell the state to leave our personal relationships alone. This, of course, would result in the loss of any tax and legal benefits for married couples, which many (even libertarians) are loathe to pursue.
Now, one of two things needs to happen:
(1) If we continue to assume government has the proper authority to encourage marriage on these grounds, then it must be determined if civil unions also result in a more stable and productive society.
(2) If we reject the notion that government has the proper authority to encourage or discourage marriage, then we ought to tell the state to leave our personal relationships alone. This, of course, would result in the loss of any tax and legal benefits for married couples, which many (even libertarians) are loathe to pursue.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 01:58 PM
#174
+1, Well said.
50% of marrages end in divorce, yet no religious organizations/people seem to much of a problem with straight people getting married whenever they goddamn well feel like it, for whatever valed or invalid reason they come up with. Think about Vegas, where people get **** faced and decide to get married on a whim, it doesn't last a week but who cares since their straight just like god intended, right?
The gov shouldn't use the term marriage, replace it with civil union and let everybody get one, then everybody is a bit more equal.
50% of marrages end in divorce, yet no religious organizations/people seem to much of a problem with straight people getting married whenever they goddamn well feel like it, for whatever valed or invalid reason they come up with. Think about Vegas, where people get **** faced and decide to get married on a whim, it doesn't last a week but who cares since their straight just like god intended, right?
The gov shouldn't use the term marriage, replace it with civil union and let everybody get one, then everybody is a bit more equal.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 02:01 PM
#175
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Proof of what? 150 year old rocks have contamination? What would alien bacteria prove? Did you just skip everything? It was determined infact that it wasn't bacteria. I also think that all of the "hard core religious people" said that there is no explaining that needs to be done. In our book that you think is so stupid, It doesn't say that there isn't life or even poop bacteria in space or other planets. I would be psyched if it were for real. I love finding out new things. You would do great in a deployed location, we always need someone to stir the pot of burning ****. You seem to accel at it.
I am aware I accel at stirring the " pot of burning ****", but that certainly wasn't an attempt. I can do much better than that. By the look of the last few posts, this thread has gotten way off topic, so no need to read the other 9 pages. I'm out.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 02:06 PM
#177
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I don't see why civil unions should be allowed without undergoing the same reasoning for state-recognized marriages. Namely, tax and legal benefits are in place because the state believed that more marriages created a more stable and productive society -- therefore, the state made it its business to provide incentives to marry.
Now, one of two things needs to happen:
(1) If we continue to assume government has the proper authority to encourage marriage on these grounds, then it must be determined if civil unions also result in a more stable and productive society.
(2) If we reject the notion that government has the proper authority to encourage or discourage marriage, then we ought to tell the state to leave our personal relationships alone. This, of course, would result in the loss of any tax and legal benefits for married couples, which many (even libertarians) are loathe to pursue.
Now, one of two things needs to happen:
(1) If we continue to assume government has the proper authority to encourage marriage on these grounds, then it must be determined if civil unions also result in a more stable and productive society.
(2) If we reject the notion that government has the proper authority to encourage or discourage marriage, then we ought to tell the state to leave our personal relationships alone. This, of course, would result in the loss of any tax and legal benefits for married couples, which many (even libertarians) are loathe to pursue.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 02:06 PM
#178
I don't see why civil unions should be allowed without undergoing the same reasoning for state-recognized marriages. Namely, tax and legal benefits are in place because the state believed that more marriages created a more stable and productive society -- therefore, the state made it its business to provide incentives to marry.
Now, one of two things needs to happen:
(1) If we continue to assume government has the proper authority to encourage marriage on these grounds, then it must be determined if civil unions also result in a more stable and productive society.
(2) If we reject the notion that government has the proper authority to encourage or discourage marriage, then we ought to tell the state to leave our personal relationships alone. This, of course, would result in the loss of any tax and legal benefits for married couples, which many (even libertarians) are loathe to pursue.
Now, one of two things needs to happen:
(1) If we continue to assume government has the proper authority to encourage marriage on these grounds, then it must be determined if civil unions also result in a more stable and productive society.
(2) If we reject the notion that government has the proper authority to encourage or discourage marriage, then we ought to tell the state to leave our personal relationships alone. This, of course, would result in the loss of any tax and legal benefits for married couples, which many (even libertarians) are loathe to pursue.
Reply
0
0
03-15-2011, 02:11 PM
#180
I still lean toward #2. It's not the government's business to decide which relationships ought to be encouraged and discouraged, only to ensure those relationships do not infringe upon the natural rights of man.
Reply
0
0
