Reply With Quote
And the govt. recognizes those unions for what reason? Just for s and giggles? Or, is there some potential value (perceived or realized) that those unions provide to society and/or it's government that offset the cost of the benefits provided?
So you agree neither has a fighting chance from sudden killing... perhaps the only difference being that the adult person might actually be aware of what ended his life (not that it makes that much difference, they're both dead).
In other words, as long as we can rationalize that the killing is somewhat justified or serves a "greater purpose", then it's OK.
Sounds good to me.
And the govt. recognizes those unions for what reason? Just for s and giggles? Or, is there some potential value (perceived or realized) that those unions provide to society and/or it's government that offset the cost of the benefits provided?
Tell me when I said to deny them those rights.
It's like when the government saw value in keeping the darkies picking cotton for free.
No. Should we?
Take a second, go back, re-read the back and forth, then explain to us how you drew the conclusion that I said it was justified to kill an innocent...and when the term "greater purpose" was introduced into my argument.
All I did was explain the difference between an abortion and collateral damage.
Why wouldn't the government recognize these unions if that's what their citizens want? Isn't that part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
As far as "offset the cost of the benefits provided", that's highly debatable. Even more so with divorce rates hovering the 50% line...
one is noble in its result, right?
Fair enough. I regret the omission.
You made up your own rules about how God operates in the after-life.
I don't know why you're surprised anyone might find that ridiculously stupid.
Maybe you're surprised that someone actually called you out on it.
I admit, I'm a little surprised at your severe level of butthurt.
What "potential value" would that be?
Take a second, go back, re-read my last post, then explain to us how you drew the conclusion that I ever claimed you justified killing an innocent, or that you introduced "greater purpose" in this argument...
The fact is, while you might or might not agree with "collateral" killings, I wanted to setup the point I was trying to make.
I simply don't see the same group (at least the religious part of said group) denouncing collateral killing with the same outrage as they do with abortions, even though they're both largely similar events. Which is pretty hypocritical, because it clearly points that as long as there's some "greater purpose" or seemingly associated benefit with the kill, the outrage just goes away.
You asked out loud if they should be given those rights to which you also responded out loud that you didn't know.
I see no good reason not to give then those rights. Do you?
There are, if I remember correctly, 1,138 rights that come automatically with legal marriage but that are not included with a legal civil union. If you're really interested in a list, it's very easy to find from a number of different sources with a simple google search. This is also useful: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/a...riage-equality.
I haven't looked at the list in a while, and therefore don't remember off the top of my head how valuable the benefits are. I know for a fact that a number of them are, in my opinion, relatively minor and inconsequential. Further, I know that most of them can be acquired by same sex couples through various other legal channels (in theory, at least).
Ultimately, however, none of this matters in an issue that's about equality. Jumping through extra hoops =/= equal. And being able to marry the person you're in love with =/= special.
Gehenna is a geographical place name. It obviously isn't the of Christian, Greek and Germanic supers ion, and neither is sheol for that matter.
More dumb from you. They didn't have a term for zero so the say that babies are 1 when they are born as in first year not that they have lived a year.
They also do not count off on birth days but rather a new year.
Most East Asian countries are like that. You twist everything to fit your worldview; its ing sad.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt before calling you a hypocritical dumb .
Explain how the above post from page 2 is not about me.
It wasn't obvious to King James.
He and his crew translated Gehenna to be the of Christian supers ion.
No more sad than what a miserable person you come off as on spurstalk.com......just sayin'.
I know the tone of this thread has reached aggressive levels, but understand the difference of having to try to participate in running a country with those with an open mind and those who do not.
Moreover, the Closed-minds outnumber the Opens and consistently push their belief systems as the starchart does to a ship's captain.
You can believe in God and still shut your ing mouth about it, is all I am saying. Dont let your religion color your politics in matters of personal choice ( sexuality, abortion, drugs, etc). Worst of all is having to hear every leader at every level profess their belief every ing chance they get as if this is a positive aspect of their personality. I mean, the Bible does not remotely touch on avenues of solution related to a nuclear Iran, Free Trade agreements, the bottoming Dollar or State's rights. That people would pretend that the Bible does offer direction in all things...Im sorry, it pisses me right the off. Because it doesnt...at all. Not even a little. And if our leaders are going to staunchly proclaim that this perspective of God is influencing their decisions, then it is our right to question and deride the source material.
If that is not possible or acceptable, then this mutual hatred is deserved and needed. I do not want my government being directed by anyone's God, period. I dont care if its Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Abraham or the FSM...check that at the door, thank you. At least have the decency and perspective to realize how ridiculous it sounds to hear a world leader talk about God's guiding hand in their decisions, especially when those decisions directly effect those who do not see or believe in the same God.
Me? I am not particularly concerned anymore about such things, we're ed either way an atheist isnt going to fix it like magic either, but I wonder how non-Christians in this country see Jesus shoved in their face every election cycle and come to realize how incredibly important this complete non-issue is to so many around them.
Thats what bewilders me. Thats what makes me loathe those who I walk next to on the street. That this ing clown next to me, with an equal amount of say as I have, puts this completely unin- ing-portant issue at the forefront of their voting preferences. Oh, and these clowns outnumber me.
So I blame them, wholesale. You run the country which is obvious when politicians large and small pander to your supers ions daily, its your fault. At least I know who to hate.
You want him to post in crayon?
bring it, dr
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions