So....rainbows

[Tron]

Well men in NYS get screwed to the wall when it comes to divorce. So I think it's different everywhere. But I agree.

Men in Florida get screwed too. Just ask my dad. My mom complains about money non stop to this day, even though she drives a lexus and has moved multiple times to nice houses while collecting half my dad's paycheck and his 401k and pension. All while not working except during tax season.

Lesson: don't get divorced in Florida.

 

[Angry Ram]

2 days after the judgment, the new York times ran an article stating that since churches are tax free organizations, they are basically subsidized by the govt and therefore taking public money. Which of course would make them liable for discriminating against an LGBT marriage. I have no doubt that the majority of the LGBT community just simply wants to marry the person they love and they are good people. The people in church are also good people. There would be no problems if this was left up to Congress to make the laws, but instead they are using the court system where a few fringe wackos can undermine the democratic process.

So it's a governmental issue. Is the LGBT community themselves trying to hamper religious services? I highly, highly doubt that too.

But at the end of the day, this is a rights issue for me, not a religious. I'm glad people can enjoy life together. That's just me tho.

 

[Ramhusker]

Just curious, why did the LGBT movement choose the rainbow symbol?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Just curious, why did the LGBT movement choose the rainbow symbol?

They got the idea from old hippie movements in San Fransico and had a meaning for each stripe. Originally there were 8 stripes, then they dropped hot pink because it was difficult to get material, then they dropped the 7th stripe to the flag we have today because when hanging the bottom stripe couldn't be seen easily.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Personally, I'm against gay marriage, but I can live with the ruling so long as the LGBT community would be ok with letting me believe and practice my faith unabated.

This is closest to my view... being against gay marriage doesn't mean I can't respect gays as people... I can (and do).

All I'd ask is that they do the same.

 

[Mackeyser]

@beej the argument in the NYT is specious and nonsensical and I would just ignore it. By that token, ANY private, tax exempt org would be a publicly scrutinizable entity due to the "subsidy" of the tax exemption.

It's about the dumbest argument on this I've heard, it misunderstands the very basics of tax law and articles of incorporation in this country and make logical leaps that would make Sonic the Hedgehog proud.

So, worry not. It's just not a thing.

 

[RamzFanz]

Gay marriage? Polygamy? Group marriage? Any type of marriage between consenting adults?

Sure. Why not? This is the US and we are free and equal. Have at it.

I'm not at all interested in a group of people defining who can get married based on their own personal beliefs. If I can marry who I want, everyone can marry who they want, period.

 

[Ramhusker]

Gay marriage? Polygamy? Group marriage? Any type of marriage between consenting adults?

Sure. Why not? This is the US and we are free and equal. Have at it.

I'm not at all interested in a group of people defining who can get married based on their own personal beliefs. If I can marry who I want, everyone can marry who they want, period.

Already thought of this so I think I'm going to marry my son so he can get back on my insurance. He can't afford it otherwise. Whole family can stay married to each other until I retire. This thing has legs!

 

[RamzFanz]

Already thought of this so I think I'm going to marry my son so he can get back on my insurance. He can't afford it otherwise. Whole family can stay married to each other until I retire. This thing has legs!

Ok, I didn't think of that...

Ew, dude, ew.

 

[Prime Time]

This reminds me of George Orwell's '1984' and "newspeak." :eek:
-------------------------------------
http://nypost.com/2015/07/11/lawmaker-wants-to-erase-husband-and-wife-from-laws/

Lawmaker wants to erase ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from laws
By Geoff Earle

WASHINGTON — Next on Congress’ agenda: getting rid of husbands and wives.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) has introduced a 57-page bill updating laws on the books to expunge words like “husband” and “wife” and replace them with gender-neutral alternatives.

Under the bill, the word would be replaced with “spouse.”

The bill wouldn’t stop there. It would also replace phrases on the books such as “husband and wife” and instead use “married couple” as a way to bring gay marriages technically into the fold.

 

[Ramhusker]

This reminds me of George Orwell's '1984' and "newspeak." :eek:
-------------------------------------
http://nypost.com/2015/07/11/lawmaker-wants-to-erase-husband-and-wife-from-laws/

Lawmaker wants to erase ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from laws
By Geoff Earle

WASHINGTON — Next on Congress’ agenda: getting rid of husbands and wives.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) has introduced a 57-page bill updating laws on the books to expunge words like “husband” and “wife” and replace them with gender-neutral alternatives.

Under the bill, the word would be replaced with “spouse.”

The bill wouldn’t stop there. It would also replace phrases on the books such as “husband and wife” and instead use “married couple” as a way to bring gay marriages technically into the fold.

Our NWO knows no bounds!