ExiledInIllinois Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Isn't there supposed to be a separation between church and state? Any two people should be able to go city hall and get married. But if you want to get married in church xyz. well then they have a complete say on who they do and don't marry. That's the way it should work. But religion has entered the government where there should be no involvement. That to me is where the problem lies. The word "marriage" is the sticky issues here because it gets used by both state and religion. One is NEVER gonna statisfy the relgious zealots as longa as that word is used by the state in a new or different way. Why not separate the two from each?... Give "marriage" back to religion and move forward by NOT recognizing any marriage in the eyes of the state... Afterall, it should have never been recognized to begin with... Right?
Chef Jim Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 No..I don't necessarily. But when one goes of out of his way to share them, I assume he is doing it for a reason. If I were to find out the same thing about another company I frequent, I would follow suit. Cathy wants consumers to know his position. I don't deny his right to feel the way he does, do donate money to whatever group he want to donate to...or to do business. As has been said a million times. Let me ask you a question: Do you argue with everything, because it makes you feel superior in some way? Is it the "cool thing to do"... do you ever act out of principle? He went out of his way to share is views? Really?? He mentioned it during an interview with The Baptist Press. He wanted consumers to know his position? Really, where did you come up with that? It sounds like he wanted listener of a Christian podcast to know his views. I only argue with everything I disagree with....you know.....acting out of principle. The word "marriage" is the sticky issues here because it gets used by both state and religion. One is NEVER gonna statisfy the relgious zealots as longa as that word is used by the state in a new or different way. Why not separate the two from each?... Give "marriage" back to religion and move forward by NOT recognizing any marriage in the eyes of the state... Afterall, it should have never been recognized to begin with... Right? It's not the word is being recognized as a married couple. It will allow them to take advantage of many things heterosexual couples enjoy. I have an employee who is in a same sex marriage. They have to file four tax returns. How many do you have to file. There are tons of things that we can take advantage of that they can't. That's my problem with this. So Obama recognizes gay marriage. Great, what's he done to help them? From what I've seen........nothing!
Fan in San Diego Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 The word "marriage" is the sticky issues here because it gets used by both state and religion. One is NEVER gonna statisfy the relgious zealots as longa as that word is used by the state in a new or different way. Why not separate the two from each?... Give "marriage" back to religion and move forward by NOT recognizing any marriage in the eyes of the state... Afterall, it should have never been recognized to begin with... Right? The state has dominion over marriage because of the legal aspects of marriage IMHO. Religion is the gussied up portion of marriage.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 He went out of his way to share is views? Really?? He mentioned it during an interview with The Baptist Press. He wanted consumers to know his position? Really, where did you come up with that? It sounds like he wanted listener of a Christian podcast to know his views. I only argue with everything I disagree with....you know.....acting out of principle. It's not the word is being recognized as a married couple. It will allow them to take advantage of many things heterosexual couples enjoy. I have an employee who is in a same sex marriage. They have to file four tax returns. How many do you have to file. There are tons of things that we can take advantage of that they can't. That's my problem with this. So Obama recognizes gay marriage. Great, what's he done to help them? From what I've seen........nothing! So you want to extend benefits to even more people in an already broke country? How about we take benefits away from all married people. Why should we as hetero married couples get preferential, most favored treatment?
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Isn't there supposed to be a separation between church and state? Any two people should be able to go city hall and get married. But if you want to get married in church xyz. well then they have a complete say on who they do and don't marry. That's the way it should work. But religion has entered the government where there should be no involvement. That to me is where the problem lies. Actually, for the most part through history marriage has been defined by government or society with a minimum of religious involvement (at least in the West); three notable exceptions being the Middle Ages (when Rome exerted political power), the Anglican Church (which was as much a political as religious body), and...well, modern American evangelicals, which again are as much a political as religious body.
Rob's House Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 So you want to extend benefits to even more people in an already broke country? How about we take benefits away from all married people. Why should we as hetero married couples anyone get preferential, most favored treatment?
Chef Jim Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 So you want to extend benefits to even more people in an already broke country? How about we take benefits away from all married people. Why should we as hetero married couples get preferential, most favored treatment? So if you predecease your wife you want all of your tax-deferred retirement accounts to go to her and be taxed? Force her to distribute all that money and leave her with nothing? That's just one of many things I'm talking about. If you don't know the material I suggest you not argue against it.
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 The state has dominion over marriage because of the legal aspects of marriage IMHO. Religion is the gussied up portion of marriage. Wrong.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 So if you predecease your wife you want all of your tax-deferred retirement accounts to go to her and be taxed? Force her to distribute all that money and leave her with nothing? That's just one of many things I'm talking about. If you don't know the material I suggest you not argue against it. She's a big girl... She will be fine.
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Why am I wrong about this? Because you have it backwards. The state traditionally has had dominion over marriage, and religion has stayed out of it. Religious involvement in marriage is a relatively new development.
Chef Jim Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 She's a big girl... She will be fine. Glad you can answer for her. How "progressive" of you. How do you feel about survivor benefits for SS?
Fan in San Diego Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Because you have it backwards. The state traditionally has had dominion over marriage, and religion has stayed out of it. Religious involvement in marriage is a relatively new development. This is why communicating in English is a B word. It can be misunderstood very easily. But that is what I tried to communicate, apparently not very well.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 She's a big girl... She will be fine. This might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read. This is why communicating in English is a B word. It can be misunderstood very easily. But that is what I tried to communicate, apparently not very well. Nope. This is. Damnit, why are you two !@#$s pushing each other so hard today?
Chef Jim Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 This might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Oh I've heard this many times when planning or clients. Here's why you need life insurance. If you die while you're working and your wife loses your income how will she survive. "Oh she's a big girl, she's be fine." Really?!?!?
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 This might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Why? She will do fine financially, no worse. She has her own career, financial life. Sure, of course everybody will be heartbroken on my death... ;-)
Chef Jim Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Why? She will do fine financially, no worse. She has her own career, financial life. Sure, of course everybody will be heartbroken on my death... ;-) So because of this we should do away with the ability of all spouses to continue to defer their spouse's qualified plans? God you're such a !@#$ing hypocrite.
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 This is why communicating in English is a B word. It can be misunderstood very easily. But that is what I tried to communicate, apparently not very well. Oh, okay. Helps if you can construct a coherent sentence, of course... And it's still working that way now, by the way. No religion is forcing a definition of marriage on the states. Certain religious majorities are voting that way (e.g. North Carolina), but unless you want to start indulging dangerously silly arguments like "No one who believes devoutly in God and looks to the Bible for guidance should be allowed to vote, because that's involving religion in government" there's no way around that. The bigger problem, to me, has always been: why does anyone care? Why do "you" (the generic, not you personally) care what another man does with his penis? Who gives a ****? (Within reason, obviously...obviously, "Who gives a ****?" goes by the wayside when Jerry Sandusky takes a little boy into the showers.) How is your belief in God somehow strengthened by complaining about gay men? It's not the CEO of Chik Fil A's opinion on gay marriage that bugs me...it's his opinion that if he doesn't fight against it, God will smite the whole country. How is that his !@#$ing problem?
Buftex Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 He went out of his way to share is views? Really?? He mentioned it during an interview with The Baptist Press. He wanted consumers to know his position? Really, where did you come up with that? It sounds like he wanted listener of a Christian podcast to know his views. I only argue with everything I disagree with....you know.....acting out of principle. There is the sanctimonious, pollyana side of you! So now, when somebody gives an interview, and states something controversial, we have to consider who/where he was saying it? You realize that this type of consideration would eliminate about 95% of the "discussion" that goes on here? I assume Dan Cathy knows what a microphone is...I assume he knows that once he puts something out there, on the airwaves, it is out there for anyone to hear, or see. He obviously wanted somebody to hear his views, or he wouldn't have stated them.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Oh I've heard this many times when planning or clients. Here's why you need life insurance. If you die while you're working and your wife loses your income how will she survive. "Oh she's a big girl, she's be fine." Really?!?!? That's just about the time my firm fires the client. "If you won't do the things you're paying me to tell you to do, then perhaps you should stop paying me and I should stop wasting my time."
Recommended Posts