Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clubs suck, sure you can meet women there, but they're idiots. Clubs play garbage music, are packed and uncomfortable, and serve overpriced drinks. I'll take a calm brewery with a nice live folk band thank you.
Being almost 42 and married with a family, I'm inclined to agree. However; back in the day it did inspire me to go into the DJ business in which I'm now out of that, because quite simply I just don't miss those late nights. Not to mention that most of today's music sucks! In fact, I don't get out much anymore. It's much safer, and cheaper to drink at home, and in the neighborhood amongst friends who just want to kick it on the patio.
It's in the bag. 5-4 in favor with Scalia, thomas, Alito and Roberts dissenting. The only other potential is that Roberts will join the majority, but I doubt it.
If the court were to do that, and I do not believe they will, the Christians who actually believe in and try to follow the Bible will refuse to recognize these homosexual "marriages," as there is truly no such thing, nor will there ever be, and will regard any homosexual who claims to be "married" as someone who is desperately pretending to be something that they are not.
So in that case, you're cool with those who are not Christian refusing to recognize a Christian marriage, right?
To ask other people to support something that goes against God and people morals.? What the gay are really asking is support of their fallen life style.
That's why!
But isn't that exactly what Christians (because let's face it, the main opposition to SSM are from some branches of Christianity) are doing? Asking us to support your fallen lifestyle and false faith? See how that works?
Hey, like I said, I'm all for that. But, the gay men I have to deal with are not ANYTHING like the straight men in my everyday life. Gay men (in my personal experience) are over-sexualized and act like teenage girls in a grown mans body. They talk with a slur, call everyone "b*tch, listen to crappy pop music, and always wanna go clubbing. Now you're gonna say "just don't hang around them", well sometimes I have to tolerate things that annoy me to be with people I actually do like or care about, it's life and the reality of being a social human being in their 20's. But don't try and tell me there isn't a gay culture, and there's "no difference". I don't know you, maybe you're a normal man who happens to be gay and doesn't wear their sexuality on their sleeve, but that makes you the exception to the rule.
I'm a woman in my 20s that works in an industry that happens to have quite a few gay men. Can't say that your characterization is even a distinct minority, much less the majority. Except for the crappy pop music. That's a plague of many our age regardless of sexuality or gender. Clubbing? Maybe that's more of a regional thing because I can't say that I know anyone who goes clubbing past college.
Every social group has a "culture." I am a part of the Jewish-American culture - that is normal to me but probably isn't so normal to those who don't belong to that social group. Many Americans probably consider going to church on Sunday normal. I certainly don't!
It's in the bag. 5-4 in favor with Scalia, thomas, Alito and Roberts dissenting. The only other potential is that Roberts will join the majority, but I doubt it.
No, he would likely want to be on it because it would add to his legacy. He has sat on some of the biggest decisions in the last thirty years. John Roberts goes whatever way the wind is blowing. I think people mistake John Roberts as solidly conservative like Scalia. The reality is that if the court shifted to the left he would be joining them on most decisions.
So in that case, you're cool with those who are not Christian refusing to recognize a Christian marriage, right?
"Marriage" has been between a man and woman in the house of religions for centuries. The government has absolutely no business making/imposing any rules in regard to marriage. The only reason the obtaining of a marriage license from a government office ever came into being is that government wanted another way to "charge $'s" for something. I have always been of the position that:
1. Marriage is between a man and woman
2. Whether you get married by clergy of civil ceremony and you end up divorcing, you go back to whomever or wherever you were married and "undo" the action. Resolving assets and children should be left to the married couple; i.e., take care of your own problems and keep the (*&&^( attorneys/lawyers the he!! out of it. You created the entity, you figure out the dissolution.
Anything other than a man/woman marriage should be designated "civil union." Then government can get involved.
"Marriage" has been between a man and woman in the house of religions for centuries. The government has absolutely no business making/imposing any rules in regard to marriage. The only reason the obtaining of a marriage license from a government office ever came into being is that government wanted another way to "charge $'s" for something. I have always been of the position that:
1. Marriage is between a man and woman
2. Whether you get married by clergy of civil ceremony and you end up divorcing, you go back to whomever or wherever you were married and "undo" the action. Resolving assets and children should be left to the married couple; i.e., take care of your own problems and keep the (*&&^( attorneys/lawyers the he!! out of it. You created the entity, you figure out the dissolution.
Anything other than a man/woman marriage should be designated "civil union." Then government can get involved.
And for many millennia before that it was not and didn't not have religion as a major component of it. Christianity doesn't suddenly get the trademark on something that predated it since time immemorial.
"Marriage" has been between a man and woman in the house of religions for centuries. The government has absolutely no business making/imposing any rules in regard to marriage. The only reason the obtaining of a marriage license from a government office ever came into being is that government wanted another way to "charge $'s" for something. I have always been of the position that:
1. Marriage is between a man and woman
2. Whether you get married by clergy of civil ceremony and you end up divorcing, you go back to whomever or wherever you were married and "undo" the action. Resolving assets and children should be left to the married couple; i.e., take care of your own problems and keep the (*&&^( attorneys/lawyers the he!! out of it. You created the entity, you figure out the dissolution.
Anything other than a man/woman marriage should be designated "civil union." Then government can get involved.
There is only one way to be legally married in this country. The government issues qualified people a marriage license - it is a civil union. It's been this way since the beginning.
If the couple wishes sanctification from a church, they can discuss that with the church. Or they can skip the church part, it makes no difference to the legality of the marriage.
People who don't want the government involved need not get a marriage license. It is perfectly legal for a couple to live together, own property together, and have children together, in some states even adopt children together, without a marriage license.
But should one of them die, or one of them become incapacitated, or one of them be in legal trouble, the government will not necessarily treat them as married - because they are not.
There is literally nothing you will not say, is there? Regardless of how false you know that it is.
The irony meter goes off the screen yet again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
