Hottie driving G35coupe?
-
thrash;310818 wrote:
It's not illegal to have a special needs baby, nor is there anything in state law that tries to prevent it.unrelated hetero couples who are known carriers for genetic defects aren't legally prevents from getting married.
And we've already established that "the point" of getting married isn't to have kids.
Where in the hell did anyone say it was illegal to have a special needs baby?? Just because someone is a carrier doesnt mean the child will be special needs, plus, that carrier didnt really have a choice in the matter as far as being the carrier did they? Whereas 2 closely related people having sex knowing they are raising the risk of a special needs child is wrong. And to be honest I could care less if some guy wants to fuck his cousin or whatever, as long as they arent trying to reproduce. Its their lifestyle and I'm not living it therefor it doesnt affect me. As for them getting married, like I said its their lifestyle, I'm not saying its right but I'm also not the one pointing how wrong it is. And PS when I said "relations" I used that word instead of sex, had nothing to do with marriage. I would think someone as "intelligent" as you would know what the word relations should mean.
-
thrash;310821 wrote:
Can you explain?whichever god you chose to call your own can be credited for your version of "right." it has nothing to do with equal rights, humanity, the greater good, or logical decision making.
thrash;310804 wrote:
Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?lifestyle popularity any basis for law? how about religious popularity as basis for law? im not trying to bash religion or any god anyone on here may subscribe to, but this is 2010. keep your nose out of gay people's business. they know what YOU think will happen to them when they die and they seem to be just fine with it so why dont we all just take a famous lesson and turn the other cheek. i dont see a problem letting you marry six women, a dog, your sister, or your boat. just remove the tax exemptions and deductions and nobody will have a legitimate excuse to cry about it.
the fact is people are way to concerned with other people. who am i to say to you, "you cant love more then one woman." i mean seriously, who the fuck am i to say that? yet that is exactly what people say because christianity has a problem with it. i think that is bs. this isnt the republic of jesus, this is america. to me getting married is something you do to try and hold your significant other faithful to you and we all know how well that works. i could care less if you think that having a piece of paper in your hand will somehow fulfill you and make you a happier person. to each their own. i just dont see how any of us can decide who can and cannot enter into a contract based on their preference for a vag or butt... especially when some are just fine rootin around in both.
-
This is the crux of the whole problem, IMO. The government seems to think it has the right to decide who can and can't get married. Marriage worked just fine long before the government decided to issue a license for it. People would simply go to the church of their choice and get married. In fact, the reason the marriage license was invented in the US was due to racial issues. You had to get a special "marriage license" if you wanted to marry a white to a black. As usual, once the government got it's grubby fingers on things it keeps bastardizing things until it doesn't even resemble what it was originally. IMO, the government has no place in marriage. The "marriage license" is just a way for the government to take more of our money, and try to control more of our life. The decision on who can or can not get married belongs with the church.
thrash;310804 wrote:
Of course, there is no such thing as "a right to be married", after all, the state decides who can and cannot get married, and as near as I can tell, this decision is based on nothing more than "what most people want". It isn't based on any notion of an individual right, and it isn't extended to all people.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;310834 wrote:
This is the crux of the whole problem, IMO. The government seems to think it has the right to decide who can and can't get married. Marriage worked just fine long before the government decided to issue a license for it. People would simply go to the church of their choice and get married. In fact, the reason the marriage license was invented in the US was due to racial issues. You had to get a special "marriage license" if you wanted to marry a white to a black. As usual, once the government got it's grubby fingers on things it keeps bastardizing things until it doesn't even resemble what it was originally. IMO, the government has no place in marriage. The "marriage license" is just a way for the government to take more of our money, and try to control more of our life. The decision on who can or can not get married belongs with the church.What about people who don't believe in the church but want to get married?
> Parker;299126 wrote:
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah German cars are the best thing since sliced bread. -
thurmanmerman;310835 wrote:
What about people who don't believe in the church but want to get married?city hall / courthouse / vegas
-
24valvenotak;310865 wrote:
city hall / courthouse / vegasYeah, but dave's post was saying that there shouldn't be a legally issued license for it, aka the gov't shouldn't have their hand in it at all. If that's the case, then only people that believe in the church could get "married".
-
[QUOTE=bubba;310710]This,
Still waiting on some fucking pics...
rule #1 - Don't start a thread about a "hot chick" and not post nude or at least scantly clad photos
Ok ill get on them pics! if i see her again i will stop her and ask her to smile and send it right to here. sorry this is taking so long this girl is hard to find. the reason i didnt get a pic the first time was cuz she was driving away and didnt have time for one
-
PSiedTSi;310867 wrote:
Yeah, but dave's post was saying that there shouldn't be a legally issued license for it, aka the gov't shouldn't have their hand in it at all. If that's the case, then only people that believe in the church could get "married".i would play that game as long as the bible didnt somehow enforce alimony with ninja bishops or something?
-
I'm sure the government would be more than happy to issue some other sort of license for that.
24valvenotak;310879 wrote:
i would play that game as long as the bible didnt somehow enforce alimony with ninja bishops or something?DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login