(May 30, 2016 at 4:47 pm)Disciple Wrote:

(May 30, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Marriage is a legal issue, a contract if you will.

Let me ask you this.  Where does any fucking church get off regulating marriage?

That was my last point. It shouldn't be a legal contract. Its between two people that love each other and God if they are so inclined. The state should have no part in it. And I didn't mention a fucking church I mentioned a fucking imam haha. Nice try Minnie. A church, mosque or any secular institution should have the freedom to provide or refuse service to anybody they see fit. Nothing more.

Marriage was a seular institution long befor it came under religious purview. For example it wasn't compulsory for christians to marry in a church until the middle ages. It was only with the solidification of the nobility and the increasing importance of ensuring oaths of alliance were kept (marriage for the wealthy in that period was about two things, building up alliances and ensuring heirs) that formal church rites for marriage were invented.

(May 30, 2016 at 11:12 pm)carusmm Wrote: The Far Right are not Christian.

Yes they are, they are as Christian as the left. How one wishes someone else would interpret a holy book does not change the fact that it is the same book and same heros they have in common.

Every religion, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist all have multiple sub sects of the umbrella religion and they don't all agree. There is no such thing as unifying religion.

While "atheist" isn't a religion the same can be said about atheists. We don't agree all the time either. Ayn Rand if she had been alive today would probably support Trump and she was an atheist. I fucking hate Trump, but that does not change that she and I have the same position of "off" on god claims.

Our species ability to be cruel or  compassionate is not in our labels, but in our evolution.

(May 31, 2016 at 6:27 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(May 30, 2016 at 4:47 pm)Disciple Wrote: That was my last point. It shouldn't be a legal contract. Its between two people that love each other and God if they are so inclined. The state should have no part in it. And I didn't mention a fucking church I mentioned a fucking imam haha. Nice try Minnie. A church, mosque or any secular institution should have the freedom to provide or refuse service to anybody they see fit. Nothing more.

Marriage was a seular institution long befor it came under religious purview. For example it wasn't compulsory for christians to marry in a church until the middle ages. It was only with the solidification of the nobility and the increasing importance of ensuring oaths of alliance were kept (marriage for the wealthy in that period was about two things, building up alliances and ensuring heirs) that formal church rites for marriage were invented.

Truedat. No problem there at all. The general Understanding and consensus for most believers is that the people are themselves, "the church" and any church building is just that, a building.  So I could totally see that. Im not married myself but I would most likely get married out in nature somewhere if I were to get married. Leave it to the so called nobility to complicate things

In the USA at least the history of institutionalized slavery and segregation required unique federal action by Republicans to remove the racist policies of the states dominated by Democrats.

(May 27, 2016 at 10:05 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 27, 2016 at 2:29 pm)Faith No More Wrote: They're upset that they're losing the culture war.

That true. Our culture is being debased by irrationality and decadence masking as "progress". If your own sex isn't an objective fact then pretty much everything else is up for grabs. If you can destroy another human being just because he or she is really really young or very very old then we've forgotten what it means to be human. If one group of people can use censor words and symbols they don't like from public view then we've forgotten what liberty means. Its all about a bunch of asshole liberals trying to force their morality, which is really just a lack of decency, onto everyone else. Tolerance isn't good enough. You can't just leave other people alone, No. You will be made to care. If you do not embrace and celebrate the lifestyles and beliefs of liberals you will be forced to resign from your job or have your business taken away from you. So yeah, we're pretty livid.

So, there you go again Chad just throwing a lot of twisted words and thoughts to say one thing.
We get it Chad. You hate liberals and rational people that won't bow down to your convoluted world view where we all bow down to your religious self entitlement.

(June 1, 2016 at 1:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In the USA at least the history of institutionalized slavery and segregation required unique federal action by Republicans to remove the racist policies of the states dominated by Democrats.

Oh please...

Trying to equate the Republican and Democrats of the late 1800's to what each party represents in the mid to late 1900's and this century, is disingenuous, at best. 

Both parties switched platforms starting after the civil war.

(June 1, 2016 at 3:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 1:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In the USA at least the history of institutionalized slavery and segregation required unique federal action by Republicans to remove the racist policies of the states dominated by Democrats.

Trying to equate the Republican and Democrats of the late 1800's to what each party represents in the mid to late 1900's and this century, is disingenuous, at best. 

It is a historical fact that the more Republicans voted for the 1964 civil rights act that Democrats. That's 1964, my friend.

(June 1, 2016 at 3:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 3:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Trying to equate the Republican and Democrats of the late 1800's to what each party represents in the mid to late 1900's and this century, is disingenuous, at best. 

It is a historical fact that the more Republicans voted for the 1964 civil rights act that Democrats. That's 1964, my friend.

That is due to the Democrats still being the party of the South.

The complete switch was not completed until Reagan.

George Wallace was Governor of Alabama as Democrat. 

1964: Lyndon Johnson essentially divorces the longest marriage the democratic party had: the one with southern whites.  By making Civil Rights part of the Democratic platform, the republicans lose basically all of what's left of their black constituencies - which had been a significant part of their remaining progressive vote in northern urban areas.  The democrats start to hemorrhage southern whites rapidly - you see George Wallace run for president in 1968."

(June 1, 2016 at 3:40 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: The complete switch was not completed until Reagan.

Riiiiiggghhttt...trying to explain away history. Democrats have smeared every single Republican president and presidential candidate as a racist. Are you seriously going to tell me that you truly believe every single one was indeed a racist?

(June 1, 2016 at 4:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 1, 2016 at 3:40 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: The complete switch was not completed until Reagan.

Riiiiiggghhttt...trying to explain away history. Democrats have smeared every single Republican president and presidential candidate as a racist. Are you seriously going to tell me that you truly believe every single one was indeed a racist?

I was speaking in a more general way about the party platforms. 

The Republican used to be the progressive party, and the Dems were the conservative party.

I guess reading back over my posts, it could be (incorrectly) inferred that I was speaking specifically about racism, but that was not my intent.