Thursday 05/10 - OK, Ill start this...

[LeNeve]

avian tequila, you can find it right between the discount boner pills, and the home loan section at the sirius discount store.

[Chip]

avian tequila, you can find it right between the discount boner pills, and the home loan section at the sirius discount store.

If I had a legit business, I don't think I would want to advertise on Sirius.

[Joe]

avian tequila, you can find it right between the discount boner pills, and the home loan section at the sirius discount store.

If I had a legit business, I don't think I would want to advertise on Sirius.

Yeah, Sirius really is the toilet for advertising

[Pokes28]

A few points on the gay marriage thing:

1) Rich isn't religious at all and has no concept of what is or isn't important. He's admitted this but his ignorance showed today.
2) This stance by Obama was extremely political. It is the fastest easiest way to get Hollywood excited to be back in his corner. Within 90 minutes of this interview he had raised $1 million for his campaign.
3) Gay marriage acceptance is a losing proposal for 90% of the US population.
4) Rich also doesn't study politics (I do). Right now Obama is in trouble. If you read the polls, they have this as a relative dead heat in popular vote. However that is only using the "registered voters" list. The much more accurate "likely voters" which bases it on a large number of factors has Romney winning 48% to 43%. That is 9% undecided. Since the elections have gone to TV (in the 60s), there hasn't been a single incumbent President that garnered the undecided vote. I'm not talking about the undecided from this far out, but in the last month or two before the election. However, it is far more likely that people will warm up to Romney than side with the President this late in the cycle. There is one thing that could change things. If the unemployment were to go down to 7.5%, I think that Obama would have a chance. If it stays around 8%, he's doomed. Remember this is just those that qualify for unemployment benefits. The current real number of unemployed is closer to 15% and the underemployed (people that are working part time or took a far lesser job just to get some money) is over 20%. Those are hard numbers that Obama is going to have to compete with. Building 120,000 jobs a month won't do it. To get where he will be re-elected we will need multiple 300,000-400,000 or higher months. I don't see it happening.

I do see a problem in this country when two people (regardless of sex) are committed to one another and in many cases have been shunned by their own family not having the right to see them when they are in ICU (close family only) or cause problems if the family house can't just go over in ownership if one of them dies. These are basic fundamental things that I think most people can agree on. The issue is the term "marriage." With it are religious connotations whether Rich sees and understands them is irrelevant. Also, if marriage is a right, then the state could force churches to marry a gay couple. Just like a right to health care takes away the rights of a doctor forcing him to care for people not of his/her choosing, making marriage a right will definitely impede on churches.

The David Harrell (<--me) solution is simple. Change the law to the requirement of civil unions instead of being married. Basically all marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages. The state only recognizes the civil union part and the marriage part is in the eyes of God. This way if two atheists want to be together, they just get a civil union and not be subjected to the religious (that they don't believe in) aspect of the process. It gives the same protections to everybody. It retains the rights of the church to only marry those that they feel should be married in the eyes of God according to their tennants. It also means that if a church is ok with same sex folks getting married, then so be it. But only the civil union part matters (for everybody) in the eyes of the law.

It isn't the same half measure that don't ask don't tell was, it is a way to solve problems and still allow everybody their own beliefs and freedoms without encroaching on others.

[Pokes28]

I've never seen happy days, or sanford and sons

I feel sorry for you.

[Chip]

The David Harrell (<--me) solution is simple. Change the law to the requirement of civil unions instead of being married. Basically all marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages. The state only recognizes the civil union part and the marriage part is in the eyes of God. This way if two atheists want to be together, they just get a civil union and not be subjected to the religious (that they don't believe in) aspect of the process. It gives the same protections to everybody. It retains the rights of the church to only marry those that they feel should be married in the eyes of God according to their tennants. It also means that if a church is ok with same sex folks getting married, then so be it. But only the civil union part matters (for everybody) in the eyes of the law.

Logic has no place in this debate Pokes, please stop.
:j/k:

[Joe]

Marriage in the sense it is being talked about is NOT a religious thing. No one is asking the church to accept them. The real problem is that no one can get their heads around separating church and state. If you won't let gay people get married then you shouldn't let atheists get married either. You should also ban marriages at anything other than religious institutions if you want to make it a religious thing. Of course if you did all of that you'd also have to tell divorce lawyer to go get new jobs because marriage is a religious thing and does not belong in the courts either.


Just let them marry. If they go to hell because of it then it's on them. If two people of the same sex can be happy together instead of wanting to kill each other like a good percentage of heterosexual couples do then why stop them?

[Pokes28]

Joe, we are saying the same thing. The only difference is the terms used.

Both sides want to own the term and that is what is the problem. I really don't think there would be as much contention if the term marriage was out of the equation.

[Chip]

Marriage in the sense it is being talked about is NOT a religious thing. No one is asking the church to accept them. The real problem is that no one can get their heads around separating church and state. If you won't let gay people get married then you shouldn't let atheists get married either. You should also ban marriages at anything other than religious institutions if you want to make it a religious thing. Of course if you did all of that you'd also have to tell divorce lawyer to go get new jobs because marriage is a religious thing and does not belong in the courts either.


Just let them marry. If they go to hell because of it then it's on them. If two people of the same sex can be happy together instead of wanting to kill each other like a good percentage of heterosexual couples do then why stop them?

That's what Pokes was saying though. The people who are against it, are against it because marriage is a religous thing to them.
I consider myself religous, but I don't really think being gay is such a horrible sin. So I don't care, let them get married.
I just don't understand why religous people get so up in arms over this, and not other stuff that I thought was just as bad.
Isn't divorce pretty evil?

[LeNeve]

yes. :high5:

[LeNeve]

Pokes is my favorite knowledge dropper.

[LeNeve]

I kind of feel like blink 182 shouldn't be on lithium.

[LeNeve]

lithium is being wackadoo like gay marriege in kalamazoo

[LeNeve]

that guy wants a girl with a short skirt and a long jacket

[LeNeve]

lots of jammin trumpets in the 90s :high5: