Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex

[The Rabbi]

Yeah people should worry about their individual marriage, not their neighbor's, not those of other people.

Keeping your own marriage (as you showed acknowledging our ugly divorce rate) happy and healthy is hard enough, and if you think less of your wife, your vows or your marriage in general because Tom and Ted or Julie and Joanie are married, then you aren't worthy of being your wife's husband anyways.

You obnviously didnt read Santorum's comments. And if you did you didnt understand them.

What restrictions on marriage do you think there should be?

We've expanded on the topic and we're talking about gay marriage in general, not just Santorum's comments which i read many times and understand perfectly.

Governmentally I think there should be no restrictions on marriage, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple that should be their choice, if an insurance company doens't want to fine, just like it's fine if a church or any other establishment does want to recognize the marriage.

Do you think gov't ought to be involved in:
Alimony
Child Support
Divorce
Custody
Inheritance
Bankruptcy
Taxation
?
Because all of those are in the nexus of marriage.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah people should worry about their individual marriage, not their neighbor's, not those of other people.

Keeping your own marriage (as you showed acknowledging our ugly divorce rate) happy and healthy is hard enough, and if you think less of your wife, your vows or your marriage in general because Tom and Ted or Julie and Joanie are married, then you aren't worthy of being your wife's husband anyways.

You obnviously didnt read Santorum's comments. And if you did you didnt understand them.

What restrictions on marriage do you think there should be?

We've expanded on the topic and we're talking about gay marriage in general, not just Santorum's comments which i read many times and understand perfectly.

Governmentally I think there should be no restrictions on marriage, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple that should be their choice, if an insurance company doens't want to fine, just like it's fine if a church or any other establishment does want to recognize the marriage.

Exactly, I fully support a church not wanting to marry gays.
Personally, I find gay marriage weird but it affects NO ONE.
Not my business.

 

[The Rabbi]

2 consenting adults.
You can not marry the 3 women and midget you currently covet.
Wouldn't want to "breakdown the social order."

So you're OK with a brother and sister getting married.
Why 2 consenting adults? What if the couple wants to add a third wife, which is standard practice in probably a majority of the world?
Arent you discirminating against people's ability to form their own households, you statist you?

No, no relatives. 2 consenting adults not related.
FYI Rabbi, there are already laws on the books banning relatives. Didn't you know that?
I live in America. The religous beliefs of those elsewhere do not count.
So quit hiding behind yours.
You can form your own household with 40 women or men, or midgets, whatever.
2 people love each other, they can get married.
Under your analysis, you make a strong point of ELIMINATING MARRIAGE in any form or fashion.
Is that what you want? Take your ball and go home if you can not have it your way.
You sound like a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. In my playing days we used to call guys like you "U-Haulers".

So yo're a bigot and hypocrite.
Why couldn't relatives get married? That is in fact a case in the courts right now.
There are people in America who practice polygamy. Get used to it. Why should they be discriminated against by the govt?

You can insult me all you like. It just shows the shallowness of your thought and inability to defend your absurd beliefs.

 

[Vanquish]

You obnviously didnt read Santorum's comments. And if you did you didnt understand them.

What restrictions on marriage do you think there should be?

We've expanded on the topic and we're talking about gay marriage in general, not just Santorum's comments which i read many times and understand perfectly.

Governmentally I think there should be no restrictions on marriage, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple that should be their choice, if an insurance company doens't want to fine, just like it's fine if a church or any other establishment does want to recognize the marriage.

Do you think gov't ought to be involved in:
Alimony
Child Support
Divorce
Custody
Inheritance
Bankruptcy
Taxation
?
Because all of those are in the nexus of marriage.

In the nexus. Trying to sound like a lawyer, eh? It's so funny.

 

[Gadawg73]

So you're OK with a brother and sister getting married.
Why 2 consenting adults? What if the couple wants to add a third wife, which is standard practice in probably a majority of the world?
Arent you discirminating against people's ability to form their own households, you statist you?

No, no relatives. 2 consenting adults not related.
FYI Rabbi, there are already laws on the books banning relatives. Didn't you know that?
I live in America. The religous beliefs of those elsewhere do not count.
So quit hiding behind yours.
You can form your own household with 40 women or men, or midgets, whatever.
2 people love each other, they can get married.
Under your analysis, you make a strong point of ELIMINATING MARRIAGE in any form or fashion.
Is that what you want? Take your ball and go home if you can not have it your way.
You sound like a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. In my playing days we used to call guys like you "U-Haulers".

So yo're a bigot and hypocrite.
Why couldn't relatives get married? That is in fact a case in the courts right now.
There are people in America who practice polygamy. Get used to it. Why should they be discriminated against by the govt?

You can insult me all you like. It just shows the shallowness of your thought and inability to defend your absurd beliefs.

You do not even know the definition of bigot.
You can dish it out Rabbi but can't take it. Sorry your skin is so thin.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You obnviously didnt read Santorum's comments. And if you did you didnt understand them.

What restrictions on marriage do you think there should be?

We've expanded on the topic and we're talking about gay marriage in general, not just Santorum's comments which i read many times and understand perfectly.

Governmentally I think there should be no restrictions on marriage, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple that should be their choice, if an insurance company doens't want to fine, just like it's fine if a church or any other establishment does want to recognize the marriage.

Do you think gov't ought to be involved in:
Alimony
Child Support
Divorce
Custody
Inheritance
Bankruptcy
Taxation
?
Because all of those are in the nexus of marriage.

Alimony should be handled in a prenup if you think divorce is a possiblity and gov't can enforce that contract.

Child support is handled whether ppl get married or not.

Divorce no.

Custody I think could also be handled without gov't recognition of marriage, again a marriage isn't necessary for custody battles.

Inheritance can be handled through a will or through banks/investment companies/insurance companies who deal with the couples funds.

Bankruptcy I'm against.

I'm against income taxes for couples or single people.

 

[Gadawg73]

Santorum is a liar anyway. Con man to the max.
He states God told him to run for President.
Funny how Cain and Bachman both stated the same thing.
God is confused.

 

[mudwhistle]

We've expanded on the topic and we're talking about gay marriage in general, not just Santorum's comments which i read many times and understand perfectly.

Governmentally I think there should be no restrictions on marriage, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple that should be their choice, if an insurance company doens't want to fine, just like it's fine if a church or any other establishment does want to recognize the marriage.

Do you think gov't ought to be involved in:
Alimony
Child Support
Divorce
Custody
Inheritance
Bankruptcy
Taxation
?
Because all of those are in the nexus of marriage.

Alimony should be handled in a prenup if you think divorce is a possiblity and gov't can enforce that contract.

Child support is handled whether ppl get married or not.

Divorce no.

Custody I think could also be handled without gov't recognition of marriage, again a marriage isn't necessary for custody battles.

Inheritance can be handled through a will or through banks/investment companies/insurance companies who deal with the couples funds.

Bankruptcy I'm against.

I'm against income taxes for couples or single people.

Isn't this all the relm of our court system?

 

[daveman]

In the nexus. Trying to sound like a lawyer, eh? It's so funny.

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You're a lawyer.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh but for so long you doubted me. I think I'll remind you.

I'm a lawyer.

And yes, you give a fuck. Whether you admit it or not

 

[Couplet Man]

Santorum is a joke and has no real support
So when he makes a statement like this, why retort?

 

[The Rabbi]

We've expanded on the topic and we're talking about gay marriage in general, not just Santorum's comments which i read many times and understand perfectly.

Governmentally I think there should be no restrictions on marriage, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple that should be their choice, if an insurance company doens't want to fine, just like it's fine if a church or any other establishment does want to recognize the marriage.

Do you think gov't ought to be involved in:
Alimony
Child Support
Divorce
Custody
Inheritance
Bankruptcy
Taxation
?
Because all of those are in the nexus of marriage.

Alimony should be handled in a prenup if you think divorce is a possiblity and gov't can enforce that contract.

Child support is handled whether ppl get married or not.

Divorce no.

Custody I think could also be handled without gov't recognition of marriage, again a marriage isn't necessary for custody battles.

Inheritance can be handled through a will or through banks/investment companies/insurance companies who deal with the couples funds.

Bankruptcy I'm against.

I'm against income taxes for couples or single people.

Not everyone gets a pre-nup. That also supposes we can agree on a definition of marriage. Once you open it up, you open it to anything. If a guy picks up a girl and brings her home are they married? Who's to say they aren't? She leaves with half his possessions.

The rest of your responses indicate you have no familiarity with these topics and don't understand what is at stake.

 

[The Rabbi]

We've expanded on the topic and we're talking about gay marriage in general, not just Santorum's comments which i read many times and understand perfectly.

Governmentally I think there should be no restrictions on marriage, government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple that should be their choice, if an insurance company doens't want to fine, just like it's fine if a church or any other establishment does want to recognize the marriage.

Do you think gov't ought to be involved in:
Alimony
Child Support
Divorce
Custody
Inheritance
Bankruptcy
Taxation
?
Because all of those are in the nexus of marriage.

In the nexus. Trying to sound like a lawyer, eh? It's so funny.

Nexus is actually a word in English that educated people use. You only know it from Nexus-Lexus, something you saw when sweeping the floor in the law office at night.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Do you think gov't ought to be involved in:
Alimony
Child Support
Divorce
Custody
Inheritance
Bankruptcy
Taxation
?
Because all of those are in the nexus of marriage.

Alimony should be handled in a prenup if you think divorce is a possiblity and gov't can enforce that contract.

Child support is handled whether ppl get married or not.

Divorce no.

Custody I think could also be handled without gov't recognition of marriage, again a marriage isn't necessary for custody battles.

Inheritance can be handled through a will or through banks/investment companies/insurance companies who deal with the couples funds.

Bankruptcy I'm against.

I'm against income taxes for couples or single people.

Not everyone gets a pre-nup. That also supposes we can agree on a definition of marriage. Once you open it up, you open it to anything. If a guy picks up a girl and brings her home are they married? Who's to say they aren't? She leaves with half his possessions.

The rest of your responses indicate you have no familiarity with these topics and don't understand what is at stake.

No, it just shows another range of issues that you've assumed government HAS to be involved in when they really don't, like most other issues they meddle in.

 

[daveman]

Oh but for so long you doubted me. I think I'll remind you.

I'm a lawyer.

And yes, you give a fuck. Whether you admit it or not

I'm sure it comforts your small mind and huge ego to feel that way, but not really.

 

[The Rabbi]

Alimony should be handled in a prenup if you think divorce is a possiblity and gov't can enforce that contract.

Child support is handled whether ppl get married or not.

Divorce no.

Custody I think could also be handled without gov't recognition of marriage, again a marriage isn't necessary for custody battles.

Inheritance can be handled through a will or through banks/investment companies/insurance companies who deal with the couples funds.

Bankruptcy I'm against.

I'm against income taxes for couples or single people.

Not everyone gets a pre-nup. That also supposes we can agree on a definition of marriage. Once you open it up, you open it to anything. If a guy picks up a girl and brings her home are they married? Who's to say they aren't? She leaves with half his possessions.

The rest of your responses indicate you have no familiarity with these topics and don't understand what is at stake.

No, it just shows another range of issues that you've assumed government HAS to be involved in when they really don't, like most other issues they meddle in.

Adjudicating competing claims would appear to be a prime function of government.
You have revealed the depth of your ignorance here. Further discussion is not worthwhile.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not everyone gets a pre-nup. That also supposes we can agree on a definition of marriage. Once you open it up, you open it to anything. If a guy picks up a girl and brings her home are they married? Who's to say they aren't? She leaves with half his possessions.

The rest of your responses indicate you have no familiarity with these topics and don't understand what is at stake.

No, it just shows another range of issues that you've assumed government HAS to be involved in when they really don't, like most other issues they meddle in.

Adjudicating competing claims would appear to be a prime function of government.
You have revealed the depth of your ignorance here. Further discussion is not worthwhile.

Where are you having your trophy made for your self-proclaimed victory?

Better make sure it's not at a shop those filthy blacks or deviant homos are working, get it all dirty.........................................

 

[Vanquish]

The court system is definitely part of government. And the founding fathers wanted it that way. And over those particular issues.

The government should be involved in marriage, of course. It's just the level of involvement...and for what reason that's at issue.

There's no compelling state interest in the outlawing of buttfucking. Not buttfucking a woman by a man, a man by a man or a woman (with a strap-on) of a woman (or man). Who Rabbi wants to buttfuck should be his decision...and every other citizen's. The only limit being human on human.

That's gonna cause problems with Daveman does his donkey show at Rabbi's family reunions...but oh well. Gotta break a few eggs.

 

[xsited1]

Santorum Wants to Enslave People Who Have Unconventional Sex.

Maybe people who have unconventional sex want to be enslaved. Ever thought of that????

 

[The Rabbi]

Santorum's point is that the state does in fact have a compelling interest in maintaining traditional morality.
I certainly appreciated his arguments as a genuine expression of conservatism, not the narco-libertarian variety often peddled.