I hear you. My inner Jacobin is screaming. However, when I think of my own region, I'd like to find a way to accommodate the Christlike Christians, the Unitarians and the Deists. Sending them all to the lions seem to be counterproductive in the long run. There needs to be carrots and sticks.
Oh, common law. Many states and provinces don't make much allowance for that. By mistress I was implying that at least one of them was already married. No rights there.
It's a problem to be sure. Still, I think scrounging up some friends and joining sports or cultural groups is easier than making up for educational opportunities missed.
It's fine for the Catholics to believe whatever they want. The question is about using ones institutional power in the political setting affecting non believers. If monogamy is a sin to believers of the FSM should they try to use their power to criminalize monogamous behavior? Do you really want this to be mob rule? If the US or Canada becomes strongly secular, are you willing to die by this same sword? Or will you cry for religious freedoms and protection, based on what? you're own example?
Money changers? The Pharisees? ring any bells? How about walking about preaching on the Sabbath? Sin? Could you show me Christ's stance on gays in the red letters? Where he decides that shelfish isn't really a sin?
This may be true in some far off land. I have a hard time seeing how it's applicable to the Western debate. How does this relate to mistresses in North America, poly communities?
These are arguments you can make from the left. The State has an interest in regulating markets and fundamental necessities for the good of all. It's still a bit embarrassing though; "Without the help of the government, there's no way you'd get laid".
The abuse of women thing is misguided. Giving legal protection to women in group settings empowers them and gives them a way out where keeping them in the shadows exposes them to true exploitation.
How does the tax law thing work for polygamy? Civil rights are only available if they're easy to accommodate legislatively? We'd like to give you freedom of speech but it's so hard to distinguish art from icky pornography we're going to err on the culturally safe side?
On “gay marriage and the catholic church in maine”
So, nothing but the missionary for procreation (not that there's anything wrong with getting off on knocking someone up) interests you?
"
I can't wait until I can start legislating mine.
On “How could this happen?”
If you're going to protect the Constitution, then I say good on you.
On “gay marriage and the catholic church in maine”
Congrats. We're going on 10.
"
Good, you've learned the mantra. That should make for a long healthy relationship. (In case my SO is in the wings, same goes for you Dear)
"
Schooled! Oh this will make my day.
"
I hear you. My inner Jacobin is screaming. However, when I think of my own region, I'd like to find a way to accommodate the Christlike Christians, the Unitarians and the Deists. Sending them all to the lions seem to be counterproductive in the long run. There needs to be carrots and sticks.
"
Ok then. I tend to think of keeping mistresses as a nice way Westerners partake in the polygamy thing. I'm not talking about one night stands.
"
Oh, common law. Many states and provinces don't make much allowance for that. By mistress I was implying that at least one of them was already married. No rights there.
"
How do they have more?
On “Education loses out in Arizona”
It's a problem to be sure. Still, I think scrounging up some friends and joining sports or cultural groups is easier than making up for educational opportunities missed.
"
Homeschooling is the only way to go.
On “gay marriage and the catholic church in maine”
Hey, don't hog the civil unions. I want a way out of this marriage thing too! Leave marriage for the Christians. Give them all the rope they want.
"
That's right. Own it.
"
It's fine for the Catholics to believe whatever they want. The question is about using ones institutional power in the political setting affecting non believers. If monogamy is a sin to believers of the FSM should they try to use their power to criminalize monogamous behavior? Do you really want this to be mob rule? If the US or Canada becomes strongly secular, are you willing to die by this same sword? Or will you cry for religious freedoms and protection, based on what? you're own example?
"
Money changers? The Pharisees? ring any bells? How about walking about preaching on the Sabbath? Sin? Could you show me Christ's stance on gays in the red letters? Where he decides that shelfish isn't really a sin?
"
It seems that Canada will be going down this road very soon. It seems the Bountiful polygamy question is going to be sent to the courts after all.
"
This may be true in some far off land. I have a hard time seeing how it's applicable to the Western debate. How does this relate to mistresses in North America, poly communities?
"
These are arguments you can make from the left. The State has an interest in regulating markets and fundamental necessities for the good of all. It's still a bit embarrassing though; "Without the help of the government, there's no way you'd get laid".
The abuse of women thing is misguided. Giving legal protection to women in group settings empowers them and gives them a way out where keeping them in the shadows exposes them to true exploitation.
"
Of course, blow jobs from the Mrs. are out too.
"
How does the tax law thing work for polygamy? Civil rights are only available if they're easy to accommodate legislatively? We'd like to give you freedom of speech but it's so hard to distinguish art from icky pornography we're going to err on the culturally safe side?
"
Because ones mistress could demand legal claim to ones assets?
"
Ramen
"
Ironic.
"
For people following Christ, it's amazing so much focus is placed on Paul.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.