Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
AKA niece.
(fyi not per wiki)
AKA niece.
(fyi not per wiki)
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
*slinks back into the shadows*
Settings (also at the top of the page) -> General Settings (under My Account) -> Number of Posts to Show Per Page (under Thread Display Options)
*slinks back into the shadows*
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Society is beginning to accept gay marriage and not polygamy. This is perhaps due to the fact that there is no real victim in gay marriage.
Beyond that...society progresses and historically its been almost always a good thing. Women are no longer strickly in the kitchen, children in factories and blacks on plantations.
Join us progressives Bob.
Society is beginning to accept gay marriage and not polygamy. This is perhaps due to the fact that there is no real victim in gay marriage.
Beyond that...society progresses and historically its been almost always a good thing. Women are no longer strickly in the kitchen, children in factories and blacks on plantations.
Join us progressives Bob.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Don't be too sure about that.
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/sister-wives
How many reality shows about gay marriage are shown on "The Learning Channel"?
Society is beginning to accept gay marriage and not polygamy. This is perhaps due to the fact that there is no real victim in gay marriage.
Beyond that...society progresses and historically its been almost always a good thing. Women are no longer strickly in the kitchen, children in factories and blacks on plantations.
Join us progressives Bob.
Don't be too sure about that.
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/sister-wives
How many reality shows about gay marriage are shown on "The Learning Channel"?
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Who are the victims in polygamy? If all participants are willing, and happy, are they still a victim in your book?Society is beginning to accept gay marriage and not polygamy. This is perhaps due to the fact that there is no real victim in gay marriage.
Beyond that...society progresses and historically its been almost always a good thing. Women are no longer strickly in the kitchen, children in factories and blacks on plantations.
Join us progressives Bob.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I know it wasnt, but I wanted to ask anyways. I figured maybe we could get another Disney reference out of him to try and explain his position.
Plus it gave me a chance to bring up his assertion that he is in fact a liberal which always is good for a laugh
I know it wasnt, but I wanted to ask anyways. I figured maybe we could get another Disney reference out of him to try and explain his position.
Plus it gave me a chance to bring up his assertion that he is in fact a liberal which always is good for a laugh
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Only in USCHO threads do posters bypass the point, grab onto one word and jump off a cliff.
Many women...coming from polygamy relationships have attested to polygamy's abusive nature. What are the numbers of gays have come out saying that gay nature of gay marriage directly results in abuse? In modern society, if a practice directly results in abuse even if its not 100% of the time...typically its morally unacceptable.
Only in USCHO threads do posters bypass the point, grab onto one word and jump off a cliff.
Many women...coming from polygamy relationships have attested to polygamy's abusive nature. What are the numbers of gays have come out saying that gay nature of gay marriage directly results in abuse? In modern society, if a practice directly results in abuse even if its not 100% of the time...typically its morally unacceptable.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Considering my source is someone who actually grew up in Kentucky and your source is likely Wikipedia, guess who I trust more...
Considering my source is someone who actually grew up in Kentucky and your source is likely Wikipedia, guess who I trust more...
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I don't like it...someone could easily make an argument that relationships that come from trailer parks have a higher rate of being abusive in nature, or relationships involving someone of a certain profession are more likely to be abusive. Does that mean that people from those situations shouldn't be allowed to marry, just because there happens to be a higher % of *******s in those areas than in regular society?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
That's only part of the story. Marriage also imposes reciprocal obligations on the man to provide for spouse and child as well.
And you also note that heterosexual marriage started based on a biological imperative.
I guess everything old is indeed new again....we hashed this all out once before, civil unions between two consenting adults of whatever gender and sexual orientation are widely acceptable, and some people view the concept of "marriage" as something sacramental. Heterosexual civil unions are why we need marriage certificates and why many of us got married in a court house instead of a church (Catholics who divorce cannot get remarried in the Church while they can celebrate a civil union with a second spouse...I'm not up on my doctrine but if I understand correctly, a Catholic who divorced and remarried is fine under the law although technically by the Church's standards s/he is an adulterer/adulteress?)
and so most of the "debate" about marriage vs civil union is an issue of semantics, one concept is recognized by various religious doctrines while the other is recognized by civil law. As many have pointed out, heterosexual civil unions provide inheritance rights (even if one spouse wants to completely disinherit the other spouse, state law generally mandates that the "disinherited" spouse can still claim 1/3 of the other's estate, no matter what the will says); visitation rights, survivors' benefits, health insurance coverage, estate tax deduction at first death, etc. etc. Hence the drive for civil unions for same-sex couples, so that they also can have recognition of those same rights for their partnership.
I don't think "contract law" is an adequate explanation. For whatever reason, many civil societies, not just ours, decided that a biological nuclear family (or extended family, for that matter) provided generational stability and a healthy continuation of social life.
Other models are possible. If one believes the society described in Plato's writings, for example, it seems like all the men are bisexual, and the children are raised solely by the women, who were little more than domesticated servants who supported a male-dominated sociatey. The myth of the Amazons had it the other way around. All the women were bisexual, and the men were little more than domesticated servants.
That's only part of the story. Marriage also imposes reciprocal obligations on the man to provide for spouse and child as well.
And you also note that heterosexual marriage started based on a biological imperative.
I guess everything old is indeed new again....we hashed this all out once before, civil unions between two consenting adults of whatever gender and sexual orientation are widely acceptable, and some people view the concept of "marriage" as something sacramental. Heterosexual civil unions are why we need marriage certificates and why many of us got married in a court house instead of a church (Catholics who divorce cannot get remarried in the Church while they can celebrate a civil union with a second spouse...I'm not up on my doctrine but if I understand correctly, a Catholic who divorced and remarried is fine under the law although technically by the Church's standards s/he is an adulterer/adulteress?)
and so most of the "debate" about marriage vs civil union is an issue of semantics, one concept is recognized by various religious doctrines while the other is recognized by civil law. As many have pointed out, heterosexual civil unions provide inheritance rights (even if one spouse wants to completely disinherit the other spouse, state law generally mandates that the "disinherited" spouse can still claim 1/3 of the other's estate, no matter what the will says); visitation rights, survivors' benefits, health insurance coverage, estate tax deduction at first death, etc. etc. Hence the drive for civil unions for same-sex couples, so that they also can have recognition of those same rights for their partnership.
I don't think "contract law" is an adequate explanation. For whatever reason, many civil societies, not just ours, decided that a biological nuclear family (or extended family, for that matter) provided generational stability and a healthy continuation of social life.
Other models are possible. If one believes the society described in Plato's writings, for example, it seems like all the men are bisexual, and the children are raised solely by the women, who were little more than domesticated servants who supported a male-dominated sociatey. The myth of the Amazons had it the other way around. All the women were bisexual, and the men were little more than domesticated servants.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Not quite, but close...it's not the "polygamy" as much as it's the sexual abuse of underage children that is the core problem in most of the testimony to which you refer.
Not quite, but close...it's not the "polygamy" as much as it's the sexual abuse of underage children that is the core problem in most of the testimony to which you refer.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
It's worse than you thought: my only source is a vague memory of once possibly hearing that polygamy is illegal in America.
...Carry on, you three.
It's worse than you thought: my only source is a vague memory of once possibly hearing that polygamy is illegal in America.
...Carry on, you three.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Dare I say "slippery slope"?
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
edit: and I'm just playing devil's advocate, I really don't care one way or the other when it comes to gay marriage, I have no horse in the race
I wasn't going to. That term seems to get peoples' panties in a bunch.
edit: and I'm just playing devil's advocate, I really don't care one way or the other when it comes to gay marriage, I have no horse in the race
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The second one is hard to do, but the first one is so natural I think it was actually coded explicitly NOT to do it, for whatever reason.
Also, if you're really Ignoring 50% of posters you're doing something wrong. Like any antibiotic, it should only be used for those special cases that are truly virulent.
Ignore has two flaws. 1) which you mentioned, is it should just dump the whole post, not even giving you the stub. 2) the quotes of Ignored people should null out.
The second one is hard to do, but the first one is so natural I think it was actually coded explicitly NOT to do it, for whatever reason.
Also, if you're really Ignoring 50% of posters you're doing something wrong.
Like any antibiotic, it should only be used for those special cases that are truly virulent.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The only males who fantasize about forbidden gay relationships are Republican Congressmen.
That's only on because it plays into an adolescent male forbidden fantasy (the same reason why there are so many lesbian movie websites).
The only males who fantasize about forbidden gay relationships are Republican Congressmen.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I like having the stubs. It's rare, but every now and again I actually want to read a post by someone on my ignore list (usually, but not always, when they post in a different area than the area where their body of work landed them on my list in the first place), and the stubs let me do that.
Ignore has two flaws. 1) which you mentioned, is it should just dump the whole post, not even giving you the stub. 2) the quotes of Ignored people should null out.
The second one is hard to do, but the first one is so natural I think it was actually coded explicitly NOT to do it, for whatever reason.
Also, if you're really Ignoring 50% of posters you're doing something wrong.
I like having the stubs. It's rare, but every now and again I actually want to read a post by someone on my ignore list (usually, but not always, when they post in a different area than the area where their body of work landed them on my list in the first place), and the stubs let me do that.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Doing anything other than blindly agreeing with them gets their panties in a bunch. It's an unavoidable fact of life.
- Status