Tennessee Seeks tonBar Same Sex Marriage

[80zephyr]

What does that have to do with a state wanting the power of regulating marriage on behalf of its children affected by the definition?

Again, when you ban divorce for people with children, then you can come back to me about how gay marriage effects kids.

Divorce is a lot more traumatic. I've known more kids fucked up by divorce than having gay parents.

Yep. The left loved it that divorce is now easy. It fucked up marriage. And then, after they sufficiently fucked it up, they can now claim that since it is so fucked up, that allowing any other arrangement won't hurt it.

Insidious.

Mark

And no, no one thinks that " any marital arrangement " is OK.

Why not? Discouraging any other arrangement makes you a bigot. At least that was the common refrain concerning gay marriage.

Mark

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yep. The left loved it that divorce is now easy. It fucked up marriage. And then, after they sufficiently fucked it up, they can now claim that since it is so fucked up, that allowing any other arrangement won't hurt it.

Insidious.

Mark

Or we just realized that marriage shouldn't be a permanent mistake.

Let's be honest. A lot of marriages ARE mistakes. Mistakes should be corrected.

Too easy to do. Make it harder. With almost every divorce, problems and costs are pushed onto society. Their "mistake" should cause them problems, not us.

Mark

Sure , force people to stay together. That will be real good for mental and physical health. Lets drive the to murder or suicide . Now that will push costs onto society .

People, especially young people make mistakes. Should they be made to pay for them for their whole life or be given a chance to start again.?

It was much harder to divorce in the 1950's. Did they commit murder and suicide? Being old, I know quite a few divorced couples. Most simply "fell out of love", and society is left to pick up the pieces. Divorce should be accessible, it should simply be much harder to do.

Make something easy, and more people will partake.

Mark

So what if more people get divorced because they can? How is that your business? What does it cost you?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno, I got married back in the mid 80's, and all I had to do was pay 25 bucks for the license and find a preacher. I managed to get the ship's chaplain to do the ceremony for me. Getting married cost me less than a night out with the boys, and the whole process only took a couple of days.

Then, in the early 90's, I got divorced. That little venture took me 3 months to complete, and when all was said and done, it had cost me around 1,500 dollars.

I think that things should be reversed. If you really want to get married, it should be a huge registration fee, as well as should take around 3 months for the process to be completed.

Divorce? 25 bucks and 2 days max.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What does that have to do with a state wanting the power of regulating marriage on behalf of its children affected by the definition?

Again, when you ban divorce for people with children, then you can come back to me about how gay marriage effects kids.

Divorce is a lot more traumatic. I've known more kids fucked up by divorce than having gay parents.

Yep. The left loved it that divorce is now easy. It fucked up marriage. And then, after they sufficiently fucked it up, they can now claim that since it is so fucked up, that allowing any other arrangement won't hurt it.

Insidious.

Mark

And no, no one thinks that " any marital arrangement " is OK.

Why not? Discouraging any other arrangement makes you a bigot. At least that was the common refrain concerning gay marriage.

Mark

That's the same old well worn red herring, slippery slope, and false equivalency equine excrement logical fallacies that I have heard too many times before. . What are you saying- that marrying your underage sister is the same as two unrelated consenting adults getting married who happen to be of the same sex. ?Are you saying that opposing the former example makes you a bigot? That is really just fucking stupid. No one who supports same sex marriage every said that. If someone wants to marry their sister, or two tree people at the same time, or a corps - based on the Obergefell decision, they can pursue in court. It would be fun to see what happens.

It is also a Tu Quoque ,or an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy to imply that someone is a hypocrite for supporting same sex marriage while opposing sibling marriage-or whatever, or just not supporting it

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

 

[80zephyr]

Yep. The left loved it that divorce is now easy. It fucked up marriage. And then, after they sufficiently fucked it up, they can now claim that since it is so fucked up, that allowing any other arrangement won't hurt it.

Insidious.

Mark

Or we just realized that marriage shouldn't be a permanent mistake.

Let's be honest. A lot of marriages ARE mistakes. Mistakes should be corrected.

Too easy to do. Make it harder. With almost every divorce, problems and costs are pushed onto society. Their "mistake" should cause them problems, not us.

Mark

Sure , force people to stay together. That will be real good for mental and physical health. Lets drive the to murder or suicide . Now that will push costs onto society .

People, especially young people make mistakes. Should they be made to pay for them for their whole life or be given a chance to start again.?

It was much harder to divorce in the 1950's. Did they commit murder and suicide? Being old, I know quite a few divorced couples. Most simply "fell out of love", and society is left to pick up the pieces. Divorce should be accessible, it should simply be much harder to do.

Make something easy, and more people will partake.

Mark

So what if more people get divorced because they can? How is that your business? What does it cost you?

Are you serious? Most cannot afford to live in single parent households, and then the government subsidizes them. Single parent homes make up quite a few of those families on welfare.

I believe that people divorce today because its easier to do. They can rely on the taxpayers to survive.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

What does that have to do with a state wanting the power of regulating marriage on behalf of its children affected by the definition?

Again, when you ban divorce for people with children, then you can come back to me about how gay marriage effects kids.

Divorce is a lot more traumatic. I've known more kids fucked up by divorce than having gay parents.

Yep. The left loved it that divorce is now easy. It fucked up marriage. And then, after they sufficiently fucked it up, they can now claim that since it is so fucked up, that allowing any other arrangement won't hurt it.

Insidious.

Mark

And no, no one thinks that " any marital arrangement " is OK.

Why not? Discouraging any other arrangement makes you a bigot. At least that was the common refrain concerning gay marriage.

Mark

That's the same old well worn red herring, slippery slope, and false equivalency equine excrement logical fallacies that I have heard too many times before. . What are you saying- that marrying your underage sister is the same as two unrelated consenting adults getting married who happen to be of the same sex. ?Are you saying that opposing the former example makes you a bigot? That is really just fucking stupid. No one who supports same sex marriage every said that. If someone wants to marry their sister, or two tree people at the same time, or a corps - based on the Obergefell decision, they can pursue in court. It would be fun to see what happens.

It is also a Tu Quoque ,or an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy to imply that someone is a hypocrite for supporting same sex marriage while opposing sibling marriage-or whatever, or just not supporting it

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

There is no fallacy. You are also restricting society according to what you believe it should be. While you might not like the idea of an underage sister marrying her brother, it doesn't make you any less restrictive.

Mark

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Or we just realized that marriage shouldn't be a permanent mistake.

Let's be honest. A lot of marriages ARE mistakes. Mistakes should be corrected.

Too easy to do. Make it harder. With almost every divorce, problems and costs are pushed onto society. Their "mistake" should cause them problems, not us.

Mark

Sure , force people to stay together. That will be real good for mental and physical health. Lets drive the to murder or suicide . Now that will push costs onto society .

People, especially young people make mistakes. Should they be made to pay for them for their whole life or be given a chance to start again.?

It was much harder to divorce in the 1950's. Did they commit murder and suicide? Being old, I know quite a few divorced couples. Most simply "fell out of love", and society is left to pick up the pieces. Divorce should be accessible, it should simply be much harder to do.

Make something easy, and more people will partake.

Mark

So what if more people get divorced because they can? How is that your business? What does it cost you?

Are you serious? Most cannot afford to live in single parent households, and then the government subsidizes them. Single parent homes make up quite a few of those families on welfare.

I believe that people divorce today because its easier to do. They can rely on the taxpayers to survive.

Mark

Please provide the statistics on the number of people who are on some form of assistance because of divorce. But in any case they still have a right to divorce.

 

[80zephyr]

Too easy to do. Make it harder. With almost every divorce, problems and costs are pushed onto society. Their "mistake" should cause them problems, not us.

Mark

Sure , force people to stay together. That will be real good for mental and physical health. Lets drive the to murder or suicide . Now that will push costs onto society .

People, especially young people make mistakes. Should they be made to pay for them for their whole life or be given a chance to start again.?

It was much harder to divorce in the 1950's. Did they commit murder and suicide? Being old, I know quite a few divorced couples. Most simply "fell out of love", and society is left to pick up the pieces. Divorce should be accessible, it should simply be much harder to do.

Make something easy, and more people will partake.

Mark

So what if more people get divorced because they can? How is that your business? What does it cost you?

Are you serious? Most cannot afford to live in single parent households, and then the government subsidizes them. Single parent homes make up quite a few of those families on welfare.

I believe that people divorce today because its easier to do. They can rely on the taxpayers to survive.

Mark

Please provide the statistics on the number of people who are on some form of assistance because of divorce. But in any case they still have a right to divorce.

I don't care if its one couple who divorces and gets welfare. If they want to divorce, they should pay their own way. Society is not responsible for their mistakes.

Mark

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, when you ban divorce for people with children, then you can come back to me about how gay marriage effects kids.

Divorce is a lot more traumatic. I've known more kids fucked up by divorce than having gay parents.

Yep. The left loved it that divorce is now easy. It fucked up marriage. And then, after they sufficiently fucked it up, they can now claim that since it is so fucked up, that allowing any other arrangement won't hurt it.

Insidious.

Mark

And no, no one thinks that " any marital arrangement " is OK.

Why not? Discouraging any other arrangement makes you a bigot. At least that was the common refrain concerning gay marriage.

Mark

That's the same old well worn red herring, slippery slope, and false equivalency equine excrement logical fallacies that I have heard too many times before. . What are you saying- that marrying your underage sister is the same as two unrelated consenting adults getting married who happen to be of the same sex. ?Are you saying that opposing the former example makes you a bigot? That is really just fucking stupid. No one who supports same sex marriage every said that. If someone wants to marry their sister, or two tree people at the same time, or a corps - based on the Obergefell decision, they can pursue in court. It would be fun to see what happens.

It is also a Tu Quoque ,or an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy to imply that someone is a hypocrite for supporting same sex marriage while opposing sibling marriage-or whatever, or just not supporting it

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

There is no fallacy. You are also restricting society according to what you believe it should be. While you might not like the idea of an underage sister marrying her brother, it doesn't make you any less restrictive.

Mark

You just don't get it. It's not a matter of what I like or don't like. You might have noticed that I have not taken a position on other variations of "marriage. It's a matter of whether or not your argument is valid and the fact is that it is not because it employs logical fallacies which you apparently do not understand

 

[JoeB131]

Too easy to do. Make it harder. With almost every divorce, problems and costs are pushed onto society. Their "mistake" should cause them problems, not us.

Mark

Right. And if we have more domestic violence and murders because people who can't stand each other are stuck in bad marriages, well, heck, that's just what Jesus wanted... Praise Jesus.

Fucking Moron.

It was much harder to divorce in the 1950's. Did they commit murder and suicide? Being old, I know quite a few divorced couples. Most simply "fell out of love", and society is left to pick up the pieces. Divorce should be accessible, it should simply be much harder to do.

Make something easy, and more people will partake.

I know a few divorced couples, too. Getting divorced was the best outcome for them.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....how many people in America know about this? About 10,000.......maybe?

nobody cares.

What we see in this thread is this whole new progressive mo.......perpetual outrage. Its the new religion. Thankfully, not embraced by most people.

 

[Erinwltr]

LOL.....how many people in America know about this? About 10,000.......maybe?

nobody cares.

What we see in this thread is this whole new progressive mo.......perpetual outrage. Its the new religion. Thankfully, not embraced by most people.

Lots of folks care, but obviously not you. And for someone that doesn't care you just had to post an asinine comment in what is otherwise a pretty good thread. And you would have found that out for yourself had you taken the time to read just a small part of it. Honestly, it is your loss.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....how many people in America know about this? About 10,000.......maybe?

nobody cares.

What we see in this thread is this whole new progressive mo.......perpetual outrage. Its the new religion. Thankfully, not embraced by most people.

Lots of folks care, but obviously not you. And for someone that doesn't care you just had to post an asinine comment in what is otherwise a pretty good thread. And you would have found that out for yourself had you taken the time to read just a small part of it. Honestly, it is your loss.

Nah.....its fringe banter only. Outside internet community forums, most dont care. Huge majorities still support same sex marriage.

 

[80zephyr]

Yep. The left loved it that divorce is now easy. It fucked up marriage. And then, after they sufficiently fucked it up, they can now claim that since it is so fucked up, that allowing any other arrangement won't hurt it.

Insidious.

Mark

And no, no one thinks that " any marital arrangement " is OK.

Why not? Discouraging any other arrangement makes you a bigot. At least that was the common refrain concerning gay marriage.

Mark

That's the same old well worn red herring, slippery slope, and false equivalency equine excrement logical fallacies that I have heard too many times before. . What are you saying- that marrying your underage sister is the same as two unrelated consenting adults getting married who happen to be of the same sex. ?Are you saying that opposing the former example makes you a bigot? That is really just fucking stupid. No one who supports same sex marriage every said that. If someone wants to marry their sister, or two tree people at the same time, or a corps - based on the Obergefell decision, they can pursue in court. It would be fun to see what happens.

It is also a Tu Quoque ,or an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy to imply that someone is a hypocrite for supporting same sex marriage while opposing sibling marriage-or whatever, or just not supporting it

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

There is no fallacy. You are also restricting society according to what you believe it should be. While you might not like the idea of an underage sister marrying her brother, it doesn't make you any less restrictive.

Mark

You just don't get it. It's not a matter of what I like or don't like. You might have noticed that I have not taken a position on other variations of "marriage. It's a matter of whether or not your argument is valid and the fact is that it is not because it employs logical fallacies which you apparently do not understand

What makes an argument valid? Your beliefs? Why are your beliefs the litmus test for validity?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Too easy to do. Make it harder. With almost every divorce, problems and costs are pushed onto society. Their "mistake" should cause them problems, not us.

Mark

Right. And if we have more domestic violence and murders because people who can't stand each other are stuck in bad marriages, well, heck, that's just what Jesus wanted... Praise Jesus.

Fucking Moron.

It was much harder to divorce in the 1950's. Did they commit murder and suicide? Being old, I know quite a few divorced couples. Most simply "fell out of love", and society is left to pick up the pieces. Divorce should be accessible, it should simply be much harder to do.

Make something easy, and more people will partake.

I know a few divorced couples, too. Getting divorced was the best outcome for them.

Divorce was harder to obtain in the 1950's. Since you have asserted there would be more violence and murders, we could use the 1950's as our guide to what would happen today.

And with that, you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

BTW, why bring Jesus into this? Religion is not part of the debate. The cost to society is the debate. And the children.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

LOL.....how many people in America know about this? About 10,000.......maybe?

nobody cares.

What we see in this thread is this whole new progressive mo.......perpetual outrage. Its the new religion. Thankfully, not embraced by most people.

Lots of folks care, but obviously not you. And for someone that doesn't care you just had to post an asinine comment in what is otherwise a pretty good thread. And you would have found that out for yourself had you taken the time to read just a small part of it. Honestly, it is your loss.

Nah.....its fringe banter only. Outside internet community forums, most dont care. Huge majorities still support same sex marriage.

Why do you think that is?

Mark

 

[GreenAndBlue]

TN is becoming very powerful
And where the conservatives are fleeing to from liberal areas

Germany's wise are fleeing to the Chattanooga and Cleveland TN area

TNs 2 Rino republicans had to leave the senate after seeing how the wise now will control TN voting.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

The abortion issue and the gay marriage issue have brought this monster imbalance of young to old

The crooks tried to run in the low IQs and Muslims to replace the young

TN will become very powerful quickly

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And no, no one thinks that " any marital arrangement " is OK.

Why not? Discouraging any other arrangement makes you a bigot. At least that was the common refrain concerning gay marriage.

Mark

That's the same old well worn red herring, slippery slope, and false equivalency equine excrement logical fallacies that I have heard too many times before. . What are you saying- that marrying your underage sister is the same as two unrelated consenting adults getting married who happen to be of the same sex. ?Are you saying that opposing the former example makes you a bigot? That is really just fucking stupid. No one who supports same sex marriage every said that. If someone wants to marry their sister, or two tree people at the same time, or a corps - based on the Obergefell decision, they can pursue in court. It would be fun to see what happens.

It is also a Tu Quoque ,or an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy to imply that someone is a hypocrite for supporting same sex marriage while opposing sibling marriage-or whatever, or just not supporting it

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

There is no fallacy. You are also restricting society according to what you believe it should be. While you might not like the idea of an underage sister marrying her brother, it doesn't make you any less restrictive.

Mark

You just don't get it. It's not a matter of what I like or don't like. You might have noticed that I have not taken a position on other variations of "marriage. It's a matter of whether or not your argument is valid and the fact is that it is not because it employs logical fallacies which you apparently do not understand

What makes an argument valid? Your beliefs? Why are your beliefs the litmus test for validity?

Mark

It has nothing to do with my beliefs . It has to do with the issue of whether or not an argument is based on facts and logic. Yours is not as I have demonstrated.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....how many people in America know about this? About 10,000.......maybe?

nobody cares.

What we see in this thread is this whole new progressive mo.......perpetual outrage. Its the new religion. Thankfully, not embraced by most people.

Lots of folks care, but obviously not you. And for someone that doesn't care you just had to post an asinine comment in what is otherwise a pretty good thread. And you would have found that out for yourself had you taken the time to read just a small part of it. Honestly, it is your loss.

Nah.....its fringe banter only. Outside internet community forums, most dont care. Huge majorities still support same sex marriage.

Why do you think that is?

Mark

Anywhere outside of California, New York and a couple of other places.