|
|
The Showcase
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
-
RE: good idea / Overhead console
in Build a Jeep Wrangler Overhead Console for Equipment
-
RE: Awkward title
in Least popular (most parasitic, opportunistic, or overpaid) profession?
|
RE: Throwing sand by Dachande :: NR4 :: Show
“The government should not recognize legally contracted couples at all.”
By that I refer to married couples and civil unions where all of their actions are automatically linked to each other by virtue of that government issued contract.
Though marriage can not be merely left to just religion.
The local governments can offer the service of performing the tradition for a couple without recognizing any legally binding contract. Both parties would still be required to make their joint tax, property or deed ventures on their own. It would create more paperwork when purchasing something, but at this point, I’m sick of hearing both sides cry when the Constitution grants no such regulating authority to marriage.
RE: Throwing sand by Occams :: NR8 :: Show
Makes good sense to me,
Are you a dad Barry?
Yes, I have three kids, all grow up now, two married, and one new granddaughter.
I’m all for tolerance too so long as they are not too in-your-face in a gay pride kind of way. I don’t quite understand how an openly gay bishop works though. If he is a practicing homosexual that means that he is having sex outside marriage. I ‘m fine with that, but shouldn’t it apply equally to heterosexuals, and teenagers.
Kind of puts the Church on a slippery slide. I can see why the Anglicans are not too happy about it. There will be a loss of moral authority. I suppose the solution is for them to have to get married to live like that in good grace with the church, same as anyone else. This makes gay marriage a necessity.
I have never had a problem with another person’s homosexuality, but I guess that is because I never had a problem with it, if you can see what I mean. Unless you have to deal with a specific case it is easy to be neutral.