Jae Onasi Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 How are you so certain? Unless you also read the study, that seems like an odd thing for your husband to have specified in his summarization. I asked him "Honey, did they mention strawberries or any other fruit?" He was very amused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 @Jae--Don't forget the Windsors. Pro-tip: If you're insulting them, they're Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Mountbattens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mono_Giganto Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I asked him "Honey, did they mention strawberries or any other fruit?" He was very amused. Alright, fair enough I'll let that one go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Marriage is something that the government should have kept its hands off of to begin with. Marriage should have been left completely to the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. (or, for the non-religious who still hold it as important, civil ceremonies) and should never have been made a legal status. If politicians had kept their noses out of where they didn't belong, we would not be having quite as many problems with this issue today. The same goes for education. Which is all fine and dandy, except for the role of government is expressly contradictory to what you want. The whole point of a government is to ensure the longevity of it's people. Incestuous relationships and no education do not promote that goal. As well, "leave it up to the states" is a poor argument because if one state, say, California, decides to publicly educate it's children, and another, say, Kansas, does not, we're going to start seeing HUGE discrepancies in the general well-being of their people. The Federal government was created expressly because the "strong states" concept of the Confederated States of America didn't work. It provides a foundation to make all people within it's borders fairly equitable, and then allows the states to build on that. Is there an argument for smaller government(States AND Federal), yes I think there is, but I don't think you've got the whole point of why we don't leave major decisions like that up to the individual states. In addition, marriage laws were added for legal clarification, such as who can see whom in a hospital, who gets the benefits of this or that when someone dies, and how two people under such a contract should be treated. It would be unbelievably silly to make people get remarried in every state, and would only serve to promote isolation among stable and happy families. I mean, consider that you lose you job in State A, and have to move. You have a really good job offer in State B, but State B wants you to get "remarried" and different rules will now apply to you, your spouse, and your children, possibly detrimental rules. This is why the Fed steps in and says: "hey guys, here's the basics for all marriages everywhere." And from there on, States can add rules or nullify YOUR SPECIFIC marriage, but you never have to start from zero.(with the current exception of homosexual marriage.) As for me, I can't say I am against same-sex marriage, but I definitely don't support it, either. I have my values, but I can't force them on others. People are free to be who they want to be. As such, I think this is a matter that should remain as is currently is: leave it up to the states. The federal government should not rule either way. Once again, the Fed is supposed to be the institution that lays the ground rules that states build upon. While I agree they often go too far, this is what they generally do, and considering our position in the world, I'd say it's working out pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You think America has problems with big government? :rofl: Oh, you naive, naive people. You don't even have departments for children, for women and equality, culture, sport, the Olympics, or Business, Innovation and Skills yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You think America has problems with big government? :rofl: Oh, you naive, naive people. You don't even have departments for children, for women and equality, culture, sport, the Olympics, or Business, Innovation and Skills yet. Pro-tip: If you're insulting them, they're Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Mountbattens. Give the progressives in this country enough time and....... Ehh.......they're all a bunch of inbred mongrels spiced w/the odd hemophiliac , but point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Damn, that's harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Ehh.......they're all a bunch of inbred mongrels spiced w/the odd hemophiliac , but point taken. Oh, another pro-tip: When we do it, it's funny; when you insult them, you insult the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Sort of like when African-Americans call each other the "n" word. Same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Oh, another pro-tip: When we do it, it's funny; when you insult them, you insult the nation. Perhaps, but what Brit doesn't take what he thinks an obligatory shot at Americans. That's what friends are for, eh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Yeah, that and using your country as extra military/diplomatic muscle and a place to dump airfields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Yeah, that and using our country as extra military/diplomatic muscle and a place to dump airfields. fixed, as I'm guessing that was a potshot at us across the pond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 What an exciting discussion about the various forms of marriage. Anyway, I can't see any harm coming from consenting adults marrying as many people as they want. It's not like they couldn't get divorced anyway. If half of all marriages end in divorce then it's really more like wading through the results. At least one or two of the brides/husbands will work out as a lasting relationship and the others will just move on to another round of eliminations. We could probably co-create a reality program with the Brits on this, since we like to share horrible tv-show ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 You think America has problems with big government? :rofl: Oh, you naive, naive people. You don't even have departments for children, for women and equality, culture, sport, the Olympics, or Business, Innovation and Skills yet. Yes we do, we just call them normal names instead of enhancing obfuscation by calling them some fancy-schmancy politically correct Brit name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.