# Ultimate solution to GAY marriage.



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

First of all marriage is a religious covenant, always hasbeen from its roots.

In the USA there should be no legal recognition of marriage for hetero or **** couples.

The legal recognition of marriage only serves as an insurance policy for lawyers and women screwing the man.

You never divorce the same person you marry. The person you divorce is typically mentally ill, suffering from a number of diagnosed illnesses. They are not the same person you fell in love with and married.

The laws for property and child support are already in place and whether one is married or not the laws and rates are the same.

A legally recognized marriage provide less security for a child, because after the divorce which will statistcally happen, both parents' credit scores are typically destroyed and each parent has spent thousands and tens of thousands of dollars on a divorce that could have been spent on that child or that child's educational future.

Marriage and divorce is a financial burden on taxpayers who spend millions of dollars each year on operating the courts and judges to preside of divorce hearings.

We can easily agree that divorce is now clearly an industry expected in every marriage.

The solution:

Have a federal law passed that *any *one person (and their direct dependents) may be added to another person's health insurancy plan as if they were legally married.

Marriage is not the solution, changing the laws pertaining to the benefits of marrriage is the solution.

Any arguments?

I cant believe some politcian has stumbled upon this most logic and sensible soluion.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I've always maintained that the best solution would be for the states to offer a civil union between two adults and take the word "marriage" out of Government. In 48 states you can get ordained online for free and perform non-denominational weddings that are perfectly legal...the notion that there's some special meaning here is absurd.

If you want to get married go to a church. If your church sponsors same sex weddings then have at it.

There would probably still be some on the Left who would argue this isn't really equality, and perhaps more on the far Right who would be predicting rampant in school programming of our children that it's okay to have group sex with sheep.

But aside from that, I think it's pretty fair all around.

-spence


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> You never divorce the same person you marry. The person you divorce is typically mentally ill, suffering from a number of diagnosed illnesses.


What in god's name are you talking about?

mrr


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

MrRogers said:


> What in god's name are you talking about?
> 
> mrr


You don't get it? Read it again and think about it!


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> What in god's name are you talking about?
> 
> mrr


I think he's trying to say that if you are divorcing someone, they're generally not the same person you fell in love with. Whether that means from some kind of illness(i've been through this, not on a marry/divorce level, but a relationship one) or just because over however long, the two of you changed as people and cannot be together anymore because of those changes.

All I'll say on this matter is this would not be taken well at all here in the United States because what you are describing is very active in northern europe(Norway, Sweden) and is quite socialist. I didn't say it doesn't make sense, but remember preception is reality. Half the country would frown methinks.

Edit: Btw, I've always loved the quote in your signature Mr. Rogers, who's the author?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Just put me down for civil unions for same sex couples with all legal benefits accruing to such.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Just put me down for civil unions for same sex couples with all legal benefits accruing to such.


Ditto


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Mr. Golem said:


> I think he's trying to say that if you are divorcing someone, they're generally not the same person you fell in love with. Whether that means from some kind of illness(i've been through this, not on a marry/divorce level, but a relationship one) or just because over however long, the two of you changed as people and cannot be together anymore because of those changes.


I find the total opposite to be true.

While it is not my specialty and I don't have a huge interest in it, I will occasionally see couples for therapy. Generally, the same characteristics that attracted 2 people to one another are very often the same reasons they are having problems.

The guy who adored his wifes "easy going" nature is now complaining that she is not assertive enough.

The guy who liked being with a powerful corporate exec type women instead of an immature girl, now feels emasculated by his wife being the primary breadwinner.

and so on.

MrR


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

SpookyTurtle said:


> You don't get it? Read it again and think about it!


I did think about it. His assertion is absurd. 50% of marriages don't end in divorce because of a mentally ill partner.

MrR


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> I did think about it. His assertion is absurd. 50% of marriages don't end in divorce because of a mentally ill partner.
> 
> MrR


Sure they do...nearly everyone I know who's been divorced had "diagnosed" their spouse at the time as being totally nucking futs. In some cases they even used this as reason for custody.

-spence


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

MrRogers said:


> I did think about it. His assertion is absurd. 50% of marriages don't end in divorce because of a mentally ill partner.
> 
> MrR


Then you didn't get it. It was a joke.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

So Ron, are your assertions based on personal experience? It seems a bit of hubris then to change a social institution, drag in a minority suffering temporal discrimination for what should be a spiritual recognition and then slap another poll on it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

KenR said:


> Just put me down for civil unions for same sex couples with all legal benefits accruing to such.


I agree, Ken. Include all federal benefits, tax, Social Security, and otherwise.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I agree, Ken. Include all federal benefits, tax, Social Security, and otherwise.


I think any two people living in the same home should be able to file jointly if they want to do so. Filing jointly should be about households not status. I have a client that has a girl working there she's maybe 24. She has pictures of her two kids on her desk and she mentioned that their father and her boyfriend was making these digital picture frame things. Whether we like it or not people are forming so-called 'alternative households.' At the very least it would encourage people like seniors to find roomates. I have a MIL that demands an apartment to herself and the extra support it requires above and beyond her social security check. I've so often wished she could find someone to split expenses. Heck it might even help keep the father-boyfriend around if he's getting a tax break and other benefits.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Spence said:


> I've always maintained that the best solution would be for the states to offer a civil union between two adults and take the word "marriage" out of Government. In 48 states you can get ordained online for free and perform non-denominational weddings that are perfectly legal...the notion that there's some special meaning here is absurd.
> 
> If you want to get married go to a church. If your church sponsors same sex weddings then have at it.
> 
> ...


I've been saying this for years.

great minds....


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think any two people living in the same home should be able to file jointly if they want to do so. Filing jointly should be about households not status. I have a client that has a girl working there she's maybe 24. She has pictures of her two kids on her desk and she mentioned that their father and her boyfriend was making these digital picture frame things. Whether we like it or not people are forming so-called 'alternative households.' At the very least it would encourage people like seniors to find roomates. I have a MIL that demands an apartment to herself and the extra support it requires above and beyond her social security check. I've so often wished she could find someone to split expenses. Heck it might even help keep the father-boyfriend around if he's getting a tax break and other benefits.


I hope this agreeing thing isn't a trend. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## mack11211 (Oct 14, 2004)

The poll is confusingly written.

I want church and state separate, with the state regulating civil marriage. Civil marriage should be available to all couples of legal age.

Religious institutions can marry or not marry whoever they please, but their decisions and standards should be de-coupled from civil marriage.

Anything less then civil marrige is half a loaf, or less. The state of New Jersey recently found that civil unions were a 'second-class status' rather than an equivalent to marriage, as reported Friday in the International Herald Tribune:

https://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/17/america/Gay-Marriage.php


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

KenR said:


> Just put me down for civil unions for same sex couples with all legal benefits accruing to such.


Doesnt anybody get it?
Why keep asking for benefits through unions?

Let's stop asking for the government to regulate our lives and relationships.

Ask for equal rights across the board. why should being in a union civil or otjherwise make any difference.

'I should sue for all the divorces that have increased my taxes!
Peoples religions are interfering my my quality of life. 
Keep you unions and marriages personal and religious like their original intent.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> Doesnt anybody get it?
> Why keep asking for benefits through unions?


Because government accrues benefits from long-term unions, regardless of the gender of the parties involved. Same-sex couples use the exact same methods as infertile opposite-sex couples to start and raise families. More people, more taxpayers. Simple as that.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> Doesnt anybody get it?
> Why keep asking for benefits through unions?


Ron:

You are probably misreading what was said concerning benefits. Legally accruing benefits, as KenR has used the term, include such things as inheirtance, mutual ownership or property, even rights relating to being health care power of attorney for your partner. I read your statement as thinking they pertain to things like health insurance (although that is an issue).


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

KenR said:


> Just put me down for civil unions for same sex couples with all legal benefits accruing to such.


+1. I do have some issues referring to it as "marriage," but I'm all for civil unions. It's only fair. In the eyes of the church, it's "marriage." In the eyes of the state, it's a "civil union." It all comes out even in the final wash, methinks. I don't lose any sleep over the issue.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I just don't see how you can blame government when people make vows they don't keep and society offered them benefits as incentives to take those vows. 

Married people get all kinds of commercial breaks and government should be enforcing marriage contracts. That doesn't mean people can't get divorced. However, if you are married for 10 years and get tax breaks for those 10 years and then get a divorce you should owe the deferred taxes. 

This is why I think the system should be one of choice rather than status. Your status changes, but whether you lived in a household and chose to file jointly with someone in 1999 will not.

Financial benefits for married couples should be accrued and applied to their estates. That way we would get to find out if you made it to the "until death do you part" phase before we subsidized your sex life. The whole point of subsidizing marriage is supposed to be an incentive to form families and raise kids. Let's see how people do before we pay up.

If your kid grows up to be a murderer you shouldn't get rewarded for it. You would forfeit those benefits to help the rest of us pay to keep him in a cage where he can't hurt us.

I would apply the same values to the Teacher's pay thread. Teachers should have no base salary. They should be like sports agents. Teachers need some sort of pool based on the number of years they teach and what the earned incomes turn out to be of the people they teach. Something like a 1% education tax to be split by all your teachers. This would drive good teachers to poorer neighborhoods because the richer ones would inherit or have cap gains rather than earn most of their income. Teachers wouldn't get paid off non-earned income. Teachers would probably start caring a lot more about if little Suzie gets home ok, or is being abused, etc. as well. If Suzy goes on disability for life at 23 because no one noticed she was a punching bag for 18 years and she's found emotionally incapable of working, that's going to hurt someone financially who should have been paying attention.

'economics drive process' "KSINC 2012"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL, got my vote. Need a Veep?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I just don't see how you can blame government when people make vows they don't keep and society offered them benefits as incentives to take those vows.
> 
> Married people get all kinds of commercial breaks and government should be enforcing marriage contracts. That doesn't mean people can't get divorced. However, if you are married for 10 years and get tax breaks for those 10 years and then get a divorce you should owe the deferred taxes.
> 
> ...


Both my mother and my wife are teachers. Both of them have reported cases of abuse. My mother has taught for a long time, and has been to court many, many times to testify against parents who abuse their children. Sadly, not much is ever done about it once the teacher reports the abuse. My mom has been badgered by lawyers in the courtroom who did their very best to call her everything from over-reactive to a racist...all to protect a child abuser. A racist, ha! that one always made me laugh since my mom always buys coats and shoes for the kids in her class that show up without any coats, or shoes that are too small, and she teaches in a largely minority inner-city school. Now, I know how the legal system works...I know that the defense attorney is supposed to do defend his client to the best of his ability, but it's ridiculous that good teachers who did their job have to be dragged into court and yelled at by these rotten attorneys. So, no I don't agree with you about merit pay. The teacher can only do so much.

One of the most important things my mom brings to her kids is the knowledge that someone does care about them. A majority of the kids in her class have parents (most likely only one is around) that just do not care about their kids at all. Unfortunately, children from these rough areas don't always follow the right path. Her school recently found a first grader with over $400 cash in his pocket. They found out after talking with him that he was a lookout for a crack house....he was in FIRST GRADE. Do you think DCFS did anything about it when it was reported to them? Nope. So yeah, punish the teachers who have 5 days a week for 9 months to try to make a difference in these kids lives. That will solve the problem.

You try to compare education to a business model, when they are not the same thing at all. For one thing the influence of the parents (or lack thereof) is involved, and for another how can a teacher who has had one year with someone be held responsible for mistakes or choices they make later in life?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You try to compare education to a business model, when they are not the same thing at all.


Do you see that as a permanent and necessary reality?

Do you believe the primary purpose of public education is to provide workers to the economy?

Yes, I do believe the design flaw in our public education system is that if it was a business it would have ceased to exist a long time ago. I do not believe there are mutually exclusive requirements in the areas of education models and viable business models.

Private schools and private universities manage to meet both sets of requirements better than any public alternatives.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Both my mother and my wife are teachers. Both of them have reported cases of abuse. My mother has taught for a long time, and has been to court many, many times to testify against parents who abuse their children. Sadly, not much is ever done about it once the teacher reports the abuse. My mom has been badgered by lawyers in the courtroom who did their very best to call her everything from over-reactive to a racist...all to protect a child abuser. A racist, ha! that one always made me laugh since my mom always buys coats and shoes for the kids in her class that show up without any coats, or shoes that are too small, and she teaches in a largely minority inner-city school. Now, I know how the legal system works...I know that the defense attorney is supposed to do defend his client to the best of his ability, but it's ridiculous that good teachers who did their job have to be dragged into court and yelled at by these rotten attorneys. So, no I don't agree with you about merit pay. The teacher can only do so much.


Not to denigrate your family's admirable efforts at all, but doesn't this prove the point?

You just gave what I would consider a perfect example of perhaps the top 1% of teachers failing to get results in the current system. If someone like your mom and your wife can't succeed in protecting children in the current model, who do you think can? I assume you see them as the representative of the best and most caring teachers.

What matters most: effort or results?

I think you are using a zero-sum game theory in suggesting that nothing else would change if a new paradigm was begun.

For example, if teachers pay was structured as I suggest, than the teacher's union would be highly motivated to spend money to influence community leaders and the legal system to solve the problem you described. And; teachers like your mom and wife would have significantly different responses from the other stakeholders involved.

Capitalism works. Follow the money. Economics drive process.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Not to denigrate your family's admirable efforts at all, but doesn't this prove the point?
> 
> You just gave what I would consider a perfect example of perhaps the top 1% of teachers failing to get results in the current system. If someone like your mom and your wife can't succeed in protecting children in the current model, who do you think can? I assume you see them as the representative of the best and most caring teachers.
> 
> ...


You may be right, but since I am from Missouri, you'd have to SHOW ME. :icon_smile: I think there would be a lot of changes that would have to be made for anything like this to work, and I just don't believe that will happen, at least not in our lifetimes. I realize that you work in and favor the private sector, but unless you are going to get rid of the public sector entirely, this just isn't going to work. For instance, how could you possibly even begin to track the success of former students? What would be the definition of their success? How would you determine which teachers had the most influence in this success? Would the parents be responsible for anything?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You may be right, but since I am from Missouri, you'd have to SHOW ME. :icon_smile: I think there would be a lot of changes that would have to be made for anything like this to work, and I just don't believe that will happen, at least not in our lifetimes. I realize that you work in and favor the private sector, but unless you are going to get rid of the public sector entirely, this just isn't going to work.


Well, things happen *in response* to market forces so they have to be put in place first. Yes, there would be a lot of changes per free market economics 101. I'm sorry you don't believe in the science! LOL

You realize my corporationS and clients work exclusively in the private sector because I believe in capitalism? You lost me there. Perhaps you mean you "assume?" FWIW, that would be an incorrect assumption.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, things happen *in response* to market forces so they have to be put in place first. Yes, there would be a lot of changes per free market economics 101. I'm sorry you don't believe in the science! LOL
> 
> You realize my corporationS and clients work exclusively in the private sector because I believe in capitalism? You lost me there. Perhaps you mean you "assume?" FWIW, that would be an incorrect assumption.


You're right, I don't believe economics is a science since there is no scientific method ie. it can't be tested accurately. It's more like philosophy. I also don't agree with supply side economics, but rather demand side.

I understand that things would need to be put in place first, but why should I believe that this new system would be any better? Do you have any data or studies that show this to be true? That's how science works. To be honest, I haven't heard any good suggestions on how to fix things from the other side either.

Also, just to be clear, I wasn't saying anything about your clients. I was saying, I realize you work in the private sector, _and_ you favor the private sector over the public sector.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You're right, I don't believe economics is a science since there is no scientific method ie. it can't be tested accurately. It's more like philosophy. I also don't agree with supply side economics, but rather demand side.
> 
> I understand that things would need to be put in place first, but why should I believe that this new system would be any better? Do you have any data or studies that show this to be true? That's how science works. To be honest, I haven't heard any good suggestions on how to fix things from the other side either.
> 
> Also, just to be clear, I wasn't saying anything about your clients. I was saying, I realize you work in the private sector, _and_ you favor the private sector over the public sector.


Well, "economics is the social science concerned with the use of scarce resources like land and labor used to fulfill unlimited human wants." So, I can agree with you in part. There is scientific method applied, however.

Would you say all behavioral sciences are not science?

I think you can find economic solutions to education from the demand side, no problem.

There are studies on things that have been tried like school choice and vouchers.

I do not believe seeking an economic solution requires education be in the private sector. I was simply saying teacher pay should be tied to student performance in the economy. In fact, I was strictly limiting that to public sector education. I think private sector education works just fine. It certainly has better results. I was offering a solution to fix public sector education.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, "economics is the social science concerned with the use of scarce resources like land and labor used to fulfill unlimited human wants." So, I can agree with you in part. There is scientific method applied, however.
> 
> Would you say all behavioral sciences are not science?
> 
> ...


In a way, no I don't think things like political science, sociology and economics are "real" sciences. Psychology is in part, but not things like psychoanalysis or the humanistic approach. I don't think that they are any less valid though, just more based upon thoughts and reasoning than "hard science". Using econ as an example, there are many theories about property and the value of labor. Which one you believe in is more thought related than fact based. It's hard to argue against the scientific laws of the natural sciences.

I don't have a problem with school choice and vouchers. I went to private schools except for college. St. Louis also has a lot of charter schools since the public schools are so bad, but these really only help the kids whose parents actually care about their education. The main problem in my view is that if the parents don't value education, their kids will not value education either. It's hard to fix that.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Well, "economics is the social science concerned with the use of scarce resources like land and labor used to fulfill unlimited human wants." So, I can agree with you in part. There is scientific method applied, however.
> 
> Would you say all behavioral sciences are not science?
> 
> ...


Science? A "dismal science", perhaps. There are a lot of "social sciences" whose observance of the scientific method is more honoured in the breach, but let that not detain us here.

You might benefit from at least a cursory familiarity with Jane Jacobs' _Systems of Survival_, a very rough outline of which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> In a way, no I don't think things like political science, sociology and economics are "real" sciences. Psychology is in part, but not things like psychoanalysis or the humanistic approach. I don't think that they are any less valid though, just more based upon thoughts and reasoning than "hard science". Using econ as an example, there are many theories about property and the value of labor. Which one you believe in is more thought related than fact based. It's hard to argue against the scientific laws of the natural sciences.
> 
> I don't have a problem with school choice and vouchers. I went to private schools except for college. St. Louis also has a lot of charter schools since the public schools are so bad, but these really only help the kids whose parents actually care about their education. The main problem in my view is that if the parents don't value education, their kids will not value education either. It's hard to fix that.


That's consistent and fair. I tend to agree.

I would personally put Econ ahead of some other non-physical sciences, but that is personal bias.

I think an argument can be made that the Theory of Money, Credit, and Interest apply scientific method at least as well as say the Theory of Evolution. However I will not be making it today! 

When I was at AT&T one of the old jokes we had was "Computer Science isn't."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

eg1 said:


> Science? A "dismal science", perhaps.


Do you know who first called it that and why?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's consistent and fair. I tend to agree.
> 
> I would personally put Econ ahead of some other non-physical sciences, but that is personal bias.
> 
> ...


I would also put econ above some of the others. I'm sure economic principles have and can be tested to some extent, but not like they can in the natural sciences. A lot of it still comes down to personal belief. I feel the same about evolutionary theory. Yes, we can prove that evolutuon has occurred and does occur, but since we can't test the how it all started (eg. no scientist was there on the first day) part of the theory is still based upon belief.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Do you know who first called it that and why?


I do! I do! Carlyle, because he thought the population would outgrow the food supply. He also advocated slavery as a way to combat this.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

I first want the goverment out of my wallet. I then want them out of my bedroom......


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I do! I do! Carlyle, because he thought the population would outgrow the food supply. He also advocated slavery as a way to combat this.


Very close. The guy that thought population would outgrow capacity was Malthus. To the quote though, from wiki:



> However the full phrase "dismal science" first occurs in Carlyle's 1849 tract entitled Occasional Discourse on the ***** Question, in which he was arguing for the reintroduction of slavery as a means to regulate the labor market in the West Indies:
> 
> "Not a 'gay science,' I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate and, indeed, quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science"
> 
> Developing a deliberately paradoxical position, Carlyle argued that slavery was actually morally superior to the market forces of supply and demand promoted by economists, since, in his view, the freeing up of the labor market by the liberation of slaves had actually led to a moral and economic decline in the lives of the former slaves themselves.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Very close. The guy that thought population would outgrow capacity was Malthus. To the quote though, from wiki:


Oops...right guy, wrong reason. Sorry for being dishonest. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Oops...right guy, wrong reason. Sorry for being dishonest. :icon_smile_big:


Do not be pedantic!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Do not be pedantic!


Catch 22?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

NewYorkBuck said:


> I first want the goverment out of my wallet. I then want them out of my bedroom......


What are they doing in your bedroom?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

NewYorkBuck said:


> I first want the goverment out of my wallet. I then want them out of my bedroom......


That's why I keep my wallet in the den.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> I first want the goverment out of my wallet. I then want them out of my bedroom......


First things first. Kicking government out of your bedroom is already a viable goal (e.g. read Lawrence v. Texas). Kicking government out of your wallet, however, would require another revolution. And judging from Ron Paul's campaign, that's not going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

When the revolution comes, It will be working class military veterans who do it. That leaves Franck out, sitting on the sidelines as usual.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> When the revolution comes, It will be working class military veterans who do it. That leaves Franck out, sitting on the sidelines as usual.


There's nothing like two weeks in Hawaii to make one immune to personal attack. Fire away Kav, from your ghetto there in Westlake Village.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> There's nothing like two weeks in Hawaii to make one immune to personal attack.


Obviously your in-laws do not live in Hawaii.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> There's nothing like two weeks in Hawaii to make one immune to personal attack.


You know you can get Kona coffee delivered, right?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You know you can get Kona coffee delivered, right?


Oddly enough, what I notice the people that live there drink is "Lion" brand coffee. It is the SPAM of coffee there


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

It's not odd, WF. Kona coffee isn't that great, and the way the beans are roasted (light to medium, typically) results in a rather bland cup of coffee.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Howard said:


> What are they doing in your bedroom?


Actually, I think they prefer to peek through the window.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

FrankDC said:


> It's not odd, WF. Kona coffee isn't that great, and the way the beans are roasted (light to medium, typically) results in a rather bland cup of coffee.


Why is your name FrankDC if you live in central CA?ic12337:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

RSS said:


> Actually, I think they prefer to peek through the window.


They shouldn't invade your privacy.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

RSS said:


> Actually, I think they prefer to peek through the window.


What did Chauncey Gardner say in 'Being There'....."I like to watch."


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> What did Chauncey Gardner say in 'Being There'....."I like to watch."


But that's more of invading your privacy,I don't like anyone peeking through my windows.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Howard said:


> But that's more of invading your privacy,I don't like anyone peeking through my windows.


 Neither do I. But when we have a President (or more likely, Vice President) who feels he has the right to listen to your phone calls ... and a Supreme Court that 5-4 agrees (generalizing here) ... just who is going to stop people from peeking? Sounds to me as if peeking is being encouraged.


----------



## suitntieguy (Nov 1, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> 1)First of all marriage is a religious covenant, always hasbeen from its roots.
> 
> 2)In the USA there should be no legal recognition of marriage for hetero or **** couples.
> 
> ...


Ron, I am glad to see you are still tilting at windmills. With a mild amount of respect,perhaps you are spending to much time under water w/o enough oxygen. Are you insane? Educated? I can't believe other people on this board dignify this absurdity. I only protest because your opinions are stated as fact and wrong.

1) Assuming this is correct, then what religion is correct? Is the christrian take on marriage more correct than say the hindu? You are asserting that as a nation we need to adopt one specific religious concept of wedlock. So which religion do you want our nation to use as gospel (pun intended)?

2) you opinion, 48% (citing a recent poll 12-16-07) of the US disagrees with you. Moreover, in 1948, 90% of respondants were opposed to interratial marriages being legally recognized. In 1967, still 72% were opposed.

3) WHAT?????

4) WHAT?????

5) So? This is not the debate and has revelance in this conversation.

5,6,7) The question of the divorce (consequences and costs) has to place in a debate of the rights to wed when pertaining to sexual orientation. By your logic we should therefore not allow man/women marriages. Considering they are 800x more likley to have children then same sex couples. As far as taxation goes, why don't we start charging people to get married, and to file suits in a court of law, oh wait we do.... Also what about the impact on our economy if a nother demographic was now spending more money on weddings, food, booze, travel, invitations, and so on. It would have a possitive impact on our economy.

8) your spiral of cynicism is nausiating. Perhaps you should push to have the vows read till death do us part or until a judge degrees it so.... And doesn't the bible say something about divorce? If must be tough for you living in a world of so many sinners, ron. But I guess it doesn't matter when you never divorce someone who isn't mentally ill anyhow.

9) some companies like MetLife already do this. If you are in even a civil union a working person w/o a disability is not a depandant. So you wish law to be passed to force corporations to change thier policies. For a gun toating armagedonist you sure to like big government. rom an economical standpoint w/o a legal doctrine of marriage how does a insurer know the extnet of a same sex relationship. I could be simply out of work,living with a buddy and say oh BTW, we are gay now put me on his damm health plan. Thank you.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Capt. Ron was expressing his opinion in a civil manner, something he should be free to do without being called insane.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RJman said:


> Why is your name FrankDC if you live in central CA?ic12337:


https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/discontinuation

I'm going with "Dark Carnival." YMMV


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It's not odd, WF. Kona coffee isn't that great, and the way the beans are roasted (light to medium, typically) results in a rather bland cup of coffee.


I agree about the Kona. It is odd in the fact that mainlanders all rave about Kona, but the locals rather eschew it. And for the record, Lion is not that great either!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I agree about the Kona. It is odd in the fact that mainlanders all rave about Kona, but the locals rather eschew it. And for the record, Lion is not that great either!


I have a buddy that is a local and what he gets and sends is delicious. It is 'unbranded'. My understanding is he buys it like we would buy at a farmer's market.

Kona coffee is great with a cigar IMHO, particularly the better ones.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I have a buddy that is a local and what he gets and sends is delicious. It is 'unbranded'. My understanding is he buys it like we would buy at a farmer's market.
> 
> Kona coffee is great with a cigar IMHO, particularly the better ones.


I have drank more than my fair share of Kona. I am with Frank on this one, the roasting usually leads to a rather meh cup of joe. If they did a better roast, like a French, it might have potential. I have never had a Kona that comes even close to a Peets Italian or French roast.

Tastes are individual though, YMMV.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I have drank more than my fair share of Kona. I am with Frank on this one, the roasting usually leads to a rather meh cup of joe. If they did a better roast, like a French, it might have potential. I have never had a Kona that comes even close to a Peets Italian or French roast.
> 
> Tastes are individual though, YMMV.


I like Costa Ricans. And since this is a thread about gay stuff. I should say I like Costa Rican coffee too. :devil:


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

suitntieguy said:


> Ron, I am glad to see you are still tilting at windmills. With a mild amount of respect,perhaps you are spending to much time under water w/o enough oxygen. Are you insane? Educated? I can't believe other people on this board dignify this absurdity. I only protest because your opinions are stated as fact and wrong.
> 
> 1) Assuming this is correct, then what religion is correct? Is the christrian take on marriage more correct than say the hindu? You are asserting that as a nation we need to adopt one specific religious concept of wedlock. So which religion do you want our nation to use as gospel (pun intended)?
> 
> ...


Clearly I am correct in opinion and fact.
Don't be a hater.

Name one logical reason why any union bewtween two people should be legally recognized other than gaining beneifts given by law.

Perhaps legally recognized marriages are for people who lack conviction and morals.

Do a little marital research and you'll find marriage is a religious covenant. I dont want to pay highter taxes for religion when religion pays almost no taxes at all.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> Do a little marital research and you'll find marriage is a religious covenant. I dont want to pay highter taxes for religion when religion pays almost no taxes at all.


Actually a little research into non-Christian marriages throughout history will show that one of the main reasons for marriage was to distinguish legitimate heirs for inheritance from illegitimate heirs. Augustus Caesar advocated marriage to help clear the Roman courts of what he considered excessive lawsuits in regards to property rights.

If marriage is primarily a religious covenant, why were/are dowery prices/bride bartering so important to conclude before the religious part? It would seem to me if it was a religious covenant then the property values/transfers would be of little consequence.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> I like Costa Ricans. And since this is a thread about gay stuff. I should say I like Costa Rican coffee too. :devil:


LOL, at first I was expecting a Sparticus reference on oysters vs. snails


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL, at first I was expecting a Sparticus reference on oysters vs. snails


Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails immoral?

It's simply a matter of taste.

Two of the best lines in the movie, and to think that scene was originally deleted.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

mpcsb said:


> Actually a little research into non-Christian marriages throughout history will show that one of the main reasons for marriage was to distinguish legitimate heirs for inheritance from illegitimate heirs. Augustus Caesar advocated marriage to help clear the Roman courts of what he considered excessive lawsuits in regards to property rights.
> 
> If marriage is primarily a religious covenant, why were/are dowery prices/bride bartering so important to conclude before the religious part? It would seem to me if it was a religious covenant then the property values/transfers would be of little consequence.


Marriages started off as religious covenants then qucikly turned into insurance policies.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> Marriages started off as religious covenants then qucikly turned into insurance policies.


Just last summer, when I spent a week with several Scottish gents, they referred to "Highland Insurance". It meant you married someone much younger than you so that when you were old and infirm, they would be your nurse maid. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Just last summer, when I spent a week with several Scottish gents, they referred to "Highland Insurance". It meant you married someone much younger than you so that when you were old and infirm, they would be your nurse maid. :icon_smile_wink:


And it never hurts to have someone young and good looking around either - something to watch - :devil:


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Another one here for civil unions for any adult couple who aren't directly related.

What they decide to call their union is up to them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

VS said:


> Another one here for civil unions for any adult couple who aren't directly related.


ROFLM*O

That's too funny!


----------

