Off Topic > Off Topic
Argument with a family man
Wedge:
--- Quote from: TapeDeck on May 31, 2009, 01:20:11 AM ---Having a wife that doesn't exist. He would live by himself but get benefits a married couple would have.
Tax benefits and such.
--- End quote ---
Most people are intelligent enough to distinguish between people and inanimate objects. I'm still completely at a loss to what you're point is, unless you're trying to say that having a woman in a legal union with another living woman is somehow comparable to counting a roll of scotch tape or a jar of pickles as a dependent, which is tax deductible.
FlyGuy45:
--- Quote from: Bisjac on May 31, 2009, 01:20:35 AM ---all marriage is, is insurance plans and bank accounts. and certain courtroom advantages to your spouse.
summed up: being married is fancy talk for bureaucratic paperwork. Thats all.
religious people misunderstand that, and think a bunch of other spiritual rights are obligated.
random traditional bullstuff they learned from a book that has no connection to modern world.
why would you feel the need to keep them standard rights from a gay man, just because YOU like god?
it dont even make sense. its pushing around your weight where it shouldn't be.
--- End quote ---
Government=Tax breaks=Marriage=Religion
A=B, B=C, and C=D therefore, Government=Religion
Yeah for separation from church and state.
--- Quote from: Lord Pie on May 31, 2009, 01:23:21 AM ---I'm saying that you should imagine a world controlled by people like the Taliban. I also said in the next sentance that this world would be hell, so therefore, disagreeing with their religion wouldn't put you in any different situations after death. (if you believe in an afterlife)
--- End quote ---
I am lost, are you saying the Taliban make things worse? No stuff, living under a dictatorship would suck. I could say living under water without air would suck.
Lalam24:
--- Quote from: Wedge on May 31, 2009, 01:14:30 AM ---I'm glad you are content with your decision. May I see these articles?
--- End quote ---
I can't find the exact one. Go browse around Google for a bit. And me being content, doesn't mean that, in my mind, I think it's 100% true. It just means that it's the side I'm going towards.
I don't see as to why this arguement has continued throughout such a long period of time. I think I'll end it here, because I'm tired, and want to go to bed while watching Doctor Who.
DrMobius:
--- Quote from: FlyGuy45 on May 31, 2009, 01:24:06 AM ---Yeah for separation from church and state.
--- End quote ---
yarly
No government in the world is completely unaffected by their churches. So such an idea is bullstuff
FlyGuy45:
--- Quote from: Lord Pie on May 31, 2009, 01:25:52 AM ---yarly
No government in the world is completely unaffected by their churches. So such an idea is bullstuff
--- End quote ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#Religious_groups
"Although the Soviet Union was officially secular, it supported atheist ideology and suppressed religion..."
You will always find God mentioned somewhere, though. Removing religion from government is possible, but removing it from people is not possible.