Thread: SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

Originally Posted by PvtPrivate

But it wasn't. It sad that people had to hide and still do sometimes so fundamental to themselves. Besides no one is forcing you o go to gay weddings or what not.

it was a joke, people can do what they want. Even though I am against gays I don't care if they get married or hide in the closet

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

So i have to ask why is your interpretation right and mine is wrong? All you just did was your interpretation of someone elses interpretation of someone elses interpretation of ...... for thousands of years. You think i cant put down an interpretation of how it directly effects someone owning people and making them do his work without paying them?

I give you credit for being pretty intelligent. How about throw a bit back.

DG, if you recall, Ranger said that there is more to this passage, and so did I. Ranger did a good job of expressing what it said in a different way but there is more context. Do you want context, or do you want to be (or at least think you are) right? Because you can't have both. I just don't know if you are interested in a real study of the meaning of this passage, because that might take a little time. But if you are, that's great, and I'm sure there are those of us that could lend toward a discussion of the entire context. Either way this is completely off the original topic.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You mean like the group policies anyone can join into?

Wrong...

You cannot join into MY group policy because the only way to be a part of the group is to work for my company. Sure, my girl could shop around and try to find something that equates... but good luck with that. The fact that I work in the health care industry keeps my company pretty competitive... especially with the free prescriptions thing, which can add up if you are on some sort of daily regiment.

Look, bottom line is what you are describing is not the same as what I am describing. What you are describing doesn't require you to be married, but for someone to get on MY insurance, I either have to be married to that person or I have to be a legal guardian of persons under 24 years of age (I think).

Being on the same policy means we would share the same deductible, same max out of pocket expense, etc. Just being under the same group is NOT the same thing as being on the same policy.

Now I say all of this and I am NOT married. I am not married because I have chosen to not get married yet. But I strongly believe that anyone should be able to get married so that opportunities are offered fairly to all persons.

It's 26 now.

Well apparently there are over 1,000 different benefits, rights, and responsibilities regarding marriage.

"Besides love and companionship, there are many benefits to marriage, especially in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage [ref]. In this section, we'll list some of those benefits."

HowStuffWorks "Benefits of Marriage"

I didn't think there were that many.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I'll go slow for you because this is like the fifth time i've said it.

You mean like the group policies anyone can join ?

Now do you see anywhere in there where i said anyone can join your policy?

You just dont get it. Apples to oranges, but we can move on.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2