rhino

No, but I see they are set up to take donations through paypal for victor paul 38 Does that mean they are tax exempt? Or is it just a chance to give v2p2 money? Is this him believing to bring material abundance to him and to the ministry to him? There is a donate button here at GSC ...but there is more to go on here.

murder ... I think I was just saying not all laws are bad just because a religious person may think something is bad. I'm not real sure what protections are offered to spouses by the laws connected to marriage. It seems it was originally more to protect a woman from a man that would leave his wife ... either after raising kids or being the home maker while he had his career, which was more traditional 80 years ago. It seems the heart of the issue is why any partner needs "protection" that is provided by current marriage laws. If it has nothing to do with parents that bear and/or care for the children, then it seems homosexual couples should have the same protections. In any case I don't see the need to change what "marriage" always has been to satisfy homosexual couples. If the same "protections" are offered, why change the term against the will of the majority? It seems a forced cultural change. Anyway, as I said at first, this is really not a hot button issue for me ... I just enjoy the discussion.

well i don't know why that is ... you get a tax credit for dependents ... perhaps that is less if there are two of you now ... I don't know all the married tax breaks, I think they exist ... that is why there are marriages of convenience ... the breaks waysider mentioned seemed clear enough ... and putting two kids on for $100/month ... is that just a quantity discount? I don't know ... what are the benefits the California gay couples demanded? There really are none? Right, everyone pays for the kids' education. So that is a break for those with kids, which is what i said. Otherwise, people with kids would pay maybe double or triple what they do now. Murder has always been a crime ... is that belief imposed on other people? If the marriage definition was an imposition, it occurred hundreds of years ago. The CHANGE is occurring now. I'm opposed to changing the meaning of the word marriage to acomodate a few radical lefties ... this is not based on my religion. If it is a perk provided for the married person that the single person does not get ... shouldn't the single person be compensated ... then he would also perform better.

fish flying ... tom wants a cooler spring ... shipper has fall leaves ... very strange ... here it has been a very cool and wet spring ... tomorrow finally soybeans go into the earth here ... cows are gone .. lotsa deer and turkeys now (not you tom) ... golf ball size hail got a couple tomato plants, and punched a dozen holes in the siding a week ago ... still have wine to bottle from two years ago. The three year old stuff is down to a few bottles. glad my ninth corps brudders and seesters are well ... I hardly knew yee ... but we did do that thang ... :) keep dancing ...

it always included opposite sex people ... why are there no women on those teams ... it must be those bigoted religious people ... and why are so many black ... must be some racist thing I don't know about storing wine ... except people have climate controlled wine cellars ... must be a reason. I (and everyone) add sulfur to kill the yeast and other stuff before bottling, so I don't know what process happens in warmer conditions ... but big reds are better over years ... kept in the wine cellar. Don't boil your wine in a TX garage. It's a wonderful life

hey likeaneagle ... :) yeah ... homo purge over the world ... ha It seems a few vocal lefties want to change hundreds of years of "tradition" on a whim. Some traditons have worked for a reason. Those other countries and other times Tom mentioned ... those are places where radical ideas took hold ... is the man/woman/family idea really some seditious religious radical thought? I think the radical left agenda is more scary. The oh so much more informed left is sure homosexuality is genetic ... yet the only proof I ever saw was akin to proving two plus two equals five. Homosexuals tend to not reproduce ... how does that genetic trait continue? Lotsa weird stuff happens in the first few years that can have life long effects. Those things seems more likely ... but genetics may have some play ... But because they are the left ... one is bigoted or homophobic to disagree. Republicans are supposedly the party of the rich, yet now they are also supposedly also the party of the stupid ... more incongruity ... Oh well ... we are just chattin' ... good to hear how other (crazy) people think. :)

It was always a male/female union ... usually with family. Even the judge agreed. Come on Tom ... Marriage was not homosexual until recently. This is clearly new ... If they take gender out, that does change the meaning. This seems a silly argument, to say marriage has always included homosexuals. Perhaps legally one could somehow claim that ... but culturally it seems clearly not the case. I knew a lot in New Orleans. Two older lesbians ladies lived in the apartment below me ... a guy played on my coed quads team for a few years (yes he counted as a guy ) for several years. His live in partner hung out at times :o ... (they moved to Houston after they both got shot by some young black kid right outside their home .. an 11th corps guy also got shot in that area I think, was ok) And many in the little volleyball community were gay. But most of my closer friends were not homosexual. Between my little volleyball bar and the bigger place where I spent a lot of time ... was David Duke's district. Of course a big event for Mardi Gras morning is the gay parade in the residential part of the French Quarter. It is quite a mix. I don't know any homosexual parents or couples with kids. It may be that the few that want to actually take on children would be more devoted than others, I'm not sure. How important is a male and female role ... I don't know. This is a social experiment.

If that is true, I'd assume they would still not qualify. But instead of granting any partner benefits for homosexual couples, I'd prefer they take all benefits from all spouses .. unless perhaps if they have kids. A society needs to reproduce itself ... so I maybe would accept an advantage for marriages that have children ... maybe. I already pay a lot in property taxes that goes largely to the schools. But I don't see why a married person working a job should get greater benefits than a single person.

yes they do enjoy the same benefits ... only the term "marriage" is not given. As the judge said, this IS a change in the meaning of marriage. It may be largely a Christian thing, but not wholly. A term that meant man and woman, now does not mean that according to the state of California. Why change the term to satisfy these few? If people are prejudiced against homosexuality, are those few changed by changing our language? Is the term "marriage" bigoted on its own, just because it has always defined a union between a man and a woman? They already had all the rights ... but to redefine language to make them seem "the same" seems wrong. It is pushing an acceptance of a practice some people don't accept. Like saying, "if you don't like this, we will force acceptance on you by changing the meaning of your heterosexual relationship to be the same as theirs." Christians were not trying to force anything on homosexual unions, it was the other way around. They already had the same benefits ... they wanted more ... they wanted the same name for something that is clearly different by definition ... This seems irrelevant, but right, there are a lot of great qualities in the US. We should be very careful before we make changes to satisfy the radical left.The 4-3 decision for CA only said that the state should call all unions the same thing. But that still seems to be forcing a view point by changing the language ... one way or the other. Prejudice or bigotry, where it may exist, is not changed by changing the term "marriage". Why is changing a very clear word necessary as a "remedy" to a different way of thinking by some? You say these (bigoted and prejudiced) Christians have the right to think as they wish, but this is a change in legal language to help/push/force them to think of marriage in a new way ... a change in in age old term, only to satisfy the far left minority. Marriage will by decree, take on a new meaning. In CA they already have the benefits ... they want the heterosexual term changed to now mean something different. Is that really an equal right? It is not an equal thing. And we haven't touched on the children issue. yikes ... so much for an open minded discussion ... this is the classic far left argument ... "agree with us or you are racist, bigoted, prejudiced ... we will tell you what is right" much of this great country (so much different than other places and times, as you noted) came because of some traditional values. This is not just a Christian issue, but you choose to call those that hold to the current definition prejudiced and bigoted. How did this country get to be so great if Christians were so dominant, as mstar's chart claims? Why do they need to change the term? They already have the benefits ...

Sure... not mine either ... The Iraq war has not influenced our life style either ... has it? Yet you may be vehemently against that. If our vets were left with no health care at all, it would not effect my life style. If children are taught a strict socialist anti American fabricated history, that does not effect my life style. Any number of pretty big changes or decisions do not immediately influence our life style ... that does not seem very relevant to the debate. It is the long term effects on society that are being considered.

He led a "charmed" life. I don't know that he cared if the believers were automatically blessed. Seems he went where he would be pampered. My impression was that these HQ folks used every second of the day as sold out slaves for God ... the way living in love. There may have been some in servitude to TWI in that capacity, but was vic the diligent worker we really thought? He really didn't partake in the outreach it seems ... and there was no doubt a lot involved in overseeing general operations ... but ... he seemed good at delegating, and he used his German ego and MOG authority a lot, to delegate almost everything. Maybe he was busiest at drinking and womanizing ... and teaching things he stole from others. I suppose some of his assistants and coworkers have a better idea. He DID have a large and successful operation for quite a few years ... maybe his biggest chore was maintaining his MOG image and intimidating people to stay in line.

it seems the change from 40 years ago is pretty clear on this issue. Kids in school were taught a man married a woman and had and raised children. Today a marriage is ... any two people can marry, it seems a more temporary arrangement ... and kids belong to any number of social structures ... it takes a village to raise a child. There are plenty of ramifications in society to all these changes. Even the judges made the point that yes, this was a change. A majority of people do not want the change made legally or in speech ... so who makes those changes? So far one judge (if one decided differently, it would have switched the 4-3 decision). It is not inevitable that this change be made, and change is not always good. The gays I knew were pretty average to hang out with ... but there is a more radical minority element of the gay community that does strongly push a liberal agenda (as I see it). Most of them must be in San Fran.

Probably there was sincerity at some level but it was below several other levels ... ego money sex greed power then some level of sincerity ... After vp ... Ralph confronted those guys in the yak twig ... none of them wanted to give up the adultery doctrine ... what was their level of sincerity?

He met with a couple groups of WOWs in WV once in 1979 or so ... but he just met us for breakfast at an IHOP or some such as he was breezing through. I think exc saw him naked at her home ... the flasher ... not sure if that was a way home. We had a pretty good area in Illinois for 3 years and he never showed up. He was more comfortable with his own crew I guess.

Maybe it is "for next class" ... or ... "found new chump" Interpretive dance ... hmm ... will they do the vp version and the loy version of Gen 3?

Foundatio Nal Class ? What does the "N" stand for?

I think he got that from my first post ... I saw later my keyboard battery was dying ... so half my keystrokes were left out ... I meant to type 6000 .. but that was a wild guess and just a summary since he asked about such a broad topic. I think I heard 4000 as a guess once... not sure anyone really knows ... I sure wouldn't know But if they really are sitting on a bunch of cash, i suppose they will keep going forever ... the inner sanctum is a comfy place to be ... they just have to play church and enjoy Camp Gunnison and vacations. If they can get a few followers ... all the better. Perhaps some letters questioning their charity status are in order? I wonder if they loan out Gunnison to other charities for free or cheap? From the video I saw (on that corps site) it seems they have really put a bunch more more into the place since I was there in 1980. If they only have a few members and a dozen corps ... what could they use it for?

I'm saying the state has a very strong opinion about the role of the real parents, even when there is no relationship. It is a different thing than marriage, so I'm not actually clear on how to tie my point in smoothly. But it seems the state recognizes the importance of the real family unit, even if it can only enforce the financial part. The blood makes the difference, not the relationship. That makes a heterosexual marriage potentially a very strong family unit ... a place where kids are supposed to be raised. Not all produce families, but it seems a significant distinction from homosexual marriages, and one the state recognizes. They just don't apply it to marriage ... only to "family" I guess. Still ... Now smack yourself twice and dump a bucket of cold water over your head Lindyhopper ... :o

preacher's kid

I wish I had thought of this ... but I just bought a gps unit from them ... can other merchandise go through GSC as well? I still need to buy a map and video camera. OK, I see you can search all products, ... somehow I had just books in mind ... I'll go thru here for the other stuff :)

The major issue seems to be protection or providing for children. The state does get to decide who to collect money from ... so to provide more children for the future of the nation, I guess, they have an interest in "promoting" that, plus better cared for kids make a better society ... and the more maternal nature of our government has interest in more control of the family. Of course deadbeat dads are a big issue ... the courts decide that a family consists of the blood mom and dad, and that dad may just be a one night stand guy that didn't know he was a dad till he gets told the mom would like to start getting money. So even then, the courts set up this family, with the man legally required to provide.They are legally required to be bound to the mom and child, even without the rest of the "marriage". This seems a different aspect of the gay "marriage" type commitment. There is at most one blood parent. There is not the same commitment to stay together for the kids' sake.There is not the same legal level of commitment of the Dad or the Mom to a child. That really seems a pretty big difference.

WOW ... very good work there jen-o ... I was wondering too, where that list came from. But it seems to prove not only that the blood parent instinctively protects very strongly, but also that those "foster parents or adopted parents" care very much less, and look out for their own first. I think there is evidence that there is a higher incidence of abuse from non blood "parents". Hence the phrase "beat him like a red-headed step-child". It is only natural. (but mstar is only abusing lobsters, so I don't care about that ... does he boil them alive? call PETA :o ) It also shows how people are willing to change facts to support their political preference.

I think WordWolf is correct (not quite positive) , that the legislature can change the constitution with a two thirds majority. I'm not clear which issues exactly belong to the state and which can be overturned by the US constitution (which can also be changed) .... but the gay marriage issue seems to belong to the states, so CA gay marriages may not be recognized by other states. I'm not clear if hetero marriages would also become unrecognized ... That was an issue with giving illegals driver's licenses, that it would make all driver licenses from that state questionable ... so they were going to make licenses with a distinguishing mark for illegals. Doojable says free speech could not be taken away ... that would be rather extreme, but I think perhaps a two thirds majority could change even that? Of course there are judgments all the time on exactly what constitutes free speech ... like determining what "hate speech" is ... and so we have the thought police, and effectively, a loss of free speech. It looks like there will be something else on the ballot in the fall, and they act like that may well make the difference, but I forget the details. I don't know if a two thirds majority on a ballot initiative could change the constitution, I would think not. On this decision, it was only 4-3, so sometimes something just needs to be rewritten a little, but in this case, it seems there is not much more at issue than the actual title of "marriage". The decision is almost 200 pages ... which I have not read, but I read a lot of back and forth commentary. The comparison to race is not saying this is exactly the same, but more comparing to how that was changed. They basically put the burden on showing that there was good reason to make the distinction. That is basically impossible, legally. The judges supposedly did not act exactly on their own, though there was nothing clear to go on and they admit marriage always had been man and woman, so it is a change. But they said the legislature had previously acted to show homosexuals should be treated equally and not distinguished. One guy gave a couple examples of their point ... Some say that is not the case and that the legislature actually HAD mad the distinction, so that the judges were actually going AGAINST what the legislature had determined. That is the argument I presented earlier here. A lot is made about who appointed most of these judges ... but that doesn't mean they are conservative judges or that they made the right decision. It was only 4-3 and it was a change from the previous standard of man and woman and it went against the vote and against at least one piece of law from the legislature.

Ha ... no, I got you to admit they don't need to be called marriage ... I don't think I ever said kids would be harmed just because their parents were same sex ... I did say there is not much history on the situation. But really, kids of Harvard grads is not very representative ...

I think the court decision actually said they have to call them both the same ... not that they have to call homosexual unions "marriage" ...