Politics

[Bubba]

I have a hard time keeping one wife happy, why the he!! Would I want 4 of them?

 

[BobD]

I was thinking the same, but it must be ALL parties. If your first wife doesn't know about your fourth, you have some problems.

Yeah ALL wives or husbands would have to know what's up, but I don't care if some guy has three wives, as long as he's good to them and they're happy with the arrangement.

Geez, could you imagine having three wives all mad at you at the same time?

 

[pkt77242]

Yeah ALL wives or husbands would have to know what's up, but I don't care if some guy has three wives, as long as he's good to them and they're happy with the arrangement.

Geez, could you imagine having three wives all mad at you at the same time?

 

[yankeehater]

I heard an interesting take today with regards to same sex marriage and the church. If same sex marriage is legal and the church refuses to marry a same sex couple, would this not now be considered discrimination. Then the courts would be loaded up with discrimination suits against the church which could put an end to them with the court fees.

People who shunned the notion were shot down with the Obamacare and the church issue in regards with freedom of religion point.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I heard an interesting take today with regards to same sex marriage and the church. If same sex marriage is legal and the church refuses to marry a same sex couple, would this not now be considered discrimination. Then the courts would be loaded up with discrimination suits against the church which could put an end to them with the court fees.

I hope not. Religions should be free, too.

People who shunned the notion were shot down with the Obamacare and the church issue in regards with freedom of religion point.

And I'm against that move.

 

[Black Irish]

I heard an interesting take today with regards to same sex marriage and the church. If same sex marriage is legal and the church refuses to marry a same sex couple, would this not now be considered discrimination. Then the courts would be loaded up with discrimination suits against the church which could put an end to them with the court fees.

People who shunned the notion were shot down with the Obamacare and the church issue in regards with freedom of religion point.

If civil unions become the law of the land, I think most people will accept it, some more grudgingly than others. But if those proponents decide to start pushing hard against churches in the manner described above, you will see huge backlash and the same sex marriage crowd will lose all the momentum they've been building lately.

 

[BobD]

Churches have protection against discrimination claims under freedom of religion. Their practices are protected, so if they don't want to marry gay couples, they don't have to. You don't need a church to be married.

 

[BeauBenken]

Churches have protection against discrimination claims under freedom of religion. Their practices are protected, so if they don't want to marry gay couples, they don't have to. You don't need a church to be married.

Precisely.

Telling a church they have to marry same sex people is like telling the Nazi's they have to like black people. The government has no control over what a religious group practices (unless it harms others).

Making churches marry same sex people is exactly the type of thing gays are fighting against. They are trying to get the religion out of the law; they would not want the law in the religion. Trying to free yourself from oppression and then turning around to oppress others is not what they have in mind, I'm sure.

 

[ACamp1900]

You don't need a church to be married.

I think youtouched on the only issue I have in any marriage debate... it troubles me how easily the government can take a church premise/idea/religious rite/... whatever, a church 'thing' and make their own version of it, effectively blurring separation and diminishing the religious aspect of it. If they ever find a clever way to tax baptism… may sound silly now…

Honestly though, I’m still uncomfortable with that. I think a lot of the complications came from everyone, on both sides, assuming the path had to go through the government. With all that said, if government is involved, which they obviously are, we can’t keep things like they are now.

 

[pkt77242]

I think youtouched on the only issue I have in any marriage debate... it troubles me how easily the government can take a church premise/idea/religious rite/... whatever, a church 'thing' and make their own version of it, effectively blurring separation and diminishing the religious aspect of it. If they ever find a clever way to tax baptism… may sound silly now…

Honestly though, I’m still uncomfortable with that, this should have been left to every single church to decide for itself… and anyone wanting to be married certainly would have found options, beyond that it’s no one else’s business. I think a lot of the complications came from everyone, from both sides, assuming the path had to go through the government. With all that said, if government is involved, which they obviously are, we can’t keep things like they are now.

Actually I would argue the opposit on marriage. Religion stole marriage and made it a religious "thing", not the other way around.

 

[ACamp1900]

Actually I would argue the opposit on marriage. Religion stole marriage and made it a religious "thing", not the other way around.

You are saying the US Government had their idea of marriage in place before religions had theirs, and churches everywhere 'stole' it from the government?

 

[pkt77242]

You are saying the US Government had their idea of marriage before religions did, and churches everywhere 'stole' it from the government?

Holy Jesus, look at history, we are not talking the last 100 years. Marriage was around long before Christianity, and even before the Jewish religion. In Rome it was a civil affair overseen by Roman laws. Religion borrowed marriage from the secular world not the other way around.

 

[ACamp1900]

Holy Jesus, look at history, we are not talking the last 100 years. Marriage was around long before Christianity, and even before the Jewish religion. In Rome it was a civil affair overseen by Roman laws. Religion borrowed marriage from the secular world not the other way around.

This opens up a lot actually... just my thoughts…

Marriage as a religious rite was around long before Christianity... I would say stating anything pre-dates Jewish traditions as if it is clear the entire known world had some non-religious view of current religious rites is disingenuous at best. For example the height of Ancient Judea pre dates the beginning of what we know as Ancient Rome by about a century, as do their traditions. Beyond that most of our accepted historical sources are few, and often fuzzy. Besides,… Ancient Rome in the first place? How is that in the least bit relevant?? as interesting as it is…

Anyway, I honestly see what you are getting at, but it also leaves me uncomfortable, go back far enough and you may find some groups throughout history that used some interpretation that is similar to current rites for their own non church purposes… does that mean they were stolen here and there? Does that give the US gov. the power to overtake them? I don’t know about that.

Anyway, gay straight, bi, SSM I really don't care... IF it is a gov. issue, they aren’t handling it correctly right now… shocker.

I still don’t like how we got here more than where it is headed is really what I am saying.


beyond that we might as well take it to PM and or visitor messages or even a different thread?... my intent is not to derail the real topic at teh moment... gay marriage.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think anyone without blinders on can see why Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it." Most of what's in it is a steaming pile of poop.


White House Yawns As ObamaCare Premium Spikes LoomThu, Mar 28 2013
Investor's Business Daily

News this week that ObamaCare will cause a huge spike in insurance claims in the individual market — and result in sky-high premium hikes — was bad enough. Worse still was the administration's response.

A study released Tuesday by the Society of Actuaries said that health claims will shoot up an average 32% under ObamaCare. Some states will see claims rise as much as 80%, while just five states could see them drop a little.

The reason, the report says, isn't just that millions of uninsured will get coverage, which the actuaries estimate will cause them to double their health spending.

Also driving claims higher is that many employers will dump coverage for workers once ObamaCare kicks in, and those workers will be far more expensive to insure than people already in the individual market.

Either way, the result will be higher premiums for millions of Americans.

This is just the latest in a series of recent reports all pointing in the same direction. Namely that, despite President Obama's many promises, the "Affordable Care Act" will be anything but.

So what is the administration's response? A big yawn.

Sure, prices are going to go up for men, the young and the healthy. But who cares, since they're going to go down for women, sicker and older people.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius dismissed it all as a "sort of a one-to-one shift."

And, besides, she said, those paying more will get far more generous coverage, so what's to complain about?

But in trying to dismiss this report, Sebelius not only showed the administration's indifference to the cost explosion ObamaCare will unleash, but a complete ignorance about the market she's planning to take over.

"Some of these folks," Sebelius said, referring to those hit by ObamaCare's price spikes, "have very high catastrophic plans that don't pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus. They're really mortgage protection plans, not health insurance."

Sebelius has it exactly wrong. It's precisely those catastrophic plans that are real insurance, which in case anyone has forgotten is supposed to protect against unforeseen costly events, not pay $20 doctor visits.

What Obama and company are trying to force down everyone's throats isn't insurance, it's massively expensive prepaid health care.
Too bad for those who'd rather buy real insurance and spend their money on something else.

The problem is that ObamaCare's push toward comprehensive "insurance" coverage will only fuel health care cost inflation.

Back in 1960, people paid almost half the nation's health care tab out of pocket. By last year, that figure had dropped to just over 10%, with the rest paid by government health programs or increasingly generous, tax-subsidized workplace health benefits.

That, in turn, has pushed up health spending, since it looks to consumers like they're getting something for virtually nothing.

By driving out-of-pocket spending for health care down even further, ObamaCare will only succeed in driving up costs for everyone.

 

[pkt77242]

First off the reason the premiums are going to spike is because high risk people that currently get health insurance are going to get insurance driving up prices (to cover the risk of these people they will raise the rate on everyone), second, most people get their insurance through their employer and they weren't included in the estimate.

Now about the out of pocket expense

If we still paid about half of our medical care out of pocket, the majority of us would either be poor or wouldn't get proper medical treatment (as we wouldn't go to the doctor when we needed too, to save money).

 

[RDU Irish]

Laws are meant to protect citizens and their rights. They should not discriminate or infringe on others' rights.

I have a hard time understanding how not recognizing someone's marriage is infringing on their rights. Are they not allowed to co-habitate and do whatever they want? Can they not legally create contracts to leave their assets or share responsibility with the other person? Sure it's more work, but you have to acknowledge you are the exception to the rule and might have to get off your arse to secure whatever priviledges you think you are being denied. Not saying you can't do it.

 

[ACamp1900]

Gay rights... blood donations, property protections, hospital visitations and the like are flat BS...

that needs to change as of 20 years ago... at least.

 

[pkt77242]

I have a hard time understanding how not recognizing someone's marriage is infringing on their rights. Are they not allowed to co-habitate and do whatever they want? Can they not legally create contracts to leave their assets or share responsibility with the other person? Sure it's more work, but you have to acknowledge you are the exception to the rule and might have to get off your arse to secure whatever priviledges you think you are being denied. Not saying you can't do it.

It is infringing on their rights when they get the extra 300K tax bill because the federal government doesn't recognize their marriage and thus makes them pay the estate tax. There is nothing they can do to change that, this isn't about drawing up contracts, or working harder, this is about having a system that makes it impossible for some things (no survivor benefits from VA, SS, ect) and thus discrimates against them.

 

[Corry]

Not a bad website, a good way to kill five minutes and see where your state stacks up.

Freedom in the 50 States 2013 | Overall Freedom | Mercatus Center

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Not a bad website, a good way to kill five minutes and see where your state stacks up.

Freedom in the 50 States 2013 | Overall Freedom | Mercatus Center

Very interesting. In numbers 40 to 50, I count one state that always goes Replubican (Miss) eight that are strong Democrat states, and one swing in WV.

Proud to say my new state of living (NH) is #4!

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Saw a guy today with an "Impeach Obama" sticker on his car and sticker with a quote from Hitler about an armed society.

 

[phgreek]

Saw a guy today with an "Impeach Obama" sticker on his car and sticker with a quote from Hitler about an armed society.

People delerious with praise are just as goofy as those who think he is the root of all evil...

Difference is ...the media of villification is bumper stickers

 

[ACamp1900]

Saw a guy today with an "Impeach Obama" sticker on his car and sticker with a quote from Hitler about an armed society.

Why didn't you wave "Hi"... i would have bought you lunch.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Why didn't you wave "Hi"... i would have bought you lunch.

I was behind him in the Wendy's drive-thru.

 

[ACamp1900]

I was behind him in the Wendy's drive-thru.

Ek...

Couldn't have been me then, stale buns and cold cheese is not my idea of good food.

 

[BobD]

Getting married in a religious ceremony doesn't make you legally married. A state issued marriage certificate does. The IRS could care less if Captain Kangaroo performed the ceremony.

 

[chicago51]

A study released Tuesday by the Society of Actuaries said that health claims will shoot up an average 32% under ObamaCare. Some states will see claims rise as much as 80%, while just five states could see them drop a little.

One of people that ran the study admitted they didn't take into account the cost cutting measures.

They didn't take into account the subsidies for those within 400 percent of the poverty line. For a family of 4 that is over 93k.

The Latest Attack On Obamacare Conveniently Ignores The Law's Cost-Cutting Provisions | ThinkProgress

Fast Food Chains Realize Obamacare Will Cost Them Much Less Than They Predicted | ThinkProgress

What about the Donut Hole being close incrementally and discounts on drugs?

What about the small business tax credits which are going up to 50 percent of insurance cost net year.

What about the competition on the exchanges across the country?

BTW if your employer provided insurance is over 9.5 of your income you are the eligible to by it on the exchange and get a subsidy for it.

What about those being denied because of pre-existing conditions being able to get coverage.

What about the 80/20 premium rule?

What about young people covered until they are 26.

You wouldn't know it from this post but I got issues with the ACA but cost for majority of Americans is not one of them.

 

[yankeehater]

Precisely.

Telling a church they have to marry same sex people is like telling the Nazi's they have to like black people. The government has no control over what a religious group practices (unless it harms others).

Making churches marry same sex people is exactly the type of thing gays are fighting against. They are trying to get the religion out of the law; they would not want the law in the religion. Trying to free yourself from oppression and then turning around to oppress others is not what they have in mind, I'm sure.

That was precisely the point this gentleman shot down when he brought up ACA and churches having to provide contraception and things they do not believe. The Freedom of Religion ACT was overlooked there as it will be in this case.

I realize you can marry outside of a church, but if a gay Catholic couple wants to marry in the parish to which they belong and that church says they will not marry them then what happens. Does they take it to the courts to force it?

 

[yankeehater]

First off the reason the premiums are going to spike is because high risk people that currently get health insurance are going to get insurance driving up prices (to cover the risk of these people they will raise the rate on everyone), second, most people get their insurance through their employer and they weren't included in the estimate.

Now about the out of pocket expense

If we still paid about half of our medical care out of pocket, the majority of us would either be poor or wouldn't get proper medical treatment (as we wouldn't go to the doctor when we needed too, to save money).

Pretty ironic it is called the Affordable Care Act.

To those who cite rising health care cost before did Obama, Pelosi, Reid and others not pitch this as a way to control health care cost. I just read a report that California rates will rise another 62% by 2017. Great!!!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Pretty ironic it is called the Affordable Care Act.
To those who cite rising health care cost before did Obama, Pelosi, Reid and others not pitch this as a way to control health care cost. I just read a report that California rates will rise another 62% by 2017. Great!!!

You're not kidding lol