| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2007 06:58:14 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by "matthew":
I don't know why you persist with suggesting that government should be removed from marriage: you have proposed a purely civil system, in which religion is fully removed from the legal concept of marriage (the government is the only party involved - hence "civil"). The arbitrary rules in various religions are removed, and a socio-legal system applied. The religious ceremony then has no legal ramifications - what you propose is a civil (governmental) marriage system. |
Nope...because as it is right now. I cannot get married according to my religion without a license from the state.
Muslims and traditional mormons as well as other faiths that allow for polygamy are not allowed to be married according to their beliefs at all. No license is granted.
Therefore, it is clear to me that at present there is no clear seperation of church and state on this matter.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Isn't it odd that you oppose religious leaders in other countries, such as the ayatollahs in Iran, but would not be influenced in your voting if your own leader was highly religious? I find it hard to believe that you would vote for a hard line Muslim as president. Isn't it better for moderate, or less, or non religious people to be in charge? |
Of course I am not going to vote for a hard line muslim. That does not mean that I won't vote for a muslim. I also won't vote for an extremist aryan christian.
Do I oppose an ayatollah being elected as a leader in Iran. Not at all. May I oppose the actions of such an elected leader. Of course.
Originally posted by "matthew":
On welfare, I would be interested in your views on, say healthcare (welfare income support is extrordinarily complicated and hard to debate as a side issue, as here). |
I only have a few minutes. But I will say that I think ALL medical expenses should be tax deductible. Just as a start.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2007 08:32:05 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Nope...because as it is right now. I cannot get married according to my religion without a license from the state. |
Of course you can. It is just that it will have no legal significance, beause you will not have complied with the civil elements of the marriage process. Presumably you would be just as married in the eyes of your god whether you have the requisite licence or not because the licence is only relevant for the non-religious, civil/governmental part of the process.
Similarly, the contra-example is that you could obtain all the legal elements of marriage without involving any religious ceremony (through a civil service).
All the significant consequences of marriage in day to day life result from the legal aspects of marriage. The religious elements are what additional steps you need to take to get married and how your dealings with your partner (eg in the bedroom) will be viewed by your god - aspects that the law is not concerned with.
As I said before, you are advocating (and I agree with this) a civil marriage system (eliminating religion from the social contract) with the arbitrary rules of certain religions removed from the existing legal system. Any role for religion should be determined by the people getting married alone.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I only have a few minutes. But I will say that I think ALL medical expenses should be tax deductible. Just as a start. |
What about people who cannot afford the expense in the first place (ie the people who do not earn enough to worry about tax returns)? Social provisioning, or should they be they left to die?
Message edited by author 2007-03-10 20:33:28.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2007 03:05:13 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by "matthew":
Of course you can. It is just that it will have no legal significance, beause you will not have complied with the civil elements of the marriage process. Presumably you would be just as married in the eyes of your god whether you have the requisite licence or not because the licence is only relevant for the non-religious, civil/governmental part of the process. |
Except in certain areas & regions laws actually forbid living together, engaging in marital relations, etc. So no, it's not really possible. Not everywhere.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Similarly, the contra-example is that you could obtain all the legal elements of marriage without involving any religious ceremony (through a civil service)..... |
No disagreement there from me.
Originally posted by "matthew":
All the significant consequences of marriage in day to day life result from the legal aspects of marriage. The religious elements are what additional steps you need to take to get married and how your dealings with your partner (eg in the bedroom) will be viewed by your god - aspects that the law is not concerned with. |
You'd be surprised. Many states outlaw polygamy. And many other behaviors. Hence, in part the whole debate on homosexual marriages. And which brings it back for me to the point that if we're going to break down one such barrier we might as well bulldoze them all and do the job right.
Originally posted by "matthew":
I said before, you are advocating (and I agree with this) a civil marriage system (eliminating religion from the social contract) with the arbitrary rules of certain religions removed from the existing legal system. Any role for religion should be determined by the people getting married alone. |
See I take it further. I look at it as a "common household". As I also think such should be available to plutonic individuals who live and rely on each other. Not just those in romantic relationships. (ie: a pair of elderly sisters, etc.)
Originally posted by "matthew":
What about people who cannot afford the expense in the first place (ie the people who do not earn enough to worry about tax returns)? Social provisioning, or should they be they left to die? |
Presently, I believe it is forbidden by law for a hospital to refuse emergency care. (Now preventative care is a whole other issue.) That said, those who do not have the money to pay usually still receive care for emergency issues. Such usually have nothing for the leveraging against the debt. However, failure to pay the bills does affect credit ratings. That is one thing I would like to see changed. I do not believe medical bills should show up on and affect your credit rating.
I support emergency care for everyone. Most of the people I know who were jobless, without a home, etc. Actually received healthcare through various social services.
The ones who tend to be hardest hit are the working poor and self-employed small business owner. These are the ones who don't qualify for the social programs. And either do not receive good health benefits or in the case of small businesses often pay out the kazoo for health care costs.
Another issue is the cost of prescription drugs. Of course I view this as a patent issue. Many drugs can be manufactured much cheaper than they cost. Of course, the idea is for the pharmacies to recoup their research budgets. But for some it goes beyond re-coup and furthering development.
Presently, we have several great examples of socialized medicine. The VA hospitals are excellent examples of what Americans have to look forward to when medicine is socialized.
Another further cost is lawyers, frivilous lawsuits, etc. The whole "mental distress". There was a recent attempt to cap such lawsuits at $250,000 for any malpractice that did not involve economic loss (ie: loss of limb, eyesight or some other ability). It was totally mis-represented by our media and due to that failed to garner support. Many doctors are paying outrageous insurance costs that are sky-rocketing year after year.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Social provisioning, or should they be they left to die? |
There is no one who is being left to die that would not be left to die under a social provisioning system. In fact, many who are left to die social medicine systems (ie: premature babies) receive the utmost care in the American system.
Furthermore, social medicine has an inherent flaw in that as monies run out there is the need to cut services. Without an independent medical system the socialist medicine system looks at which areas are most easily cut. This usually leads to the extremes. Elderly often became an area to cut. Support than grows for euthanasia (the cost cutting method of socialized medicine).
That is a dangerous area to head into...
So you condemn our non-socialized medical system for killing people. Which is grossly inaccurate. But exclaim support for a system that will indeed lead to deaths. Especially as the system grows beyond the means to support it.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 02:26:31 AM · #104 |
| There will be no elections in 2008, Al gore convinced me we will all be under water by then.....didn't you see his movie? |
|
|
|
03/23/2007 10:49:06 PM · #105 |
|
|
|
03/24/2007 01:22:12 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by JeffDay:
There will be no elections in 2008, Al gore convinced me we will all be under water by then.....didn't you see his movie? |
Al Gore is a true philosopher in his own mind.But my true opinion is-the citizens of the US need to take their country back-the taxes are too high-the working poor need to be repaid and great photographers like us on this great site need to be recognized. And.....I'm done. |
|
|
|
03/25/2007 03:19:20 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Madukes:
Originally posted by JeffDay:
There will be no elections in 2008, Al gore convinced me we will all be under water by then.....didn't you see his movie? |
Al Gore is a true philosopher in his own mind.But my true opinion is-the citizens of the US need to take their country back-the taxes are too high-the working poor need to be repaid and great photographers like us on this great site need to be recognized. And.....I'm done. |
I second this motion! |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 12:56:34 PM · #108 |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 01:12:31 PM · #109 |
|
|
|
04/02/2007 02:04:26 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Dick Morris? FOX?
Yuh! |
Dick Morris was Bill Clinton's Political adviser for 20 years. He orchastrated his re-election in 1996. Are you implying that he is not worthy to comment on his former bosses wife's presidential bid or are you implying that because FOX is reporting it that it is less than believable?
I suspect that you have your mind set against FOX, and even perhaps against the "traitor" Dick Morris, as he is a commentator for FOX news.
I personally do not see the liberal's condemnation of a network that states "We report - You decide". Perhaps you and yours might heed any commentary coming from an organization with a following as large as FOX - unless of course you hold every news organization with disdain.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2007 05:22:52 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Dick Morris was Bill Clinton's Political adviser for 20 years. He orchastrated his re-election in 1996. Are you implying that he is not worthy to comment on his former bosses wife's presidential bid or are you implying that because FOX is reporting it that it is less than believable?
I suspect that you have your mind set against FOX, and even perhaps against the "traitor" Dick Morris, as he is a commentator for FOX news.
I personally do not see the liberal's condemnation of a network that states "We report - You decide". Perhaps you and yours might heed any commentary coming from an organization with a following as large as FOX - unless of course you hold every news organization with disdain. |
Bill Clinton aside I have zero respect for Dick Morris. I've heard/read more lines of crap out of him than most other pundits. The article you posted is more of the same.
FOX is pure drivel. Also on the low end of what's already pretty low.
Happy Hunting! |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 12:35:50 PM · #112 |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 01:10:13 PM · #113 |
I'm petitioning Congress to rename Landmarks, Waterway's, Buildings, Parks, Institutions after Hillary Clinton.
For example:
-All Millard B. Fillmore High Schools will be named after Hillary Clinton.
-The Mississippi River will now be called the The Mississippi Clinton.
-Clint Eastwood will now be called Clint Clinton and Frankenstein will be called Frankenclinton.
-John F. Kennedy Airport will be renamed, The Hillary F. Kennedy Clinton
(Thanks to the Simpsons)
Message edited by author 2007-04-04 13:26:44. |
|
|
|
04/04/2007 01:23:31 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm petitioning Congress to rename Landmarks, Buildings, Parks, Institutions etc. after Hillary Clinton. |
We all have our causes.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 07:03:00 AM EDT.
