Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This should make you happy Jon. The Federal courts last week approved it, our State AG protested and yesterday the 4th Circuit stayed the original decision.

This should make JSO happy as well…the libertarian that he is.

kalm wrote:This should make JSO happy as well…the libertarian that he is.

JSO is a phony. Plain and simple.

Congrats!!

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:This should make JSO happy as well…the libertarian that he is.

JSO is a phony. Plain and simple.

Whoa fellas... I'm the only poster allowed to rattle JSO's cage around here


(He's all mine and you can't have him)

Chizzang wrote:

Ibanez wrote: JSO is a phony. Plain and simple.

Whoa fellas... I'm the only poster allowed to rattle JSO's cage around here


(He's all mine and you can't have him)

Here's hoping bobbythekidd proposes tonight.

Coming in 6 months...first gays in South Carolina to be divorced.

Lawyers will get rich fighting over who gets to keep the collection of butt plugs and light loafers.

Cluck U wrote:Coming in 6 months...first gays in South Carolina to be divorced.

Lawyers will get rich fighting over who gets to keep the collection of The Citadel T-shirts and Pee Wall photos.

FTFY

dbackjon wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Coming in 6 months...first gays in South Carolina to be divorced.

Lawyers will get rich fighting over who gets to keep the collection of The Citadel T-shirts and Pee Wall photos.

FTFY

dbackjon wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Coming in 6 months...first gays in South Carolina to be divorced.

Lawyers will get rich fighting over who gets to keep the collection of The Citadel T-shirts and Pee Wall photos.

FTFY

You don't fuck around with Citadel garb.

dbackjon wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Coming in 6 months...first gays in South Carolina to be divorced.

Lawyers will get rich fighting over who gets to keep the collection of The Citadel T-shirts and Pee Wall photos.

FTFY

Fuck you.

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

FTFY

And fuck you too.

Why so butthurt? Been to a Citadel reunion lately?

first gays in SC?


theyve been dead for 400 years

kalm wrote:This should make JSO happy as well…the libertarian that he is.

I"ve told you guys before: You're violating libertarianism is you say two sickos of the same sex can't have sex with each other. You are NOT violating libertarianism if you say a community is not going to recognize two sickos having a homosexual relationship with each other as marriage.

If you prevent someone from actually DOING something you're denying Liberty. Like if you say that a guy can't live with and have sex with two women, have children with them etc. But you are NOT denying liberty if you say you're not going to recognize a relationship involving one guy and two women as marriage.

Even though, unlike homosexuality, that's not sick.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:This should make JSO happy as well…the libertarian that he is.

I"ve told you guys before: You're violating libertarianism is you say two sickos of the same sex can't have sex with each other. You are NOT violating libertarianism if you say a community is not going to recognize two sickos having a homosexual relationship with each other as marriage.

If you prevent someone from actually DOING something you're denying Liberty. Like if you say that a guy can't live with and have sex with two women, have children with them etc. But you are NOT denying liberty if you say you're not going to recognize a relationship involving one guy and two women as marriage.

Even though, unlike homosexuality, that's not sick.

But what if a church in that community is willing to marry them.

But what if a church in that community is willing to marry them.

If a church wants to "marry" a couple of members of the same sex to each other and consider the marriage recognized by that church it should be free to do so.

But a community...whether that's defined as a church or a locality or a State or a nation...opting to limit its recognition of relationships as "marriage" only when they involve one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex is not denying anybody Liberty. It's just not.

If the two members of the same sex want to think of themselves as married in their own hearts that's fine as well. Same with multiple partner things. If some guy and two women he lives with want to consider themselves married in their own hearts that's fine. But nobody else is obligated to recognize them as such and they're not restricting anybodys freedom if they don't.

There is absolutely no contradiction between being a Libertarian and saying that a community should be allowed to define marriage as it wishes to define it. In fact supporting having the Federal government come in and FORCE the community to recognize relationships as marriage when it doesn't want to is far more offensive to a true Libertarian point of view than having the community define marriage as one man and one woman or whatever else is.

JohnStOnge wrote:

But what if a church in that community is willing to marry them.

If a church wants to "marry" a couple of members of the same sex to each other and consider the marriage recognized by that church it should be free to do so.

But a community...whether that's defined as a church or a locality or a State or a nation...opting to limit its recognition of relationships as "marriage" only when they involve one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex is not denying anybody Liberty. It's just not.

If the two members of the same sex want to think of themselves as married in their own hearts that's fine as well. Same with multiple partner things. If some guy and two women he lives with want to consider themselves married in their own hearts that's fine. But nobody else is obligated to recognize them as such and they're not restricting anybodys freedom if they don't.

There is absolutely no contradiction between being a Libertarian and saying that a community should be allowed to define marriage as it wishes to define it. In fact supporting having the Federal government come in and FORCE the community to recognize relationships as marriage when it doesn't want to is far more offensive to a true Libertarian point of view than having the community define marriage as one man and one woman or whatever else is.

John
As I understand it no Church is being forced to marry anybody...
Nor is any church being forced to "recognize" anything

The STATE is being forced to recognized (for Tax reasons and other legal advantages)



its pretty simple really -
The Federal Government and State Governments need to get out of the Marriage business

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:This should make JSO happy as well…the libertarian that he is.

I"ve told you guys before: You're violating libertarianism is you say two sickos of the same sex can't have sex with each other. You are NOT violating libertarianism if you say a community is not going to recognize two sickos having a homosexual relationship with each other as marriage.

If you prevent someone from actually DOING something you're denying Liberty. Like if you say that a guy can't live with and have sex with two women, have children with them etc. But you are NOT denying liberty if you say you're not going to recognize a relationship involving one guy and two women as marriage.

Even though, unlike homosexuality, that's not sick.

You are an idiot. If you are allowing heterosexual couples to do something but are denying it to homosexual couples, you are denying liberty. It's that easy.

JohnStOnge wrote:

But what if a church in that community is willing to marry them.

If a church wants to "marry" a couple of members of the same sex to each other and consider the marriage recognized by that church it should be free to do so.

But a community...whether that's defined as a church or a locality or a State or a nation...opting to limit its recognition of relationships as "marriage" only when they involve one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex is not denying anybody Liberty. It's just not.

If the two members of the same sex want to think of themselves as married in their own hearts that's fine as well. Same with multiple partner things. If some guy and two women he lives with want to consider themselves married in their own hearts that's fine. But nobody else is obligated to recognize them as such and they're not restricting anybodys freedom if they don't.

There is absolutely no contradiction between being a Libertarian and saying that a community should be allowed to define marriage as it wishes to define it. In fact supporting having the Federal government come in and FORCE the community to recognize relationships as marriage when it doesn't want to is far more offensive to a true Libertarian point of view than having the community define marriage as one man and one woman or whatever else is.

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION! What is so fucking difficult about that? All this talk about the Bible and religion is pointless. It's meaningless. The United States Government is uniting 2 people into a legal entity. I got married outside of church and i'm perfectly satisfied. My union is no better or greater than yours, 89hens or two lesbians in Vermont.


This is the government not a church. We are not, have not and will not ever be a theocracy. You either recognize homo and hetero marriages or none at all. THAT'S the Libertarian point of view.

And please, quit calling yourself a Libertarian. You aren't.

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
If a church wants to "marry" a couple of members of the same sex to each other and consider the marriage recognized by that church it should be free to do so.

But a community...whether that's defined as a church or a locality or a State or a nation...opting to limit its recognition of relationships as "marriage" only when they involve one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex is not denying anybody Liberty. It's just not.

If the two members of the same sex want to think of themselves as married in their own hearts that's fine as well. Same with multiple partner things. If some guy and two women he lives with want to consider themselves married in their own hearts that's fine. But nobody else is obligated to recognize them as such and they're not restricting anybodys freedom if they don't.

There is absolutely no contradiction between being a Libertarian and saying that a community should be allowed to define marriage as it wishes to define it. In fact supporting having the Federal government come in and FORCE the community to recognize relationships as marriage when it doesn't want to is far more offensive to a true Libertarian point of view than having the community define marriage as one man and one woman or whatever else is.

John
As I understand it no Church is being forced to marry anybody...
Nor is any church being forced to "recognize" anything

The STATE is being forced to recognized (for Tax reasons and other legal advantages)



its pretty simple really -
The Federal Government and State Governments need to get out of the Marriage business

Agreed.

JohnStOnge wrote:

But what if a church in that community is willing to marry them.

If a church wants to "marry" a couple of members of the same sex to each other and consider the marriage recognized by that church it should be free to do so.

But a community...whether that's defined as a church or a locality or a State or a nation...opting to limit its recognition of relationships as "marriage" only when they involve one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex is not denying anybody Liberty. It's just not.

If the two members of the same sex want to think of themselves as married in their own hearts that's fine as well. Same with multiple partner things. If some guy and two women he lives with want to consider themselves married in their own hearts that's fine. But nobody else is obligated to recognize them as such and they're not restricting anybodys freedom if they don't.

There is absolutely no contradiction between being a Libertarian and saying that a community should be allowed to define marriage as it wishes to define it. In fact supporting having the Federal government come in and FORCE the community to recognize relationships as marriage when it doesn't want to is far more offensive to a true Libertarian point of view than having the community define marriage as one man and one woman or whatever else is.

It does, however, deny people equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. We know you think you know everything, but numerous judges, who have forgotten more about the law than you'll ever know, have ruled this time and again.

Do us all a favor and just get over this already. Hating gays isn't going to make them go away.

Grizalltheway wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
If a church wants to "marry" a couple of members of the same sex to each other and consider the marriage recognized by that church it should be free to do so.

But a community...whether that's defined as a church or a locality or a State or a nation...opting to limit its recognition of relationships as "marriage" only when they involve one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex is not denying anybody Liberty. It's just not.

If the two members of the same sex want to think of themselves as married in their own hearts that's fine as well. Same with multiple partner things. If some guy and two women he lives with want to consider themselves married in their own hearts that's fine. But nobody else is obligated to recognize them as such and they're not restricting anybodys freedom if they don't.

There is absolutely no contradiction between being a Libertarian and saying that a community should be allowed to define marriage as it wishes to define it. In fact supporting having the Federal government come in and FORCE the community to recognize relationships as marriage when it doesn't want to is far more offensive to a true Libertarian point of view than having the community define marriage as one man and one woman or whatever else is.

It does, however, deny people equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. We know you think you know everything, but numerous judges, who have forgotten more about the law than you'll ever know, have ruled this time and again.

Do us all a favor and just get over this already. Hating gays isn't going to make them go away.

John's true fundamentalist religion pokes out when somebody says: "Gay"

Ibanez wrote:My union is no better or greater than yours, 89hens or two lesbians in Vermont.

You're right. Yours is not better or greater.

89Hen wrote:

Ibanez wrote:My union is no better or greater than yours, 89hens or two lesbians in Vermont.

You're right. Yours is not better or greater.

I know i'm right. Hence my post.