Senators set to vote on bill to codify Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage protections

[Vol423]

It's around 50% right now. How is that number going to double?

I think he actually meant the number of divorces rather than the divorce rate (percentage). However, the number of divorces won't double either. I'm sure the number of divorces will certainly increase though, which will benefit lawyers. I think that was his original point.

 

[Vol423]

So all divorces are the only ones that people get?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[utvolpj]

So all divorces are the only ones that people get?

How does a very small number of marriages cause the rate of 50% to double?

 

[VolStrom]

Probably because gays don't make up 50% of the population.

You must not be a liberal.

 

[VolStrom]

How does a very small number of marriages cause the rate of 50% to double?

I've known people that have been married and divorced 5 and 6 times.

 

[utvolpj]

I think he actually meant the number of divorces rather than the divorce rate (percentage). However, the number of divorces won't double either. I'm sure the number of divorces will certainly increase though, which will benefit lawyers. I think that was his original point.

I'm sure that's what he going for but neither makes any sense at all

 

[Vol423]

If you don’t want the gays getting married in your church then don’t let them, but marriage is just a word and no religion owns its rights.

I'll point out that I don't care one way or the other. However, your comment is not the way this will play out. Liberals will soon be looking to revoke the tax exempt status of any churches that don't perform gay weddings, and I would have a problem with that.

 

[Vol423]

I've known people that have been married and divorced 5 and 6 times.

...that's irrelevant. The divorce rate is still around 50%.

 

[Vol423]

You must not be a liberal.

Correct. I am most definitely not a liberal.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I'll point out that I don't care one way or the other. However, your comment is not the way this will play out. Liberals will soon be looking to revoke the tax exempt status of any churches that don't perform gay weddings, and I would have a problem with that.

I am all for revoking the tax exempt status of every church.

Everybody is always claiming to be scared of the crap that ain't happened or even been threatened.

 

[VolStrom]

...that's irrelevant. The divorce rate is still around 50%.

That's just semantics. If you take 100 couples and 50 of them get divorced 3 times is the divorce rate 50% or 150% or 300%?

 

[Vol423]

That's just semantics. If you take 100 couples and 50 of them get divorced 3 times is the divorce rate 50% or 150% or 300%?

The math is simple. Total number of divorces divided by total number of marriages. No matter how many delinquents you may personally know that get divorced 5, 6 or 150 times, the overall divorce rate has remained relatively consistent around 50% (and that includes all of the divorces from your divorce-loving friends).

 

[Vol423]

I am all for revoking the tax exempt status of every church.

...and I'm not. Churches benefit society greatly through the tremendous amount of charitable giving that they do. Liberals would like to eliminate that so more people would be reliant on government.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

...and I'm not. Churches benefit society greatly through the tremendous amount of charitable giving that they do. Liberals would like to eliminate that so more people would be reliant on government.

No, I am just for an evenly applied tax code across the board.

 

[hog88]

No, I am just for an evenly applied tax code across the board.

So a flat tax, consumption tax, what?

 

[Vol423]

No, I am just for an evenly applied tax code across the board.

That comment wasn't directed at you personally. In general, liberals want more people dependent on government, and that is one of several major underlying reasons for their war on religion.

 

[LouderVol]

No, I am just for an evenly applied tax code across the board.

So no charitable organizations?

 

[Orangeburst]

This issue is high on my IGAS factor

 

[volgr]

We need this here. Keep it in the closet, but you arent going to flaunt it in public.

 

[zeppelin128]

We need this here. Keep it in the closet, but you arent going to flaunt it in public.

Imagine being the person that looks at Qatar and says, "yep, we should do that here. We should oppress people more."

 

[volfanhill]

We need this here. Keep it in the closet, but you arent going to flaunt it in public.

You are a disgusting person

 

[RockyTop85]

Imagine being the person that looks at Qatar and says, "yep, we should do that here. We should oppress people more."

That guy: Alex Jones trial sets a dangerous precedent!
Also that guy: just go ahead and repeal the first amendment so we can stuff the gays back in their closet.

Apparently the Russian for galaxy brian is galaktika rázum. I assume that’s what the gr stands for.

 

[volgr]

You are a disgusting person

Yes, heaven forbid we protect our children and society.

 

[volgr]

Imagine being the person that looks at Qatar and says, "yep, we should do that here. We should oppress people more."

We did that here since our founding, until recently. Somehow our ancestors got it all wrong and their enlightened descendants have it all right. Give me a break.

 

[zeppelin128]

We did that here since our founding, until recently. Somehow our ancestors got it all wrong and their enlightened descendants have it all right. Give me a break.

Is this you doubling down and supporting oppression of people you don't like and disagree with?