Who gives a rat's ass?

[Thumper]

When I see some unemployed, worthless fuck sitting on the front porch, in a subsidized housing complex, smoking crack and making babies for a living ... I get a bit upset. Why? Because I have spent (and will continue spending) a good part of my life supporting that POS AND the babies he/she is producing. Some will ask me WHY I get upset ... after all, he's a druggie, it's an illness, he's "sick" and we need to spend even more money to help "cure" him of his disease and help him get back on his feet and whatever else the bleeding hearts what to chime in with, I have a right to be upset. Why? It affects ME personally, that's why.

When I see an asshole scumbag, convicted of terrorizing a family, raping the 11-year old twin daughters in front of their family, then torturing and eventually killing the family one at a time, now sitting in prison, in the air-conditioning, watching color tv and working out at the gym in his "spare" time, even though he's not only confessed to the crime as well as been proven beyond ANY doubt (through DNA, etc) to be guilty, he should be removed from the face of the earth. Yet I'm required to continue working and PAYING to support that worthless slime and his appeals attorneys, while they continue to breathe MY air, I have a right to be upset. Why? It affects ME personally, that's why!

When I spend my working life paying taxes, under the threat of jail if I don't, then see some fat-cat politician playing golf while vacationing in Hawaii, after purchasing and lighting his cigars with the hundred dollar bills I sent to him, I have a right to be upset. Why? It affects ME personally, that's why!

If the citizens of S. Carolina decide to change their state flag because it's "time for a change", it's their right. It doesn't affect ME personally, so give me ONE reason I should be upset.

If guys want to marry guys, and girls want to marry girls, it's their right. It doesn't affect ME personally, so give me ONE reason I should be upset.

I honestly believe we have much more important issues that should be wadding up our panties.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Oh man, crack is so 1980's.

So, we're packing up to go home and I figure I gotta out SD the PuMphEad SDer before I go.

In the red states that attempted to pass laws to 'protect religious freedom' from gay people by making it legal to discriminate against them, the example of a poor religious businessman/religious zealot being 'forced' to provide service to a gay person (quite possibly Michelle Bachman's husband or Lindsay Graham maybe) or, heaven forbid a pastor forced to marry some gay people or even in Oklahoma they don't want state employs who are against gay marriage to have to issue a marriage liscense. It might horribly offend their christian souls.
It got me to thinking about Catholics. The Church (with a capital C) forbids contraception and more importantly divorce. What do catholic owners of flower shops and catholic state workers and catholic priests do when asked to provide service to divorced people or to someone who confesses to using birth dontrol? Have they ever been sued for discrimination for refusing service? Have they ever been forced by the state to marry people who've been divorced.
This, of course is silly. Fuck no they haven't. Its silly to think a court would consider it. Just as silly as the proposition that christians need protection under the law from a bunch of mean old bullying homosexuals in case they want to buy flowers or seek consultation or service from the clergy or buy a license from a state employee.

Idiocy abounds.

And Jim, next time I drive by a crack house and they're out front makin babies and talking on their Obamaphone I'll give 'em a shout and tell 'em you said hi and 'you're welcome!'.

BKB

[DeputyDog]

Barry, your facts are wrong. The Catholic Church does not forbid divorce and never has. They don't stop a divorced person from participating in the sacraments either, and never have. What they do forbid is re-marriage after a divorce without going through the process of an annulment, which is a very in-depth process and is not just "Catholic divorce". No Catholic priest will marry a divorced Catholic that has not gotten an annulment. A Catholic can get married after a divorce, but not in a Catholic church. In the eyes of the Church, they are married civilly but not sacramentally and are considered by the Church to be committing adultry, which if I remember right, was one of the 10 things that God told Moses to tell the people not to do.

I'm a little disappointed that you can dismiss others beliefs so easily if they don't align with yours. It's nice to see that you are so tolerant of others as you get on Sunny and others at times for their lack to tolerance.

The only thing you have correct in this post is the comment about "bullying homosexuals". The LGBT activists are just that. They are forcing their agenda onto everyone else, and will not be satisfied until they have eliminated any differing opinions on the matter other than their own.

[BarryBobPosthole]

DD my whole point is nobody has ever forced a priest to perform a marriage for a divorced person. The so-called protection of religious freedom was to prevent clergy from being forced to marry gay people if it went against their beliefs.

Both notions are silly IMO.

And FYi Jesus made a new covenant and the laws of Moses no longer stand pert He scriptures.

BKB

[Thumper]

I'm a little disappointed that you can dismiss others beliefs so easily if they don't align with yours.

Ha ha! Some arguments have no end and the "tit for tat" can go on forever.

Read you statement again Deppity: I'm a little disappointed that you can dismiss others beliefs so easily if they don't align with yours.

Now read what the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has to say about the new ruling.


The U.S. Supreme Court decision, June 26, interpreting the U.S. Constitution to require all states to license and recognize same-sex “marriage” “is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us,”


Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable.


Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

It goes on and on and on ... but you get the point. Here's the complete statement: http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm

Who are the lawmakers in this country? The church? Where do you draw the line on the definition of "bullying"?

[BarryBobPosthole]

How in the world does one disagree without being 'dismissive'? I certainly have respect for the person, or people in this case. I absolutely don't have respect for the beliefs nor would I expect the same of anyone else for mine.

BKB

[Buckrub]

I've slunk into 'righteous apathy' on most everything these days. Too many personal events in my life right now to worry about my culture and my world crumbling.

Thump, the things that you mention as being a problem are all caused by laws. Laws that someone passed (actually several hundred someone's) because they were trying to help someone out of a bad place. Somehow those folks seem to think it's their job to make every single person better, and along the way have forgotten totally that their sole job is create a good general environment, and it has nothing to do with any individual or sub-group. But that's how it is, and that's what's happened. And I'm weary. That's the best word I know to describe me right now. Worse, the programs that created the problems above are almost 100% dismal failures, and clearly recognized as such, and the answer to fixing them is to expand them! No, seriously!

On occasion, I get a burst of indignation energy from somewhere, and I rant about this or that. Soon thereafter, I find I'm about the only one doing so. On here, I'm clearly seen as the true oddball. I sorta feel like there are others that share some of my beliefs, but they seldom speak up. Ironically, on other sites I'm viewed as way too liberal to be meaningful. Sorta leaves me out in the cold, and out in the cold, and thus................'righteous apathy' sets in.

I truly don't understand how so many folks came to be at the place they are at (forgive me, Winston). I can't fathom it. But they are.

And so, I think I'll have a fish fry tonight.

[Buckrub]

DD my whole point is nobody has ever forced a priest to perform a marriage for a divorced person. The so-called protection of religious freedom was to prevent clergy from being forced to marry gay people if it went against their beliefs.

Both notions are silly IMO.

And FYi Jesus made a new covenant and the laws of Moses no longer stand pert He scriptures.

BKB

I'm gonna save this and bring it up when the first church is sued to force them to marry two homosexuals.

This is what happens when the State gets involved in marriages. They did so solely for the fiduciary aspect. They never should have been involved in any way whatsoever. Period.

Oh, and yep.........the New Testament is in effect! That means Romans the first chapter is in effect. And guess what that means??? :)

[DeputyDog]

"In the red states that attempted to pass laws to 'protect religious freedom' from gay people by making it legal to discriminate against them, the example of a poor religious businessman/religious zealot being 'forced' to provide service to a gay person (quite possibly Michelle Bachman's husband or Lindsay Graham maybe) or, heaven forbid a pastor forced to marry some gay people or even in Oklahoma they don't want state employs who are against gay marriage to have to issue a marriage liscense. It might horribly offend their christian souls."

I took this as you were mocking those people's beliefs that it was wrong for them to do something that they believe is a sin, or to aid someone in committing what they believe to be a sin, which in my Catholic faith, harms the soul.

If I hand you a gun knowing that you intend to use it to shoot Bucky, Jim, or anyone else, and you do, aren't I guilty of aiding in that crime in the eyes of civil/criminal law?

I apologize if you did not mean it that way, but if you did, I stand by my comment.

I also didn't realize that the Old Testament is now irrelevant. I haven't purchase a new Bible in some time, but I thought it was still included in there. So if over half to teh Bible is now irrelevant, why should I believe that any of it is, and who makes that determination as to what is and what isn't still in force? And, when Jesus talked about, quoted, and commented on the "scriptures", what was he talking about if it wasn't the Old Testament? The New Testament wasn't compiled until a few years after his death.

Jim, I don't see where any of those quotes say anything other than they believe the decision is wrong. They don't condemn them for making that decision, or call into question their intelligence, or make any disparaging remarks about the court or the LGBT community at all. They simply stated there beliefs in accordance with the teachings of that Catholic Church. BTW, the Catholic Church isn't the only denomination that didn't agree with this decision or think it was the wrong decision.

[Buckrub]

DD, I'm pretty sure his comments about the Old Testament were a slam to me, not you. I'm the one that put that bug in his ear. I won't hijack this thread. Email me if you want my view of why we're no longer under Old Testament law.

[No-till Boss]

DD, I'm pretty sure his comments about the Old Testament were a slam to me, not you. I'm the one that put that bug in his ear. I won't hijack this thread. Email me if you want my view of why we're no longer under Old Testament law.

If you write one out, send me a copy please, I find your dissertations very intriguing .....

[Thumper]

As the world progresses and things just don't "fit" anymore ... simply write a new book with updates. There should be an updated version, possibly the New New Testament (?) hitting the bookshelves any decade now. ;)

[Buckrub]

When I see some unemployed, worthless fuck sitting on the front porch, in a subsidized housing complex, smoking crack and making babies for a living ... I get a bit upset. Why? Because I have spent (and will continue spending) a good part of my life supporting that POS AND the babies he/she is producing. Some will ask me WHY I get upset ... after all, he's a druggie, it's an illness, he's "sick" and we need to spend even more money to help "cure" him of his disease and help him get back on his feet and whatever else the bleeding hearts what to chime in with, I have a right to be upset. Why? It affects ME personally, that's why.

When I see an asshole scumbag, convicted of terrorizing a family, raping the 11-year old twin daughters in front of their family, then torturing and eventually killing the family one at a time, now sitting in prison, in the air-conditioning, watching color tv and working out at the gym in his "spare" time, even though he's not only confessed to the crime as well as been proven beyond ANY doubt (through DNA, etc) to be guilty, he should be removed from the face of the earth. Yet I'm required to continue working and PAYING to support that worthless slime and his appeals attorneys, while they continue to breathe MY air, I have a right to be upset. Why? It affects ME personally, that's why!

When I spend my working life paying taxes, under the threat of jail if I don't, then see some fat-cat politician playing golf while vacationing in Hawaii, after purchasing and lighting his cigars with the hundred dollar bills I sent to him, I have a right to be upset. Why? It affects ME personally, that's why!

If the citizens of S. Carolina decide to change their state flag because it's "time for a change", it's their right. It doesn't affect ME personally, so give me ONE reason I should be upset.

If guys want to marry guys, and girls want to marry girls, it's their right. It doesn't affect ME personally, so give me ONE reason I should be upset.

I honestly believe we have much more important issues that should be wadding up our panties.

My goodness, Thumper! Surely sounds like you give a rat's ass!!!!

[Thumper]

I've said repeatedly, if it does not affect me in any way, I could give a ... well, you know the rest. To each his own. Why should you ... in Washington State, give a rat's ass what the South Carolina State flag looks like?

What the heck do you care if two rump-rangers play tag-team in bed at night in the privacy of their own home? If they're boinking on a bench in the park on a Sunday afternoon, arrest their asses (no pun intended), BUT ... what difference would it make as far as the law and public decency is concerned if heterosexuals did the same thing?

[BarryBobPosthole]

SCOTUS didn't do a damned thing to your precious definition of the sanctity of marriage. Whether or not the state recognises a civil union has not one whit of a relationship to a church sanctioned wedding that follow the traditions of its given religion. Period. We've had marriages WAY outside the boundaries of 'Christian' marriage for hundreds of years and they were recognized by the state as civil unions. The only difference here is a specific kind of non Christian marriage was selected to not be allowed as one not recognized by the state and that's been deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be done on a state by state basis because the Constitution is federal law and states are bound by the same federal laws.
This is a big bunch of righteous hoo haw blown all out of proportion and I agree with Thumper, since it doesn't affect me, doesn't infringe on religious freedom, and actually makes things more consistent acroos the board, I could give a rats ass too.

BKB

[Buckrub]

It's really not the issue that folks consider themselves married or not. I can separate my civil and my religious beliefs on that one. It is in the civil realm that I object to this. Because the state decided to be the sole authority sanctioning and legalizing who is married, and because the state also gets to dole out spousal benefits for which they are the sole entity allowed to define, the dilemma presents itself.

I long for the state to remove itself from the marriage issue entirely, and also from defining spousal benefits..........or, heck, any benefit where one citizen benefits more than another. Let the churches decide who is married, and to marry them......and let the state allow each citizen to signify any one person to be the beneficiary, should one be needed, or any of their benefits.

This, and only this, solves this problem. Till then it'll be a divisive mess, and all the yelling by either side won't fix it. "I demand that you see it my way" hasn't worked for abortion, and isn't going to work for this either. Surely, this is obvious, or at least it is to me.

[BarryBobPosthole]

That's like saying you don't think the state should decide who's a dependant or not based on your christian ideals of what is a family and who is not.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Of course it's not.

And that position is VERY far from a 'right wing religious' position and gets me hammered by many of those folks. It's quite the Libertarian view. I simply want the government out of the marriage business.

I am disappointed. I would have expected a hearty "amen" from you.

[No-till Boss]

Of course it's not.

And that position is VERY far from a 'right wing religious' position and gets me hammered by many of those folks. It's quite the Libertarian view. I simply want the government out of the marriage business.

I am disappointed. I would have expected a hearty "amen" from you.

I never thought gay marriages would be legalized before prostitution in this country.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Like I've said before, if states get out of the marriage business, then they need to get out the divorce business as well. And that ain't gonna happen. But both go hand in hand IMO. How could they adjudicate a divorce for a marriage they don't recognize? That'd be somewhat of a delimmna wouldn't it?

Bkb

[Chicken Dinner]

Well, prostitution is legal in Nevada. I think state laws banning polygamy should be in the table next. It's hard to see what business it if the governments as long as all parties are fully aware of the situation.

[Chicken Dinner]

And Bucky, I've long agreed with you that the government should be completely out if the marriage business - yours, mine, Adam and Steve's.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Boy, wouldn't that make the divorce lawyers dicks get hard?

BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

Barry, that's a given. In an age of equality between the sexes, marriage is just a religious sacrament. Not a contract that the government needs to adjudicate.

[Captain]

What SCOTUS did was legislate from the bench.
A power they don't have.
Stupid move and one that has opened a door that will be hard to close.

[DeputyDog]

If gender no longer matters in marriage, why should the number of people in a marriage, and then, why should anyone's age matter?

Let someone marry as many other people as they want, no matter how young they are.

[Thumper]

Who knows Deppity? It all depends on what is deemed acceptable by society. I seriously doubt child marriages will ever become an issue in a modernized country like ours, but luckily we, as a nation, are allowed the opportunity to progress, grow and change with the times. Isn't that always our argument about the Muslim states? Sharia law is stuck in the 8th-9th century. Should we follow their example? Heck, I'm in my EARLY 60's and was 15 years old before mixed marriages were allowed in many states (it was illegal in ALL southern states until 1967, including my home state of Florida). Heck, in some states, a mixed marriage was deemed black/white, but many included ALL "non-white" races ... Asian included. To put it in perspective, I married an Asian gal just 5 years after it was completely legal to do so! Woud you really want this country to become stagnant in that way? If so, you lose all right to call the Muslim countries "backward".

[BarryBobPosthole]

I was thinking about this last night and was trying to think of what, in the states' view or federal view for that matter, how many spouses a person has is hurtful to the best interests of the state. My own personal viewpoint might be different, but legally I couldn't come up with any other than there'd have to be a lot of law eritten around it in case of death, divorce, etc.
I also think the crux of the issue we've been discussing is whether or not we want our laws to enforce our religious views and tenets or not. A lot of folks want to have Christianity lay claim to the foundations of our laws, but in fact people came to America for the very reason (among others of course too) that in their home countries religious beliefs were the law. And the phrase 'One nation, under God' doesn't have to go away as long as we recognise that it isn't one strict definition of God and his laws. I'd like to see people of faith simply have the faith in the belief that if they live their lives according to their values that America will truly be a better place. And we don't have to agree on what those values are. (We never would anyway) that doesn't seem to be enough though.
More and more people seem to coming to Thump's Conclusion (another Goodhunting icon has been born) that if something doesn't affect me personally, then who does give a rats ass and if they do why?
After listening to the sages of Goodhunting about the whole gay marriage thing, I'm kind of thinking the argument really should really be where the dividing line is between secular and canonical law.

BKB

[Buckrub]

To me, your point is a side point to what has happened. I have said all along I with this discussion was moot, because I wish the State to be totally out of the discussion of marriage, period. It shouldn't be a civil, or legal, discussion at all.

So, your point above centers on the marriage part of the decision, which is where seemingly most of the current arguments lie.

Me? I'm way more interested in the fact that a SCOTUS can decide that States have no right to make laws in Area A, and summarily eradicating them, POOF...........and then in Area B, they flip the coin and say the states CAN override federal law. Then, when your read the actual comments that Justices like Kennedy wrote in the ruling, it (to me, a non legal scholar) doesn't address much of the law at all. Kennedy basically said "folks have the RIGHT to not be lonely". That's bogus b/s. He doesn't get to define rights out of thin air. He only gets to decide if laws passed by the people's representatives do or do not follow the Constitution. That is the deviation that is bother me on this.........

And I understand that folks are saying "This doesn't affect me", but that seems a bit egotistical and elitist to me. Other people are saying "It DOES affect me". The former folks seem to be incapable of understanding that the world is viewed differently by others, and so they get mad at 'em, put 'em down, sneer at 'em.........that's a secondary part of this that is bothersome. For folks who have long whined that they're told too often "My way or the highway", on this one they are doing exactly that.

[BarryBobPosthole]

That's not what he said at all" you're simply parroting what every other conservative editorializer has said and it is bogus. The SCOTUS didn't legislate from the bench at all. Back when we had states laws that mandated segregation and the SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional there was the exact same hue and cry from the southern democratic bird brains of that time. they created no new laws. They simply interpreted the meaning of the constituion on this issue. And I doubt you could find a more constructionist court than this.

So go peddle your papers! I'm officially dismissing your beliefs as jiggery pokery!
And poppycock!

BKB

[Buckrub]

Whew. I was afraid it'd be Balderdash as well!

[Thumper]

Sheeesh! Give me a frigging break. As a young child, all that Bible-thumping "fire and brimstone" talk from the preachers and holy-rollers in my family is EXACTLY what turned me against religion in the first place. Lighten up Sunny ... the veins are popping out in your forehead! ;)

[Thumper]

When I go ... I'm takin' a big ol' firetruck with me. :D

[Chicken Dinner]

Satan's going to be awful busy come Judgment Day trying to process the 5 billion souls on this earth who aren't Christian.:D

[Thumper]

I can't remember the details. Will we be instantly transported? Or will we have to stand in line? ;)

[LJ3]

I think the believers just disappear to prime real estate and we're all left to wonder what the hell just happened. Pun intended.

[Chicken Dinner]

One of my favorite bumper stickers of all time:

After the Rapture, this driver will vanish.

[Thumper]

You know sumpin' Sunny ... this has been eating at me. I'm not about to quote your 11:34 am post above or I'll be experiencing hell on earth right here and now! But, it just brought back a wave of bad childhood memories of the bullshit I used to hear in church every Sunday morning. I've never been shy about admitting I consider myself an Agnostic here (although Bucky will swear there's no difference between that and an Athiest) ... but I'm hoping that IF there is a god ... and I find him ... it will be a god who does not lead with threats, fear and intimidation. Oh ... but "God loves me". Ha! Re-read your post and imagine being a 7 yr. old kid listening to that pile of crap. Church used to affect me the same as Alfred Hitchcock movies or things like the "gremlin on the wing" episode on The Twilight Zone. I've never forgotten ANY of those experiences.

[Buckrub]

That makes sense, Thumper. Honest, that's understandable.