CrimsonWeltall

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 07:41 PM) We've always been monogamous wut.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 05:58 PM) Do we really need to go through how incorrect it is to state this current understanding of marriage is the one that has prevailed since homo sapiens first existed...or do you need the other 19 people in your Harem to bring you a dowry of 3 goats each first? 3 goats each? That's way too high a price for me to buy wives with. We all know girls' primary uses are sexin' and babymakin', neither of which are useful to you with your daughters. I'll give you 1.5 goats apiece.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) I suppose that there are enough churches that still believe this that it would have to be allowed as a religious exception. Unlike homosexuality though, I think that belief is held by a small enough percentage of the population that no company outside of some small employers in the South are going to be able to succeed with that belief. If you can get religious exemptions to discriminate against one thing, you can get them for anything.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 06:41 AM) I do not believe that there is good reason to be a lover of the Bible AND be opposed to homosexuality. Other than the fact that it specifically condemns homosexual acts and the god of the Israelites demands that gays be executed?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 04:49 AM) Here's one other thing wrong with society. What Jake wrote about the Bible is offensive to me. And you know what? Nobody cares. Why??? Because it is OK, it is popular to attack believers. It is acceptable to attack those who believe in God and that sucks. He was attacking the Bible. Why should your beliefs be shielded from criticism?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 07:45 AM) God is under siege. It is not PC to mention God, that is why I loved Bush for mentioning God all the fricking time. I like Obama, but he does not mention God much. He did once on TV as I recall, though. I liked it. You have it reversed. Obama mentions God all the time. If he didn't, it would be politically incorrect.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 1, 2012 -> 11:26 PM) My brother-in-law is currently in the Air Force and decided to re-enlist for another 4 years. They gave him a list of places he could be based out of. My sister and him went through and created a list of places they want to go. One option they gave him was an unnamed base in Nevada where he gets on an unmarked bus Monday morning, travels to the unnamed base, and returns Friday afternoon; he would also be sworn to secrecy and never allowed to discuss his job. Yea, I think you and I both know the "real" name of this base. They decided to NOT list that as an option because she doesnt want him gone 5 days a week. Yes, that base is called Fort GetMeAwayFromMyFamily.

Question for someone who follows men's gymnastics: how is it that the Chinese men's team was so dominant in the team competition, but they have no contenders in the individual all-around (top finisher was 30th)? Is the whole team specialized guys who are awesome in 2-3 events?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 10:57 PM) lol. Outside of Taj, there's nobody on this roster with above average athleticism (not counting Rose right now). Noah?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 10:42 PM) No, religion is a protected class. So is gender. And so should be sexual orientation.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 10:28 PM) So could I deny someone some rights for being Christian? It's their choice to not be Jewish or Muslim. Tax breaks for all people who attend Lutheran church services every Sunday. Every person, Lutheran and non-Lutheran alike, has EQUAL ability to attend such services, therefore this tax break is not discriminatory.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:58 PM) You being a man has nothing to do with the denial. You being gay does. That's the discriminatory characteristic there. Being a man is part of the requirement for getting a license in the first place. The intention of the current setup is to keep gays from marrying, but the method of doing so uses gender, not sexual orientation.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:21 PM) Every state already has different laws about inheritance, why is this so difficult? If some states want it per stirpes to wifes, if some want it all to first wife, why cant each state make up their own law? They can. It's just a lot more work, which was the original point.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:08 PM) There would be the same issue with every law on the books right now talking about the rights of husbands and wives if SSM were adopted. I don't see your point here either, frankly. Why would it be? There are laws that give your inheritance spouse when you die. If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing. If we allow a guy to marry 5 women, that law has to be updated in some way to determine how its split (all to 1st wife? 5 equal shares? pro-rate based on years married?) There are laws that give your spouse the ability to make medical decisions for you when you are unable. If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing. If we allow a guy to marry 5 woman, that law has to be updated in some way to determine which wife (or majority vote?) makes the decision. There are laws that allow your spouse to get Social Security benefits when you die. If we allow same-sex couples to marry...it's the same thing. If we allow a guy to marry 5 woman, that law has to be updated to determine how those benefits are split.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:51 PM) China had 3 in the top 24 as well. Their third girl was 22nd. You're right. That let in a second Australian, who was ranked #28.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 06:29 PM) You can't even if you have a nuke. Certainly provides a deterrent

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:06 PM) just out of curiosity, how would you feel if someone told you what your religion could and couldn't recognize? Has absolutely zero to do with what a religion recognizes. If the government lets Bob and Larry get married, churchgoers can say "Whatever, doesn't count in Jesus' eyes!" all they want.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:57 PM) The idea behind this amendment is the people could conceivably defend themselves from a government run astray. In current times, that would necessitate the need to keep and bare arms that include SAM's...otherwise how would you defend yourself against a military that would clearly have air superiority? The 2nd Amendment pretty much has to allow everything then.

Just to add more info, 3 countries got hit by the rule because they had 3 girls in the top 24. #4 from USA #12 from Russia #21 from Great Britain They were replace by #25 from France (none in top 24) #26 from Poland (none in top 24) #27 from Japan (one in top 24, #8)

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) But it's a legal contract. How do you have a legal contract without the resources of the state to enforce it. Marriage wouldn't be a legal contract. People could still create contracts for power of attorney/wills/etc that the government would enforce.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) The at-large bids prevent the top teams from missing the tourney, but it's still a similar concept. In one "sport", each country must be represented twice No, the rule is that each country can be represented twice AT MOST, not that each country must be represented twice. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) , so it's not the 24 best overall gymnasts. In b-ball, every conference must be represented once, so it's not the 68 best basketball teams. The exclusions are lower down on the totem pole, but they are still there. There's a world of difference between a #4 seed contender and a #50 seed needed solely to fill out a bracket

What are the goals of an organization? To win championships and make money. Yankees.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Did you see Bob Costas discussing it with Bela Karolyi(sp)? He made the awful mistake of comparing it to the NCAA tournament not allowing the 3rd place ACC/B1G team in to let a weaker team in. Um Bob, the tourney is not the best 68 teams. Several lower teams make it, simply because of their conference affiliation. The comparison works. The NCAA Tourney has at least the top 40 teams because of all the at-large bids. You'd never see the #4 ranked AP team kept out of the tournament because #2 and #3 were in the same conference. No one really cares if a 18-12 major conference team gets displaced by an inferior mid-major who grabbed an auto-bid because that 18-12 team is mediocre and has virtually no chance of winning. Weiber would have been a favorite.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) But it happens in basically every Olympic sport. Usually the cut is before the Olympics, most people just dont realize. So why have another cut of that nature IN the Olympics? Does any other sport do that?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) These type of rules are pretty common place, its why countries can only qualify X teams in certain sports. It hurts the overall competition, but its to give everyone a chance. The Americans were only allowed to send a team of 5 to the Olympics. Even if all 5 were monsters, that's only 5/24 slots. There's plenty of remaining room. Just doesn't make sense to knock out a #4 seed in favor of a #25 seed.