Michele Bachmann is first GOP presidential candidate to sign pledge banning gay marriage, porn.

[twa]

You are correct. Getting married means nothing until you've paid for the license.

and yet ministers signatures were required by the state to make it official,though JP's,captains and such also could do so.

thus mixing church/state.....that which is done cannot be undone.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Keep government out of your lives when it comes to balancing the budget, ensuring corporations don't have undue influence over the government, and ensuring that considering everyone needs it one day, that everyone get health insurance so we don't all pay the bill for the free loaders anyway..... BUT ABSOLUTELY GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO SAY PORN IS WRONG!

Proving again, that the debate is not about keeping government small v. big, but in what way you want government to be small or big.

[techboy]

To all the people that heckle anti-gay marriage folks like Focus on the Family by accusing them of hypocrisy and demanding that they legislate against adultery/pornography/etc., thinking it scores political points, this is what you get.

I blame you.

I guess Pat Robertson enjoys looking like a moderate, though.

Boom.

That's a plan that almost everybody could live with, except the people most involved in the debate (on either side... just wait for the reactions from some of our more passionate advocates here), which makes it simultaneously probably the perfect compromise and impossible to ever happen, as the squeaky wheel gets the grease in politics.

I know this is likely an absurdly stupid question, but when someone gets married by a church they still have to get a marriage license and its the license itself that grants the tax benefits and visitation rights correct?

Yes. In many states, the pastor is more or less forced to be an arm of the state, but ultimately one must register for a license.

And you can also fall back to the common sense of being able to spot someone trying to rook the system, and dealing with them severely.

Now this will never work. It sounds like a joke, but common sense and the law don't mix.

How would you possibly codify in legislation the difference between a genuine polygamous marriage and what Larry likes to call a corporation?

Even if you tried it, you'd be handing ridiculous power to some bureaucrat or judge,

Ultimately, the state has decided to define marriage, and the rules will always be arbitrary to some degree.

[twa]

Isn't it big government that forces you to pay for the free loaders in the first place?.....odd that you think providing them free insurance is better

I do agree what way being the real issue.

[Slateman]

Really? We do? So where is the part saying we are okay with pedophiles err guys who want a really early May December wedding with girls barely out of training bras, stoning, cutting off hands of criminals (now that would reduce repeat offenders ) beheading infidels and attacking the Jews? Oh wait, its the left that usually bashes

I was refering to Family Leader and other right wing extremist Christian groups. They want to force everyone in the US to live by their interpretation of the Bible. Prayer in school, creationism only, abstinence only, extra. From a constitutional standpoint, they are every bit as much in the wrong as extremists Muslims who want everyone to live according to Shari'a Law.

[techboy]

Interesting insight from a Washington Post blog

And for what? This is a pledge for being endorsed not by the Family Leader but by the “FAMiLY LEADER.” This is a subtle and meaningful distinction!

If you want reassurance that the pledge you are signing to declare homosexuality a choice and postmarital sex The Best And Only Sex is legitimate, look no further than whether or not the name of the organization in question is erratically capitalized. That always bodes well. As a general rule, the more you enjoy capital letters, the more prone you are to feeling that Marriage Should Be Between ONE MAN AND ONE WoMAN.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well...she just lost Utah.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705288350/Utah-No-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says.html

[twa]

Well...she just lost Utah.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705288350/Utah-No-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says.html

My opinion of Utahans just went down, they pay for it?

[wantarace17]

My opinion of Utahans just went down, they pay for it?

lol

[mistertim]

Well...she just lost Utah.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705288350/Utah-No-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says.html

No real surprise there. Sort of like how Pakistan was one of (if not the top...I can't remember) countries in regard to online porn searches. Seems that the more you mold and try to force sexual repression into a society, the more it manifests in other ways below the surface.

Also...lol @ "they pay for it?" Well done, twa.

[techboy]

No real surprise there. Sort of like how Pakistan was one of (if not the top...I can't remember) countries in regard to online porn searches. Seems that the more you mold and try to force sexual repression into a society, the more it manifests in other ways below the surface.

Before you get too carried away, you might want to actually read the article beyond the headline. The number of people identified in Utah was 5.47 users per 1000, hardly a deluge of repressed souls yearning to be free (though one wonders how many more follow twa's line of reasoning... )

Also, as the article notes:

Edelman is also quick to point out, however, that the difference in usage between states is relatively small (compared to, say, the difference in truck ownership between various states). The state with the lowest subscription rate was Montana, with 1.92 per 1,000.

Much better for a quick joke than serious social policy analysis.

[Barney B]

I think the whole polygamy argument grew out of the ferocity of much of the pro-gay marriage movement. The whole, "you're a bigot/idiot/POS for not supporting marriage between consenting adults." But as it turns out, many gay marriage supporters only want to support certain consenting adults too. The polygamy bit exposed the hypocrisy of their condescention.

For this argument to hold water, you'll have to explain why gays are excluded from using the same rationale for opposing polygamy that straights have been using.

Can you?

[SteveFromYellowstone]

IMO, the only reason someone opposes gay marriage is that, in short (and very bluntly), they don't like gay people being able to enjoy the same rights as straight people because they think homosexual sex is icky.

[mistertim]

Before you get too carried away, you might want to actually read the article beyond the headline. The number of people identified in Utah was 5.47 users per 1000, hardly a deluge of repressed souls yearning to be free (though one wonders how many more follow twa's line of reasoning... )

A completely valid point. I did read the article. However, my question is this. Do you really think that sexual repression won't manifest itself in other ways (sometimes very negative ways) when it is essentially forced on a society based on cultural or societal pressures?

[ACW]

I was refering to Family Leader and other right wing extremist Christian groups. They want to force everyone in the US to live by their interpretation of the Bible. Prayer in school, creationism only, abstinence only, extra. From a constitutional standpoint, they are every bit as much in the wrong as extremists Muslims who want everyone to live according to Shari'a Law.

And yet they wanna appoint Constitutionalist judges.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And yet they wanna appoint Constitutionalist judges.

Yeah, that's the contradiction that her supporters will never see. But, then they're all about going back to the founding fathers...rather their narrow view of a caricature of what they want to think the founding fathers would have believed. I just love how those who propose that argument forget that those same founding fathers created a system of government that each successive generation could reshape as it saw fit.

---------- Post added July-10th-2011 at 07:06 AM ----------

A completely valid point. I did read the article. However, my question is this. Do you really think that sexual repression won't manifest itself in other ways (sometimes very negative ways) when it is essentially forced on a society based on cultural or societal pressures?

What sexual repression.....?

[twa]

OPINION: Relax. Bachmann Didn't Pledge To Ban Pornography

In actuality, the pledge asks candidates to offer “humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy- our next generation of American children- from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.”

When reached for comment, Bob Vander Plaats, the organization’s president, appeared surprised that the language has been interpreted as a call to outlaw adult entertainment.

“We are not calling for a nationwide band on pornography,” Vander Plaats said during a phone interview. “The bullet point doesn’t even come close to calling for that.”

Vander Plaats explained that the language was meant to imply opposition to women being forced into pornography or prostitution, a far cry from the Think Progress headline:

http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2011/7/8/opinion-relax-bachmann-didnt-pledge-to-ban-pornography.html

[Thiebear]

I've read three pages and three quotes from people quoting my: Who are these 11%.

But I haven't seen a "Yeah! no marriage for you nasty people" cracking these 3 pages for any but the super religous?

for those that just like to drive by comment, you have anything better?

[Larry]

OPINION: Relax. Bachmann Didn't Pledge To Ban Pornography

Right. The words "seduction into promiscuity" (premarital sex?) and "all forms of pornography" don't actually mean what that say.

Here, look into this light:

Now, swamp gas escaping from a weather balloon caused a thermal inversion, refracting the light from Venus.

---------- Post added July-10th-2011 at 08:54 AM ----------

I've read three pages and three quotes from people quoting my: Who are these 11%.

But I haven't seen a "Yeah! no marriage for you nasty people" cracking these 3 pages for any but the super religous?

for those that just like to drive by comment, you have anything better?

I can't figure out what you're saying, here.

[twa]

Right. The words "seduction into promiscuity" (premarital sex?) and "all forms of pornography" don't actually mean what that say.

Here, look into this light:

.

Context matters,but if ya don't want to accept the statement from the president it is certainly your right.

I can't decipher Tbears last post either....usually they make sense to me

[DRSmith]

I realize that hypocrisy has become the favorite and most devastating charge in politics today, but this doesn't even make sense. I think you're trying too hard.

It makes perfect sense if you say that Washington or government is the problem then saying vote for me and send me to ashington puts you at odds with you position.

Maybe they should quit running on an anti Washington or anti government message

[Burgold]

Context matters,but if ya don't want to accept the statement from the president it is certainly your right.

I can't decipher Tbears last post either....usually they make sense to me

So, here's the passage in contention...

10) Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

I have a couple problems with this... the first is the notion of only protecting the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy. Don't ****s deserve to be protected? Children born out of wedlock are crap, children born out of artificial insemination and not out of conjugal intimacy, don't deserve our protection?

As for the list... the word "all" in that list is absolute. Reading it, it says that they want to protect all women and children conceived from a married couple from all forms of pornography. Now, I don't mind shielding kids from all forms of pornography (except maybe a visit to the National Museum of American Art. I do think it's okay to expose children to statues and paintings created by masters), but are we so puritanical as to want to deny all woman from every form of pornography from buying and looking at it to participating in it and if we do, then we are also denying it to men except for those men who like to view male pornography since there is no restriction on male nudity or photography/video as long as the men were not born as part of an intimate conjugal act.

[NavyDave]

Why is this non issue of a thread still going on? She is going to be a nice VP candidate.

Hairy palms due to Faptastic experiences with porn has been going on since the Fred Flintstone days and will continue.

Liberals were not gong to vote her anyway and most Conservatives both social and fiscal will vote for anybody but Obama.

You are kidding yourselves if you think the majority of population in the USA is going to disqualify someone because they are not onboard with embracing an activity still seen as perverted, deviant activity. She will rise or fall on issues far more important than that.

The left's best hope is for 95% of Blacks, 60% of Hablas, and nearly half of the uninformed youngins and moderates who do not keep up with current events to blindly vote for more of the same destructive policies of the first 3 years of B.H.O. But what economic successes can he brag about?

[DRSmith]

Why is this non issue of a thread still going on? She is going to be a nice VP candidate.

Hairy palms due to Faptastic experiences with porn has been going on since the Fred Flintstone days and will continue.

Liberals were not gong to vote her anyway and most Conservatives both social and fiscal will vote for anybody but Obama.

You are kidding yourselves if you think the majority of population in the USA is going to disqualify someone because they are not onboard with embracing an activity still seen as perverted, deviant activity. She will rise or fall on issues far more important than that.

The left's best hope is for 95% of Blacks, 60% of Hablas, and nearly half of the uninformed youngins and moderates who do not keep up with current events to blindly vote for more of the same destructive policies of the first 3 years of B.H.O. But what economic successes can he brag about?

I am sure for the benefot pf all here you can point to job bills congress has brought and things they have said and done to strengthen the economy overall.

[twa]

So, here's the passage in contention...

I have a couple problems with this... .

That's cause ya don't speak/read religious fundamentalist well.

I'm always available for translating though :pfft: