Gingrich wanted ‘open marriage’ with both wife and mistress

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.

Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion.

You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Wow, that's quite a stretch...

Quote

Yep, just as the claims "the Bible outlaws homosexuality" are.

Bill, you should really read the bible before you tear it to pieces. The outlawing on homosexuality is... well... extremely explicit. As in "All homers should be executed"

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.

Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion.

You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page.

YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want.
However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion.

That's the point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You haven't pointed out any parallels.

Kallend, post 200:
"Who has forced you to have sex with another man, Marc?"

Me, post 238:
"Who forced you out of a relationship with another man, John?"

Kallend, post 200:
"Who has forced your wife to have an abortion?"

Me, post 238:
"Who prevented your wife from having an abortion?"

Reading *IS* fundamental.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Wow, that's quite a stretch...

Quote

Yep, just as the claims "the Bible outlaws homosexuality" are.

Bill, you should really read the bible before you tear it to pieces. The outlawing on homosexuality is... well... extremely explicit. As in "All homers should be executed"

And you bitch about him quoting out of context?

Hell, you can't even get the quote right...

Now you're just meeping bill in order to save face at the expense of the Bible, basically because he owned you in the other thread....

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Now you're just meeping bill in order to save face at the expense of the Bible, basically because he owned you in the other thread....

I do not really remember to be "owned" in the other thread. AFAICS Bill tried to exploit some underhanded discussion techniques to make a point which didn't exist in the first place.

And please look up Lev. 20:13 and explain what's not explicit about that.

[billvon 2,400]

>The outlawing on homosexuality is... well... extremely explicit.

So were the instructions on how to sell your daughter into slavery. People who cursed their parents were to be put to death, as were women who tried to have sex with animals. Never quite understood that one - it required the woman AND the animal to be put to death. I mean, what did the horse do wrong? He could just be standing there, and a woman could walk up to the horse and - bam! Both sentenced to death.

And of course adulterers are to be put to death. Newt should be thankful that we take the Bible with a grain of salt nowadays.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.

Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion.

You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page.

YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want.
However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion.

That's the point.

Perhaps, but that's not what he said.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

You haven't pointed out any parallels.

Kallend, post 200:
"Who has forced you to have sex with another man, Marc?"

Me, post 238:
"Who forced you out of a relationship with another man, John?"

Kallend, post 200:
"Who has forced your wife to have an abortion?"

Me, post 238:
"Who prevented your wife from having an abortion?"

Reading *IS* fundamental.

As is comprehension. You should try it sometime.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

And please look up Lev. 20:13 and explain what's not explicit about that.

You're actually proving Bill's point that people like using the Bible out of context to "prove" their points.

Do you think that killing homosexuals adheres to the tenants of biblical Christianity?

Can you explain why?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

You haven't pointed out any parallels.

Kallend, post 200:
"Who has forced you to have sex with another man, Marc?"

Me, post 238:
"Who forced you out of a relationship with another man, John?"

Kallend, post 200:
"Who has forced your wife to have an abortion?"

Me, post 238:
"Who prevented your wife from having an abortion?"

Reading *IS* fundamental.

"It's only the religious right that wants to force its morality on the rest of us."

Yes Mike, reading is fundamental, Meaningless semantic bullshit isn't. What was it about the above sentence (which you directly replied to) that you found difficult.

If you honestly think that there are similar proportions of liberals who want to do what kallend mentioned and conservatives that want to do what you mentioned then you are living in cloud bat shit fucking crazy land.

Of course, you actually don't think that, which is why you've dodged the whole issue of 'wants to' and turned this into yet another 'that's not exactly precisely to the letter of what he said she said so none of this relates in any way whatsoever to the real world' playschool game.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.

Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion.

You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page.

YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want.
However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion.

That's the point.

Perhaps, but that's not what he said.

That is exactly what I said (with a fairly major syntax error, granted, but one that in no way obscures the meaning).

See how the bits in bold match up with the bits quade put in caps? Those are the bits that are exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.

Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion.

You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page.

YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want.
However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion.

That's the point.

Perhaps, but that's not what he said.

That is exactly what I said (with a fairly major syntax error, granted, but one that in no way obscures the meaning).

See how the bits in bold match up with the bits quade put in caps? Those are the bits that are exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing.

Your claim just simply isn't true.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/27/too-religious-to-home-school/

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=659638

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You haven't pointed out any parallels.

Kallend, post 200:
"Who has forced you to have sex with another man, Marc?"

Me, post 238:
"Who forced you out of a relationship with another man, John?"

Kallend, post 200:
"Who has forced your wife to have an abortion?"

Me, post 238:
"Who prevented your wife from having an abortion?"

Reading *IS* fundamental.

As is comprehension. You should try it sometime.

I can comprehend that it proves your claim of conservatives forcing morality on people to be complete and utter bullshit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.

Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion.

You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page.

YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want.
However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion.

That's the point.

Perhaps, but that's not what he said.

That is exactly what I said (with a fairly major syntax error, granted, but one that in no way obscures the meaning).

See how the bits in bold match up with the bits quade put in caps? Those are the bits that are exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing.

Your claim just simply isn't true.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/27/too-religious-to-home-school/

A) So it was what I said?

B) Unless you can find an 'example' that isn't a dispute between two parents, my claim stands. Honestly, did you think I wouldn't look at your link at all, or just that I wouldn't notice it has fuck all to do with what we're talking about?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.

Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.

Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion.

You're right, sometimes you can't fit enough crazy faces on one page.

YOU can teach YOUR kids all about religion as much as you want.
However, the government shouldn't be in the business of teaching MY kids about religion.

That's the point.

Perhaps, but that's not what he said.

That is exactly what I said (with a fairly major syntax error, granted, but one that in no way obscures the meaning).

See how the bits in bold match up with the bits quade put in caps? Those are the bits that are exactly the same, and mean exactly the same thing.

Your claim just simply isn't true.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/27/too-religious-to-home-school/

A) So it was what I said?

B) Unless you can find an 'example' that isn't a dispute between two parents, my claim stands. Honestly, did you think I wouldn't look at your link at all, or just that I wouldn't notice it has fuck all to do with what we're talking about?

It's a clear case of the courts trying to prevent a parent from teaching their kid about religion at home. Stop trying to add conditions to support your position.

[billvon 2,400]

>It's a clear case of the courts trying to prevent a parent from teaching their kid
>about religion at home. Stop trying to add conditions to support your position.

Uh, no, it's a clear case of a PARENT trying to prevent the other parent from teaching their kids about religion at home. The two parents couldn't agree on what to teach her so the judge said "fine, she goes to regular school."

What would you have done had you been the judge? Which parent would you have given the right to decide what she was taught?

[quade 3]

Quote

What would you have done had you been the judge?

You mean short of offering to cut the kid in two?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>It's a clear case of the courts trying to prevent a parent from teaching their kid
>about religion at home. Stop trying to add conditions to support your position.

Uh, no, it's a clear case of a PARENT trying to prevent the other parent from teaching their kids about religion at home. The two parents couldn't agree on what to teach her so the judge said "fine, she goes to regular school."

What would you have done had you been the judge? Which parent would you have given the right to decide what she was taught?

I would have ruled in favor of the wishes of the custodial parent. That's why there is a custodial parent. The only difference here compared to other custodial issues is the religion. The father never asserted incompetence or any of the other common reasons.

[billvon 2,400]

>I would have ruled in favor of the wishes of the custodial parent.

Do you know that they didn't have joint custody? I don't know much about the case.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I would have ruled in favor of the wishes of the custodial parent.

Do you know that they didn't have joint custody? I don't know much about the case.

Quote

Although Voydatch has primary custody over Amanda, both parents agreed to a parenting plan that included joint decision-making responsibility. A court-appointed guardian served as a mediator.

A source of contention between the parents has been the mother's decision to home school Amanda since first grade. Amanda's father believes she should be sent to public school, while the mother is adamant about home schooling. Since both parents have failed to reach common ground, the issue moved to the court.

The situation was then analyzed by the court-appointed guardian, who made a recommendation to the court. During the evaluation process it was determined that Amanda was excelling in her schooling and used curriculum that was approved by her school district. The curriculum used in her home schooling was created by certified teachers, and Amanda routinely took standardized tests.

Furthermore, Amanda attended her local public school to take art, Spanish, and P.E. classes. Her public school instructors also commented on the fact that Amanda was well-rounded in her social skills. But a sticking point arose concerning Voydatch's Christian faith.

Clearly this had everything with the courts desire to deny the mother the ability to provide her daughter a faith based education.

[billvon 2,400]

>Although Voydatch has primary custody over Amanda, both parents agreed to a
>parenting plan that included joint decision-making responsibility.

Ah, got it.

>Clearly this had everything with the courts desire to deny the mother the ability to
>provide her daughter a faith based education.

?? I think it had to do with a judge deciding that the father still had some rights over how his daughter was raised, since the mother had agreed to a joint parenting plan.

Why would the judge decide the father had no rights just because religion was involved? Was there some rider to the agreement that said "both parents have joint decision-making ability unless it's about religion?"

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Although Voydatch has primary custody over Amanda, both parents agreed to a
>parenting plan that included joint decision-making responsibility.

Ah, got it.

>Clearly this had everything with the courts desire to deny the mother the ability to
>provide her daughter a faith based education.

?? I think it had to do with a judge deciding that the father still had some rights over how his daughter was raised, since the mother had agreed to a joint parenting plan.

Why would the judge decide the father had no rights just because religion was involved? Was there some rider to the agreement that said "both parents have joint decision-making ability unless it's about religion?"

By all accounts the daughter was happy, well adjusted and recieving a good education. The only contention between the parents was religion. The mother was the custodial parent. Although they had both agreed to have an equal say in her upbringing, they could not come to an agreement on this issue and asked the courts to make a ruling. Why would a judge rule to change a very good situation like that except for a religious bias on his behalf? What happens if the girl goes to school and ends up using drugs, or gets pregnant? Why would a judge take that chance when there wasn't a compelling reason, other than religion, to change it?

[billvon 2,400]

>The mother was the custodial parent. Although they had both agreed to have an equal
>say in her upbringing, they could not come to an agreement on this issue and asked
>the courts to make a ruling. Why would a judge rule to change a very good situation
>like that except for a religious bias on his behalf?

Well, clearly her father thought that she was NOT receiving a good education. And once you agree to have an equal role in a child's upbringing, both sides have equal weight.

>What happens if the girl goes to school and ends up using drugs, or gets pregnant?

What happens if she stays at home every day and is sexually abused by her mother's new abusive boyfriend as a result?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>The mother was the custodial parent. Although they had both agreed to have an equal
>say in her upbringing, they could not come to an agreement on this issue and asked
>the courts to make a ruling. Why would a judge rule to change a very good situation
>like that except for a religious bias on his behalf?

Well, clearly her father thought that she was NOT receiving a good education. And once you agree to have an equal role in a child's upbringing, both sides have equal weight.

Clearly she was and the school district agreed.

>What happens if the girl goes to school and ends up using drugs, or gets pregnant?

What happens if she stays at home every day and is sexually abused by her mother's new abusive boyfriend as a result?

I'd say the odds are greater of her being exposed to a negative situation in a school with 1000's of teenagers than being abused by her mothers boyfriend. Clearly you have resorted to your normal tactic of being argumentitive for the sake of arguing and are grasping at straws. Have a good night.