Jump to content
Null


Tiger Al

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    5,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Tiger Al

  • Rank
    Bedwetting Libbie and Demwit
  • Birthday 05/19/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Mobile, AL
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

612 profile views
  1. Just who the hell is Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association anyways? I guess I missed the memo where it stated that the " AFA " was the first and last word on why to oppose the mosque being built near the WTC. As an atheist, I'd be fine if we stopped building ANY more religious temples and giving churches a free pass on property taxes. To answer your question directly, yes I do think everyone is that ignorant. Especially you. No memo...Simply pointing out the inaccuracy of your assertion that no one was suggesting that Muslims can't build a mosque or practice their religion.
  2. Are you really this ignorant or do you just think everyone else is? LINK
  3. Somebody needs blow that mosque up, don't they? Wait until it's good and crowded with muslims and detonate it...that would show them, wouldn't it?
  4. I'd say it's a little early for that to have wound it's way through the courts. I didn't mean to imply that if SSM were legalized today, that polygamy or polyamory would be legalized tomorrow. But to answer your question, Saskatchewan, Canada has legalized polygamy. The UK and Australia both give legal recognition to polygamous marriages performed abroad. In Russia, legislation currently under consideration to make polygamy legal. I don't think Saskatchewan Family law s.51 makes polygamy legal, per se, but rather addresses property rights of second spouses. The rest of Canada does not
  5. Hypothetically, I personally don't care if you want to do any of the above as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. It's your life. I know you don't care, but apparently the gov't and other people do. But if they also support SSM, I fail to see why the line gets arbitrarily drawn there and doesn't include these other marriage options. And I'm repeatedly assured that it wouldn't. Several countries have legalized SSM. Is bigamy, polygamy, incest or Rick Santorum's ultimately scary 'man-on-dog' scenario an issue in those countries? I only offered that because one of the chief
  6. Hypothetically, I personally don't care if you want to do any of the above as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. It's your life. Of course, if you get the vasectomy then you're acting on one of the reasons the right claims as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other; procreation. But, again, it's your life and I don't think you should be discriminated against by the government deciding whether you're 'married' or not. You should be legally unionized and let your church, pastor, conscience or god decide if you're 'married.' Whether I or anyone else agrees with y
  7. A Hobson's Choice is not the same as having equal rights.
  8. Why would they not mean anything? Would a contract between two or more parties not mean anything? If my wife and I were unionized it would mean something if one of us died. It would mean something if we split up. It would mean something if I wanted to put her on my health insurance plan or vice versa. If a church declares two women married the state doesn't extend all of the legal rights and responsibilities it does to a man and woman who are married. If a church says that a man and two women are married the state not only fails to recognize that marriage but also makes it a crime. If a ch
  9. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Then what are the same-sex marriage advocates fighting for? The end of the legal recognition of marriage? If so, I could agree with their cause (being a small government proponent). But, why not say that? There would be a lot of changes if the "no legal marriage" view was taken. We would have to go to a flat tax, which would be great for the economy, but the liberals would hate it because they wouldn't get to hate on the rich people. Why would we have to go to a flat tax? We, as a society, obviously believe that income should be spread among the
  10. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Then what are the same-sex marriage advocates fighting for? The end of the legal recognition of marriage? If so, I could agree with their cause (being a small government proponent). But, why not say that? There would be a lot of changes if the "no legal marriage" view was taken. We would have to go to a flat tax, which would be great for the economy, but the liberals would hate it because they wouldn't get to hate on the rich people. Why would we have to go to a flat tax? We, as a society, obviously believe that income should be spread among the
  11. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Then what are the same-sex marriage advocates fighting for? The end of the legal recognition of marriage? If so, I could agree with their cause (being a small government proponent). But, why not say that? There would be a lot of changes if the "no legal marriage" view was taken. We would have to go to a flat tax, which would be great for the economy, but the liberals would hate it because they wouldn't get to hate on the rich people. Why would we have to go to a flat tax? We, as a society, obviously believe that income should be spread among the
  12. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Then what are the same-sex marriage advocates fighting for? The end of the legal recognition of marriage? If so, I could agree with their cause (being a small government proponent). But, why not say that? There would be a lot of changes if the "no legal marriage" view was taken. We would have to go to a flat tax, which would be great for the economy, but the liberals would hate it because they wouldn't get to hate on the rich people. Why would we have to go to a flat tax? We, as a society, obviously believe that income should be spread among the
  13. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Then what are the same-sex marriage advocates fighting for? The end of the legal recognition of marriage? If so, I could agree with their cause (being a small government proponent). But, why not say that? There would be a lot of changes if the "no legal marriage" view was taken. We would have to go to a flat tax, which would be great for the economy, but the liberals would hate it because they wouldn't get to hate on the rich people. Why would we have to go to a flat tax?
×
×
  • Create New...