The stats include single women, of which there are MANY more now than previous generations. The connection that some people make is that women are happier when they are not single with kids than single with no kids. What do you make of that? I've only ever heard of the patriarchy in power. Where is there "misogyny" in power? Lower pay for the same work? Do you mean only women who are sexually assaulted becoming more unhappy because of the assault? Or including women who just hear about assaults?
Oh those! Yeah, they're not actually facts I'm afraid. Just opinions. You know its funny us disagreeing like this, because I have a pretty good feeling that we're both Christians!
In order to converse in the best possible way, it is necessary to accurately understand what someone is saying. Anyway, aren't questions part of conversing? Yeah, I heard something about this. Wasn't this something that Trump introduced? Does the law have a name? Same deal as my last comment - how would it be possible to compel churches to go against their religious practice with Constitutional religious freedom? This sort of Constitutional violation would be a scandal, the likes of which the USA has never seen before in its previously proud history.
No this has been around for a very long time. Trump is not involved in it. The laws are mixed with tax laws from 1913, 1945, and 1954 for the most part. Then add in tax code from the IRS as it interprets the laws. In my opinion there are two likely scenarios we could see in the future, especially when at some point the Supreme Court swings liberal. First that there will be a clear divide on some topic such as abortion, homosexuals, or religion between two candidates and a Church is going to want to come out on one side of the topic without endorsing a politician. But but if they do come out on the issue it would show a clear preference for one of those candidates and thus loose the status. They would have to decide if the amount of funds for maintaining their church and charities is worth the risk. It is the same as the federal government denies highway funds if states do not agree to their guidelines. It is a type of soft force. The second and more likely would be the supreme court declaring that a church is no longer exempt from the public accommodation rules in the civil rights act. From there they can take the status away to cause financial trouble while also prosecuting the Church in a kind of double whammy. As of right now all of this is highly unlikely of course. But the loss of rights and privileges have a way of incrementally being taken or given. So a group must fight constantly for their rights and they must vigilantly defend those they have achieved. To me, if I was in charge of a church I would begin to structure the finances to forgo the tax exemption and go completely private. Then that would be one less wedge the state can utilize. It would also allow proper lobbying and get out the vote programs supporting like minded candidates.
He hasn't figured out the difference between subjective and objective yet. Facts vs opinion are just another blind area.
There are more single women today because they don’t want to marry! They can have children if they choose Yes, women doing comparable work are paid less....that is why Obama signed the Ledbetter bill.... When people sexually harass women it is misogyny. When people don’t hire women, it is misogyny..when men want to deny women reproductive freedom, it is misogyny ...so much has changed thanks to the women’s movement
Yeah, that's obvious, but isn't this leading to their unhappiness? Sure, but whether they are married or unmarried, women are having less kids aren't they? Isn't this contributing to their rising unhappiness? What evidence is there to support this, other than the Ledbetter case? Absolutely, but when you talk about "the high number of sexual assaults" that is contributing to the rise in unhappiness, does this only apply to women who have been sexually assaulted? Strictly when it is purely on the basis of them being a woman though right? You don't surely mean that when a man is selected for a job over a woman, it is misogyny do you? Also, you say when "people" don't hire women, but you mean "men" right?
"Do you support gay marriage?" I don't understand why societies award extra favours to married couples ... but they do. OK. So why should society deprive those favours (by default) to homosexuals in love? What is the difference in emotions of love between heterosexuals and homosexuals? I'd say, NOTHING.
Agreed. Wrong. They can. If you say they "shouldn't" that is only your opinion. In any case, that depends upon the church. It is their decision. Not yours, not mine. Wrong. It depends upon the nation, not the religion. Homosexual civil marriages are rather common.
Yeah, after looking it up, I see that Trump was trying to repeal it. I got confused. http://time.com/5067035/president-t...ow-churches-to-get-more-involved-in-politics/ Isn't there a "clear divide" already on some topics? If churches haven't followed through on supporting a political position or candidate before, why will they start now? Anyway, on the law - so it only applies during an election campaign? Earlier you were much more general: "[churches] cannot participate in the political process." Of course, they can can't they? I am stunned that you think that this is the more likely scenario! You haven't address what I've said about Constitutional religious freedom and how this means that none of what you're suggesting could ever happen, certainly not the part about the government "prosecuting" the church. Prosecution of a church would no more be able to happen than Congress passing a law that infringes speech. Really, because above you said that "there are two likely scenarios we could see in the future!"
In what church? Wrong. It is a FACT not an opinion that two people of the same gender cannot join their souls via the religious covenant of marriage, as no religious text supports it. Even if a church believes it and performs ceremonies, they are simply lying to themselves by not following their text. They're doing it in a laughable and pathetic attempt to "remain relevant and inclusive" with the hope that more people will join their church. It will be hilarious when they discover that it hasn't worked out! Why does it depend on the nation? In the west, churches have always been perfectly free to marry two people of the same sex under God, its just that the state wouldn't have recognised it. To my knowledge though, no church in the universe has performed a same sex marriage ceremony without the state first passing it into law. What other types of homosexual marriage is there, other than "civil?"
Many. All churches that perform homosexual marriages find that the text does support it. But they are following the text, otherwise they wouldn't do it. No, they are doing it because they feel that they are doing God's Will. When what "hasn't worked out"? Can you be more specific? What EXACTLY is it that "hasn't worked out"? You really don't understand? That's not even true. But you just said that you didn't know why it depends on the nation. You are talking in circles. Religious/Church. You never heard of it? I don't think we need to discuss this anymore. You are just sleep-walking.
This is interesting! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples Divorce rates in Lesbian couples is consistently twice the rate of gay men over many countries. Also Washington post caught lying about stats.
Okay, name one. Name one. And do you know the text? Where have you seen them say this? When they discover that nobody has joined their church as a result of their liberalism. Are you not capable of explaining how it isn't true? To my knowledge, no church in the universe has performed a same sex marriage ceremony without the state first passing it into law, but this doesn't mean that they couldn't have performed a same sex ceremony. I think I misread the quote that you were replying to, so in turn misunderstood what you said. This question will help to clarify: Why do you think that it depends on the nation?
http://us7.proxy-youtube.com/index....SqYc_S2GHHqZKiqGbYm8iemZZloqOippvGnqWVmNZvoqU They were out by a factor of 2 which brought gay divorce in line with straight divorce. I would think though we need 2 more decades of stats to get a meaningful reading. Once we've had 10 million+ gay marriages we'll have a much better idea.
I am capable of answer all of these questions but I can see that you're in a permanent "Yeah, but ...." mode so I won't be wasting any more of my time. Let someone else explain it to you.
That is a useless question since the Supreme Court saw fit to impose gay marriage as the law of the land it mskes no difference what the people think
You mean this opening post?: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ndp-unity-to-destroy-liberals-in-2019.526258/ What did you think NDP was in relation to the US?
