OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    So I asked two questions and neither have been answered by anyone except to rant about discrimination. Also about being able to discriminate against blacks or other crazy discrimating thoughts.

    the law is about one not trampling on the religious rights of another.

    just like Obamacare is making religious orders carry birth control for their workers. The gov't is trampling upon the religous rights of some groups and that is wrong.

    So two questions both yes or no

    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients? 



    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    yes.

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients?

    no.



    Why different answers they are both based upon religious beliefs. So one religion's beliefs iare more important than another.?.??




    just like Obamacare is making religious orders carry birth control for their workers. The gov't is trampling upon the religous rights of some groups and that is wrong.

     

    Wrong! Why is it that the self appointed guardians of morality can't do a simple thing like not lie. The birth control part has nothing to do with religious orders. It has to do with EMPLOYERS. Typical of the hypocrites of the religious right to wrap themselves in their martyr cloaks and act like they are being fed to lions. You do the same thing with fake intelligent design and life begins at conception. Half truths and outright lies.

    I don't care if you worship Jesus, Allah or Gozer the Gozerian as long as you don't use civil law to force your dogma on me.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    So I asked two questions and neither have been answered by anyone except to rant about discrimination. Also about being able to discriminate against blacks or other crazy discrimating thoughts.

    the law is about one not trampling on the religious rights of another.

    just like Obamacare is making religious orders carry birth control for their workers. The gov't is trampling upon the religous rights of some groups and that is wrong.

    So two questions both yes or no

    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients? 



    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    yes.

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients?

    no.



    Why different answers they are both based upon religious beliefs. So one religion's beliefs iare more important than another.?.??




    In the first case the individual is not being forced to participate in the event they find as an affront to their beliefs. So they should be compelled to simply sell their product to whomever wishes to buy it.

    In the second case the baker is being forced to change his product.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    The photographer or the baker or whatever discriminates other people because they (the customers) do not live in accordance with the religious rules of the photographer or baker.



    This is actually wrong.

    The point is the photographer is being asked to help with the marriage arrangements, and their religious convictions prohibit them from doing that. It is about forcing the religious person to directly act against their long established beliefs, not about their simply disapproving of the parties that wish their services.

    Would you also insist a gay couple or Islamic couple be be able to demand to marry in a Catholic church if they so desire?

     



    No, the photographer is asked to take photographs which happens to be his job. By refusing his services to the couple, he is identifying them as outside of his religious beliefs, and he treats them differently based on that in his business. That is discrimination based on religion.

    And no, I would not insist that a gay or Islamic couple be married in a Catholic Church. The church is not a business, and does not sell weddings. If however, the local Catholic Church decides to hold somekind of market, where they sell cookies to everyone in the neigborhood, I would insist that they also sell to gay couples and muslim couples. 

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    The photographer or the baker or whatever discriminates other people because they (the customers) do not live in accordance with the religious rules of the photographer or baker.



    This is actually wrong.

    The point is the photographer is being asked to help with the marriage arrangements, and their religious convictions prohibit them from doing that. It is about forcing the religious person to directly act against their long established beliefs, not about their simply disapproving of the parties that wish their services.

    Would you also insist a gay couple or Islamic couple be be able to demand to marry in a Catholic church if they so desire?

     



    No, the photographer is asked to take photographs which happens to be his job. By refusing his services to the couple, he is identifying them as outside of his religious beliefs, and he treats them differently based on that in his business. That is discrimination based on religion.

    And no, I would not insist that a gay or Islamic couple be married in a Catholic Church. The church is not a business, and does not sell weddings. If however, the local Catholic Church decides to hold somekind of market, where they sell cookies to everyone in the neigborhood, I would insist that they also sell to gay couples and muslim couples. 

     

     




    In order to perform his services the photographer has to attend the wedding ceremonies. You can't get around that no matter how much you squirm. If he can prove doing so is against his religious beliefs he should not be required to provide the service.

    As far as whether the Catholics provide wedding services for remuneration, it is a "donation" that is expected. Yet, a non-Catholic cannot even get married in a Catholic church unless the bishop approves.

    There are plenty of Christian denominations that charge in the vicinity of $250 to do a wedding. In this case I suppose you expect them to do gay weddings, right?

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    So I asked two questions and neither have been answered by anyone except to rant about discrimination. Also about being able to discriminate against blacks or other crazy discrimating thoughts.

    the law is about one not trampling on the religious rights of another.

    just like Obamacare is making religious orders carry birth control for their workers. The gov't is trampling upon the religous rights of some groups and that is wrong.

    So two questions both yes or no

    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients? 



    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    yes.

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients?

    no.



    Why different answers they are both based upon religious beliefs. So one religion's beliefs iare more important than another.?.??




    In the first case the individual is not being forced to participate in the event they find as an affront to their beliefs. So they should be compelled to simply sell their product to whomever wishes to buy it.

    In the second case the baker is being forced to change his product.

     



    Simple and SPOT ON

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    The question has been resolved more than 40 years ago by the US Supreme Court as far as race goes. It takes little imagination to see it applying to gender and sexual orientation as well as the argumentation would be the same.

    The case of The Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) resulted in the Supreme Court holding the Bill of Rights of 1964 within the Commerce Clause. The court ruled in favor of of the United States and issued a permanent injunction requiring the motel to refrain from racial discrimination.

    The case showed that the Bill of Rights could be applied not only in citizen vs. government, but also in cases of citizen vs. citizen.

    The proposed law in AZ is shamefull, unconstitutional, and a wright wing nut-job.

    No, you cannot freely discriminate your customers. Deal with it. This is not a socialist plot, a liberal agenda, or a power-hungry government. It is the law of the land.

     




    Ahhhh, apples and oranges. The question 40 years ago didn't have anything to do with prohibiting the free exercise of religion.




    This is clearly not a question of religion...it's flat out discrimination and bigotry...Remember seraration of church and state in the Constitution? I know it's difficlut to open your mind, but get over yourself...it's done...it may take a few years, and maybe the deaths of people of your generation by simply passing wih age, but the younger generations have no problem with this, even in rag tag locations of institutionalized racism, sexism and ignorance like the midwest, deep south and the southwest....

     

    Time changes most things....don't be a luddite forever Babe...more people want his than don't...religion has NADA to do with it...and if in your heart you know you oppose this because you hate gays, just admit it and ask the lord for help....because the lord doesn't want anyone to hate anyone else for ANY reason...and you know that's right...you don't need an old or new testament citation to tell you that!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    What kind of a sick f*** actually wishes people were dead so gay marriage can be more easily implemented?

     

    That pretty much proves the point that the liberal hos are evil swine.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Jewish groups urge Gov. Brewer to veto SB1062

     

    SALVATORE CAPUTO | Assistant Managing Editor | Updated 8 hours ago

    Senate Bill 1062, passed Thursday, Feb. 20, has drawn criticism from a number of Jewish groups in the Valley who are urging Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the measure when it comes to her desk. The bill could be transmitted to her as early as today (Feb. 24) and from the time she receives it, she will have five days to act.

    Typical of the Jewish groups' responses was an email sent by the Jewish Community Association of Greater Phoenix and signed by Joel Kramer, the board chair, and Stuart Wachs, president and CEO: "While the Association does not take political positions, we feel we need to speak out in opposition of the Arizona Legislature's self-described 'Free Exercise of Religion' (House Bill 2154 & Senate Bill 1062) bill which was passed last week. 

    "We strongly support freedom of religion but this Bill will do much more to support bigotry, including anti-Semitism, than to protect freedom of religion. This legislature allows businesses to deny service to anyone or any group that they feel is offensive or not supportive of their very loosely defined religious beliefs. This rings very similar to language that has been used to support anti-Semitism and other forms of serious discrimination.

    "We voice our strong opposition to these Bills and encourage you to have your voices and the voice of the Jewish community heard. We urge you to join the Association, the many local rabbis, the Anti-Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign and the Greater Phoenix Economic Council in encouraging a veto of these Bills."

    HB 2154 was the House version of the bill, for which SB 1062 is the final passed version, with approval of both the House and Senate.

    The Arizona regional office of the Anti-Defamation League has opposed the bill for some time stating, "Based on SB 1062 a CEO’s religious belief in paying men more than woman could be the basis of a for-profit corporation denying equal pay to women, or an individual could refuse to pay legally required interest on a lien, fine or loan based on a religious belief."

    Temple Chai, Temple Kol Ami and Temple Solel included Jewish News in email blasts that opposed the bill as well.

    • The letter from Temple Chai, signed by Rabbis Mari Chernow, Bonnie Koppell and Jake Singer-Beilin, Cantor Sharona Feller and Chai President Debbie Blyn, says, "We are writing to add our voices to those of the many Jewish leaders who have called on Governor Brewer to veto SB 1062/HB 2153.  This problematic bill stands in conflict with the one of the most fundamental teachings of the Torah, that every human being is made b'tzelem Elohim (in the image of God). We have inherited a rich tradition of advocacy for civil rights from the rabbis of the Talmud and, more recently, Jewish civil rights leaders of the 1960s." In addition,Temple Chai is coordinating carpools to an anti-SB 1062 demonstration scheduled for 5 p.m. today. For details, visit herophoenix.org.
    • The letter from Temple Kol Ami, signed by Rabbi Jeremy Schneider, says, "This bill not only threatens us as Jews, but all minorities and peoples of faith. Ironically, this piece of legislation is being heralded as the 'free exercise of religion.' "
    • The letter from Temple Solel, signed by Rabbi John Linder and Rabbi Ilana Mills, says, "We feel it is our obligation to give you the opportunity to speak out against two bills going through the Arizona Legislature that not only threaten us as Jews, but all minorities and peoples of faith. ... Of course, your rabbis are ardent supporters of religious freedom for all Americans. The reality is that Arizona already provides greater religious freedom protection for its citizens and religious institutions than the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

    (Congregants of other synagogues, including Congregation Beth Israel, have made Jewish News aware of comments and letters sent out to their communities. This article will be updated with further comments as Jewish News can contact those congregations and confirm the content of the statements.)

    These Jewish responses come amid a flood of calls for Brewer to veto the bill from other officials and groups, ranging from U.S. Sen. John McCain to three Arizona senators who voted for the bill's passage, to business leaders including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    What kind of a sick f*** actually wishes people were dead so gay marriage can be more easily implemented?

     

    That pretty much proves the point that the liberal hos are evil swine.




    Learn to read...that's NOT what I wrote...it's inevitable that the older generation will pass on, and when it does, this will no longer be an issue...lol...just like there will be far fewer Republicans and tea partiers...

    I thought I was on ignore... :)

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Republicans realize they made a mistake . . .

    Three Republican senators who voted for Senate Bill 1062 say they made a bad decision in a rushed process and are now asking Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the right to refuse service bill.

    “We feel it was a solution in search of a problem,” Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said in an impromptu news conference outside the state Senate. He was joined by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott.

    The two, along with Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, sent Brewer a letter Monday morning asking for a veto.

    “While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” the three wrote. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”

    Pierce and Worsley said the bill was moved along very quickly, not giving them enough time to convince fellow lawmakers to vote against it. Besides, Pierce said, they didn’t want to “tear apart” the GOP caucus, which was sharply divided last year over Brewer’s push for Medicaid expansion.

    But the reaction from constituents to the business community reinforced their discomfort with their “yes” votes, they said, leading to the call for a veto.

    Worsley noted the bill made a fairly minor tweak to the state’s existing statute protecting religious freedom, and said that was more reason to question why the bill was needed.

    He said he asked Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, over the weekend to allow the Senate to reconsider last week’s vote, but Biggs declined. If such a vote were to happen, it would fail, since the three Republicans would join with the 13 Democrats to vote it down.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Jewish groups urge Gov. Brewer to veto SB1062

     

    SALVATORE CAPUTO | Assistant Managing Editor | Updated 8 hours ago

    Senate Bill 1062, passed Thursday, Feb. 20, has drawn criticism from a number of Jewish groups in the Valley who are urging Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the measure when it comes to her desk. The bill could be transmitted to her as early as today (Feb. 24) and from the time she receives it, she will have five days to act.

    Typical of the Jewish groups' responses was an email sent by the Jewish Community Association of Greater Phoenix and signed by Joel Kramer, the board chair, and Stuart Wachs, president and CEO: "While the Association does not take political positions, we feel we need to speak out in opposition of the Arizona Legislature's self-described 'Free Exercise of Religion' (House Bill 2154 & Senate Bill 1062) bill which was passed last week. 

    "We strongly support freedom of religion but this Bill will do much more to support bigotry, including anti-Semitism, than to protect freedom of religion. This legislature allows businesses to deny service to anyone or any group that they feel is offensive or not supportive of their very loosely defined religious beliefs. This rings very similar to language that has been used to support anti-Semitism and other forms of serious discrimination.

    "We voice our strong opposition to these Bills and encourage you to have your voices and the voice of the Jewish community heard. We urge you to join the Association, the many local rabbis, the Anti-Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign and the Greater Phoenix Economic Council in encouraging a veto of these Bills."

    HB 2154 was the House version of the bill, for which SB 1062 is the final passed version, with approval of both the House and Senate.

    The Arizona regional office of the Anti-Defamation League has opposed the bill for some time stating, "Based on SB 1062 a CEO’s religious belief in paying men more than woman could be the basis of a for-profit corporation denying equal pay to women, or an individual could refuse to pay legally required interest on a lien, fine or loan based on a religious belief."

    Temple Chai, Temple Kol Ami and Temple Solel included Jewish News in email blasts that opposed the bill as well.

    • The letter from Temple Chai, signed by Rabbis Mari Chernow, Bonnie Koppell and Jake Singer-Beilin, Cantor Sharona Feller and Chai President Debbie Blyn, says, "We are writing to add our voices to those of the many Jewish leaders who have called on Governor Brewer to veto SB 1062/HB 2153.  This problematic bill stands in conflict with the one of the most fundamental teachings of the Torah, that every human being is made b'tzelem Elohim (in the image of God). We have inherited a rich tradition of advocacy for civil rights from the rabbis of the Talmud and, more recently, Jewish civil rights leaders of the 1960s." In addition,Temple Chai is coordinating carpools to an anti-SB 1062 demonstration scheduled for 5 p.m. today. For details, visit herophoenix.org.
    • The letter from Temple Kol Ami, signed by Rabbi Jeremy Schneider, says, "This bill not only threatens us as Jews, but all minorities and peoples of faith. Ironically, this piece of legislation is being heralded as the 'free exercise of religion.' "
    • The letter from Temple Solel, signed by Rabbi John Linder and Rabbi Ilana Mills, says, "We feel it is our obligation to give you the opportunity to speak out against two bills going through the Arizona Legislature that not only threaten us as Jews, but all minorities and peoples of faith. ... Of course, your rabbis are ardent supporters of religious freedom for all Americans. The reality is that Arizona already provides greater religious freedom protection for its citizens and religious institutions than the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

    (Congregants of other synagogues, including Congregation Beth Israel, have made Jewish News aware of comments and letters sent out to their communities. This article will be updated with further comments as Jewish News can contact those congregations and confirm the content of the statements.)

    These Jewish responses come amid a flood of calls for Brewer to veto the bill from other officials and groups, ranging from U.S. Sen. John McCain to three Arizona senators who voted for the bill's passage, to business leaders including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.




    Bigots will be bigots and cannnot accept any reasoned arguments...because bigotry is not reason...it's learned or it's fear based, or both...it's not religious in nature, it's anything but...NO RELIGION ON EARTH TEACHES HATRED OF ANYONE FOR ANY REASON....simply being gay will earn you some discouragement in many religions, and the "practices" of a gay lifestyle may run counter to some religious teachings, but the main and strongest tenets of every religion on earth teaches us NOT to discriminate and hate anyone for any reason...it's not a question of rationallity...hatred based discrimination is a soul sickiness of the worst kind....it allows the twisting of scripture for their own devices...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    What kind of a sick f*** actually wishes people were dead so gay marriage can be more easily implemented?

     

    That pretty much proves the point that the liberal hos are evil swine.



    Pretty much proves the point that Babe is the close-minded old windbag we always knew he was.  



    +1...unfortunately

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    What kind of a sick f*** actually wishes people were dead so gay marriage can be more easily implemented?

     

    That pretty much proves the point that the liberal hos are evil swine.



    Pretty much proves the point that Babe is the close-minded old windbag we always knew he was.  




    You think pointing out that persons wishing others would die soon to further their political agenda is being "closed-minded".

    That's pathetic. But I love your hypocrisy as you slam people based on their age while proclaiming you are a champion of non-discrimination. It's hilarious.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Is this thread fictional drama or what?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to garytx's comment:

    Is this thread fictional drama or what?




    Yeah...right on both counts...it's conservative politics...LMFAO!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Anyone who's ever traveled knows Scottsdale Az. is one of the nicest city's in the US.  Clean, great shopping and restaurants.  I don't Golf but I hear that pretty good also.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    So I asked two questions and neither have been answered by anyone except to rant about discrimination. Also about being able to discriminate against blacks or other crazy discrimating thoughts.

    the law is about one not trampling on the religious rights of another.

    just like Obamacare is making religious orders carry birth control for their workers. The gov't is trampling upon the religous rights of some groups and that is wrong.

    So two questions both yes or no

    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients? 



    does a baker who is Christian and believes that gay marriage is wrong be made to bake a cake for a gay couple?

    yes.

    does a Jewish kosher baker have to bake a cake for anyone if the cake required needs un kosher ingredients?

    no.



    Why different answers they are both based upon religious beliefs. So one religion's beliefs iare more important than another.?.??




    In the first case the individual is not being forced to participate in the event they find as an affront to their beliefs. So they should be compelled to simply sell their product to whomever wishes to buy it.

    In the second case the baker is being forced to change his product.

     



    Simple and SPOT ON



    But both are religous rights one being upheld and the other is not???

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

     


    Simple and SPOT ON



    But both are religous rights one being upheld and the other is not???



    Little complex for you?  

    It's pretty simple.  The kosher baker sells kosher cakes.  He can't and shouldn't be required to sell non-kosher cakes, hamburgers, dog food, or 14 inch pipe wrenches, for that matter.  But if someone walks into his bakery and wants to buy one of his kosher cakes, he shouldn't be able to say "no, I won't sell you one because you're gay."

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    What kind of a sick f*** actually wishes people were dead so gay marriage can be more easily implemented?

     

    That pretty much proves the point that the liberal hos are evil swine.



    Don't worry babe. It's the same rhetoric Oprah spouted from her mouth about old white people...that they all must die before racism will end. Makes sense to me.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Hey look, the "libertarians" who want to protect religious freedom also want to make no-fault divorce illegal. How's that protecting your freedoms for you?  You all for that Babe, too?

     

    From their website . . .

    Overview

    Since 1969, nearly every state, including Arizona, has enacted “no-fault” divorce laws, allowing either spouse to unilaterally make the decision to end the marriage for any reason or no reason. Between 1950 and 1965, the U.S. steadily averaged about 2.4 divorces per thousand people per year.[1] In 1970, during the “no-fault” divorce revolution, the divorce rate jumped to 3.5, and by 1979, the rate peaked at 5.3 per thousand people, over double the previous levels.[2] Since then, the average rate has declined slightly from 4.0 in 2000 and to 3.6 in 2011.[3]

    Over 20 years of sociological research on married couples, divorcees, and children has shown without a doubt that divorce has an overwhelmingly negative impact not only on the divorcing couple, but also on children of divorce, who bear scars into their adult lives. Rather than being a way to escape unhappy marriages, divorce has become a way to enforce life-long unhappiness. Even the so-called “good divorce” (in which all parties are presumed to be at least as well off emotionally after the divorce as they were during the marriage) does not deliver on its promise of solving all of the negative effects on children.[4]

    The negative impact of divorce on society as a whole cannot be underestimated. It financially cripples families, placing a strain on social services. Family fragmentation costs taxpayers at least $112 billion per year as a result of lost tax revenue and the cost of necessary federal, state, and local support programs.[5] In Arizona alone, this cost is estimated at $654 million per year.[6]

    Talking Points

    • No-fault divorce has wreaked immeasurable harm on our culture.No-fault divorce diminished the importance of a life-long commitment to a spouse, which in turn has lead to an increase in adult depression, children caught in poverty, and more.
    • Studies show that divorce isn’t the golden ticket to happiness for most couples. Adults who divorce are nearly twice as likely to develop symptoms of depression in comparison to those who avoid divorce and remain married. Divorced adults are over two times more likely to commit suicide than those who are married.
    • Children are the ones who lose in divorce. Children from divorced families are two to three times more likely to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies. Children of divorce generally perform poorly in academics, score lower on standardized tests, have lower educational aspirations, and are two to three times more likely to drop out of school.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    And oh look, the great protectors of our freedoms want to ban morning after pills too . . 

     

    Talking Points
    • “Morning-after pills” can cause an abortion. Although it cansometimes act to prevent conception, making it a true contraceptive, medical evidence indicates that it may also act to prevent implantation of the newly formed individual in the mother’s womb, causing the pregnancy to be aborted.
    • “Morning after pills” are not the same as RU-486, also known as the abortion pill. The main differences are that the “morning-after pill” can only be taken up to 72 hours after intercourse, is available over the counter, and doesn’t always act as an abortifacient.
    • Parents have an undeniable right to be involved in the health decisions of their minor daughters. The recent decision to remove all age and prescription restrictions for obtaining the morning-after pill flies in the face of parental rights and shows just how far proponents of “reproductive rights” are willing to go.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Oh look, they're against in vitro fertilization too.

     

    Talking Points
    • An embryo is a human life at its earliest stage and it deserves to be protected. Infertility treatment often leads to the creation of more embryos than the couple wants or chooses to have implanted. In most cases, these embryos are left frozen, discarded, or “donated” to research.
    • The IVF industry is largely unregulated, leading some to engage in unethical practices in the name of “building a family.” The troubling ethical practices of the industry must not be glossed over because a couple desperately wants a baby – ends do not justify the means.
    • Donor-conceived people should not be left in the dark about their origins. This can create serious emotional and physical complications for these individuals. For instance, donor-conceived people currently have no legal right to access the medical history of the biological family.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Don't like stem cell research much, either

     

    Talking Points
    • Human embryos are fully human and deserve protection under the law. Destroying one life to save another is never justifiable. A willingness to destroy a human life to preserve the health of another violates the most basic principles of civilized society: a good end cannot justify a bad means, and people are never to be used as a commodity for the benefit of another.
    • While embryonic stem cells have never successfully treated any human disease, adult stem cells have been used to treat at least 80.In fact, adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells, seem to be the most promising path for medical advances. Adult stem cell based therapy is now being used for treating lymphoma, lupus, Sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, stroke, anemia, cancer, repair of cardiac tissue after heart attacks, diabetes, and many other conditions. In contrast, there are no current therapies in use based on embryonic stem cells.
    Conclusion

    In addition to the pressing ethical and moral questions, embryonic stem cells are an unproven and ineffective form of research. However, adult stem cells are a successful, ethical means of treating and curing many diseases. Advances in the study of these cells are allowing researchers to follow the potential benefits of ESCs with cells induced to perform like an embryonic cell. Most importantly, we now know that it is possible to conduct research on ESCs without destroying life. Stem cell research holds great potential for humankind, but advances should never be made at the cost of destroying life.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    And please don't think you should be free to bet on football games . . .

     

    Talking Points
    • The costs of expanding gambling significantly outweigh the benefits. Social problems caused by gambling include increased bankruptcies, suicides, gambling addictions, divorces, child abuse, child neglect, domestic violence, and an overall increase in crime.
    • Gambling produces nothing, but it will take everything. The harms of gambling are serious. Gambling ruins marriages, destroys families, exploits children, fleeces the poor, bankrupts communities, raises crime, creates corruption, makes false promises, distorts reality, and deceives the public.
    • More casinos and gambling do not equal more state revenue. For every $1 of gambling revenue, the state must spend $3 on increased social services.[60]
     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share