Tuesday, October 27, 2009

New "Ice Age" DVD Features Cool Special Features - thong for men - Movies

New "Ice Age" DVD Features Cool Special Features











Автор: bg1 на 10:26 AM

23 comments:

  1. bg1October 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM

    LsSuccessor, He did not say that Islam called for plural marriage, he said if a Muslim wanted to marry more than one woman it would be considered illegal, which is totally wrong.
    I think if a man wanted to marry more than one woman, ok.
    But I also think if a woman wanted to marry more than one man, hell that would be fantastic!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. bg1October 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM

    Well said, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. bg1October 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM

    A friend of mine once described marriage as, "old world, trading property for flesh." I get that.
    I think marriage does not need to be anything but a promise in front of friends and loved ones, that I love that person and swear to take care of them. To hell with the legalities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. bg1October 27, 2009 at 11:32 AM

    exactly..it actually doesnt even really allow it. it says IF you cant treat them all equally. then it says that is impossible, so only marry 1.

    ReplyDelete
  5. bg1October 27, 2009 at 11:59 AM

    No, it's not REQUIRED, it's just allowed in Islam, but you have to follow certain conditions for it, if you can't then you're not allowed to have more than one wife. The main condition is that if you can handle caring for more than one wife with food clothes and other needs and at the same time have kids to fend for.

    ReplyDelete
  6. bg1October 27, 2009 at 12:39 PM

    u remind me of metal gear idk why xD

    ReplyDelete
  7. bg1October 27, 2009 at 1:15 PM

    I wouldn't want something done to the LGB community that wouldn't be right in the first place, not because of their sexual preference, because of how flawed and unconstitutional the marriages are in the first place. Thats my point, I wouln't want something for my brothers and sisters that I wouldn't dare have for myself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. bg1October 27, 2009 at 1:28 PM

    Equal rights. The same rights as everyone else. Marriage is not a liberty soley appreciated by the religious. Equal rights as any other blasphemer.

    An admittance that the LGB community is not less or more than that of their fellow human beings. Bottom line.

    If you don't believe that a Lesbian Gay or Bisexual person should get married. Then don't get married with a same-sex partner ;)

    In other words, don't assert your own principles onto others.

    ReplyDelete
  9. bg1October 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM

    The problem with allowing "marriage" is it shouldn't have been legal in the first place. I know well it would be easier to find a temporary fix by patching it up with something I don't agree with but it's the right thing to do, thats why I can't support the marriage in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  10. bg1October 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM

    It does if someone wants it though, my point was that if Islam allows for it, then by the U.S. Constitution, we have no right to ban multiple partners in a marriage because we are not allowed to tell what a religion cannot believe in technically. I'm against the Federal Law, probably written by Christians, that say you are not allowed to have mulitple partners in marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. bg1October 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM

    Agreed. I believe freedom of religion includes freedom FROM it too. I'm a proponent of same-sex marriage because practically and politically, it's much easier at this point to pose legalization of same-sex marriage than it is to pose taking "traditional" marriage out of legislation ('god forbid', right?). Thank you for having this open discussion, I may do a video response because you bring up very good issues that I feel really get at the heart of this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. bg1October 27, 2009 at 3:34 PM

    Of course, since my claim is that the First Amendement explicitly forbids the church and state to be separate, get rid of marriages in the legal system and replace "marriage" with "civil unions". People of no faith or faith alike can get a civil union and anyone can freely unite. They should also get rid of the federal law that says only two people can marry, that is another thing that I think the First Amendment is breaking.

    ReplyDelete
  13. bg1October 27, 2009 at 3:54 PM

    Would you say then that people who are not religious should also have civil union? I've heard the position that atheists and interfaith couples should not have marriage rights either, since, as you said, it's a religious institution. I think I'd agree with what you're saying if there was a way to make civil union the "legal" option of marriage regardless of sexual orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. bg1October 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM

    Totally, totally.

    ReplyDelete
  15. bg1October 27, 2009 at 5:00 PM

    My whole argument is not to get rid marriage completely, just keep it in the religious institutions where they belong. Civil unions and the rights to be together should transfer as the same rights to be married currently, thats my basic argument, not "I hate gays" or "gays can't marry" like many people think when they see the title. I am in the process of making a pro-gay video actually, stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  16. bg1October 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM

    It's like I'm being treated as a second class citizen; like I'm being treated as someone of less importance. I understand marriage came from a religious point, but it's no longer necessary. Atheists can get married, so we'd have to ban their marriages as well. Iunno, am I making any sense? I hope you can at least understand my position. [:

    ReplyDelete
  17. bg1October 27, 2009 at 5:40 PM

    Also, to expand on why I'm not against gay marriage: Like I said, just because I have my personal reasons & beliefs, I cannot expect others to endorse them. If people want to marry each other I say let them, honestly, it's not directly harming my life at all. It's really for a civil issue as well; it'll help further gay acceptance, and equality. Also, like I said with civil unions, they do NOT offer the same benefits & rights as marriage. Lastly, it's demeaning.

    ReplyDelete
  18. bg1October 27, 2009 at 5:55 PM

    Wow, for a second I was gonna leave a nasty comment, because as a gay male I'm very sensitive to this issue; but I feel the same way. I am against marriage as well. However, I believe that people who WANT to get married should have the right to get married, therefore I cannot be against gay marriage, because I am for civil rights. And what you said about the civil union; the reason is because it doesn't offer the same rights as marriage. The only state that has the same exact rights is WA.

    ReplyDelete
  19. bg1October 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM

    I do my best, my goal in the videos is to bring rational arguments to the real world. Not something ideological or spiritual non-sense arguments but things that can really change the course of how people can become rational and sensible. I'm constantly making arguments against for dumb things that go on in an imperfect world, anti-racism and anti-sexism being key in destroying stupid arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. bg1October 27, 2009 at 6:54 PM

    You have very interesting points. I'll echo a previous commenter that I disagree with some of what you say, but I give you great concession for defending your points and having an argument. Thank you for being intelligent!

    ReplyDelete
  21. bg1October 27, 2009 at 7:29 PM

    I know, I am saying for instance in a civil union or even gay marriage the 2 individuals are not recognized by the fed govt as married. They must file separate fed taxes. Its only ever in court cases that they are recognized. For instance in a court case in NY they once recognized a civil union in VT.

    ReplyDelete
  22. bg1October 27, 2009 at 7:33 PM

    The only time the federal government recognizes a marriage is when more than two people are married together, it's upon every state on weather they recognize the marriage or not. If you get married in Vagas does not mean the marriage is valid in say Texas. Even when the "federal governemnt" recognizes a marriage, it's on the trust that the state is correct. For example, if you got married to a foreign national in a foreign country, the embassy will contact the state to meet their requirements.

    ReplyDelete
  23. bg1October 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM

    i'd agree in changing what is now 'legal' marriage to be a civil union. Civil unions do not provide many benefits not like marriage, and its only the state that recognizes them. Here in NH the amendment states it is only a legal union and religious groups are not obligated to perform/support gay unions. Which.. who cares. Also you need to understand religion is the only argument to deny all people equal rights. There no legal reason for gays not to marry, or unite.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)