Not sure how you can hold both positions...if the marriage isn't quality, neither is your outcome in life.
Religious marriages where divorce is not an option can be a disastrous outcome....for life, and that isn't an aberration, it may actually be a majority of them.

When you're talking about something that clearly skews the stats, like hyper religious people thinking divorce is totally a slap at God, that's not confirmation bias, it's statistics.

Do you feel the same about those who imprison women, force their silence with abuse, and treat them like abused pets because their religion says that's proper? What if they're Christians?

What say you about those God has chosen to be non believers? According to you, God created them with no purpose besides eternal torture in hell, because according to you they have no alternative since God never revealed himself to them so heaven is barred to them. Pretty fucked up God imo. I prefer Mt (Mot, Mewt, etc). He's older than Yahweh and far more honest and stable.

No, it's not really a no brainer. The few studies done, when other known factors are considered, showed that virgin marriages had <2% difference in satisfaction, probably within the margin of error....divorce rates are obviously skewed because most virgin couples are extremely religious, which accounts for lower divorce rates...it doesn't mean they have happy or successful marriages.
STDs and unwanted pregnancy are easily avoided with responsible safe sex...granted, most teens aren't very responsible.

Your reasoning is flawed...if Christians raise Christians, (and I assume you think the same goes for other religions) where do atheists come from? Also, you do know that children given abstinence only sex ed, usually Christians, have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs, don't you? Very few follow church instructions once outside of church, that's why less than 5% of marriages are by virgins.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sports has never been divorced from politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute

Not back far enough? How about this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Owens#1936_Berlin_Summer_Olympics

What's that you say still not far enough back?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games#Politics

My answer...twice broken back. I was afraid I couldn't take the bouncing, so I didn't do it when I was there last year. I SOOOO wanted to, though. If it had been at the end of the trip and not the middle, I probably would have chanced it, but a week of my wife dragging me around Iceland totally broken because I just had to play would have probably gotten me divorced.
Also, $500 for 10 minute is hard to swallow.

I'm Canadian so maybe that's only a problem here from my country. We have complaints and confrontations against churches for not hiring or rejecting a hire based on sexual practices, or even in one case for being an atheist. We also have a 'women's only' nude spa facing human rights complaints for keeping out people with penises because they are women too.

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/will-atheist-rev-gretta-vosper-obtain-no-fault-divorce-from-church

A 5 second google at least has some American tracking of demanding sexual practices be untouchable when religions or other clubs add new members or hires:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lgbt-employment-discrimination-churches_n_6082846

It is happening, and more importantly, whether the laws are all there already or not, the fact a complaint likely would travel to the supreme court at least is certainly a pretty legitimate concern about where that line is being drawn.

And hey, maybe the Dems don't want to try and find common ground with that particular demographic. The fact is though that there are plenty of anti-nazi people in that demographic and many others that the Democrats have currently cast as 'enemy' thinkers. The Dems need to pick some things they are willing to compromise on that will help them reach out to voters that didn't show up for Hillary.

First-off, I completely agree, but mostly because of your first point about assault and the generalisation that it's currently something that would freak a lot of people out.

I think it will be great when society comes to a point where it's acceptable that someone might have transitioned. At (or approaching) that time I think it's something that a partner should generally know. Having said that, I certainly don't think it should be an obligation.

My present-day analogy is divorce... it's now acceptable to most people to be involved with someone who's divorced, but it's not something that's always discussed as a relationship blooms. However, it is an important part of a person's past that says something about them, and if it comes out far later in the relationship that says something too.

The mirror of this is that someone's reaction to the revelation of divorce/transition says something about them, and their acceptance of your past.

BTW, I'm saying this as someone who's divorced. Y'know, just in case it matters to you. In the long term. If we have a 'long term'. Damn, I'm ruining the moment, amn't I.

Here's a quick Google of the remainder of your quote. Somehow it's very hard to read 'kill the non believers' into it in context:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Murder

21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sisterb c will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’d is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery

27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’e 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Divorce

31“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’f 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Oaths

33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.g

Eye for Eye

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

The right is not radical. It is the left that is intolerable.

Global warming debate is not settled.
Gay marriage is a sin,
so is divorce, adultery and a lot of other stuff.

An you call me a homophobe ? really. SIN IS SIN
Each will be judged.

You argument is silly.. If I speak up about being gay I am repressing others.. When Gays demand I am to be silent I am begin repressed. The only difference is that I stand in the right.

The right does not want to screw the poor. We want all to succeed. But the poor stay poor by government policies, mostly created by the Democrats. Poor people are enslaved by these policies, that what what pisses off Republicans.


You would be wise not to cast GOD into the failings of man.. After all that is why he sent his SON.

*ban

Divorce Lawyer Newport Beach
Prenuptial Agreement

So let me get this straight, bobknight, for me to carry out this "call to action" I would need to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and then divorce my wife who isn't of European descent, remarry a white Christian woman and then have 9 children?

You truly live in very small and superficial world filled with fear and hopelessness, don't you?

*light bulb*

You're like the brain bug at the end of Starship Troopers!

"It's afraid... IT'S AFRAID!"

*cheers*

You better be afraid.

This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

The statements are trivially disprovable. I know several peaceful muslims. There, done. Your statement is false.

You couldn't find a better example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy if you tried.


"Followers of violent ideologies are not peaceful".

Here's a thought exercise for you, since you seem to pride yourself on not being afraid to think.

Humans are not perfectly rational or consistent. They are, in fact, capable of holding two opposing positions at once. This is called cognitive dissonance (you're a good example of this yourself, in that you are engaging in a logical fallacy while upholding the virtue of rationality).

Saying "there are no peaceful muslims" is like saying there are no divorced Catholics, when such things self-evidently exist.

So, to sum up:
You are not right - your "factual statement" is incorrect.
You are not just - you are making a sweeping generalisation about 1 billion people.
You are not rational - you are engaged in a logical fallacy.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Clarify. You have a problem with them having the right, or just a problem with they exorcising that right? Please explain the difference...as a right only exists if exorcised.
EDIT: You say you answered my question 'should they have the right to fire him', but I looked and can't find that answer. You answered 'they DO have the right', but never answered if you think they SHOULD have the right...which it seems you think they should not, because you have a 'problem' with them using that right....right?

For it to not be 'fair' for him to lose his job, you must assume he has a right to his job...he does not. It is absolutely fair to fire someone for any reason you see fit if you own or run the company...as happened here. What's the issue?

His family has not publicly shown a penchant towards racism or other intolerably intolerant behavior that I know of, they can probably find their own jobs.

Yes, it's OK, and normal, for future employers to investigate potential applicants and disqualify them if they show insanely poor judgement publicly like this guy did. You think that's not OK?

Should his wife divorce him...she probably agrees with him, but if not, perhaps she should. Being married to a racist, antagonistic idiot sounds terrible if you aren't one yourself.
Should his kids shun him, no, should they teach him at every opportunity how backwards his thinking is until he changes? Yes.
Should he die hungry and alone in an alley, no, no one should, but it happens none the less.

Laugh away and fictionalize if you wish, but the terms clearly apply.

I'm not hiring bad cops. If I were, I could put the resources in to investigate applicants for them. With 5 VS pages of 'bad cop', and 6 pages of 'police abuse' alone, it's quite a job, one I don't intend to take up to satisfy you, but I'm satisfied any competent HR person could find out just about anything they've done that might matter. If I felt like spending an hour doing it, I could find 99% of them on VS....I don't.
Often applicants are required to list their accounts (facebook, twitter, etc) so they can be looked at easily. And there are sites that record those sites so even erased posts can be investigated.
So yes, it's eternal, now isn't it? I won't remember this guy in less than a week, as there's no reason to, fortunately or unfortunately, employers have resources and reasons I don't.

I never said it was 'justice' that he would lose his job and be mostly unemployable forever, I said it was IRONIC, since he was lambasting people on the video for being 'lazy' and 'taking his tax dollars', which is what he'll be doing now. I agree, it's a little much that he's mostly unemployable for life now, but as I said, he just needs to find an employer that's willing to be labeled, at best, a racist sympathizer if not racist themselves...he should try Trump.