Search results

and christian principles are based on jewish principles, who based their principles on the caananites, who based their principles on the natufians, who based their principles on the kebarans, who based their principles on the antelians, who based their principles on the aurignacians, who we can...

and now i'm stuck

is penny wright or wong?

badass

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, UNLESS: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is...

in before collectivised agriculture

no you wouldn't, irregardless of any regards given

comrade brown will be missed. he was a real soviet.

will the latinos protect zimmerman in prison? EL NORTE

what show is that? M*A*S*H?

i declare this thread officially over

these blokes

it had everything you could ask for. george pell managed to sympathise with the nazis, patronise the jews, and call gays a mistake.

proud to be a neanderthal

the marriage act was only defined in terms of an association between a man and a woman through amendment in 2004, which inserted into subsection 5(1) "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.". its meaning was not actually...

i think you'll find that solemnizing an unlawful marriage is a criminal offence (protip: it has to be, because marriage is not a civil affair). that's one of the many reasons we have common law marriages (i.e. when there is no civil marriage contract or registration), which gays are not excluded...

there is a distinction between illegality in terms of breaking the law (i.e. a crime against the state), and being prevented by law from making certain associations (i.e. marriage)

yes, but if the government (or rather, its agents) did enter into an arrangement with gays (i.e. married two gays), it would be contravening the law, i.e. illegal one can deduce that non-theft is legal, given that theft is illegal. clearly a semantic argument

it's a dam shame.

yes, it is enforced. breaches of most commercial/trading laws (e.g. liquor laws) work on a strike system (i.e. 1 strike, 2 strikes, 3 strikes etc), and you can bet that shopkeepers aren't going to be stupid enough to risk a strike just for trading for an extra day. similarly their license can be...