https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57343390-78/phone-police-473-baird.html.csp
Police: Don’t answer 473 numbers — it’s a sex line in Grenada
Police: Don’t answer 473 numbers — it’s a sex line in Grenada
The 473
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Damn obama
I don't know why you would think that defending the state's definition of marriage and going after phone companies would be an either/or proposition.
Because I haven't heard the DA office going after the scammers, and because I believe in the rights of people to marry their loved ones, regardless of race or gender (hence my remark)
I disagree completely. But this isn't really the thread for a gay marriage discussion.
families have been created and the AG is trying to dismantle them. There's really no room to debate that point.
See I can spin things, too: pseudo-families have been created against the will of the people, and the AG is trying to enforce Utah's laws.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
https://www.4utah.com/story/phone-scam-targets-utahns/d/story/RCuPeyvjpE624Qb7Wb-uww
My sister was on the news for this.
My sister was on the news for this.
I'm confused. From the original post: "Utah Department of Public Safety spokesman Dwayne Baird said residents are reporting that regardless if they call back, they’re getting a $19.95 charge immediately tacked on to their cell phone bill."
But from Archie's link: "When they call that number up later on, they're seeing charges that come through their account."
So, do you get charged just for receiving the call, or only if you call them back?
They may not be your idea of a family but they are families none the less. Sometimes laws are needed to protect some from the will of the many. Will of the many is not always right.
Archie, this is now a gay marriage thread. I know things move fast around here, typically in a gay direction, but try to keep up, okay.
Will of the many is not always wrong, either. And just because gay couples want to be called "married" does not make their relationship identical to a heterosexual marriage. In fact, the two are fundamentally different. And as Gameface might say, "there's really no room to debate that point".
[onebrow]
It is when it's discriminatory. In my opinion, as long as there is a tax filing status for "married", then everyone is entitled to be legally and lawfully married, otherwise, there is discrimination.
How so? Besides the obvious plumbing differences, what makes my marriage to my wife any different than two men or two women being married? Why should we be able to be recognized as married but they can't? I see no logical explanation for not allowing same sex marriage to be legal. You're a smart guy, maybe you can logically explain it to me.
[/onebrow]
It is when it's discriminatory. In my opinion, as long as there is a tax filing status for "married", then everyone is entitled to be legally and lawfully married, otherwise, there is discrimination.
How so? Besides the obvious plumbing differences, what makes my marriage to my wife any different than two men or two women being married? Why should we be able to be recognized as married but they can't? I see no logical explanation for not allowing same sex marriage to be legal. You're a smart guy, maybe you can logically explain it to me.
[/onebrow]
I'm with YB85/OneBrow. The issue is the benefits granted to married couples. One needn't do any of the socially beneficial things within a married relationship to get those benefits, they get those things by elevating their relationship from informal status to legally recognized status. It's a legal joining of assets between romantically involved individuals. Then you get tax benefits, hospital visitation benefits, inheritance benefits, criminal court testimony benefits, and on and on and on. Those benefits are just as valid for homosexual couples. To give them as a perk for having a moral relationship as opposed to a sinful relationship is no business of the state. It's a violation of the constitutional equal protection under the law amendment. The voters and legislators of Utah cannot violate the 14th amendment and the court is acting in it's intended role in protecting the people from unconstitutional laws that violate the rights of individuals.
OK, a couple of more words on gay marriage and then I'll call it quits for that topic in this thread.
First, gay people already entitled to be legally and lawfully married. Just not to someone of the same sex. I know you don't see that the way I do, but to me it is in no shape or form a discrimination/civil rights issue. There are plenty of gay people who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. (Sometimes such marriages are successful and sometimes not, of course.)
The point is that gay people feel that they have the right to be married to whomever they want, even someone of the same sex. My reply to that is that there has NEVER been a right to be married to whomever you want. I cannot marry my sister or mother, for example (even if one or both of us is sterilized so we cannot have kids with birth defects). I cannot marry a second wife, as another example. Maybe you feel that I should be able to do both of those things, but most gay marriage supporters do not.
So if you can't marry just anyone, who should you be able to marry? To me this gets back to the point of marriage in the first place, which is to have a family and provide a secure atmosphere in which to raise the family. That leads to the next point...
"Plumbing differences" are exactly what allows a heterosexual couple to produce a family and prevents a homosexual couple from having one. A heterosexual marriage has the natural expectation that it may produce offspring. Not all do, certainly, but NO homosexual relationship can. And no, I don't buy the argument that my view implies heterosexual couples who can't have kids shouldn't be able to get married. And no, I'm don't think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children any more than two non-homosexual friends should be allowed to. But I don't especially want to go into either of those views any further right now.
The bottom line is that (as I said previously) there are fundamental differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They are not the same. They shouldn't be called the same. Society has a fundamental need to foster strong families, which I assume is why government got into the marriage business in the first place. But I don't see a reason for society to do anything more for homosexual relationships than to provide a mechanism for a non-marital civil union (which in my view any two people should be able to enter into--such as me and my sister, if we wanted).
And all of that is just as "obvious" to me (and apparently something like 2/3 of the state) as the need for "civil rights" is to you (and the judge who allowed gay marriage). We'll see what the Supreme Court thinks.
I'll just say one thing and be done with it. Gay people don't think they get to marry whomever they want, they think they can marry their romantic partner who also wants to marry them. That's not a small hurdle and it's exactly what leads to most heterosexual marriages. People getting married to the person they love and are willing to make a life long commitment to.