Skip to comments.
Town won't let unmarried parents live together
CNN ^
| 5/17/2006
| AP
Posted on 05/17/2006 9:11:44 AM PDT by bigLusr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-185 next last
The sad part of this story is actually
here. This story appeared in the 360 blog on Apr 25.
By far most of the comments on the blog follow along the lines of "Marriage is just a piece of paper!"
When exactly did that happen in our society? And do you guys think the three brides I saw this weekend know that their entire celebration is just for "a piece of paper"?
1
posted on
05/17/2006 9:11:45 AM PDT
by
bigLusr
To: bigLusr
occupancy permit???????
WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?........
2
posted on
05/17/2006 9:14:18 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(Liberals reward sloth and revere incompetence...........)
To: Red Badger
3
posted on
05/17/2006 9:15:37 AM PDT
by
Horatio Gates
(Remember the Alamo!)
To: bigLusr
It sure sounds like they were trying to move into government housing.
And no I did not read the source.
4
posted on
05/17/2006 9:15:49 AM PDT
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
To: Tax-chick
5
posted on
05/17/2006 9:16:05 AM PDT
by
Xenalyte
(Pudding won't fill the emptiness inside me . . . but it'll help.)
To: bigLusr
ACLU to the rescue. I figure if the SC says it's constitutional for two men to have sex at home then it must be unconstitutional to deny people the "right" to live together without benefit of clery.
6
posted on
05/17/2006 9:16:13 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: bigLusr
The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption."Wow, that may be fine in rural areas but in urban areas where rents are high people live together out of financial necessity.
7
posted on
05/17/2006 9:17:04 AM PDT
by
rhombus
To: rhombus
Brothers in Christ should suffice.
To: bigLusr
9
posted on
05/17/2006 9:19:33 AM PDT
by
SIDENET
(Gonna shake it, gonna break it, let's forget it better still)
To: bigLusr
Unmarried parents living with their children: somewhat objectionable
Unmarried parents needing permission from the government to live with their children: Rediculous Buracracy.
10
posted on
05/17/2006 9:19:51 AM PDT
by
rwilson99
(Too soon... to forget. See United 93)
To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
It sure sounds like they were trying to move into government housing.The article doesn't say specifically, but implies they were moving into a privately owned residence (a five bedroom house).
To: bigLusr
The commenters on that page are all a bunch of reactionary morons who apparently can't even get the facts of the story straight for their little rants...and I'm sure they would applaud if the house next-door to them were cleared out because it was filled with a dozen fratboys, illegal aliens, or transients. That said, having had a lot of experience IN Black Jack, I'm surprised it's not a much nicer place to live.
12
posted on
05/17/2006 9:21:08 AM PDT
by
atomicpossum
(Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
To: bigLusr
Umm, so let's see what wins out here.
You'll have the conservative base whining about the state of America/Society for unmarried couples living together while in different thread would lament the government butting into our lives.
So which is it folks?
13
posted on
05/17/2006 9:23:15 AM PDT
by
sandbar
To: rwilson99
>>>Unmarried parents living with their children: somewhat objectionable
Unmarried parents needing permission from the government to live with their children: Rediculous Buracracy.>>>
Glad to see some common sense on this thread, I was doubtful!
14
posted on
05/17/2006 9:23:56 AM PDT
by
sandbar
To: bigLusr
"And do you guys think the three brides I saw this weekend know that their entire celebration is just for "a piece of paper"?"
It's also for the china and crystal and silver and sheets and towels and ice buckets and serving trays and candlesticks and knife sets and AllClad pots and pans and table linens and espresso machines and convection ovens and stuff like that.
Any of the three brides could have told you that!
To: bigLusr
"blood, marriage or adoption."
The way I read it; the mother is related to the children by blood, the father is related to the children by blood, the children are related to each other and the parents by blood. So what is the issue?
To: linda_22003
And the ice cream maker.
Never overlook the ice cream maker.
17
posted on
05/17/2006 9:27:09 AM PDT
by
Gefreiter
("Are you drinking 1% because you think you're fat?")
To: Integrityrocks
The mother and father aren't related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
18
posted on
05/17/2006 9:27:50 AM PDT
by
bigLusr
(Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur)
To: Xenalyte
I remember good old Fondrey! Too bad they haven't managed to resolve the situation.
19
posted on
05/17/2006 9:28:12 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Knights of Columbus martyrs of Mexico, pray for us! Vivo Cristo Rey!)
To: bigLusr
"And do you guys think the three brides I saw this weekend know that their entire celebration is just for "a piece of paper"?"It's not even worth the paper it's written on. As soon as either party changes their mind, the other party is SOL. If you complain, you'll be subject to the states wrath.
20
posted on
05/17/2006 9:29:16 AM PDT
by
spunkets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-185 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson