Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It is a civil contract. Two athiests married by a justice of the peace are just as married as two Catholics (for example) married by a priest.
“If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” – Charles Spurgeon
^ So you’re saying we should take all of the money from rich people? You know, to keep them from being damned?
“Many in the military do no more service than “peel potatoes,” but they still receive benefits because they belong to the institution of the military.”
This contradicts: “The fact that a miniscule number of gays raise children doesn’t matter. ”
“Many people outside the institution of the military contribute to their work, yet receive no veterans benefits.”
You’ve never seen the benefits of being a military contractor, then, have you? I can tell you (as I am one), there’re plenty.
“The state protects and rewards this institution because it is in their interest to do so.”
The end. Cue the 14th Amendment. The 1st Amendment also says that even if your particular religion doesn’t allow it, it can’t suppress another religion that does. For the same reason that churches don’t pay taxes even though they are given government property.
^ Or guys who need Viagra, or women who are sterile and need a surrogate, or men and women who are too old, or where the difference in the age of the parents is too great. Or where the couple decides not to have kids.
Yep, reduces the numbers doesn’t it.
—
Some findings today:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/27/science/sci-brothers27
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long
I’m curious as to why these articles focus solely on what makes for gay men, but then again it seems to be a societal thing. Note that most “ex-gay” (and I use the term loosely) “curing” (again, loosely, choices are reversible and none of these so-called groups have ever been able to produce a single “cured” person though they claim to have cured “thousands”) techniques only “work” on men [e.g. “naked hugs”, ya, seriously, how “ex-gay” is that?]. Same with theories of what makes someone “choose” to be gay. Very male-centric. It’s like an obsession. The common theme for lesbians is “well, they must hate men.” Too obsessed with men, our society is. I mean, as cute as some are, get over it.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage should be permitted. Totally separate observation, but apparently no group of married couples has a higher divorce rate than lesbians.
That brings up the question as to why they decide to get married in the first place. I am afraid it might be societal pressure, new found freedom, or to challenge American society. After marching and fighting together for years the sudden opportunity may overwhelm a natural reticence. Then, too late, you find out living with one person the rest of your life is not what you really wanted.
Who cares it’s the freedom and pursuit of happiness is what matters if they want to be married let them homosexuals date back thousands of years so if they want to tie the knot let them, once again who cares. How about we restrict Christians from from preaching to us on a freakin’ cartoon page how would fell about that?
Bottom line is what Libertarian said…no one is denying gay people the right to live together nowadays, so why push for something called “marriage”?
At its root, the push for gay marriage is a push to throw their non-traditional lifestyle in the face of everyone and force some kind of acceptance, which is a step beyond “tolerance”, the rallying cry of the 1980’s.
“That brings up the question as to why they decide to get married in the first place. I am afraid it might be societal pressure, new found freedom, or to challenge American society.”
Or it could be novel little things like “protecting their children.”
Marriage provides plenty of benefits for custody and child care, health insurance, employee leave for spouses to care for their sick, the ability TO adopt children, oftentimes. I mean, if we’re talking about stereotypes here, you have a relationship type where motherly instinct is doubled.
Obviously citing divorce rates as a reason to deny marriage wouldn’t be a good idea…
http://blogs.chron.com/believeitornot/2010/06/the_gores_split_and_divorce_ra_1.html
But as for your “fact” that there’s a higher divorce rate among lesbians, I could find no such information and would like to see you cite your source. I’m curious, especially considering the sample is pretty bleeep small (since so few states actually allow same-sex marriages). I mean, at least with the statistic that divorce rates are higher in states with same-sex marriage bans there’s a larger sample size for that.
^Where is your better example? Some autocracy must be maintained or you have anarchy. I think it is very telling that today’s permissive Amrican Society is a direct descendant of the tolerant Christian sects that formed this nation originally. And don’t cite individual excesses to me - I’m talking about in general and speaking to the mindset that led up to the non-establishment clause.
In the end you secular-postmodern- humanists are bereft - you need a clue fast.
Did I miss something? I thought that there was a judicial decision that the ban was unconstitutional – that’s a judgment that would allow same-sex marriage – and then a temporary order that will keep things as they are until an appeal is considered. Unless I’ve missed something, this cartoon seems to show just part of the process in a rather misleading way.
^ The guy grabbing onto her train is basically symbolizing the efforts of the opposition to drag out decisions as long as possible. The current “stay” is potentially months… maybe more than a year.
^ I got all that – it’s just that the cartoon just shows one judge, pulling one of the brides back. Unless that’s a judge up front, but it looks more like a minister. But it’s wrong to imply simply that the judiciary is holding these marriages back, without also noting that another judge said they were okay.
Frogette Acadie, there weren’t but maybe one or two people put to death for witchcraft. It’s another overblown historical fact. What’s his face (eugene O’neil? no it was…the tropic of capricorn guy) made a play about and it becomes secular-humanist significant history. More bunk that trashes the religious.
^ Isn’t it wonderful to live in a country where you wouldn’t ever be required to marry them. They can always go somewhere else where someone will. Y’know, because no one is forcing any who are religiously opposed from performing those marriages. Just like how you’re not forced to marry a white person and a black person if you don’t think you should have to (extremist interpretation of the Curse of Ham) or marry … say… an 80 year old man to a 20 year old woman. Or marry two people who mention they never plan to have kids. You’re not required to.
“To force your beliefs about sinning on another isn’t a 1st amendment right, it’s called harrassment.”
Great news, forcing your beliefs about sinning on another isn’t a 1st Amendment right, either!
You don’t have to like it one bit! But just like a person can make millions and billions of dollars, which is against the teachings of the Bible, you don’t have a right to demand, using the law, they not make millions of dollars even if the Bible says it’s practically impossible to get into Heaven when you do so! You can hate it and preach against them making all of that money all you want to, though!
“Those 2 females cannot become 1, they can’t have children. Nature doesn’t even support homosexuality.”
Great news, nature doesn’t support couples who need Viagra, surrogate mothers, or OctoMom!
Also, great news! Nature may not “support” homosexuality, but it certainly creates them. I’d go into that, but that’s liberal “Science”y Satanic worshiping stuff… like computers.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
Pretty much.
But meh, Interracial Marriage suffered hick-ups, too.
rottenprat over 13 years ago
It’s been on-again off-again for too long. Just like with the abortion debate, Same-Sex Marriage will win in the end.
kjhudlow Premium Member over 13 years ago
Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It is a civil contract. Two athiests married by a justice of the peace are just as married as two Catholics (for example) married by a priest.
pirate227 over 13 years ago
^^ Do religions perform divorces? No, not annulments, divorces. Oh no, that’s the legal system that does that.
MasterofSergeants over 13 years ago
“If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” – Charles Spurgeon
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ So you’re saying we should take all of the money from rich people? You know, to keep them from being damned?
“Many in the military do no more service than “peel potatoes,” but they still receive benefits because they belong to the institution of the military.”
This contradicts: “The fact that a miniscule number of gays raise children doesn’t matter. ”“Many people outside the institution of the military contribute to their work, yet receive no veterans benefits.”
You’ve never seen the benefits of being a military contractor, then, have you? I can tell you (as I am one), there’re plenty.“The state protects and rewards this institution because it is in their interest to do so.”
The end. Cue the 14th Amendment. The 1st Amendment also says that even if your particular religion doesn’t allow it, it can’t suppress another religion that does. For the same reason that churches don’t pay taxes even though they are given government property.edrush over 13 years ago
So, if marriage is solely for popping out babies, does that mean that a guy with a vasectomy should be banned from getting married (to either sex)?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ Or guys who need Viagra, or women who are sterile and need a surrogate, or men and women who are too old, or where the difference in the age of the parents is too great. Or where the couple decides not to have kids.
Yep, reduces the numbers doesn’t it. — Some findings today: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/27/science/sci-brothers27
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long
I’m curious as to why these articles focus solely on what makes for gay men, but then again it seems to be a societal thing. Note that most “ex-gay” (and I use the term loosely) “curing” (again, loosely, choices are reversible and none of these so-called groups have ever been able to produce a single “cured” person though they claim to have cured “thousands”) techniques only “work” on men [e.g. “naked hugs”, ya, seriously, how “ex-gay” is that?]. Same with theories of what makes someone “choose” to be gay. Very male-centric. It’s like an obsession. The common theme for lesbians is “well, they must hate men.” Too obsessed with men, our society is. I mean, as cute as some are, get over it.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage should be permitted. Totally separate observation, but apparently no group of married couples has a higher divorce rate than lesbians.
That brings up the question as to why they decide to get married in the first place. I am afraid it might be societal pressure, new found freedom, or to challenge American society. After marching and fighting together for years the sudden opportunity may overwhelm a natural reticence. Then, too late, you find out living with one person the rest of your life is not what you really wanted.
Riley_SHeehan over 13 years ago
Who cares it’s the freedom and pursuit of happiness is what matters if they want to be married let them homosexuals date back thousands of years so if they want to tie the knot let them, once again who cares. How about we restrict Christians from from preaching to us on a freakin’ cartoon page how would fell about that?
HabaneroBuck over 13 years ago
Bottom line is what Libertarian said…no one is denying gay people the right to live together nowadays, so why push for something called “marriage”?
At its root, the push for gay marriage is a push to throw their non-traditional lifestyle in the face of everyone and force some kind of acceptance, which is a step beyond “tolerance”, the rallying cry of the 1980’s.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“That brings up the question as to why they decide to get married in the first place. I am afraid it might be societal pressure, new found freedom, or to challenge American society.”
Or it could be novel little things like “protecting their children.” Marriage provides plenty of benefits for custody and child care, health insurance, employee leave for spouses to care for their sick, the ability TO adopt children, oftentimes. I mean, if we’re talking about stereotypes here, you have a relationship type where motherly instinct is doubled.http://www.loveandpride.com/informationcenter/tips.aspx?categoryid=8
Obviously citing divorce rates as a reason to deny marriage wouldn’t be a good idea… http://blogs.chron.com/believeitornot/2010/06/the_gores_split_and_divorce_ra_1.html
But as for your “fact” that there’s a higher divorce rate among lesbians, I could find no such information and would like to see you cite your source. I’m curious, especially considering the sample is pretty bleeep small (since so few states actually allow same-sex marriages). I mean, at least with the statistic that divorce rates are higher in states with same-sex marriage bans there’s a larger sample size for that.Dtroutma over 13 years ago
As those “escaping” Pilgrims dictated- it’s OUR way or the stocks, dunking chair, hanging, or burning at the stake- yep, real believers in “freedom”.
fallacyside over 13 years ago
^Where is your better example? Some autocracy must be maintained or you have anarchy. I think it is very telling that today’s permissive Amrican Society is a direct descendant of the tolerant Christian sects that formed this nation originally. And don’t cite individual excesses to me - I’m talking about in general and speaking to the mindset that led up to the non-establishment clause.
In the end you secular-postmodern- humanists are bereft - you need a clue fast.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Tolerant christian sects”? The ones who burned the witches???
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Bottom line is what Libertarian said…no one is denying gay people the right to live together nowadays, so why push for something called “marriage”?”
Well… we could try to make it so that same-sex civil unions get the same benefits as married couples… what could go wrong there?Hawaii Governor Vetoes Bill that would have given same-sex couples the same rights as married couples
Ah.. that.
lonecat over 13 years ago
Did I miss something? I thought that there was a judicial decision that the ban was unconstitutional – that’s a judgment that would allow same-sex marriage – and then a temporary order that will keep things as they are until an appeal is considered. Unless I’ve missed something, this cartoon seems to show just part of the process in a rather misleading way.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ The guy grabbing onto her train is basically symbolizing the efforts of the opposition to drag out decisions as long as possible. The current “stay” is potentially months… maybe more than a year.
lonecat over 13 years ago
^ I got all that – it’s just that the cartoon just shows one judge, pulling one of the brides back. Unless that’s a judge up front, but it looks more like a minister. But it’s wrong to imply simply that the judiciary is holding these marriages back, without also noting that another judge said they were okay.
fallacyside over 13 years ago
Frogette Acadie, there weren’t but maybe one or two people put to death for witchcraft. It’s another overblown historical fact. What’s his face (eugene O’neil? no it was…the tropic of capricorn guy) made a play about and it becomes secular-humanist significant history. More bunk that trashes the religious.
comYics over 13 years ago
I wouldnt marry them. It is obviously against the bible. Let the corrupted in that state marry them.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ Isn’t it wonderful to live in a country where you wouldn’t ever be required to marry them. They can always go somewhere else where someone will. Y’know, because no one is forcing any who are religiously opposed from performing those marriages. Just like how you’re not forced to marry a white person and a black person if you don’t think you should have to (extremist interpretation of the Curse of Ham) or marry … say… an 80 year old man to a 20 year old woman. Or marry two people who mention they never plan to have kids. You’re not required to.
Ah, the 1st Amendment.
comYics over 13 years ago
Stop pleading your cause to commit sin to me, Im not interested.
To force your beliefs about sinning on another isn’t a 1st amendment right, it’s called harrassment.
Speaking of God and Remembering that He doesnt tolerate sin and warning of the consequences is a blessing. “Spare the rod, spoil the child”.
Those 2 females cannot become 1, they can’t have children. Nature doesn’t even support homosexuality.
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
“comYicsGenius_badge said, about 2 hours ago
Stop pleading your cause to commit sin to me, Im not interested.”
You’re not? What on earth is the matter with you?
lonecat over 13 years ago
That’s Arthur Miller who wrote the Crucible, not Henry Miller.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“To force your beliefs about sinning on another isn’t a 1st amendment right, it’s called harrassment.”
Great news, forcing your beliefs about sinning on another isn’t a 1st Amendment right, either! You don’t have to like it one bit! But just like a person can make millions and billions of dollars, which is against the teachings of the Bible, you don’t have a right to demand, using the law, they not make millions of dollars even if the Bible says it’s practically impossible to get into Heaven when you do so! You can hate it and preach against them making all of that money all you want to, though!“Those 2 females cannot become 1, they can’t have children. Nature doesn’t even support homosexuality.”
Great news, nature doesn’t support couples who need Viagra, surrogate mothers, or OctoMom! Also, great news! Nature may not “support” homosexuality, but it certainly creates them. I’d go into that, but that’s liberal “Science”y Satanic worshiping stuff… like computers.