Matt Bors by Matt Bors

Matt Bors

Comments (29) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 3 years ago

    What is it now, 3 republicans? 1 in the senate and 2 in the house?

  2. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 3 years ago

    And yes, some Democrats have changed their minds recently.

  3. apfelzra

    apfelzra GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    How, exactly, would same-sex marriage destroy anyone else’s marriage? This has been the major weakness in any argument against legalizing same-sex marriage — that somehow it will infringe on the rights of heterosexual couples. But it will not, and cannot. So why the idiotic paranoia about letting same-sex couples marry? If Steve and George or Wendy and Sally want to marry, how would that affect YOUR marriage (assuming you are married at all)? As for kids, there is no evidence that same-sex parenting is any worse than heterosexual parenting, and if marriage is just for making babies, why allow older heterosexual couples to marry?

  4. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 3 years ago

    If legalizing gay marriage destroys your marriage, I think there is a conversation you and your spouse should have had by now…

  5. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, over 3 years ago

    I don’t believe “marriage” is trademarked by you or any other heterosexual.

  6. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    “Sexual perversion is NOT a human right”

    60 years ago that’s what was being said about inter-racial marriage. 150 years ago, religion was used to justify slavery and savage treatment of blacks. It’s your belief that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom constitutes perversion, not mine. The constitutional separation of Church and State means you have no right to use your pseudo-Christian beliefs as a basis to deny other people equal protection under the law. Keep your pseudo-Christian values and your blind hate of others out of my life.

  7. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 3 years ago

    onguard said, about 11 hours ago

    “Voters always vote it down inc. CA…………….
    Amazing the contortions Dem Libs will go through to destroy a tradition whose main beneficiary is Children……….Maybe that explains their love of Abortion, failing Gov schools, teacher unions, elimination of awards for achievement and more. ……..(redundant toon)”

    then let’s just vote on each and every individual marriage, gay or straight. let’s vote on your right to marry who you want to marry. that sounds fair, no?

  8. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Newshound41

    “I don’t believe “marriage” is trademarked by you or any other heterosexual.”
    Matrimony has a very specific definition in its origin, regarding the state of being with child and of having children. Marriage is meant to be a state of the joining of fortunes by the joining of genetic lines. It is the civil legal privileges that are attached to the state of matrimony that are now accorded to childless couples that are in contention on the basis of equality under the law. If a marriage is a religious and cultural affectation, then the civil requirement of a marriage license should be called something else and apply equally to any monogamous couple in a dedicated relationship. This isn’t that difficult. If marriage is a sacred state of bonding within the auspices of a religious sacrament, then there should either be no civil legal privileges attached or they should be specified as being reserved for couples with offspring, or the civil benefits of monogamous coupling should be separate from the religious sacrament and available to any monogamous couple. In a short while, it may be possible for any two persons to have real genetic offspring by combining their genetic material in a laboratory. The idea of expanding the definition of marriage will certainly have to be addressed at that time.

  9. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    It requires an eight-fold path to square dance, but only two genders, which apparently are liberals and conservatives, or democrats and republicans in modern literature. We should strive not to be that which we revile, but we won’t.

  10. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @BrassOrchid

    “Marriage is meant to be a state of the joining of fortunes by the joining of genetic lines.”


    Fortunes are not inherited genetically, but by legal/social means. Same-sex couples can also join their fortunes by marriage, and leave inheritors as they choose.


    “It is the civil legal privileges that are attached to the state of matrimony that are now accorded to childless couples that are in contention on the basis of equality under the law.”


    And homosexuals have the same rights of equality as heterosexuals. If childlessness (by choice or otherwise) is not a bar to the marriage of heterosexuals, it can be no justification to bar marriage for homosexuals.


    “If a marriage is a religious and cultural affectation, then the civil requirement of a marriage license should be called something else and apply equally to any monogamous couple in a dedicated relationship.”


    Since marriage is both a religious and a cultural affectation (and has been for millennia), it is equally reasonable to expect that the religious side be expected to come up with a new name. Moreso, in fact, since they’re the ones who don’t want to share. But custody fights in a divorce are so often thorny and emotionally fraught…


    “This isn’t that difficult.”


    In that, we agree, strangely enough.


    “If marriage is a sacred state of bonding within the auspices of a religious sacrament, then there should either be no civil legal privileges attached or they should be specified as being reserved for couples with offspring, or the civil benefits of monogamous coupling should be separate from the religious sacrament and available to any monogamous couple.”


    And if marriage is NOT a sacred state? Or if it is NOT ONLY a sacred state? Neither the judicial process nor the legislative process have the power to make that determination one way or another, nor to act upon one. Actually, again I agree with you (with the above proviso). Your alternatives are acceptable (or at least understandable) and again the question is one of custody. The laws and court fights are over the legal definition of “marriage,” and marriage HAS a definition under the law. The religious and civil aspects of “marriage” have themselves long been “married,” and if they are now to be “divorced,” who gets the name? (You can easily extend the metaphor yourself.)


    “In a short while, it may be possible for any two persons to have real genetic offspring by combining their genetic material in a laboratory. The idea of expanding the definition of marriage will certainly have to be addressed at that time.”


    My only quibble here is with the word “may.” I’ve no doubt that somebody’s already working out the technology to fertilize one ovum with another ovum in vitro (creating an embryo from two spermatazoa would be far more difficult, I’d imagine, but then again I can remember when Luoise Brown was considered both a “miracle” and an “abomination”). I think it’s inevitable, and will happen sooner than many would like to think. But why wait? Why NOT resolve the “marriage” question NOW, since it’s already come up, and has ramifications for current conditions?

  11. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @fritzoid

    “Since marriage is both a religious and a cultural affectation (and has been for millennia), it is equally reasonable to expect that the religious side be expected to come up with a new name. Moreso, in fact, since they’re the ones who don’t want to share. But custody fights in a divorce are so often thorny and emotionally fraught. … The religious and civil aspects of “marriage” have themselves long been “married,” and if they are now to be “divorced,” who gets the name?”


    Idea for a cartoon (FREE, to anyone who’ll take it; just say “Thank, fritzoid”):


    A man and a woman are standing before a judge in Family Court. The man is labelled “Religious Marriage,” and the woman is labelled “Civil Marriage.”


    The man is pointing at the woman, and shouting to the judge (who has a bored, seen-it-all-before look on his face), “She’s no longer the woman I married, she’s changed! I want a divorce, and I DON’T want her using my name!”


    The woman faces the man with a disgusted look and says “We had the same last name BEFORE we got married…”

  12. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 3 years ago

    ^and that makes you, what, a slut? betcha don’t even know the difference. And by the way you never answered my question.

    so far as being an orthodox catholic, wasn’t there some story about jesus defending prostitutes? but you wouldn’t be caught dead following jesus, now would you?

  13. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @fritzoid

    “Fortunes are not inherited genetically, but by legal/social means”
    Precisely, and succinctly put.
    The laws were derived as required to accommodate the religious and social, (little difference there), practices already in use. Since the social practices are changing, the laws must be amended to accommodate those changes. There is no reason that a marriage license may be issued to one childless couple and not another. If the definition of matrimony as the consummation of sexual congress resulting in offspring is not observed on one case, it cannot be denied in another, based solely on the appearances and superficial attributes of the persons involved, where the factual basis for the union is missing in either event.

  14. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @BrassOrchid

    " If the definition of matrimony as the consummation of sexual congress resulting in offspring is not observed…"


    So, fundemantally, we are not in disagreement, although again I dispute the “definition” of marriage as to promotion of child-bearing. If it ever WAS that, that is not how it is being used now (nor has it been used for some time), regardless of whether the legal status of “marriage” is made available to same-sex couples.


    Some people post as if the word “marriage” has existed unchanged since (according to them) the world was created 6,000 years ago. The English word “marriage” was not used in בְּרֵאשִׁית, the Hebrew book of Genesis. It does not appear in the Vulgate Bible. If it appears in the KJV (or in the earlier “Geneva Bible”), it was already being used (as well) as a general term for the making of two separate entities into one. Ask a metallurgist about the process of “marrying” two metals, and accuse him of “stealing” the word, and he’ll (rightly) look at you as if you were crazy.


    To revoke the privileges and protections of “marriage” from those heterosexual couples who now enjoy them would, in fact, be a destruction of the “institution of marriage” as it exists (and has existed) under civil law from time immemorial. To extend those privileges to homosexual couples in no way damages the standing of heterosexual marriage. (One of the bases under which the suits against the nullification of Prop. 8 in California have fallen is over the question of “standing” to bring suit; nobody has ever been able to show how they would suffer harm if same-sex marriages were to be recognized by the State.)


    One might as well argue that nobody who was not christened in a church ceremony is allowed to have a “legal name”, because God ordained “names” when He named Adam in Genesis.

    ‘“I am ’John’ because my parents brought me into a church, and a priest sprinkled me with water, and told God my name was ‘John." This guy is calls himself ’John’ because his parents wrote it on a government form. He’s stealing the word ‘name’ from us. After all, we call it a ‘Christian name’!!!"


    Hogwash.

  15. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @fritzoid

    “Hogwash.”
    Right. Either it is a religious rite or a civil one, with a civil rite requiring equal standing to all parties under the law.
    In practice, it is a civil rite to accommodate a religious rite that accommodates a practical necessity, and the resistance to a civil benefit for same-sex couples is resistance to the accommodation of a practical necessity on the grounds that there is already a civil rite to accommodate a sectarian rite to accomodate a similar necessity arising from sexual unions resulting in offspring, though some such unions may not be sanctified or formalized through sectarian or civil rites at all, and the benefits of such a union may be extended where no such union exists. The entire problem comes from the confusion of religious and legal definitions, which are not even the same thing to begin with. You cannot be legally married in a church without a legal document, but no church is required to honor a legal marriage license and perform a religious ceremony for it. The courthouse must be separate from the church. Whether a thing is viewed as sinful is not relevant to its legality. May as well embrace the traditional science fiction answer of marriage contracts complete with sunset clauses and renewal options, assigning the same legal benefits as any marriage to a limited commitment defined by law. If the law does not meet practical needs, then what is its purpose?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (14).