Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (45) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    There’s no pot of gold at the end of THIS rainbow.

  2. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, about 2 years ago

    Good, now .001% more of the population will now get married. Next.

  3. 4my10851cs

    4my10851cs said, about 2 years ago

    great for divorce lawyers

  4. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, about 2 years ago

    @ConserveGov

    Current estimates are that 1.7 – 3.4 percent of the U.S. population is LGBT.
    Clever cartoon, by the way.

  5. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, about 2 years ago

    @masterskrain

    This.

  6. Mephistopheles

    Mephistopheles GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    And with any luck this trend will cause the leadership of the Westboro Baptist Church to have Annurisms so that we know longer have to listen to their hate and filth.

    I hope the Republican party is paying attention to this trend because the Party leaders talk a good game of smaller government and less government intrusion in our lives but all they seem interested in is: Denying Science, Forcing everyone to adapt to their morality through laws, and participating equally in the distortion of the market place.

  7. SpicyNacho

    SpicyNacho GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @Mephistopheles

    Denying science, like ignoring that abortion kills a living being? Liberals have been forcing everyone to adapt to their values and morality for decades.

  8. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, about 2 years ago

    Conservatives are being consistent, yet are not seeing this clearly.
    The Govn. shouldn’t be in anyone’s marriage. To all those in gay relationships, please don’t invite Govn. into your relationships.
    As for heterosexual couples, we must stand for the constitution and get Govn. out of our relationships. No couple should have any benefits or priveledges others do not have. There is equal protection under the law.
    I have two heterosexual sons one year apart in age. Why shouldn’t they be able to enter into a life contract, as bachelors, to live as if they are a married couple? Sharing finances, a home, responsibilities, etc., just not a bed.
    Marriage, gay or not, should not provide any couple legal benefits, period.
    Let’s get Govn. out of all relationships.

  9. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @narrowminded

    So what you seem to be saying is “no automatic legal rights associated with marriage at all.” No power of medical attorney. No more tax statuses or insurance statuses – or rights of inheritance, powers of attorney, protections for child visitation rights, considerations for immigration, or, well, anything. Separate paperwork for all of it, and no default fallback settings for “married” at all, for anyone.


    And – this part is important – why exactly do you think that this is more reasonable or practical or workable than simply extending the rights, responsibilities, legal titles and benefits of the existing system, to a new group of people?

  10. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    “Denying science, like ignoring that abortion kills a living being? Liberals have been forcing everyone to adapt to their values and morality for decades.”

    Nobody’s forcing you to approve of abortion. I don’t approve of it myself. What I do want conservatives to finally get through their skull is that making it illegal won’t stop it from happening. All that time, energy, and money so-called conservatives put into making abortion illegal could be channeled into something positive, such as charities and services that help give women a reason to “choose life.”

  11. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, about 2 years ago

    @masterskrain

    It’s got nothing to do with “protecting the institution of marriage”; if it did, we’d be seeing protests against super-short celebrity marriages and pushes for laws against divorce. All it’s about is people using one passage in an old book to codify and “legitimize” their own bigotry and hate.

  12. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @ansonia

    Semantics: actually, a fertilized human egg is called a zygote only at the initial point of fertilization and until it hits the 8-cell division, a very short time. After that it becomes the blastocyst, and after implantation is considered an embryo, although the blanket term “embryo” can be extended to cover all of this.


    In point of fact, though, it isn’t a “human being” at this stage, it is a group of undifferentiated human cells, no different from the stem cells that one finds in certain reservoirs in adult human beings. It is quite arguably not a “human being” until the point that it develops a nervous system of its own, and has some capacity for individual identity.


    I know, I know, that’s not nearly so simple and neat a picture as “fertilized egg == human being”, but at least it has the virtue of being true.

  13. Lynne B

    Lynne B GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @onguard

    Voters alway vote it down, even in California.

    You mean, except where they don’t. Most of the anti-marriage equality legislation was drafted before 2011; attitudes have shifted by miles since then.


    Also, nobody is “stealing” anything. A minority group of people want to share the same rights as the majority, period.

  14. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 2 years ago

    @masterskrain

    Hey Dude, such wonderful advice. Care to take it your self?

  15. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 2 years ago

    @Lynne B

    Yes, very scientific and accurately said. Now concerning this process of forming a human being. When one has sex with procreation in mind, it is always a joy to come to the knowledge that one is “with child”. But, when one is just having sex for the pure pleasure of it – as we often do – this same news is a “mistake”, one is being "punished with a baby " (according to Obama) or one has an “accident”.

    Not one of these euphemisms for being pregnant says that the person expects anything other than another human being to be produced if the natural cycle is left to happen.

    Sure, I know that the body can reject that zygote. That the embryo may not be “viable” and thus is flushed from the body. That is “natural” as well.

    So, are we so callous as to discount the fact that once fertilized that little knot of cells is not “human”? Are we so jaded in our sexual appetites that life is not precious?

    I happen to agree that contraception, education and yes sometimes abortion, are all important elements in “family planning”. But teaching that once formed the result of the reproductive act is not “human” until "this or that’ amount of time is disturbing.

    I suppose having lost a child has some influence on that position.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (30).