Marry a Committed Lover? No. Marry a Stranger? Yes.
19 February, 2010As I have said (written?) before, one of my best friends is gay. He envies the relationship I have with (((Wife))). He envies the fact that I can be married. Here in Pennsylvania, he cannot. Hell, we don’t even have a domestic partnership law — Pennsylvania has gone so far as to ban, by statute, gay marriage.
Two total strangers (as long as they are of opposite sex) can get married. An 80-year-old geezer can marry (in most states) a sixteen-year-old girl. A death row inmate can marry a girl he only met through the mail. Yet, in most states, gay and lesbian lovers, who may have long term, committed relationships, cannot marry. Why not? Religion.
The arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are absurd. It will damage the institution of marriage (how?). It violates god(s)’ law (we live in a secular country). It will lead to men marrying dogs, parrakeets, children (reductio ad Santorum fallacy). Gay marriage cannot produce children (should infertile couples divorce?). It is perverted (deny civil rights for an ewww factor?). And gay marriage is neither natural nor loving (like this (from Towelroad.com)):
Kitty Lambert and her longtime partner Cheryl attempted to apply for a marriage license yesterday in Buffalo, New York.
And were, of course, denied. New York State does not recognize gay marriage, nor does the state allow gay marriages to be performed. Almost all of the objections to gay marriage boil down to cherrypicking Leviticus but it is the state which refuses to allow a civil, secular, non-religious marriage.
Not to worry, though. As some religiobot asshats are fond of pointing out, everyone can get married as long as they are a man and a woman. And only a man and a woman. Which man and woman doesn’t matter. As long as one has a penis and the other has a vagina. And Kitty Lambert proved it:
“With news cameras rolling, Kitty then turned to the crowd and asked for any male who would be willing to get married to her. A gay man named Ed stepped forward and volunteered. They briefly exchanged information and presented the appropriate documents along with $40. City staff verified the information, and proceeded to give them a marriage license. Kitty’s point in approaching the City Clerk for a marriage license is that there is no religious basis for marriage, and it serves only as a legally binding contract in our society. Instead of being offered the ability to receive a license with her long-term partner, she was able to secure a license with a virtual stranger, strictly based on their gender.”
More details from YNN Buffalo:
Even though a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was overwhelmingly defeated by the New York State Senate in early December by a vote of 38 to 24, gay marriage advocates continue their fight to marry. In a symbolic measure, a same-sex couple applied for a marriage license at City Hall Wednesday. When they were denied, gay marriage advocate Kitty Lambert found a man she had never met and applied for a marriage license with him. She says she did it to prove a point.
“Our point is, for $40, I can come in and purchase a marriage license with a total stranger. But all these years with the same woman and I still can’t get a marriage license. What is the senate thinking?” asked Lambert.
Lambert says she will not actually actually marry the man. She wanted to show that committed gay couples are denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.
As I’ve said before, (((Wife))) and I got married with no Bible, Q’uran, Torah, priest, minister, imam, rabbi, or any other religious person or text, and we didn’t have to stand in a church, temple, mosque, or any other religious building to do it. Marriage, as (((wife))) and my marriage prove, marriage is a secular contract. Kitty Lambert showed the hypocrisy of our civil laws which are based on Bronze-age myths and superstitions. Every argument against expanding this basic human right to all consenting adults boils down to religious dogma and religious teachings. When will America, as a nation, grow up and recognize that (1) human rights apply to all humans and (2) we cannot use the tribal laws of some pre-modern goat herders to determine who is eligible for human rights?
(((Billy))) The Atheist 
You neglected to tell us who gave (((Wife))) forty bucks to marry you.
Seriously, thanks for telling that story. But I think Kitty should have gone further, and directly confronted religious fanatic legislators: “How well is the institution of marriage protected when I can fork over a mere $40 to hire a complete stranger to join me in a ‘lifelong’ partnership?”
I think the natural order of nature shows that men and women are made for each other and men with men or women with women is not the natural order of the sexes in the human species dont you think? Even leaving religion out of it. Sex, men with women is the natural order dont you think? men with men poking each other in the booty is not a natural act.
Do you think that is clean?
Is it the natural order of things to have strangers unite in marriage? What’s natural about two octogenarians marrying? What’s natural about ordering some chick from Russia or Thailand over the internet to be your bride? And what about those who marry and never have sex? Is that natural? How about women you use strap ons or other items to poke their husbands in the booty? How about having retards pairing up? Hell, many could argue marriage isn’t natural, but that’s not the damn point. There’s no “natural” clause for marriage. It’s a damn contract between two people to be both recognized in society as united and legally to have basic rights such as being able to visit each other in the hospital.
Now I ask you, how on Earth is your marriage or your life affected in any way if anyone pokes anyone else in the booty, and as a follow up, as if there needs to be one, wtf does that have to do with denying anyone the right to marry who they want?
I think (((billy))) addressed that as the “ewww” factor. I would like to see an accurate poll on what percentage of married (male and female) couples do things that could be done by same-gender couples. What fraction of heterosexual couples do you think would protest if some sort of government mandate were announced outlawing all sexual acts except for one.
I find it strange, that I work with people who find homosexuals abhorrent (except for our lesbian colleague, she’s OK). That roughly tantamount to stating that except form Charlie in scheduling, black people are abhorrent.
Being a math/science nerd in college, I found the existence of male homosexuals a boon. They represented a net reduction in my competition. Unfortunately, the other side balanced that out…
But I digress…
Philly hit the most important point. These people are attempting to enter a contract which will bind them economically. They are seeking to share some economic basis of their lives. For that matter, would it be any different from two heterosexual adults entering a mutual aid contract with same gendered partners? Have you ever had a best friend?
I claim sleep deprivation due to weird hours last week caused my apparent spelling issues.
Men poke women in the booty all the time, is that unclean? A woman can use devices and poke men in the booty too, unclean? Everything a gay couple or lesbian couple can do sexually, I am sure some straight couples do too. Sex should be a non issue for a marriage license.
Yes they can unite as strangers in marrage. Is it ok that they love each other in marriage?? Is that ok with you? It is still male and female. The point is to have a family. If everyone was male-male and female-female Duh!!! where would the species go??? LMAO. Your order is quite rediculous. Should the rest of the world populate so you can have your sexual deviation? How selfish are you??
The point is not necessarily to have a family, or else there’d have to be fertility tests in order to get a license and/or a probation period of say a year where the couple would have to produce a child (or adopt one) or else the license becomes null and void. Are you for denying the handicapped, the infertile and senior citizens marriage licenses as well?
Look jackass, same sex marriage isn’t going to stop male-female marriages from happening, nor put an end to baby production, so your objection is as ridiculous as the one before. Care to try again? Before you do, perhaps you can check first to see if what you come up with is already answered here first. Oh, and learn how to spell, or at least how to spell check before you comment to try and reduce how slow and ignorant you appear. Thanks though for refraining from using all caps and multiple exclamation points like most fanatics do. That’s greatly appreciated.
Have a nice day. 🙂
My husband and I chose not to have a family. Should we not have been allowed to marry?
And i would appreciate you leaving my post up.
Generally atheist bloggers respect free speech, unlike religious blogs, so comments don’t disappear unless they’re clearly spam. Interesting that you can recognize how being deprived a right afforded to others would be undesirable, yet you can’t recognize how others could likewise have that same sentiment as you deny them their rights. Ah, empathy. If only there could be more of it. sigh
Try to justify yourself anyway you like but the fact remains your belief is an abomination to nature. Strange how even the animals know this but you dont.
The belief in wearing pants is an abomination to nature, but I assume you’re cool with that belief, right?
Bottom line is you don’t want same sex marriages but are at a loss as to how to justify denying them so you throw out these ridiculous arguments like ‘buttsex is icky’ or ‘marriage is about breeding’. Hey I get it, I wish we could do away with ugly people getting married because I don’t want to think about them having sex either, but you know what? It’s not about what I want. You brought up selfishness earlier. Well that’s exactly what you’re being, selfish. Imposing your desires on others is quite selfish, pal.
According to Wikipedia, the master of all knowledge:
I suppose any of these people meet your criteria as “an abomination to nature,” despite being a product of nature. Your god is a real dick.
“[T]he animals know this but you dont,” (sic)
Really? It doesn’t take a world-class researcher to shoot that ignorant assertion down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
What is it about Xians’ inability to use search engines?
Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study
The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.
However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.
I have this theory that anyone who goes on and on about sex being just for procreation is probably not all that exciting in the sack.
LOL!
Seriously, if you’re getting it, and getting it good, why would you be the least bit concerned with the specifics of how others are getting it? I think the repressed and restrained just don’t want to suffer alone. That seems to be the motivation behind a lot of religious arguments. I’m not having any fun so by god, you can’t have any either!
Doh! I should have read a little farther before I posted the Wiki article about homosexual animals above.
Strange how even the animals know this but you dont.
You’re ignorant. Of those animals you claim your god made, many of them regularly engage in homosexual activity. You might want to investigate the sex lives of lions, elephants, giraffes, bottlenose dolphins, sheep, bonobos, and bison. Or perhaps, since your intellect is for the birds, you’d like to look into the behavior of various species of gulls, vultures, penguins, mallards, and black swans. Among the “lower” orders — where you’d probably recognize kindred spirits — you can find intragender activity among bed bugs, dragonflies, and (naturally) fruit flies.
If you’d bothered to look into this topic at all, you could have found dozens of articles from real — not Christian — periodicals, (e.g., like National Geographic, Seed, New Scientist, The New York Times, and Wired), as well as many biology textbooks.
But then, you don’t read anything except for your primitive anthology, do you?
Good Luck folks its your life. I will choose to believe God though. You will find out some day I assure you.
Checkmate, atheists!
And there it is, god says so. It doesn’t take long to peel away the facade of ridiculous arguments to get to the real argument. Of course most of you clowns don’t have the balls to offer the true argument. I wonder why? Afraid you won’t be taken seriously then? Oh ye of little faith! LOL! But hey, they put lightning rods on churches and insure them too, so you’re not alone.
I wonder how your god feels about such lack of faith and deception? Maybe you’ll find out someday.
I will choose to believe God though.
How can you know what your god thinks? Don’t you preach that his mind is way beyond your meager human comprehension? Maybe you’re Satan, trying to place himself on that god’s level.
Well, never mind. You will never find out I assure you.
Please show me how i am trying to be God??? I am pointing out what God says in the Bible. BIG DIFFERENCE!!
No, you are pointing out your interpretation of what human beings thought a god was telling them.
What if god is gay?
Actually, Poodles, as I read His mail on a regular basis… you’d be surprised at some of the things He’s done over the years. And not just at school with all those Greek gods, either.
That would explain some of his obsessions.
Oh, and I’d check up on that Jesus character if I were you… hanging out and going on road trips with a bunch of single men? It was pretty much unheard of in his time for a Jewish rabbi to be unmarried…
Takes one to know one?
Ildi: Just told (((Family))) about Elton John’s description of Jesus. Bill Donahue said that was tantamount to calling Jesus a sexual deviant, to which (((Boy))) said, “Well, he was created without sex, so he was. Not only that, he was created without intercourse, so the Catholics can eat him during lent.”
“he was created without intercourse, so the Catholics can eat him during lent.”
I spent 12 years in Catholic school, and never heard that explanation of why it was OK to eat fish and shellfish and eggs, but not meat on Fridays. I’m truly not trying to pick a fight, but did anybody else around here get that rationalization for the hair-splitting?
I guess that means frogs would have been ok to eat(as amphibians fertilize eggs through water dispersion of sperm) , but not turtles or snakes (since reptiles still “do it”)?
Mutzali: From my study of history, the Catholic Church took the Greek viewpoint that fish and other creatures of water were created spontaneously from the water. Therefore eating fish was not eating meat. Now I’m trying to remember which Greek philosopher it was — the same one who said that flies had two wings which screwed up medieval natural philosophy no end.
lack of faith.??? where do you see that??
Didn’t you read the part about lightning rods on, and insurance of, churches? Both show a complete lack of faith that god will protect his church.
And more importantly, not openly arguing same sex marriage is wrong because your god says. Afraid the alleged word of your god is not enough? Afraid to be ridiculed for offering that instead of those non-religious justifications? My, my, your god won’t be happy with your lack of faith. Be careful, he may send you to the place in hell that specializes in poking booty. Oh wouldn’t that be ironic?
Ah, William, I see you are back beating the homosexual drumset. For someone who claims to be married to a woman you are strangely fascinated with the sexual activities of those who have chosen to remove themselves from the civil compact and behave like animals. As others here have shown, homosexuality is, without doubt, an activity in which animals, with no morality, no knowledge of the Word of God, no faith.
New York State decided long ago to obey God’s Law, civil law, and Constitutional law in rejecting the homosexual agenda and refusing to countenance human being acting in the manner of the lower animals with no regard to morality. Those who disobey God, religious proscription, and civil law should not, shall not, will not be rewarded by having their proclivities blessed by lawmakers. Since some states began to, through activist liberal courts, change the civil compact, we have seen our economy suffer. Massive unemployment, transfer of wealth to countryies who understand the civil compact under the aegis of God, layoffs, the collapse of the housing market, massive debt, massive tax increases, can all be laid at the feet of those few misguided souls who have broken with God, the Constitution and the law to create a reward for lawbreakers.
What state in our nation has the biggest banks? What state has the highest property values? What state has the stock exchange? What state creates the wealth that is consumed by those states who are being punished by God for allowing abomination? New York. The answer to all is New York.
Were New York to countenance the marriage of two women the economic growth of Wall Street would end and enter into a decline. Perhaps we would have to move the stock exchange to a state which understands the relationship between morality and economics. I’m sure many states would welcome this infusion of the blessings of morality.
As your brilliant colleagues have already pointed out, homosexuality is rife and rampant within the animal kingdom — it may be the only safe way for a Praying Mantis male to make love. Why should we as a nation risk our economic independence, our economic well being, our intellectual and political independence in order to placate human beings who insist upon breaking the social compact and acting in the manner of animals? “Those who drink as a dog, you shall not take.”
Lot of words there. Wouldn’t it have been simpler and quicker to type “I am a homophobe?”
But I am not a homophobe. I reflect upon our nation, how our nation has fared, and what will become of our nation if we reward those who breake the social compact and act as animals. Time and again countenance of homosexuality has lead to economic chaos and in many instances, the loss of independence. India in the late 1700s and early 18th centuries. The Aztec and Inca empires. America in the 1920s. Germany in the 1940s. Russia in the 1910s. I do not want to see America suffer the indignity created by further economic chaos. So I am against the legal countenance of gay marriage. If they wich to cohabitate — which is illegal in most states — I do not complain. But if they ask America to offer legal cover to their animalistic behavior, I cannot stand idly by and allow them to destroy the econmic underpinnnigs of our great land.
Don’t bother trying to support your premise that “Were New York to countenance the marriage of two women the economic growth of Wall Street would end and enter into a decline.” It would just get in the way.
SI:
I often wonder what fraction of the people for whom “I am a homophobe” is a true statement could produce an equally true statement by dropping off the last syllable.
As a New Yorker, I’m as pro-NY as the next guy. However, I’ve got to wonder why your god would walk so very, very close to the line by allowing Wall Street bankers and such to also be The Gay. Why wouldn’t he smite them hip & thigh? And why, oh, why would he allow the East Village to stand, mere blocks away from all that is good and holy in the NYSE?
Ahh. But you are. You simply use legalistic rationalizations to “cover ” it.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Leviticus 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
More?
Epistle to Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Epistle to Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Epistle to Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Epistle to Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Epistle to Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Epistle to Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Epistle to Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly(YOU), and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Epistle to Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Epistle to Romans 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Epistle to Romans 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Epistle to Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Epistle to Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
1st Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1st Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Sum Total??
Fear God!!
Oh, ya!
Nice to see so much archaic ignorance set forth in one place. I’m going to bookmark this.
What do you mean archaic ignorance? That is ignorance for the ages.
careful your religion is showing!
I’ve read a lot of fiction over the years and I’ve got to say that this “God” character confuses me. You talk as if he were the good guy in this book. I think you’re confused. He’s obviously the baddie. I assume in the next book the detectives get onto his trail and end up locking him up for a long stretch. Or maybe the hero, (whom you haven’t mentioned, for some reason), has an epic fight with him and throws him over a cliff. Maybe there’s a high-speed chase involved. In any case, let us know how it ends.
Oh ya.
CHECKMATE!!!
Checkmate?
You know we’re playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, right?
Marcus: Do you have any tattoos? Or anyone in your family with pierced ears? Do you wear blended fabrics? Do you eat shrimp, lobster or crab? Do you work on Sunday? Do you eat pork?
If you answer yes to any question, ask yourself why Lev 18:22 must be obeyed but the rest of Leviticus is optional. These were rules laid down by man to tell people how to be a proper Jew.
The crazy random causation-generator is strong in this one!
See, teh gayz kept shacking up and buying houses they couldn’t afford and way overdecorating them, and then they would break up because they are just lawless sex-crazed animals anyway, and this caused the housing bubble to burst and the rest is history.
Those damn gays and their uncontrollable urges to renovate and redecorate! Why can’t they just leave things dull and ugly like they’ve always been? Linoleum and formica were good enough for our forefathers, so damn it, they’re good enough for us! Damn those granite countertops and recessed lighting! Grrr
As a bonus, those cracks in the ceiling give the ladies something to look at during their obligatory five minutes in the missionary position.
“I see a polar bear… no, no, it’s Africa…hmmm, should I make chicken or a pot roast for dinner tomorrow?”
Uh, in each of those instances Reg, homosexuality wasn’t the cause of those economic disasters. If anything, they were sustaining the economies until uptight homophobes like yourself rose up and shut them down.
Marcus: Exodus explains how you should sell your daughter into slavery. Is that something we should abide by as well? Exodus also says witches should be killed, and Leviticus expands that to include psychics, mediums and the like. Deuteronomy instructs to put non-believers to death. So does Exodus and Chronicles. Hell, Deuteronomy says to kill everybody in a town if even one person there is a non-believer. Proverbs and Leviticus instruct to snuff out unruly children. Should I go on? Point is, why enforce the anti-gay shit but not all those other laws? You know you’re not supposed to be eating shellfish or wearing blended fabrics either. Ever wear polyester while enjoying a shrimp cocktail? Well you’re going straight to hell then.
Maybe Marcus can help Dr. Laura answer these questions?
You, dear sir, are confusing cause and effect. The cause of economic downturn, depression, recession, invasion, war, conquest, is invariably and provably that the afflicted nation has turned away from God and the civil compact which He created betweeen the governor and the governed. I am hot uptight, or am I a homophobe. I am a concerned American.
You, dear sir, are confusing crazy and sane. Everybody who was an ardent supporter of Reagan knows that the cause of economic downturn, depression, recession, invasion, war, conquest, is invariably and provably COMMUNISTS! Why do you hate America?
I won’t ask what “hot uptight” means in the context of gay marriage, as I probably don’t want to know.
Turning away from Huitzilopochtli, Odin, Guanyin, Ganesha, and thousands of other magic friends didn’t have any results, while turning away from your iron-age desert god caused a recession.
A recession? That’s not quite “biblical” in scope. He must be way past his prime.
Reggie says:
Well, which is it? Are you hot, uptight, or a homophobe?
I’ll put in my vote for either uptight or homophobe. I have a hard time picturing you as ‘hot.’
Marcus: Do you have any tattoos? Or anyone in your family with pierced ears? Do you wear blended fabrics? Do you eat shrimp, lobster or crab? Do you work on Sunday? Do you eat pork?
If you answer yes to any question, ask yourself why Lev 18:22 must be obeyed but the rest of Leviticus is optional. These were rules laid down by man to tell people how to be a proper Jew.
by Lurker 20 February, 2010 at 5:05 pm
1.no
2.no
3.no
4.no
5.Sunday is not the Sabbath Saturday is.
6.no
anything else Lurker.???
Oh I’ve heard that Jew excuse before. Nope, sorry, that’s pretty weak. Let’s be honest here, if it says something and you agree, then it’s your god’s law, but if it’s something you don’t agree with, then it’s something for Jews or some other ridiculous excuse for you not to have to follow.
There’s a special place in hell for you, Marcus, and a whole lot of buttsex awaiting you. LOL!
I agree with all of What God says. Plain and simple. Hey folks I am no saint and make no claims to be such. I am a sinner just like the next man and deserve death. I am merely pointing out that God doesnt like Gay behavior and doesnt support it. So all I am saying to the Gays is leave God out of it. Scripture clearly shows he does not agree with or support the Gays. Thats It!!
Uh, there is no hell or a place of torture Philly Cheese. Pure Myth. The Bible clearly says that at Judgement day you either recieve eternal life or eternal death. You are burnt up and gone if you recieve death. Sorry no eternal place of torture with the little pitch forks and all. I dont believe a loving God would take pleasure in torturing people for eternity. I think he has more important things to do than that. So in closure all I can say is what John said to all the sinners including me.
Repent Ye For The Kingdom Of Heaven Is At Hand.
Good Luck all
Cheers
What sort of bizarre Amish compound do you live in that allows computers?
Marcus: So you don’t wear underwear with elastic bands?
Oh ya, wait, I forgot you all believe that we came from slime and girls and boys just sprang up from the goo and looked like we do now. WOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!! Soooooo Cool!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOW.
K, I showed gods word and no one can say that God loves Gays. LMAO.
OUT!!!
Put down the crack pipe, marcus, and open up a biology book.
Oh, but at least those total strangers were a Man and a Woman, and therefore have the potential to spawn for The Lord, which is the only True Purpose of marriage. God doesn’t want you to be happy, he only wants you to serve and procreate. He’s running short of slaves, you see.
It boggles the mind how an omnipotent, omniscient being could have such a fragile ego that he needs to surround himself with an ever-expanding herd of suckups who [claim to] follow his arbitrary and often contradictory rules. Exceptionally tiny wang would be my guess.
It’s always nice when the religiously wacko-ized folk show up. They are far more successful in illustrating our arguments than rational discourse could ever accomplish.
All: Holy Crap! I go to work, come back, and find this! Thank you (in advance) to PhillyChief, Desertscope, Poodles, Ildi, Spanqi, Lurker and Buffy. Ya’ll are an impressive team.
Philly: Actually, her parents gave us a large (well, we were still in college, so it seemed large) sum of money to cover the wedding and the honeymoon. At the time, $40 would have been a lot of money.
Marcus: Welcome to my blog. First, homosexuality is natural. Second, the United States is a secular nation, not a theocracy. Third, we do not base our laws on any religious text; they are based upon the ideas of the enlightenment. Fourth, please do not tell atheists what we believe or what we have to believe; we are (for the most part) rational, thinking beings. Fifth, I suspect you will find, as time goes on, that quotes from the bowdlerized, edited, mistranslated, miscopied, committee-ized and textually suspicious book that you call the word of god(s) won’t hold a shitload of water in debates or discussions with atheists.
Reginald: I have asked you before to please provide sources for your hypotheosis that tolerance or acceptance of homosexuality or gay marriage negatively effects the economy. As a general rule, the more liberal states tend to have higher median incomes than more conservative states. If I recall correctly, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas are near the top in religiosity and near the bottom when it comes to income. So, again, sources please.
(((Billy))):
Hey, since when do you answer my question by addressing Philly? FYI: He’s the one with the headdress (many feathers); I’m the one with the fried chicken (no feathers).
I’m sorry, Larry. All you old fogey’s (you, Ric, Philly) sound so much alike. Well, Ric tends to be a little more gentle with idiots, but other than that . . .
What can I say? I had a long day and now have Kumbaya stuck in my head.
Well, since you’re still a young callow whippersnapper, someone’s forgiving you (my Lord, Kumbaya).
Actually, I have read that legalizing gay marriage would provide a boost to the catering industry, as same-sex couples that married would also have receptions as well.
Funny how Reginald Genovese blames gays for the decline of civilizations, because it seems that the Roman Empire got worse the more Christian it became. Of course, Christianity is not to blame for the fall of the Western Empire, but enough people must have sought to pin the blame on Christianity after the sack of Rome in 410 that Augustine felt compelled to write City of God in response.
As for the Mogul Empire in India, teh gay had nothing to do with it. The Muslim fanatic Aurangzeb overextended the empire and overturned the tolerant policies of his predecessors with regard to the empire’s Hindu subjects. Plus, throw in some European inteverventions.
PhillyLarry: (((Wife))) likes it when I whip her snapper.Damn. That really does sound rather prurient, neh?
Tommykey: It sure boosted the Iowa economy — the catering industry has been quietly providing drink and gnosh to out-of-staters who get married in beautiful Keokuk.
Reggie has a bee up his ass for his economic theory of gayness. And your historical observations are right on. Just check with Larry — I think he remembers the fall of the Mughals.
Figures. I go away for a weekend and miss all the fun at (((Billy’s))). The rest of you have said everything I’d have to say, so I’ll shut up now.
slacker
Didn’t stop me, Chappie. Sometimes you’ve got to just sing out… even if the audience has left the building.
Good Thread! Thanks all!
Chappie: Well, I hope you had fun with your new electronic gadget.
Desertscope: Slacking is good. We can’t always wear jeans.
Quixotic: Just don’t pull it. We don’t want it to unravel.
My cousin and her partner just got engaged.
So did my nephew and his girlfriend.
I will celebrate with both couples equally, but if I had to wager money on which relationship will survive, I’d go with the two ladies. (But I made sure to tell them that they’re threatening my marriage.)
Mutzali: Congrats to your family. I’ve never understood, nor has anyone ever explained (not even inadequately) just how letting someone else do something you wouldn’t do threatens the person who wouldn’t do it. I guess I just don’t have enough imagination.