The main argument for gay marriage is holding these two conflicting statements true at the same time:
1. Marriage is a very special thing, so more people should be allowed to join in it.
2. Marriage is not a special thing, so changing its meaning isn’t a problem.
You see, this argument is how people keep arguing that gays are being harmed by not being allowed marriage, while at the same time trashing the institution as already demeaned (by pointing out all the divorce, affairs, and quick Vegas weddings) to argue that changing its definition won’t harm it further. It’s a rather incoherent argument, which is why much of gay marriage proponents mainly rely on an emotional appeal (“What’s wrong with two people loving each other?” as if government recognition has anything to do with people loving each other).
You really just have a lot of people trying to get something without examining what it is they want and why it’s worth something (which you can certainly say of many heterosexual couples getting married, too). Is marriage just a legal contract binding two people? Well, can’t two (or more) adults draw up whatever legal agreements they want between each other and campaign for businesses and whatnot to recognize them? Or is it something more than just a legal contact?
Why is marriage in America between one man and one woman when there are other types of marriage in history (such as plural marriages)? It’s because of Christianity, and Jesus’s teaching (mainly Matthew 19) that Adam and Eve is God’s example of a marriage and that it involves just one man and one woman joined together. So really, marriage is a religious institution — specifically Christian — inscribed in law. It’s just such a fundamental one to society that for hundreds of years people never took much notice that there was no separation of church and state when it comes to the recognition of marriage.
Given that marriage is a religious institution that the government participates in, there are two — and only two — logical responses.
1. Recognize its special place as religious institution fundamental to society and thus preserve it — perhaps even adding an amendment to the Constitution.
2. Have it removed from government entirely because of the separation of church and state and simply allow the government to recognize legal contracts between two or more adults, allowing them to put whatever ceremony on it they want.
Any other response, such as trying to redefine marriage — have the government redefine a religious institution — is intellectually incoherent. A lot of the proponents for gay marriage like to think the acceptance of their position is inevitable, but it doesn’t matter how much acceptance they get, as at the end of the day they are still trying to add two plus two and get five. No good will come of that.
I had a couple of thoughts on that subject. Not exactly inspired but…
http://edthepastor.blogspot.com/2011/04/biblical-response-to-same-sex-marriage.html
So, I don’t understand the problem. If a gay man and a gay woman want to get married, I’m ok with that…
If we used logic we might have an orderly, free, and great society.
We can’t have that! It wouldn’t be fair to someone!
In response to point #2, I would point out that the constitution makes clear that the state shall not establish or impose a religion on us. The ‘separation of church and state’ is a concept from one of Jefferson’s letters, and is often mis-stated as being part of our founding documents. It is not.
I agree that marriage as a religious institution should probably not be state sanctioned or recognized, on strictly constitutional grounds. But on the other hand, I think that it is recognized because our societal and national interests are to have a growing population of families, as defined by our customs and traditions. By recognizing marriage and providing benefits, financial and otherwise, we are promoting the tradition of the American family – several children raised by a mother and a father.
Thank you for this excellent and concise piece of logic. It’s not about hating anyone. I agree with your conclusion that marriage should be a matter of the church and contractual relationships are a matter of law. The pro-gay marriage forces are engaging in definitional destruction. While many are probably sincere, there is a sizable group that is jumping in for the mere pleasure of societal vandalism.
On the bright side when gay activists start getting married, then divorced (won’t THAT make for juicy Court TV), they will suddenly be faced with how badly the libtards have dorked up the alimony and custody laws… and just maybe, they’ll get fixed.
Marriage was effectively killed by no-fault divorce allowing one party to walk away with every thing now, and half what the other makes for the next 18 years while offering nothing in return.
In short: I’ll be greatly amused to watch gays phuck up their lives with marriage the way men have been doing for 30 years or so.
How dare you try to bring logic and reason to this debate!!! Stop that right now!!
I think there are two parts of marriage – the religious and the legal. The religious part is defined by the church that the betrothed attend. The legal part is defined by the State.
Not so long ago, it was illegal to marry outside your own race. Divorce was tightly regulated. Prohibitions like this have been modified or dropped over the last few decades. As a result, the State part of marriage is not well defined. We need a better definition of the legal contract of marriage, and a better popular understanding of it.
This will require a discussion of our values, as any limitation on marriage will require a justification. It seems politicians aren’t eager to discuss and codify American values. The Constitution puts forth Life, Liberty, and Property as our values. Given the First Amendment limitation on establishment of religion, the State recognition of marriage must support all churches, or the absence of a church. Given that framework, how can we prohibit polygamy or bestiality?
Ah, yes, logic. so, logically detail the specific damage done to your marriage by gays marrying please. List some evidence of harm. I can cite specific instances where non-recognition of the relationships has resulted in long term partners not being allowed to be together when one is dying in hospital, having property intended to be left to partners stolen by hateful ‘religious’ relatives, etc… So- what harm has been done since certain states have chosen to legally (not religiously-nice strawman, frank) recognize gay partnerships?
I was all set to laugh here but then I realized it wasn’t funny.
Bless your soul, Frank J. Whiney weenies have come up against me with the evil of miscegenation laws as an example of being against gay marriage, and I begin to explain how the Bible never said anything about inter-racial marriage and so as a Judeo-Christian society we can understand how such laws are discriminatory, but… and at that point they’re all “Bush LIIIEDD!@1!!” and stuff.
All I’m really trying to say is, you and I can go to hell anyway we want, but let’s leave the bar high for the broader culture. These proponents, all of whom and their pals have been breaking their arms with the back-patting, are not going to like what this leads to, I guarantee it.
Pingback: ‘Marriage’ Is A Complete Concept : The Other McCain
You are right on, Frank. And, to further your point, there’s the other hypocrisy – the same hypocrisy we’ve seen with arguments for women participating in men’s sports, for example. The argument is made that there is no reason why women shouldn’t participate, and that it certainly wouldn’t require any special treatment or accommodations, etc., as they “just want to be treated the same as the male athletes.” Then, once they get their way and begin playing the sport, we are then bombarded with all the changes that must be made to accommodate them because, after all, they have special needs that the male players don’t and new, special facilities need to be built, etc.
We have been told that we need to accept homosexuality because it isn’t making any difference in our lives who someone partners with, so it’s none of our business and doesn’t affect us in any way. Then, once gay rights are advanced, we are now told that the very institution of marriage, and thus all of Christianity, needs to be specially altered to accommodate their needs.
Having a marriage legitimized via a religious or civil ceremony/union should be available to all, but trying to force a religion to accept/perform said ceremony/union should not be the result.
Up until now, having a penis was all that was needed to ID the loser in a divorce. Now that a match can end in a tie, how will the winner be determined?
Pingback: The Arguments for Gay Marriage
Some argue (quite successfully) that the roots of marriage are “tribal,” i.e. cultural and predate religion as we define it. I rather suspect that is true – and also, that the tribal chief felt it his business to stick his big nose in the matter! Some things never change.
Frankly, I think the Sub-Mariner is behind this. He always struck me as a little ghey.
I agree with Ann Coulter in that the deeper agenda in the gay rights debate has less to do with specific “rights” and more to do with driving a wedge through American culture as a means to try to marginalize conservatives. Gays have been pretty much free to do their thing for some time now, but all of a sudden, their ability to legally marry is a hot button issue. The reason why gay marriage is being made an issue is that by making a fuss, proponents can paint objecting conservatives as knuckle dragging, bigoted Neandrathals. In so doing, these activists try to discourage folks from self-identifying as social conservatives while ginning up animus against social conservatives. The people pushing gay marriage want it to be controversial.
I advocated getting government out of the marriage business long before gay marriage was on the horizon. The problem is that it’ll never happen. Personally, I have a bigger problem with gays adopting than I do with gays marrying.
All that aside, have you ever wondered why the Aquaman and Aqua Buddha have remained single all these years, despite their eligible bachelor status? Rumor has it that they’re swimming toward the Hudson.
@Brian Reno: Dogs are horses! They are, because dogs are not in any way harmed by being called horses, and some people really, really want to call them that. They were born perceiving dogs as horses, that’s just the way they are.
Marriage is a sacrament and belongs to the Church; all civil “marriages” should be called civil unions, and religious marriages should not be recognized by the state without a concurrent civil union (with a grandfather clause for existing marriages to prevent social and economic chaos). Civil unions are already possible for gay couples, and take care of all of the “harms” you spoke of — long-time partners being denied access when one is dying, etc. (I used to do pro bono work drafting powers of attorney for health care, that will also prevent this particular tragedy.) Gays want “marriage” instead of “civil union” because they want it to be a matter of official state policy to encourage, approve of and promote same-sex unions as if they really were no different, in any way, from heterosexual couplings. To base social policy on biological error is absurd.
Some guy at McCain’s blog called Frank an “incoherent projecting idiot.”
My response is to nod my head slowly.
Yes, Crabby, you’re right, although I suspect you already knew that.
The reality is that as with all things liberal, they need someone, anyone, but hopefully all of society to recognize what they’re doing as right.
This is why I will always prefer befriending ignorant people to liberals. Simple ignorance and/or stupidity is vastly preferable to an obnoxious and driving insecurity seemingly undetectable only to the person who possesses it.
Meanwhile, society is worse for wear, because society continues to think that everything has to be “fair” – whatever fair means today.
Expand the definition of marriage to include owning a TV. Problem solved. Or something.
Why shouldn’t happy and excited people get married? After all happy people make happy marriages. Homosexuals on the other hand need to determine if their life style is a choice or a disease. if its a choice, they need to shutup and accept that their choice has removed them from society. If its a disease they need to seek treatment or accept that their disease makes them “special” and they should shutup.
I wonder what the next step will be…
Polygamy? Why is it wrong to discriminate against homosexuals but OK to discriminate against bisexuals?
How about incest? Why can’t two gay brothers or two gay sisters get married?
Your second solution is the best. I was against gay marriage because to me, it would never be marriage. But now that I see there is little hope of getting gov’t out of it, the only way to give the same rights and privileges to same-sex couples as married couples is to legalize it. Your second solution would also allow for polygamous “marriages” via contract, and just about any other consenting adult relationship–ceremonies galore, which is how it should be. Unless adults aren’t allowed to do icky things which harm no one.
Meh, Frank’s not projecting. His fatal mistake is thinking the government is bound by logic. Good will most certainly come of this, even if they have to redefine “good”.
ussjimmycarter said: “So, I don’t understand the problem. If a gay man and a gay woman want to get married, I’m ok with that…”
You have just blown my mind. So, the real issue is sexism! We are sexists! Gayness is irrelevant. Wow. This changes everything.
The word “homophobe” is always accompanied by such vile hatred. It hurts too much to be called that. But I think I can handle being called sexist. “Hey, sexist!” Nope. Better yet, call me a genderist. Nevermind “sexist”. I won’t answer to that. But say, “Hey, genderist!” and I’ll turn to look at you, and think, “wtf? do I know you?”
I am proud to be a genderist! Women are gorgeous, and smart, and they have a nice laugh, and they make cute babies, and they have a soft voice when they give you chicken noodle soup when you’re sick, and they’re gorgeous, and they have pretty hair, and they’re pretty.
Men are smelly and, with some exceptions, only worthwhile if our fathers make us join the military.
I like that a lot, Marko. That whole thing can be our motto.
Burmashave is onto the real reasons why homosexuals suddunly are kicking up such a fuss to get married. I’m impressed Burmashave.
The gay marriage debate has always been frustrating because neither side addresses the fundamental underlying constitutional premise, which is “On what rational basis does the state officially recognize any religious covenant?” Legally sound or not, the answer is that the government provides itself legal insulation through a layer of abstraction: Licensing. A right to have any arbitrary form of marriage formally recognized does not exist in law, as to do so would be a direct violation of the first amendment. A prohibition against having an unrecognized marriage does not exist either. Any person can, according to their own beliefs, make any vows they choose to any other person, without government interference. Any religious institution can, at its discretion, choose to recognize those vows or not. Any person can, according to their own wishes, formalize such commitments in form of contract or by notary public to make them enforceable against fraud or perjury under law. The “Gay marriage” debate has never been about marriage… it’s been about the license. What any person can NOT do is demand a license for which they are unqualified. It is capricious to issue licenses without codified standards which further a compelling governmental interest. We do not issue drivers’ licenses to the blind. We do not issue dog licenses to cat owners who call their cat “Rex”. What is at issue is whether or not there exists a compelling interest in changing the licensing standards to include same sex couples. To determine this, we need to understand what the rational interest is in licensing any couples to begin with, and what that license actually entails. A marriage license is essentially a one-size-fits-all package of contracts concerning community property, child custody, etc etc, again which ANYONE can subject themselves to manually and piecemeal, should they so choose. By applying for a marriage license, you are VOLUNTARILY agreeing to have your otherwise free relationship bound by rather strict laws governing your private behavior. The government has only one legitimate interest for these legal bonds to exist: to safeguard the state’s perpetuity by encouraging (not dictating) family environments most inclined to produce well-adjusted future citizens. Just as a license to drive does not require driving, a license to procreate in the government-sanctioned-manner does not require procreation. Similarly, as it is not illegal to drive in-general without a license (only on publicly provided roads), it is not illegal to procreate in-general in the non-sanctioned-manner (only to attempt to claim publicly provided marriage benefits). The only difference then, between those who contract their vows ad-hoc or privately, and those who do so through marriage, appears to be the conference of marriage benefits. The existence of those benefits is solely an incentive to enter into contractual marriage obligations otherwise against individual interests. The purpose of setting standards in the licensing process is to prevent the irrational dispensation of those licenses (and benefits) to those who do not further the ultimate purpose for which the license was created. Licensing drivers fosters a culture of safer, more responsible drivers, and licensing marriage fosters a culture of safer, more responsible child-rearing. No, the benefits are not explicitly for children (child tax credits are) but rather for providing for the general welfare of a child-friendly culture. Yes, exceptions exist based on circumstance that don’t make immediate sense (e.g. the infertile can marry), but the terms of licensing is broad and inclusive to begin with so as to AVOID cases of capricious discrimination by not attempting to list every possible individual circumstance, and thereby creating explicit ambiguity where circumstances are inevitably omitted from law. One could rationally argue that more traditional marriages, in abscence of children, still contributes to a culture of traditional marriages. Regardless of how you feel about childless marriages receiving benefits, the rational governmental response to a legal loophole should be to close the loophole, not to expand it further. This propensity for expanding dependency on the nanny state, and the fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of marriage benefits as “for love” instead of incentive-for-obligation-to-the-state’s-goals-in-creating-additional-well-adjusted-citizens is quite the slippery slope. If we take the moral-relativist approach that all child-rearing environments are equal, then the extrapolated logical consequence is that we must provide marriage benefits to unmarried foster parents, divorcees, and single mothers. What, then, is the distinction?
The rational debate about illegal aliens, contrary to the nasty accusations of racism and xenophobia, isn’t about aliens, it’s about illegal. The rational debate about gay marriage licensing, contrary to the nasty accusations of bigotry and homophobia, isn’t about gay marriage, it’s about marriage licensing.
It is incumbent upon same-sex couples to demonstrate they deserve the special incentives intended to encourage responsible procreation, whilst they are prima-facie incapable of procreation. Unless they can demonstrate this, then same-sex-marriage is just a euphemism for picking the taxpayer’s pocket. None of this implies any hatred or even disdain for homosexuals. None of this should discourage those who choose to pledge their lives to eachother from doing so. This is only the rational acknowledgement that not everyone should automatically receive any handout they demand from the government at the expense of others.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean venenatis velit id leo ultrices eleifend. Morbi in ante felis, et congue est. Nullam semper massa et neque accumsan nec tempor velit porta. Phasellus ornare venenatis tempus. Aenean fermentum, justo sed porta venenatis, orci sapien interdum leo, vel vehicula tellus eros sed mi. Ut pellentesque tristique ullamcorper. Morbi at enim augue. Suspendisse sagittis, purus non tempor tempus, orci lacus interdum mi, eget mattis eros erat at dolor. Cras nec nibh arcu. Sed sapien quam, semper nec molestie ac, eleifend eu magna. Fusce et ante odio. Praesent commodo vestibulum iaculis. Sed quam lacus, blandit ut lobortis vel, dictum a tortor. In non nisi arcu. Vivamus id felis leo, eget auctor mi. Suspendisse non augue vitae arcu lobortis convallis. Maecenas ac condimentum justo. Curabitur tempus mi eget risus fermentum sagittis.
Aliquam id tortor nulla. Praesent fermentum ornare rhoncus. Ut auctor eleifend nisl vel tincidunt. Phasellus blandit, libero sed ultrices suscipit, ligula sem varius leo, quis ullamcorper felis ante quis lorem. Proin quis dui nec risus fringilla commodo sed sit amet velit. In cursus ipsum aliquam massa tincidunt ultricies. Phasellus semper mi vitae leo rhoncus vel convallis ipsum accumsan. Donec imperdiet tellus sed leo volutpat viverra. Aenean malesuada, nulla quis pretium mollis, augue metus scelerisque metus, non interdum eros urna vitae orci. Maecenas ut dapibus eros. Curabitur porta sem in dui faucibus at pharetra mi bibendum. Nullam bibendum aliquam dui at lacinia. Mauris semper lacinia ipsum, nec aliquam lectus dictum vitae. Duis suscipit sagittis neque, at consectetur tellus euismod sit amet. Pellentesque metus nulla, tincidunt quis fringilla at, consequat eget leo. Suspendisse ullamcorper elit in ipsum feugiat facilisis. Mauris congue diam sit amet elit blandit laoreet cursus purus facilisis. Nam aliquet urna vitae eros aliquet venenatis. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce mollis quam ut metus laoreet cursus. Phasellus et ornare sem. Nunc augue quam, imperdiet eget molestie nec, hendrerit eu odio. Nunc molestie risus nec leo mollis id placerat mauris molestie. Donec varius facilisis tortor hendrerit varius. Nulla quis augue a dolor hendrerit imperdiet ut id mauris. Donec tempus mauris arcu, non volutpat nunc. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Ut leo mauris, iaculis eu dictum sed, gravida scelerisque purus. Pellentesque consequat pellentesque orci, sit amet euismod arcu blandit a. Nunc sed pretium ipsum.
Maecenas nec elit ac elit cursus pellentesque. Cras vel ipsum lorem. Pellentesque volutpat velit a velit adipiscing pellentesque ac at lacus. Vestibulum turpis mi, volutpat eget gravida eget, sodales aliquam dolor. Mauris varius egestas auctor. Mauris dictum facilisis tempus. Ut congue mattis massa, malesuada consectetur ante tincidunt sit amet. Vestibulum mattis elit id ante condimentum rutrum. Curabitur aliquet eros nec nisl fringilla eu rhoncus purus posuere. In luctus mattis lectus vel tristique. Curabitur id mi quis tellus vestibulum euismod. Ut vitae ultrices felis. Aenean vel orci sem, eu semper magna. Nulla nec dolor quam.
Ut placerat convallis ipsum et accumsan. Vivamus tincidunt metus non eros iaculis semper. Donec ac elit dui. In vulputate lacinia mi, nec vulputate magna suscipit at. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nam at nulla felis, et luctus justo. Donec volutpat velit at augue scelerisque ac pulvinar elit sollicitudin. Sed ac ligula nulla, a pharetra arcu. Nulla ullamcorper lorem feugiat justo hendrerit auctor. Curabitur venenatis rutrum ipsum at condimentum.
I didn’t want Captain Obvious to be the only one who left a really really really long comment that nobody would take the time to read.
Basil: Quid est, Canis?
LEGALIZE MALE PREGNANCY!
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet eu ribeye do, beef ribs proident sirloin shoulder tail andouille veniam bacon dolor cupidatat. Consectetur ut tail, laborum aute aliquip id dolore pork loin ex ut. Meatball shankle ea, beef ribs ad deserunt pork adipisicing aute tempor nulla enim irure ex veniam. Pastrami tail bacon, elit tongue anim excepteur est beef. Pork belly incididunt voluptate, do short ribs ad exercitation jowl beef nulla. Rump pork belly pig andouille jerky. Jowl ut adipisicing salami enim.
Veniam pork sint, consequat laboris velit non sunt. Shoulder bresaola pastrami, nostrud drumstick commodo minim sunt eu rump in brisket. Proident commodo tenderloin, ut pastrami sunt eiusmod cupidatat incididunt tongue anim swine ham hock. Dolore in salami nulla, consequat venison pancetta. Flank ex strip steak, labore ball tip jerky beef salami incididunt. Occaecat cupidatat beef, deserunt boudin pork loin meatloaf veniam. Cupidatat hamburger in short ribs boudin id.
Ut ball tip aliquip salami exercitation, spare ribs qui sirloin tongue swine occaecat fugiat cupidatat veniam. Ullamco reprehenderit bacon, flank biltong jerky deserunt jowl non cow shank ham hock aute. Shoulder ut pariatur andouille minim short loin, aliqua deserunt meatball boudin ullamco sausage. Turkey ham drumstick, proident eu ground round hamburger meatball do. Aliquip beef ribs nulla laboris, sirloin aute proident short loin spare ribs turkey venison t-bone ad culpa. Et id laboris labore proident. Magna nulla meatloaf, ribeye dolore commodo drumstick sirloin adipisicing.
Flank aliqua mollit, tri-tip pork belly in minim duis. Reprehenderit brisket andouille aliqua, pork loin qui ham. Duis ullamco ex ground round minim, meatloaf pork turkey short loin t-bone proident culpa commodo. Dolore do cillum, pork chop cupidatat exercitation shoulder. Laboris laborum shankle boudin meatball. Bacon et in elit culpa minim. Anim sirloin corned beef tongue.
Jerky aliqua officia voluptate ut andouille, venison headcheese pork shoulder aliquip meatball. Tail elit excepteur, shoulder culpa enim ex magna fatback reprehenderit in swine. Fatback venison ham, occaecat bresaola short ribs excepteur id. Pastrami shoulder proident, rump quis jerky pig. Commodo adipisicing in bacon, veniam jerky excepteur turkey t-bone laborum eu headcheese venison ham hock esse. Spare ribs duis pig consectetur jowl labore reprehenderit, mollit excepteur short loin. Qui cupidatat consequat, spare ribs duis culpa tempor.
BACON!
I can cite specific instances where non-recognition of the relationships has resulted in long term partners not being allowed to be together when one is dying in hospital,
So…..people who aren’t married who are dying in a hospital are forced to sit there all alone? You actually believe this? What is it with liberals and just making stuff up?
When you can read in a book written by people who want to destroy this country that one method to undermine our society is by pushing things like “gay marriage” and that’s not enough to make you understand the real agenda of these people….well, good luck to you.
If the lesbians (gay men have zero interest in getting “married”)REALLY wanted all the alleged “benefits” of marriage, they would demand exactly that. trying to redefine the WORD shows that it has nothing to do with that. Had they just said we want a way to get the stuff…ahem…normal people do, they wouldn’t care what it’s called.
Latin – detected to English translation:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Business | Leave a lion that more backward. Disease in the world on Tuesday, and is more. And no always neither time nor wish to know the gate. You more time. Header Level, but just about the gate, Search Login sometimes a lion, or stars offer but my vehicles. Ut pellentesque HTML Editor. We hope for more. Add arrows, and more at a time, sometimes my Orcus the lakes, was at your Home. Read more here. Which are planning, always you and your finishes. Admin and before the hatred. We shipments here. But more than open to be displayed, it was said a tortor. In the bow only. Is recommended live lion, the author of my needs. Please bow your life here and interior design. And the e-Cart. My E-mail Address you need more arrows.
Post your no. Remember Me | Forget your reply. You as the author of more or more. We Orthographic and more freedom but suscipit, ligula sem various a lion, who before the more your energy. Sed mauris you please I like to review? News. In the course of some mass of itself be performed manually. My life here or your very product-a lion here. Read more more more you. Aenean malesuada, no price of any soft, you fear more fear, no more life you sometimes here. Welcome to challenge. So you have in the Shem HAMMER quiver at my drink. No drink some at you. We are always here him, it was said, nor any more of life. About arrows do not, but here you sit amet, consectetur. Your Product Your no to schedule a free fringilla at, the following addition to the front. Read a list in the dream becomes itself. Question your password? Register here more pure HTML structure. For some that huge any more here. In the News.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Forums and chat, but the fear than the HTML structure. We, and furnish the. Now prophetic than clean, modern, you need not toll-RokNewsPager. Now your a lion nor a soft laughter that you please here. We ultrices hendrerit tortor a bit overwhelming. Sed imperdiet a change to your pain. The results of your bow, not more now. Phone and leave your comments, PHP and Perl. Like a lion, more data is said here but the best top. Add to your reply, this is a youtube you a. But now the price itself.
Welcome Welcome to your e-course. We Use. Add your suggestions at Home of outdoor recreational opportunities. Welcome to my ideas, your child needs more, the members of some pain. We reserved the author. Website construction more time. To congue mattis sit amet, malesuada sit amet, consectetur of content. We do that here Read Full Story. You put your Intel Core Sample Classroom eros. Continue you in the European module. Read my hosting provider use the following formatting. Follow me on Twitter Read more. We content, writer, you always work great. Than have no pain.
Jobs by him, and for your message. More data does not live here. Click here more. In my experience you, your great at Builders. E-mail address and request the school develop its curriculum by the least-no on Tuesday, just and mourning. Until the Home and more at your Details. But no more, and, from the bow quiver. Protect Your just change the author. Read more SettingCategory at FSU.
and hot saucy tomale sizzles beefsteak leave the rest to your imagination juicy tender loins on the grill
Pingback: Blog posts on the whiteness of Democrats and gay marriage | novatownhall blog
Captain Obvious, you really wrote a fine post, but, my man, break it up a little!
Willing to spam your own blog to make a point! That was great, Basil.
What the heck is wrong with google translate? It can’t even do Lorem Ipsum? I’m 99% sure Latium did not have a word for HTML.
island girl, you intrigue me, and it’s not just because you are the only girl here. Though that does account for about 99% of it. The other 1% are the tasty food references.
My point is made. You wouldn’t take the time to read a coherent argument from our side either, so on with the insanity!
Captain Obvious, Marko is right. My eyes crossed several times trying to follow on to the next line. You should warn us to increase our font size when reading your mega comment! (Am I the only one who still uses Control+ and Control- for that?)
CaptainObvious started out on the right track, but veered off. For me, it comes down to logic. The gov’t should not be involved in granting privileges to a religious rite (that’s not a typo, I didn’t mean right). The only way the gov’t should be involved in marriage is in recognizing the contract between the participants. Therefore, on a strictly contractual basis under the Constitution, the gov’t must grant equal protection to anyone who engages in such a contract. I think Capt.O & I deviate because I, for one, believe there should not be any incentives nor subsidies for breeding, so the tax code should be revised to eliminate credits for spouses and children. You shouldn’t need a license to commit to your partner, and the gov’t shouldn’t care whether you’re going to create and/or raise children.
The gov’t should not be in the business of perpetuating itself. The gov’t exists only so long as the people require it. It says that in the Declaration of Independence. To do the things we can’t do for ourselves individually. It says that in the Constitution.
My employer still expects “some” productivity while I’m working. Please keep the length of all posts consistent with acceptable levels of on-the-clock time wasting. Plus my attention span doesn’t get me past 3-4 sentences. Why else would I be playing on the Internet when I’m supposed to be working?
When last was the government not in the business of perpetuating itself? Not in this century and most likely not after the damned, cursed Progressive Era of the early decades of the 20th Century.
4 years of Latin and I can’t read a damn thing that Basil wrote! Must be that I’m a moron. Can’t be the teaching techniques that had me wanting to set my hair on fire during each class. Agricola, Agrigolae, Feminine… What’s with farmer being feminine anyway? Latin sucks!
Captain Obvious, tl;dr
I refer you to this guide
Pay close attention to the third tip.
Ah, you probably wont.
We don’t actually deviate, because I said nothing about “should”. Merely “is”. So long as the condition for the license “is”, then the licensing terms must be applied consistently. Guv does lots of crap it “shouldn’t” do, but you need to understand what the rationale “is” if you want a prayer in court of refuting it.
Re: length: That’s what I get for copy/pasting a full article I wrote elsewhere into a comment space.
And yet, probably won’t lose any sleep for being thought crazy by IMAO commentors… come to think of it, that’s like a badge of sanity!
I object to the notion I’m crazy for not being lazy enough… I’m waaay lazy enough to use Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V 😉
I’m so lazy, I don’t even finish all of my
I don’t get it: in New York, you can’t buy an incandescent light bulb but you can shove a live gerbil up your “wife’s” poopchute?
After all the hubbub gay proponents have made over the years I’ll simply refer to a brief Dom DeLuise clip and leave it at that…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAvQ6PdE4OI
The funny thing is that, it ain’t about ‘love,’ it’s about cash.
Gays want in on the various subsidies that go with being married – like extended healthcare benefits for a working spouse, and that sort of thing.
#49 – Mighty Colon!,
If brevity is the soul of wit, that clip may have been the wittiest thing I ever saw! 😀
Last year, Princeton University politics professor Robert P. George co-authored a majorly kick-ass article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, of all places, in which he and the other authors absolutely shred the case for ‘gay marriage’ and build up a strong case for the state recognizing marriage as a certain type of heterosexual monogamous union. The article is pretty long, but immensely worth the read, I think. It also includes a brief critique of certain libertarian stances on marriage, though the arguments there are weaker than the ones against the liberal perspectives.