And then women were told to cover their heads and shut up at church.

TMOverbeck on December 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM

For a short time, until we figured out that Puritanism was no way to run a nation. And you were still treated orders of magnitude better than anywhere else in the world, so quit whining.

HA Commentator Predicts Gay Marriage Push is about beating science, and is proven right in under a year

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

This is the first logical answer I’ve seen in some time.

Total double-edged sword.

It acknowledges homosexuality as a biological trait, which will open up federal minority status for certain issues, and close them off for some others.

Parents of LGB offspring can be screened to see if their child is congenital, or not. That’s going to make an interesting splinter in the debate.

And then we’re going to have future parents who are going to be able to screen for this in a very short time…while someone will try and do the opposite, providing a way for gay couples via surrogate to pass the trait on. The trait possession in gay couples seems uncertain, though.

Brave New World, baby.

Fancy that. Women were despised inferiors until us evil fundies came along with our ‘Christian Sharia’ and wrested the cultural norms away from the buttsex brigade.

And then women were told to cover their heads and shut up at church. Paul wasn’t a woman-hater, but he wasn’t exactly an egalitarian, either.

Wow, my retroactive prophecies are batting 1.000. : )

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Man marries body pillow girlfriend in Korea – Boing Boing

yup, here it is. I also think someone married their character online…

Japanese man ‘marries’ computer game character – Telegraph

Yup, there is that one.

Of course, saying these are marriages is bordering on insane. I wonder what a pillow would do with half and a big alimony check…

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

.
The far east… I think they already have them…

astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

.
Wow, my retroactive prophecies are batting 1.000. : )

You just know that someone, somewhere wants an officially recognized and condoned marriage to a “non-human”.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

The far east… I think they already have them…

p_incorrect on December 10, 2012 at 4:42 PM

.
Wow, that was rather eloquently explained. +++++

We could also include bestiality in that mix.

You just know that someone, somewhere wants an officially recognized and condoned marriage to a “non-human”.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

.
The word nucleus (the root of the word – nuclear) simply implies the inner (tight) family. There’s no reason why a nuclear family needs to have offspring.

blink on December 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM

.
But there is a reason why our previous elected government “servants” (but don’t try telling any of them today, that they’re our servants) chose to officially condone and recognize heterosexual marriage, and allow parents tax-deductions on their children.

Same-sex “marriages” can’t reproduce. By definition, that by itself makes same-sex “marriage” axiomatically unequal to heterosexual marriage.

I think that those who keep insisting on using semantics to equate gay marriage to normal marriage are, in addition to using one of the oldest bullshit tricks in the books, getting themselves into a logical contradiction. For two things to be considered the same, they have to share all properties (that’s a necessary but not sufficient condition). In the case of gay marriage, the fact that the union is not capable of reproduction should be a no-brainer for anybody. For those still unconvinced, consider the case of incestuous marriages. I am not even talking about first degree marriages (parents/children or siblings) but cousins. Restrictions for marriage between first degree cousins exist in some states but do not exist on others. In particular, in Washington state, two first cousins cannot legally marry. If we accept that gay marriage == normal marriage, you have to leave the restriction for first cousin gay marriage. However, since the rationale for banning first cousin normal marriages isn’t there for first cousin gay marriage, common sense dictates that first cousin gay marriage should be permitted but if you permit that, you are implicitly admitting that gay marriage and normal marriage are two different beasts, so a constitutional right to normal marriage doesn’t imply a constitutional right to gay marriage, just as a constitutional right to normal marriage doesn’t imply a constitutional right to incestuous normal marriages.

It’s about recognizing and promoting the “nuclear-family” as the ideal for having a strong society.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

The word nucleus (the root of the word – nuclear) simply implies the inner (tight) family. There’s no reason why a nuclear family needs to have offspring.

JetBoy on December 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

.
You write this, and yet you’ve never been intellectually honest about your opposition to True Marriage Equality, JetBoy.

blink on December 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

.
Same-sex “marriages” can’t reproduce. By definition, that by itself makes same-sex “marriage” axiomatically unequal to heterosexual marriage.

Marriage isn’t about sexual pleasure, and gratification. Nor is it about sharing a medical plan.

It’s about recognizing and promoting the “nuclear-family” as the ideal for having a strong society.

Do what I do in these teh ghey threads…state your case, defend your position, and try and answer a question/point or two. Only get in more lengthy convos with those who are at least intellectually honest…

JetBoy on December 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

You write this, and yet you’ve never been intellectually honest about your opposition to True Marriage Equality, JetBoy.

Haven’t we learned that already?

Roberts has proved he is incapable of holding together any decision which adheres to the actual constitutional role of the court. The majority will simply invent something out of thin air- as Roberts did with PPACA.

This is one reason why the Founders made the SCOTUS role almost zero and we will once again rue Marbury vs. Madison.

For years this unelected branch of government has been nothing but a mouthpiece for some of the most destructive policies government has ever produced.

To save our country we need real leadership. And it won’t come from the SCOTUS.

northdallasthirty is gay? Oh how sad.

libfreeordie on December 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Morehouse

You didn’t need to marry your male lovers, they were just available at every Symposium. Read Plato. Gay male sex with all ages was the norm in Greek culture where women were the despised inferiors.

Only the Judeo-Christian ethos changed that pagan polymorphous perversity [as Freud called it].

profitsbeard on December 9, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Fancy that. Women were despised inferiors until us evil fundies came along with our ‘Christian Sharia’ and wrested the cultural norms away from the buttsex brigade.

And for this (among many similar examples) we get vilified by every liberal spinster who doesn’t like being told that she is, in fact, a slut…and not an ‘enlightened modern womyn’. Or whatever euphemistic bullcr@p phrase is currently in vogue.

Just read the last lines.

…not even the extremely sexually prolific Greeks had ghey marriage.

Nutstuyu on December 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Man-man and man-boy love was so thoroughly ingrained in the culture that marriage was considered the lesser institution reserved for mere procreation/inheritance and only done with those lesser beings known as women.

You didn’t need to marry your male lovers, they were just available at every Symposium. Read Plato. Gay male sex with all ages was the norm in Greek culture where women were the despised inferiors. Pederasty was so commonplace it was unremarkable.

Only the Judeo-Christian ethos changed that pagan polymorphous perversity [as Freud called it].

bazil9 on December 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Burke on December 9, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Cheers…Much thanks!

Do what I do in these teh ghey threads…state your case, defend your position, and try and answer a question/point or two. Only get in more lengthy convos with those who are at least intellectually honest, and ignore the trash.

JetBoy on December 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

JetBoy, this is what many of us have appreciated about you over the years: your level-headed good sense along with your patience.

It actually is good advice for everyone at all times, not just for when posting on the “ghey threads.”

believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married.

As it SHOULD be!

northdallasthirty is gay? Oh how sad.

libfreeordie on December 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM

And your an educator.. Oh how sad..