Comments on: Don’t fear the cooties

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:36:57 +0000

I pray that someday Americans will view the role of Government differently.

By: irish red

irish red — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:00:09 +0000

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:24:39 +0000

Seems to me that is the political reality now and that folks are trying to change it.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:14:25 +0000

So you would agree the definition of marriage, then is up to the states and that all definitions of what a marriage is are equally correct? Even those the exclude couples and more?

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:32:48 +0000

“The point of argument being that marriage has a specific definition”

It does not have a specific and consistent definition. For instance, gays can marry in Iowa but not California.

And the gay marriage folks are trying to change that to include their relationships.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:28:22 +0000

The point of argument being that marriage has a specific definition, which neither includes animals, great multitudes of people, or other deviations.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:05:07 +0000

Because other other marriages are.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:03:44 +0000

But why should it be recognized as being legitimate by the guvnent?

And like with “marriage,” With contracts, whose says we have to stick with right-wing, Jerry Falwell-like definitions of what things are? It should be based on what a small minority of people feel at any given moment.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:36:45 +0000

that’s a requirement to enter a contract. you cannot contractually obligate your dog.

it’s not a power granted by the .gov. It’s a contract recognized by it.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:35:17 +0000

“sentient being with personhood.” These?

Anyway, if marriage is nothing more than a power granted from government, than what reason is there to legalize gay marriage in the first place? The right can be taken and given away arbitrarily since it is a power of the state (like getting a driver’s license), right?

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:57:22 +0000

what is with all the qualifications for what marriage is?

I haven’t listed any. But I will: It’s a contract. Nothing more, in the eyes of the state.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:52:45 +0000

Great, another reason not to like the McShames.

Uncle, what is with all the qualifications for what marriage is? Bay could just be ahead of the times. If you can have sex with said horse legally in a few states, then why not allow them to marry?

If you can only see me tears !!!!!

By: Tomcatshanger

Tomcatshanger — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:30:26 +0000

Some people take the “If you love it so much why don’t you marry it” taunt a little to seriously.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:49:26 +0000

when your horse becomes a sentient being with personhood capable of entering binding contracts lawfully, I’ll support your right to marry it. But for now, it’s a horse. And your comparison is stupid.

By: Bay

Bay — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:30:50 +0000

I’m to simple to understand how two members of the same sex can marry when the definition of marriage is he exclusive purview of the opposing sexes.

But then again I want to marry my horse so I hope this becomes a reality someday.