Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are ****

[Aurora]

Marriage like all words, is made up by man, can be defined by man and can be changed by man! The word **** could suddenly become a nice word if someone found some old religious scroll in which Jesus said ****... Simply stating that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't cut if for me... People used to say **** to mean happy! So how come the bible gets the wrap up on the word marriage and no one else can use, say or change it.... The bible called donkeys an **** but today I call 87 an **** and it seems to be fine, I am sitting on my **** typing yet another reason why using the definition of a word is kind of lame.

Brokeback getting married to his man partner in life is not going to affect cub being married to his woman partner in any way, the sun will still rise, married people will still love, fight, have **** and have families and all the while a word marriage really doesn't matter. The ones who say call it a civil union and I am fine are the ones I don't get, if what you call it doesn't matter why not make the change for everyone and let everyone be married. If we have to change it to civil union then everyone including the already married folks are civil unioned ... you claim equality yet dangle it right in front of **** people and laugh because of the man made definition of a word as if a word never got changed!

[87sooner]

What does it matter what it's called then? If its equal rights, what's in a name? Civil unions would p**** tomorrow in most places. Why cling to calling it marriage?

And Newt defiles conservatism--not just marriage.

you won't get any honest answers...

[oucub23]

Marriage like all words, is made up by man, can be defined by man and can be changed by man! The word **** could suddenly become a nice word if someone found some old religious scroll in which Jesus said ****... Simply stating that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't cut if for me... People used to say **** to mean happy! So how come the bible gets the wrap up on the word marriage and no one else can use, say or change it.... The bible called donkeys an **** but today I call 87 an **** and it seems to be fine, I am sitting on my **** typing yet another reason why using the definition of a word is kind of lame.

Brokeback getting married to his man partner in life is not going to affect cub being married to his woman partner in any way, the sun will still rise, married people will still love, fight, have **** and have families and all the while a word marriage really doesn't matter. The ones who say call it a civil union and I am fine are the ones I don't get, if what you call it doesn't matter why not make the change for everyone and let everyone be married. If we have to change it to civil union then everyone including the already married folks are civil unioned ... you claim equality yet dangle it right in front of **** people and laugh because of the man made definition of a word as if a word never got changed!

You're moving the goal posts again. The reason to call it a union is because it can get done. Now. Marriage will be a battle. If its about rights, why delay gaining those rights?

Edit: The answer is marriage is jus a word to you. To religious people, it's not just a word.

[Aurora]

You're moving the goal posts again. The reason to call it a union is because it can get done. Now. Marriage will be a battle. If its about rights, why delay gaining those rights?

Edit: The answer is marriage is jus a word to you. To religious people, it's not just a word.

Well-

Edit ...everything in the bible was written and interpreted by man ... If a divine power did tell them what to write it was still written by man... This leaves me and a lot of others with plenty of wiggle room because we all know man (humans) always have their own best interests in mind...

[Aurora]

Also, if marriage is a church thing then the churches could keep it I suppose and when they want a tax break we could say no because you did not get civil unioned at the JP...

You need a state issued license to get married and in my eyes the state should treat all consenting adult couples equally... either everyone gets a "marriage" license as it is currently called or everyone gets a civil union license and then leave it to churches to preform the religious ceremony portion of it.

[oucub23]

Also, if marriage is a church thing then the churches could keep it I suppose and when they want a tax break we could say no because you did not get civil unioned at the JP...

You need a state issued license to get married and in my eyes the state should treat all consenting adult couples equally... either everyone gets a "marriage" license as it is currently called or everyone gets a civil union license and then leave it to churches to preform the religious ceremony portion of it.

You're an atheist. You're viewing things from your atheist perspective, and ignoring that not everyone is atheist--therefore, they aren't as dismissive as you are of their religion. Additionally, no matter how sound your reasoning is (and it's actually quite flawed because of your blind spot) it's still avoiding the point that unions p**** now--**** marriage doesn't. If it's about government recognitions why the insistence? You're stopping governmental recognition.

[SpankyNek]

You're an atheist. You're viewing things from your atheist perspective, and ignoring that not everyone is atheist--therefore, they aren't as dismissive as you are of their religion. Additionally, no matter how sound your reasoning is (and it's actually quite flawed because of your blind spot) it's still avoiding the point that unions p**** now--**** marriage doesn't. If it's about government recognitions why the insistence? You're stopping governmental recognition.

You're ignoring religious sects that believe same **** couples can marry.

[Aurora]

You're an atheist. You're viewing things from your atheist perspective, and ignoring that not everyone is atheist--therefore, they aren't as dismissive as you are of their religion. Additionally, no matter how sound your reasoning is (and it's actually quite flawed because of your blind spot) it's still avoiding the point that unions p**** now--**** marriage doesn't. If it's about government recognitions why the insistence? You're stopping governmental recognition.

I have plenty of religious friends who feel like I do. If you are worried about God and going to hell don't be because he forgives you of your sins, or so I hear. So what **** people get married, I highly doubt it sends you all to hell.
If the government calls it marriage then recognition would be marriage not civil unions, your trying to keep it from being equal. If they **** folks are civil unioned so are the straight ones in the eyes of the government, otherwise it is not equal... so you appear to have a flawed view of equality.

[oucub23]

I have plenty of religious friends who feel like I do. If you are worried about God and going to hell don't be because he forgives you of your sins, or so I hear. So what **** people get married, I highly doubt it sends you all to hell.
If the government calls it marriage then recognition would be marriage not civil unions, your trying to keep it from being equal. If they **** folks are civil unioned so are the straight ones in the eyes of the government, otherwise it is not equal... so you appear to have a flawed view of equality.

Lol. Sorry. But that's funny. You, and others continue to attach my advocacy of civil unions to my position. It's not. I don't care. What I do care about is people getting equal protection under the law. That's what I'm pushing for. That's what could happen tomorrow if so many people weren't so knotted up about what it's called. Holding this position that it must be calls marriage for it to be equal is dumb. And I will guarantee you that if **** marriage is passed there's going to be a push to make ministers do it--for equality and no discrimination. As I've said in another thread, that goes to SCOTUS and probably gets knocked down on a second amendment beef. Then where are we? Right where we would be if people would just quit with the marriage stuff and go with the civil union thing. Governing is about compromise. This gives everyone what they say they want. ****s get equal protection under the law. Religious marriage is protected. Everyone gives a little and ultimately gets what they want.

[oucub23]

You're ignoring religious sects that believe same **** couples can marry.

Of course I am. They have no more bearing on this than atheists opposed to **** marriage would.

[Teo9969]

Of course you will .. Just as some discriminate against race. The point is that the government wouldn't discriminate ****s any more than they would someone with a genetic disposition for red hair.

The point is that discrimination is not something we should be avoiding. It is discrimination to say that pedophiles can't have **** with children. In my estimation that is a good use of discrimination. In a pedophiles estimation it is not a good use of discrimination.

What the pro **** marriage crowd wants to be the impetus for determining whether or not one individual may marry another individual, in most cases, is mutual consent by two individuals age 18+.

What the anti **** marriage crowd wants to be the impetus for determining whether or not one individual may marry another individual, in most cases, is mutual consent by one man and one woman. Why so limiting? Because morally, that's what they believe to be right.

The problem is that the pro **** marriage crowd, when faced with someone who is anti **** marriage, wants to change the impetus from the above to an argument that "they are born that way", therefore they have an inherent right to marriage. The trouble is that A) Marriage is an institution that has been constructed by the government, therefore not something anyone has a "right" to have. B) If natural ****ual orientation is the determining factor, as opposed to legal pretense, problems arise in what you can and cannot deny to ANY individual regardless of how aberrant the ****uality. C) It is in no way established that people are in fact born with a ****ual disposition.

As soon as someone brings up the problems with that position, they immediately switch back to their original impetus. It's intellectually dishonest reasoning. Admit that you simply disagree with the basic platform of the anti crowd and argue why the impetus of the pro crowd is more beneficial to society as a whole.

The argument that the pro **** marriage crowd needs to take up is "America has hundreds of thousands of kids who have no home whatsoever, and we want the opportunity to raise helpless kids in a loving environment so they can go on to be more productive citizens." That would surely accelerate the progress toward same-**** marriage legalization. It's already a sure-fire change (particularly if the Supreme Court rules in favor of it)...it's a question of timing.

[brokebacksooner]

What does it matter what it's called then? If its equal rights, what's in a name? Civil unions would p**** tomorrow in most places. Why cling to calling it marriage?

And Newt defiles conservatism--not just marriage.

If you're union with your wife is called a "civil union", then I am fine with mine being called that (****uming rights and benefits are the same). If you are going to insist you have a marriage and I have a civil union, I have all kinds of issues with that.

Preach on brother about Newt!

[87sooner]

If you're union with your wife is called a "civil union", then I am fine with mine being called that (****uming rights and benefits are the same). If you are going to insist you have a marriage and I have a civil union, I have all kinds of issues with that.

Preach on brother about Newt!

exactly...it's not really about your "rights" is it?

[SoonerBounce]

If you're union with your wife is called a "civil union", then I am fine with mine being called that (****uming rights and benefits are the same). If you are going to insist you have a marriage and I have a civil union, I have all kinds of issues with that.

Preach on brother about Newt!

Then you are full of **** when u say it is about having equal rights.

It's all above the name for you guys

[87sooner]

it's not about the name either....but we're getting warmer

[Aquinas]

I have my doubts about opening the can of genetic predestination, especially in days like today (was the shooter genetically predestined to kill those people)?
Even if people were genetically predisposed to be homosexual, that doesn't give them the right to satisfy their desires in a Biblical worldview. Since we are to deny ourselves for the sake of the Lord, then I'd say we have to deny our ****ual desires for the sake of the Lord.

In the Christian worldview there is nothing one can deny himself that can make up for Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

I make no judgements on those outside the faith.

[SpankyNek]

I have my doubts about opening the can of genetic predestination, especially in days like today (was the shooter genetically predestined to kill those people)?
Even if people were genetically predisposed to be homosexual, that doesn't give them the right to satisfy their desires in a Biblical worldview. Since we are to deny ourselves for the sake of the Lord, then I'd say we have to deny our ****ual desires for the sake of the Lord.

In the Christian worldview there is nothing one can deny himself that can make up for Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

I make no judgements on those outside the faith.

This is wholly true, but it is impossible to presume God's will legislatively, rather we legislate to protect one person from the other.

no one is harmed by **** marriage in a civic sense.

[Aquinas]

This is wholly true, but it is impossible to presume God's will legislatively, rather we legislate to protect one from the other.

no one is harmed by **** marriage in a civic sense.

I think God reveals His will in nature/biology. Homosexuality is either a sin, or an evolutionary oops. There's no way around it. If evolution is concerned with passing on the genes, then homosexuality doesn't fit that model and must be ****igned to some genetic mutation, or otherwise said an error by the genetic machine.

In a Christian world-view, homosexuality like any other sin is committed against God himself. In that sense, God is "harmed."

I don't share the view that **** marriage endangers society more than civil unions, or people living together, or fornication, or adultery.

[brokebacksooner]

Then you are full of **** when u say it is about having equal rights.

It's all above the name for you guys

My bad; I made the ****umption that people would make the connection that same name = same rights. I forget cretins haunt these "hallowed halls" and need everything spelled out for them.

I think God reveals His will in nature/biology. Homosexuality is either a sin, or an evolutionary oops. There's no way around it. If evolution is concerned with passing on the genes, then homosexuality doesn't fit that model and must be ****igned to some genetic mutation, or otherwise said an error by the genetic machine.

In a Christian world-view, homosexuality like any other sin is committed against God himself. In that sense, God is "harmed."

I don't share the view that **** marriage endangers society more than civil unions, or people living together, or fornication, or adultery.

In some Christian world-views; not all.

There are some studies that show having a **** family member helps improve the odds of the next generation.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

You're moving the goal posts again. The reason to call it a union is because it can get done. Now. Marriage will be a battle. If its about rights, why delay gaining those rights?

Edit: The answer is marriage is jus a word to you. To religious people, it's not just a word.

The state recognizes marriage as a contract between two people. You can have state marriage and church marriage.

The State is not in the business of protecting religion. And religious people do not get to discriminate based on their own beliefs. We went through this when the religious were against interracial marriage.

I guess we will go through it again now.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[oucub23]

The state recognizes marriage as a contract between two people. You can have state marriage and church marriage.

The State is not in the business of protecting religion. And religious people do not get to discriminate based on their own beliefs. We went through this when the religious were against interracial marriage.

I guess we will go through it again now.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

All fine and good. And still irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

And the state doesn't recognize marriage as a union between two people--it recognizes it as a union between a man and a woman. That's the crux of the issue here.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

All fine and good. And still irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Well, separate but equal has been ruled unconstitutional, and is a failure of an idea if the 60s taught us anything. So we shouldn't enact legislation simply because "it will p****". We have to do things the right way and the state telling a **** couple they have a union and a straight couple they have a marriage is confusing as hell.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[oucub23]

Well, separate but equal has been ruled unconstitutional, and is a failure of an idea if the 60s taught us anything. So we shouldn't enact legislation simply because "it will p****". We have to do things the right way and the state telling a **** couple they have a union and a straight couple they have a marriage is confusing as hell.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

It's not confusing. And it's vastly different than the lunch counter argument you enjoy.

A few things: ****s can get married right now. It's just not state sanctioned. What they are seeking is state sanctioning of the union--not marriage.

This isn't separate but equal. This is equal but equal. The reason it has a different name is because it's a different union. An SUV and a pickup are both trucks--but they have different numbers because there are enough variances in the two to qualify a different name. There are corporations, sole proprietorships, LLCs, etc. They have different names because they are different unions.

This isn't don't ask don't tell. This isn't segregation. This is the exact same rights from the same government, that are being offered to two different types of unions.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

It's not confusing. And it's vastly different than the lunch counter argument you enjoy.

A few things: ****s can get married right now. It's just not state sanctioned. What they are seeking is state sanctioning of the union--not marriage.

This isn't separate but equal. This is equal but equal. The reason it has a different name is because it's a different union. An SUV and a pickup are both trucks--but they have different numbers because there are enough variances in the two to qualify a different name. There are corporations, sole proprietorships, LLCs, etc. They have different names because they are different unions.

This isn't don't ask don't tell. This isn't segregation. This is the exact same rights from the same government, that are being offered to two different types of unions.

Nope. All the government needs to know is two people have decided to commit to each other (financially). **** of the two people is irrelevant. If the government wants to call it marriage, so be it, if they want to call it a civil union, so be it. The **** of the two parties is irrelevant and should not matter to the government.

This isn't even delving into the fact that you are ok with telling progressive churches they are giving unions, not marriages to their **** members, and marriages not unions to their straight members. Which to me, sounds like an interference in religion.

[oucub23]

Nope. All the government needs to know is two people have decided to commit to each other (financially). **** of the two people is irrelevant. If the government wants to call it marriage, so be it, if they want to call it a civil union, so be it. The **** of the two parties is irrelevant and should not matter to the government.

This isn't even delving into the fact that you are ok with telling progressive churches they are giving unions, not marriages to their **** members, and marriages not unions to their straight members. Which to me, sounds like an interference in religion.

This is what you want. It's not what is. There is a difference--and as a result, we have no legislation with a chance in hell of passing right now. My personal feelings on the issue are absolutely irrelevant to what the truth is right now. Perhaps in 10 years or maybe even 5 years the feds will recognize **** marriage. I'd like to see ****s get rights now--and unions and marriage are the way to do it. Clinton understood this when he put in DADT. Ike understood this when he took what he could get w/his civil rights bill. Obama understood this when he gave up the public option. Governing in our republic isn't about getting what you want and shoving it down people's throats--that rarely works.

You like to equate this to the 60s. Look at the pace the government moved then. The government was well behind the general public in de-segregation. There were areas that held tight to racism but the majority of the country didn't--that's why the politicians (Ike and JFK namely) moved forward with Civil Rights bills and integration. Front page pictures of kids being attacked by dogs gave JFK the cover he needed--he didn't push it until segregation became unpopular with a majority. Civil unions would go NOW, and something that won't go now won't get any real traction in committee, let alone on the floor.

[87sooner]

it's not going to take 5-10 years....
it's right around the corner...the scotus will decide and it will be here before you know it....

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

It pains me to say it, but 87 "gets it". The civilized states are already coming around to it, or have already gotten with the program. Unfortunately, much like the civil rights movement, the Federal Government may have to drag the south into the present day kicking and screaming.

The big battles have been fought and progressives won. Now it is time to tell the South to get with it.

[brokebacksooner]

It pains me to say it, but 87 "gets it". The civilized states are already coming around to it, or have already gotten with the program. Unfortunately, much like the civil rights movement, the Federal Government may have to drag the south into the present day kicking and screaming.

The big battles have been fought and progressives won. Now it is time to tell the South to get with it.

Except 87 is saying as in "woe is me; the world is ending because it's right around the corner...".

[87sooner]

Except 87 is saying as in "woe is me; the world is ending because it's right around the corner...".

it's not ending....it's just getting more and more accepting of sin...
i'm excited to see what the next deviant/perverted/deranged behavior the courts will force us to recognize next