29 votes

*Marriage Has Been Perverted!*

Since 1215... when the Government of the United Kingdom (such a likable bunch!), created the requirement for a *public* announcement in a Christian parish (no longer recognizing private marriages) as requested by the Roman Catholic Church, setting the stage for our modern day definition of marriage.

Before this point "marriage" was a *private* binding contract often between clans (families) to form alliances. A "dowry" (cattle, land, precious metals, soft toilet paper or whatever else was considered to be valuable at the time) was passed between the clans. Marriages "of love"(gay or straight)have existed for thousands of years as well(more so in prosperous times/areas where alliances between families were not needed to survive brutal times).

What was done in 1215 represents the *real* perversion point in the whole marriage saga, even on a day like today, because this is when it became a public/state issue. Whether you are gay or straight inviting the government into people's private lives is always bad.

Let's face it, even after today's ruling, gays will *still* not enjoy the same rights or protections as straight people do but they may start enjoying the same tax breaks and other benefits that marriage affords everyone else, ( you know...like the benefit of being next to your partner while they're lying on their deathbed and such).

The fact is that, the day that the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment are upheld to protect *ALL* citizens will be a great day for this nation regardless of any superficial differences anyone of us share.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For What Its Worth

The market has already accepted same sex marriage, civil unions, partnerships of all kinds. People are not divided on this issue, with one big distortion.....Government !!!
Just like Jim Crow, the problems are more from over-reach of government than true irreconcilable differences by the people.

The whole issue is from granting one collective special benefits while ignoring all others. Its not just gays when it comes to probate abuse. Its not gay that bears the whole burden on the evils of inheritance laws or honoring personal contracts. Yet all this clamoring for gay rights does nothing but give the government the majority back when it comes to dictating which groups get special favors, punishing the non compliant.

Seems to me the proper response is to eliminate non-apportioned taxation and special favors to special groups. I am quite frankly disappointed in the gay activist who simply "got theirs" and left so many others in what they themselves called "oppression". I thought this community was all about a just and sustainable government protecting the rights of all, equally......seems as though they are no different than the others. Got mine !



You are a toilet bigot.

There are separate mens and womens bathrooms. I wont tolerate this inequality. Especially at a public building. I dont believe in gender differentiation and I want to know why my government allows this discrimination to continue. I will teach my kid to use whatever toilet it likes. The bathrooms should be labelled "HUMAN".

What if we DID share bathrooms?

IMO if boys and girls started sharing bathrooms at a young age it would improve communication skills between the sexes and in the long rung improve marriage success rates. Just a theory/thought.

I mean we've desegregated the races, why not the sexes?

You still sound like a locker room bigot

And so on...... segregated public facilities in a post civil rights America. However I am always up for a toilet sit in if u want to help being a change. Maybe while I'm there I will chat up the ladies.

On this issue I can only speak for myself

If I were ever to get cornered by a census taker and forced to answer questions, my response to 'are you married?' would be "NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS"

That is the same way I feel about other peoples' marriages. None of my damn business, nor would I want it to be.

The courts and government shouldn't be in the marriage racket, period.

I kind of agree.

My new position is I dont want the state to define marriage for me. I will never tell the government that I am married unless they compel me to do so. If they want to establish domestic partnership agreements and parenting agreements thats fine, but dont tell me what a marriage is. They say there is a marriage penalty on IRS. If it is the same taxes as being single, just file single.

God is being mocked

turbulence ahead !

um, right...how do you explain gay animals

did they turn against god too?

Bad logic again

Truly gay animals, animals that chose to live only with, and only attempt to mate with, animals of the same sex, would be eliminated from the gene pool by their failure to procreate.

Animals mounting anything available in a sexual frenzy is not gayness. Just animals being animals.

how exactly would they be eliminated??

straight animals are the ones producing gay offspring!

And you want to try and school ME on LOGIC?!

Why don't perfectly

Why don't perfectly functional animals produce a significant percentage of offspring with deformed or malfunctioning reproductive systems? Because messed up genitals or reproductive systems would specifically undermine not just survival in an environment, but the reproductive process itself, making it less likely that any tendency to have those traits would be passed along.

Gayness, likewise, specifically undermines the reproductive process itself. Creatures that mate with creatures they cannot impregnate or be impregnated by will not procreate. Period. Just like creatures with reproductive organs that cannot deliver or receive the proper baby making ingredients will not procreate. So any genetic tendency to be be gay (or to otherwise malfunction in procreative terms) would be far less likely to be passed along.

Not saying these things can't happen as freak occurrences. The process of evolution as it's generally understood, however, seems to rule out gayness occurring to the extend that we should reorder human behavior standards to accommodate it.

Why do you insist on puting god in a box??

who are you to know??

the fact remains that my parents, who are straight, produced me and 3 straight kids. And chances are others in my family (and outside) have also produced gay offspring, as well as straight offspring, who then produce more offspring who may or may not be gay. there is ZERO evidence for anything you wrote above.

You're not understanding the

You're not understanding the discussion. The argument is that in order for gay tendencies to occur to the extent that they override straight tendencies--at a genetic level--those tendencies would have to be passed along regularly over hundreds of thousands of years. But the very nature of the gay tendencies, since they make procreation less likely, makes this occurring very unlikely.

Therefore, you have to look to environmental factors to explain widespread gayness, and most individual cases of gayness.

Chances are, I'd say, that you were abused in some manner or have some other elements, or combination of many elements, that affected your psyche and made gayness seem like a good choice in our modern society. Exactly the sort of process that makes people choose the outlaw biker lifestyle and mindset, even when all of their siblings are "straight citizens."

I was under the impression...

Re: " even after today's ruling, gays will *still* not enjoy the same rights or protections as straight people do "

I was under the impression that in California, same sex unions had all of the same rights as marriage, and that the difference between marriage and civil unions in California was only in name, and that the push for gay marriage was more about forcing people to approve of their behavior than getting the rights that civil unions already gave them.

same with black people

why do they need to use white people's water fountains? I mean we let them get water too! Why do they feel the need to use white people's water fountains?! It just ain't right.

I understand that you are

I understand that you are deep in this fight, and this is your lifestyle and all but marriage and Jim Crow can never be compared. Separate but equal is not equivalent to equal in everything but tax benefits. Have you ever seen a black's only water fountain and do you know what happened to those that use them and got caught? I'm not trying to sound like a jerk but it's not the same fight.

It's not just tax benefits

There are over 1000 federal laws that pertain to marriage. It's not just tax benefits.

Honestly, I just want to know

Honestly, I just want to know 10. Everyone I talk to always brings up tax breaks and insurance. *shrugs*


You obviously haven't fully thought out the whole issue.

Lucky you, for being part of the majority whose will is forced on everyone else.

I can list a bunch out if you really need 10

I can list a bunch out if you want but most fall under these categories

Social Security
Family and Medical Leave
Patient Rights
Federal Worker Benefits
Military/Vet Benefits
Continued Health Coverage
Intellectual Property

In all honestly, most of what

In all honestly, most of what you listed falls under the category of insurance benefits:

Social Security (if we are talking about disability)
Family and Medical Leave
Patient Rights
Federal Worker Benefits
Military/Vet Benefits
Continued Health Coverage

I'm not mad at all though; go for what you want. I just hate that a lot of people try to make this about love when its really about benefits.

Gay is not the new black.

Here is a well thought out article called "gay is not the new black": http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-no...

Although the article is from some sort of religious web site, the arguments in the article are not religious, and there is no reason to resort to the genetic fallacy.

The gay people I know have

The gay people I know have always been that way. It is genetic.

And to the down voters, I have to assume you must have no friends or relatives who are gay or your head is just completely buried in the sand. Even that towering monument to hypocrisy, Dick Cheney admitted as much about his own daughter after he had nothing further to gain politically by ignoring her existence.

thank you!!

genetic or not I didn't choose to be gay! My life would have been quite easier and different if I wasn't.

But I am happy with who I am and an lucky to have my partner :)

I agree that marriage should never have become a . . .

"state" institution.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

tasmlab's picture

When are single people going to demand benefits?

Why should married people just get tax benefits, single people should get them too!

It's especially sad that people who can't find somebody to love them have to go without their benefits. Never experience children. So sad! And now they are gyped of their benefits.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

To be consistent

I think the government needs to grant single people the legal right to marry themselves.

Excellent point! If

Excellent point! If anything, single people need tax benefits more than married couples do. A single person can work two jobs, but most single people can't make as much money as married people do.

2 incomes vs. 1 income.

Bob is single, makes $37,000 a year and rents an apartment.

Joe and Sue just got married and their combined income is $74,000. Then they have a child and buy a house.

Bob can't afford a house, but Bob pays more taxes than Joe and Sue as a percentage of his income.

That's not fair, and it's not right to penalize people for simply being single.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

I disagree that it's easier for married people to make money.

I disagree that it's easier for married people to make money. Single people are free to rent a room somewhere for relatively cheap, while a family needs more space, and makes cohabitation with other people more difficult. Kids are also expensive, time consuming, and restrictive in other ways. The idea that marriage leads to dual income assumes that the government will be raising the children.

You might look at it as single people aren't penalized, but rather the married people are given a benefit for a reason. Marriage adds stability to society with the raising of children and instilling them with virtues. Reproducing provides the next generation of tax payers and job creators. It's sort of like an investment for the future. I can see why childless marriage might fit into what you are saying, but marriage typically initiates a scenario where children naturally result and are provided a stable environment which is a service to all of society.