h0tr0d's Comments (206)

“How about the fact that the women get stuck with all the family expenses and are easier to rip off for exactly that reason?”

“Yep. Woman are so strong, but are still defenseless against rich, powerful men.

Oh the irony of feminism.”

“No, it won't play well, because it puts too much at the feet of the women. I know women who will only date married men. Or women who are only interested in a guy after he has someone. But Tiger knew that he had a wife and children back home. He could have turned it all down. He didn't and they didn't. Blame enough for them all, imo.”

“Your comment sounds like it was testosterone-fueled.”

“WRONG!

They are NOT two separate things when your talking about "MARRIAGE". ONLY the STATE "marries" you. You can have 50 blessings of "HOLY MATRIMONY" in 50 different churches but NOT ONE of them will be a legal marriage without a state issued marriage license signed by you and your spouse. Conversely if you try to go to the courthouse and "marry" 2 times (without a divorce between the two), you will be QUICKLY arrested and hauled off to jail. And when you go to dissolve your marriage you can take the certificate back to the pastor, priest, rabbi or imam that presided over your ceremony and have him stamp it "INVALIDATED", "RESCINDED", "ANNULLED", "DO-OVER", "MULLIGAN" or any other thing you want but you'll still be arrested when you try to legally marry another person because the CHURCH had NOTHING to do with making your marriage legal other than witnessing it and leading you in the oath, BY THE POWER VESTED IN THEM BY THE S-T-A-T-E.

You got MARRIED when you signed the marriage license, PERIOD.

You were joined in "HOLY MATRIMONY" by your church. That has NO legal value whatsoever without the CIVIL LICENSE.”

“Incorrect. You didn't get married in a church. You had a religious ceremony in a church.

You didn't get married until you signed the piece of paper and filed it with the county clerk. "Marriage" is a legal contract. Always has been.

If your argument is truly semantic, then let the churches come up with a new term because the government has already taken the word "marriage." Hmmm...they could call it "holy union." Ooh! They already use that term!

Great. Problem solved. "Marriage" is what the government uses. "Holy union" is what the church uses.”

“Agreed. They ARE too different things. That's why those of us pushing for equality get so frustrated.

Why can't the public understand that changing the legal definition of marriage has no impact on their religious definition of marriage?”

“Incorrect. You didn't get married in a church. You had a religious ceremony in a church.

You didn't get married until you signed the piece of paper and filed it with the county clerk. "Marriage" is a legal contract. Always has been.

If your argument is truly semantic, then let the churches come up with a new term because the government has already taken the word "marriage." Hmmm...they could call it "holy union." Ooh! They already use that term!

Great. Problem solved. "Marriage" is what the government uses. "Holy union" is what the church uses.”

“I am confounded by the term "militant gay movement." when people say that, what they really mean is gay people who speak loudly about who they are and what they demand in a just society, rather than keeping quiet and decorating your home or fixing your hair like the good gays on TV.”

“"I support equal rights. I don't support gay marriage."

You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes? You cannot support equal rights if you cannot support gay marriage.

"Marriage" for a great amount of time meant polygamy and arranged pairings. None of that is legal anymore. "Marriage" in this country used to mean people of the same race. Since we didn't "campaign against any reference to marriage in state or federal law" when we tossed miscegenation laws aside, why should we coddle you now that its your ox getting gored?

If it was a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?”

“First, it is not certain that homosexuality is biologically based. There is no "gay gene", and we're not "born gay"; rather, we're all pretty much a-sexual until a certain age. The LGBT-friendly APA says, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." Though someone can have some inherent characteristics that lend themselves to developing homosexuality in certain situations, it would be a combination of nature and nurture.

Regardless, though marriage is certainly supported and encouraged by most religions, it is not strictly a religious construct. It is natural. That is, even if all civilization, culture, etc. were wiped clean, men and women would again start to come together, beget and raise children together, and spend their lives together. It has happened in pretty much every civilization throughout history. And though homosexuality has been in and out of favor in different societies at different times, the concept of marriage has always been male/female. Gender is a fundamental defining aspect of marriage. States can ensure that the rights of LGBT persons are protected without deconstructing the fundamental institution of civilization.”

“[without the typos this time]

Firstly, I reject that marriage is a religious institution. It is a social/civil one. But, even if it were religious, just as hundreds of archaic laws and rights have been changed to reflect a progressive, ever-evolving society, so should the matter of marriage for gay people. You know, hotrod, as well as the rest of us, that the notion of voting all marriage is entirely far fetched. We're closer to giving marriage rights to our gay community, so let's stop splitting hairs and stand behind that!”

“Firstly, I reject that marriage is a religious institution. It is a social/civil one. But, even if it were religious, just as hundred of archaic laws and rights have been changes to reflect a progressive, ever-evolving society, so should the matter of marriage for gay people. You know, hotrod, as well as the rest of us that the notion of voting all marriage is entirely far fetched. We're closer to giving marriage rights to our gay community, so let's stop splitting hairs and stand behind that!”

“The word "marriage" may have a religious upbringing, but it is anything but in today's society. Atheists, agnostics, antitheists, Muslims, Hindus... they all partake in this unionization to seek public benefits, such as the tax break.

The word can stay; it's the people who have to adopt the new meaning of this evolving idea.”

“In an ideal world, what you say might come to pass, but in our world, no one will EVER vote to abolish heterosexual marriage. So to say you don't support gay marriage BUT you would rather strike down all marriage is just a fancy way of saying you don't think gay people should have the same rights as you.

"Tradition" was also used as a code world to support segregation.”

“It does exist but noone cares to right about the good. The media exists by creating controversy and keeping people insecure.”

“Granted, there are such individuals. However, considering that many folks have stereotyped notions of trailer parks and GED's when they think of White women who date Black men, kjcs's post is rather refreshing.”

“Sorry, Charlie, but you are wrong. The problem is people, usually men, who use violence to get their way.
An equally vexing problem is that women, and men, must not stay after abuse occurs. I can see one chance to clean up the act, but 2 strikes and you are out.
Furthermore, emotional violence must be acknowledged as the abuse it is.
Don't hold your breath.”

“I'm Black and IMHO, it's cool that she mentioned her fiance's race....it's help to fight nasty stereotypes that the only White women who like Black guys are women who are educationally and/or aesthetically challenged.”