Reply With Quote
What costs to the govt are you talking about?
Would it really be so excessive as to be a good reason to keep gays from getting married?
You and your struck nerve, asshat.Your laughter is audible, but the object is unclear. What are you laughing at, Miss Jelks?
Rofl.
What costs to the govt are you talking about?
Would it really be so excessive as to be a good reason to keep gays from getting married?
You let them in on all the lies you tell yourself at night before going to bed because you're too weak minded to accept your mortality. If they're a pussy too, they'll believe you.
Is there an echo in here?
I'm devastated. Hope you had a nice laugh.
Where does the government require they need to love each other?
As far as the government is concerned, the fact two people filled the paperwork is good enough and all it takes...
Not sure about that. Maybe you're getting outworked.
http://awesome.good.is/transparency/...aith/flat.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/f...ter_socialflowThe most extraordinary story I heard was from a woman in Tuscaloosa county, Alabama. She grew up in nearby Lamar county, raised in the strict Church of Christ, where there is no music with worship and you can’t dance. She says her family love her and are proud of her, but “I’m not allowed to be an atheist in Lamar County”. What is astonishing is that she can be pretty much anything else. “Being on crack, that was OK. As long as I believed in God, I was OK.” So, for example, “I’m not allowed to babysit. I have all these cousins who need babysitters but they’re afraid I’ll teach them about evolution, and I probably would.” I couldn’t quite believe this. She couldn’t babysit as an atheist, but she could when she was on crack? “Yes.” I laughed, but it is hard to think of anything less funny.
Finding your obvious hurt nerve after you thought you struck one of mine did strike my funny bone.
Thanks for that
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....sm-in-america/There is one part that might be controversial: the idea that atheists shouldn’t self-identify as such a reviled group.
Data backs up anecdote. A now famous University of Minnesota study concluded that Americans ranked atheists lower than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society”. Nearly 48 per cent said they “would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group” (many more than the next most unpopular category, Muslims, at 33.5 per cent). No wonder atheist groups talk of modelling their campaigns on the civil rights, gay and women’s liberation movements. It is not that they claim their persecution is on the same level but that they suggest the way forward requires a combination of organising and consciousness-raising. “We want people to realise that some of their best friends are atheists, some of their doctors, and lawyers and fire chiefs and all the rest of them are atheists,” says Dennett.I’m not sure I agree with Sam here, first because I don’t think many atheist organizations (or atheists) portray themselves as victims. Yes, we’re despised, but I think we have the same type of self-empowerment, the sense that we’re right, that infused the civil-rights and gay-rights movements. Also, Baggini belies this view himself when he reports why atheism is on the increase in America:
Not everyone agrees that this is the way to go. The neuroscientist Sam Harris is one of America’s best-known atheists; his 2004 book, The End of Faith, sold over half a million copies. He agrees that the situation for atheists is “analogous to being gay and in the closet for many people”, and it is striking that virtually every atheist I spoke to talked the language of being “out” or “in the closet”. Nevertheless, Harris argues “it’s a losing game to trumpet the cause of atheism and try to rally around this variable politically. I’ve supported that in the past, I support those organisations, I understand why they do that. But, in the end, the victim group iden y around atheism is the wrong strategy. It’s like calling yourself a non-astrologer. We simply don’t need the term.”
When it comes to identifying the main cause of atheism’s recent growth, most people agree. “It’s all about the internet,” says Silverman. “The reason that atheism is on the rise is because there is no way that a person who is an atheist can think they’re alone any more. When I was growing up, I was the only atheist I knew. I had to get on my bike, ride to the public library and take out the one atheist book that they had in the whole library: The Case Against God by George Smith. Now any atheist can go on Facebook or Myspace and find literally millions of friends.”And what is that but trumpeting the cause and rallying around the variable?
Johnson can testify to the power of the web. “I found the East Texas atheist website, and through that the Fellowship of Freethought, the Dallas atheists, the Plano atheists and all these different other groups and I’m like, ‘oh, I’m not alone’ … Just knowing that there are 400-plus people at least, maybe thousands, an hour and a half from here that have similar beliefs is enough that I don’t feel isolated.”
So the question remains...why does government even recognize marriage?
Remember the finale of Boston Legal?
The question was already answered. People want to marry.
The question that remains is... why wouldn't government recognize marriage?
I rather read fiction, tbh
The government recognizes marriage simply because people want to get married?
your reason was 'family', wasn't it?
are gay couples not able to make up a 'family'?
plenty of dysfunctional nuclear families, imo.
Government recognizes marriage as a social contract between two people that willingly want to enter into that contract.
Why does the government has to have any "reasons" to allow or disallow that contract?
Why wouldn't government recognize marriage?
Kierkegaard called faith "a leap in the dark." I think that's a fair description.
Perhaps "recognize" is the wrong word...
Why does government allow exclusive benefits to married couples?
Marriage, and who's been allowed to marry or not it's been pretty much ever changing in this country. With that in mind, politics definitely play a large role on why or how those exclusive benefits are granted, and it's far from a settled matter.
Examples:
- Pre civil-war, some states disallowed marriages among slaves.
- Pre 1967, interracial marriage was banned in some states.
- Since 1996 and the signing of DOMA, the rules under which some of those exclusive rights are granted has changed again. Although the part granting exclusive rights of that law has been found uncons utional.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions