Thanks. Left you a trackback to help your readers improve eye vision naturally….

[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……

…. then what sense does it make that the laws should make it HARDER for me to fulfill my responsibilities?

How exactly does the law make anything harder? What about people who just want to remain single and raise children? Why are you leaving them out? By your standard, THEY should also be able to ‘marry’ – themselves.

In reality, nothing is harder for you at all because you can marry someone of the opposite gender as easily and as legally as anyone else; as nature intended marriage to be; as having two genders seems to ~imply~.

Thankfully we don’t live in a theocracy that would also ban shellfish, clothes of made of more than one material, or have a government system on how to sell your daughter into slavery.

Let me guess, you googled gay rights + Bible quotes and found the wikipedia article on it.

Everyone, give this man a round of applause.

You’ve now achieved you-tube comment level distinction on this blog.

So, how about actually reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, which is what applies to Christians.

As for gay rights, you know, even if I weren’t religious, I still couldn’t support them. The secular arguments make too much sense.

“who says making babies shouldn’t be fun?”

I didn’t. Why shouldn’t loving one another have it’s physical joy too?

Why should marital (sexual) intercourse be limited to baby making? When fertility is no longer possible, does the couple cease having marital relations?

Your post clearly says that the exclusivity of marriage to “one man to one woman” (you forgot, “for one lifetime”) is primarily because it takes the joining of one sperm to one egg to produce a child, and the “natural” way to join sperm to egg is by a man penetrating his wife’s vagina with his penis, engaging in intercourse, launching the sperm to the egg….

That’s your statement regarding marriage–that it is entirely based on “nature” as described above.

I’ve been to hundreds of church weddings in a variety of faiths, though mostly Christian (I was a wedding soloist back in the day). Nowhere in the traditional vows, or even modern vows, did the couple vow to have children. It is NOT a condition of marriage. Legal marriage in the US does not require the birth of a child before giving the union legitimacy. Nor does legal marriage require a fertility test of the man and woman prior to granting the license (infertile people are not prohibited from marrying). Seems to me, talk of children and child birth is not at all relevant, as most religious vows make no mention of reproduction or children, nor do the legal requirements in the US require it.

Here’s what REALLY bothers ME about our marriage laws. A woman can have aborted once, twice, perhaps even three times. Meaning, she’s murdered one, two or perhaps even three of her very own children. And this does not bar her from marrying. If marriage *IS* fundamentally about children, as you & so many others contend, then why are these child murderers not barred from marriage?

How does that make sense? How is it that a child murderer can marry so long as she marries a man, but I can’t marry a woman and live privately with her, minding our own business, working hard, being responsible.

The problem in this country is that it’s structured along lines of entitlement. Everybody is entitled to one thing or another… tax breaks, good jobs, education, safe cars, cheap gas, health care…

It’s all about “what can you (government) do for me and mine.” Whatever happened to “What can *I* do for me and mine?”

We’ve lost sight of lines of responsibility. Why can’t we enable responsibility and reward it, in whatever form it comes. If I want to claim Courtney and our daughter as my “wards,” and provide for them, so that no one else has to (least of all the government), then what sense does it make that the laws should make it HARDER for me to fulfill my responsibilities?

“On May 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm, undrseige247 said:
Damn you’re a sad person.”

abstractmind said:
MJ and i disagree on some things, and agree on others. She did make some good points yesterday. Credit where its due.

I wouldn’t worry, AbMind – MsJustice doesn’t seem the type of person to be much moved by non-sensical one-line shots. To equate someone not being impressed with meaningless rituals and hyper-mechanical roteness with being “unhappy” is just plain silly. Come to think of it, that criteria would make Jesus a sufferer of “depression”!

The government is manipulating the supply.

Yet you can get a license to drive a cab (vehicle for hire) and one cab might have three drivers sharing 3 eight hour shifts.same way you can get license to cut hair and do nails. which the government does not restrict the number of licenses it issues.
Do you see the difference?

It’s my understanding that the local government does control the number of cabbies and who is allowed to. I can’t take my pickup, slap a meter in it and charge a fare. (Why, I don’t know)By the majority (or a plurality) denying the service, without a means of replacement by market forces, that impacts service.

California has defied this simple premise at a cost that cannot be measured and with no appreciable benefit to society. This is a horrific decision and I suspect that the citizenry of California will tell the courts and the Governator just exactly where they can go in November when a constitutional amendment is on the ballot.

Many states have run into this kind of judicial arrogance — and it has been obvious from the beginning in California that the only solution is a constitutional amendment banning anything that is not a marriage between a man and a woman. No domestic partnership will be allowed when the blowback occurs here.

If you want a more realistic situation where someone’s religious beliefs actually has a meaningful impact on one being able to get the services they need, look no further than the many reports of some Christian pharmacists refusing to give out birth control or emergency contraception. This often happens in places where there is no or little choice in pharmacies. But I doubt I will find much opposition to those folks here.

You know, this is an example of someone deliberately unwilling to have an honest discussion. You may find these strike-outs cute, I find them intellectually void. In other words, you are unable to win on your own ideas; instead, you must twist or distort another’s views.

It’s not communism, but an unaccountable court essentially voided California’s constitution. If this “right” can be manufactured, then others can be too, and real God-given rights can be eliminated. Too bad you cant vote in a judge.

The court did no such thing. They didn’t manufacture a right, nor did they create law or legislation. They ruled that a law is unconstitutional. No god-given rights were violated by yesterday’s ruling.