Save the cut-n-paste, charlatan, the Constitution trumps all.<quoted text>During the first fights over same sex marriage, the bible and religion where used as a way of denying marriage to gays and lesbians. In this nation we don't make laws based on religion. If the people whom want polygamy are doing so based on religion, the answer is no. Just as it was for denying same sex marriage. It works both ways. The question of polygamy was answered long ago.
Research Service 2
Christianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7 For example,
if a particular religious sect or denomination requires its members to dress modestly, and an
individual who is a member of that particular group does not comply with the dress code, that
individual would be in violation of that group’s religious law. The individual’s belief in the
religion’s precepts would guide his or her individual actions, with any sanction for noncompliance
generally remaining a private matter between the individual and the religious group.
The individual would not be subject to any penalty by the government because the government
does not enforce such a dress code. Interestingly, this distinction between religious and secular
laws can become complicated when an action might be governed by both religious law and
secular law. For example, many religious denominations’ beliefs prohibit murder under their
religious code. Both federal and state laws also prohibit murder. Thus, an individual who
commits murder would be in violation of both a religious law and a secular law and may be
sanctioned by the religious group, the government, or both.
A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.Full Story
#203240 Jul 17, 2013
#203241 Jul 17, 2013
Or Jeantel, or whatever her name was...
#203242 Jul 17, 2013
Those that want it for religious reasons.
No, religion does not apply, remember?
Those that want it for a way to collect extra government support checks.
Adopt-a-check. G4ys do it why point at it?
Those that want it as an excuse to molest children.
Those that could care less about it but bring it up on forums that are about same sex marriage as a diversion.
No-one has used it as a diversion, it is real.
#203243 Jul 17, 2013
Aww, and you were trying so awfully hard to be funny. Pity..
Are you looking for a soulmate? Try ASS-HATS_R_US.com, you might yet score a friend..
#203244 Jul 17, 2013
You must be VERY confused about what constitutes a heterosexual couple....1 of each gender.
Yes, we knew that, you must not realize that we know that, if you are still trying to push the idea that:
1 you are gay.
2 you have a husband that gave you children.
See the problem? We are paying attention to the details, problem..
Your kids haven't been honest with you.
You will be, before you are done..c*nt.
That line about buying BS is a line that you have seen used against you. Try to be original, cupcake..
#203245 Jul 17, 2013
Nice1 one1, Jizzy1
#203246 Jul 17, 2013
I've got a better idea. You steer me to the part I wrote about Martin being a homophobe. You might want to put the tea on, caffeinated, as you're going to be quite busy in a futile search.
#203247 Jul 17, 2013
At Jeantel's behest...Bet she worked him up into a lather, and made him rage and get himself killed.
#203248 Jul 17, 2013
EXPERTS = secretly placed subsersives and operatives. Nice mouth. You kiss you daddie with it?
#203249 Jul 17, 2013
Why did David Carpenter and Joshua Brown go to the slammer? Gay rape. Next?
#203250 Jul 17, 2013
It's called sarcasm, shitferbrains. We all know that you human coffee tables are going to be hypocrites and give de Blacke Mon a pass because he too is listed on The Government protected species list.
Everybody knows he was a homophobe. Chantel or Latisha (or whatever her name is) told the world.
#203251 Jul 17, 2013
why did David Carpenter and Joshua Brown go to the slammer? Gay murder. Next?
#203252 Jul 17, 2013
Why did David Carpenter and Joshua Brown go to the slammer? Gay.... you get the idea by now..
#203253 Jul 17, 2013
Because, his socks stink.
#203254 Jul 17, 2013
Just as the laws didn't prevent David Carpenter and Joshua Brown from going all ape-shyte on Jesse .. Next?
#203255 Jul 17, 2013
Are you really that interested in finding out what a twink you are?
#203256 Jul 17, 2013
What a sad little fruit-fly you are..
#203257 Jul 17, 2013
Where is 42 2nd St? Is it next to 1/2 Blvd, the home of SSM?
#203258 Jul 17, 2013
Yes, he forgot, just as he forgot which sock he was using, when he posted about being you, with his other tag "Poof"...
Since: Dec 09
#203259 Jul 17, 2013
The authors of this study are looking at the evolutionary process of determining a mate for the purposes of reproduction.
This is not a study that looks at “marriage”, which is a legal union that ties people together.
Just because the first paragraph mentions “marriage”, it is not a discussion about marriage. In fact, the authors specifically use the words “mating relationships”; which, as we know, not all marriages are “mating relationships”.
Now you may say I’m splitting hairs, but in the opening paragraph, did you happen to notice how the authors define marriages as being “usually” regarded as formal reproductive alliances? Another way of saying this would be “While some marriages are ‘usually regarded as formal reproductive alliances’, NOT ALL marriages are defined in this manner.”
I think this is an important distinction; one that cannot be overlooked.
Next, this article is focused exclusively on heterosexual RELATIONSHPS (not marriage) that are SPECIFICALLY for the purposes of reproducing.
It doesn’t touch on those relationships in which couples make the conscious and mutually agreed upon decision that they will not reproduce.
As I’ve pointed out to you time and again, the numbers of married couples who are choosing NOT to have children has been increasing over the past few decades. This article doesn’t not address it and therefore does not ask or answer the question “why?”
Another problem with this article is that it does not examine homosexual relationships (long-term or short-term) at all.
Obviously same-sex relationships exist. They’ve always existed.
But since this is an article about the evolutionary processes involved with regards to opposite-gender couples in determining who to mate with; and NOT an article about marriage; the authors don’t spend time talking about gays.
Their exclusion of researching same-sex relationships probably has more to do with the specific interests of the authors and the fact that in 1993, the same-sex marriage movement was not as prominent an issue as it is today.
Keep in mind, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage happened seven years after this article was published and who knows how long after the authors began their research.
Regardless of why homosexuality is not discussed by the authors, their exclusion of the subject CANNOT be viewed as an endorsement that marriage MUST BE reserved for opposite-gender relationships only.
Lastly, I did a search on David M. Buss, just to see what he has to say about homosexuality. One of his “theories” is that some men “choose” homosexuality because they are unattractive to women.
We know that homosexuality is not a choice. That’s stupid. Even the most homely straight man could not—would not—“choose” to become gay.
And all that David Schmitt has to say about gay men is that they, like heterosexual men, enjoy having more sexual partners than gay and straight women.
Here’s the bottom line, you total rube; the article you cite is not about marriage. It’s about mating and how it MAY have evolved over the millennia. Since it does not examine heterosexual relationships in which couples consciously decide to forgo having children and since there is no discussion at all about homosexual relationships, you CANNOT conclude that this article in ANY WAY supports the belief that marriage should be confined to opposite-gender couples.
Perhaps you should read beyond the first paragraph of an article before you decide to throw it around as proof-positive for your notions.
Add your comments below
|Biggest Gay Lies (May '14)||5 min||Jose||3,066|
|Gay marriage (Mar '13)||8 min||gjest||57,251|
|The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09)||11 min||Tendresse||68,782|
|Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13)||16 min||Christshariahns||8,740|
|Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus...||22 min||Hazel||665|
|Witness disputes sex assault charges against ga...||24 min||Big Boob Babe||12|
|Cashier tells lesbian couple 'all gay people sh...||34 min||Charlie Feather||42|
|Top Catholics and evangelicals: Gay marriage wo...||3 hr||Rick in Kansas||52|
Find what you want!
Search Gay/Lesbian Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC