Same-sex couples wed in Washington st...

Same-sex couples wed in Washington state for first time

There are 126 comments on the Reuters story from Dec 9, 2012, titled Same-sex couples wed in Washington state for first time. In it, Reuters reports that:

As midnight chimed, public school elementary teachers Sarah and Emily Cofer tied the knot at a joyful mass wedding to mark the first day that same-sex couples can marry in Washington state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#42 Dec 10, 2012
fedupwiththemess wrote:
Adding to the downfall of America.
I thought obama was the one we've been waiting for, and that he was gonna stop the rise of the seas and make the earth begin to heal? Was that obama, or Jesus, I get them confused?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#44 Dec 10, 2012
Bluntforce wrote:
I'm sure Satan was so proud. And I'm sure these two elementary school teachers will keep their sexual orientation out of their respective classrooms. And of course there won't be ANY indoctrination of their young, impressionable students on the "wonders" of the homosexual deathstyle. The parents had better keep a keen eye on this sickening development.
If there were a real Satan, instead of him merely being an imaginary being, he'd love you for hating and dividing one American from another and hating homosexuals in general.

Yes, you're clearly a pretend Christian doing your imaginary Satan's work. How proud you must be!:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#45 Dec 10, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought obama was the one we've been waiting for, and that he was gonna stop the rise of the seas and make the earth begin to heal? Was that obama, or Jesus, I get them confused?
Maybe you just need to lay off the moonshine, Georgia...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#46 Dec 10, 2012
Wonderful to see human freedom increasing as Washington leads by example. Legal, regulated pot and legal, regulated gay marriage - what a step forward into the new century!

Congratulations, Washington!:)

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#47 Dec 10, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you just need to lay off the moonshine, Georgia...
mighty mighty pleasin, pappys corn squeezins......white litening

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#48 Dec 10, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
Wonderful to see human freedom increasing as Washington leads by example. Legal, regulated pot and legal, regulated gay marriage - what a step forward into the new century!
Congratulations, Washington!:)
yeah, just hope your taxi driver, school bus driver, truck driver, UPS driver, Mailman driver, airplane driver and doctor and dentist are smart enough not to toke while on duty.
Ratliff

Orlando, FL

#49 Dec 10, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought obama was the one we've been waiting for, and that he was gonna stop the rise of the seas and make the earth begin to heal? Was that obama, or Jesus, I get them confused?
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.
reality

Dayton, OH

#50 Dec 10, 2012
fedupwiththemess wrote:
Adding to the downfall of America.
Brother, you can say that again.

The gradual glorification and proliferation of the [email protected]&&o+ and rugmuncher alternative lifestyle played a significant part in tearing apart the moral fibers as well as the empires of ancient Greece and Rome. Quite obviously the USA is morally on-line to fail in much the same manner.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#51 Dec 10, 2012
Hey Ratliff, did your parents leave you at home alone a lot as a child?

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#52 Dec 10, 2012
fedupwiththemess wrote:
<quoted text>That would be your mammy. Obama reigns. Obama is in control for another 4...ha ha
you sure seem to know a lot about my mammy...did your mammy used to work for my mammy? I seem to remember someone doing our floors, and mopping and ironing and stuff. Was she a little short woman with curly hair and a wide nose?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#53 Dec 10, 2012
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Brother, you can say that again.
The gradual glorification and proliferation of the [email protected]&&o+ and rugmuncher alternative lifestyle played a significant part in tearing apart the moral fibers as well as the empires of ancient Greece and Rome. Quite obviously the USA is morally on-line to fail in much the same manner.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana
You are scheduled to lose gravity and float out into space on December 21, 2012
.
Wear a bicycle helmet and please take a roll of toilet paper
reality

Dayton, OH

#54 Dec 10, 2012
Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.
Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.
The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.
Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.
Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.
Conservatives on every level of government scour the Earth for common sense, practical solutions to problems so that we don't have to necessarily tax the f### out of ourselves.

Liberals are hypocrites. They waste.

Prove me wrong. In your response, See if you can use 50 words or less.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#55 Dec 10, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, just hope your taxi driver, school bus driver, truck driver, UPS driver, Mailman driver, airplane driver and doctor and dentist are smart enough not to toke while on duty.
They could be doing that NOW....or drinking, for that matter. How would this be different?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#56 Dec 10, 2012
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservatives on every level of government scour the Earth for common sense, practical solutions to problems so that we don't have to necessarily tax the f### out of ourselves.
Liberals are hypocrites. They waste.
Prove me wrong. In your response, See if you can use 50 words or less.
Obviously one can't prove an opinion "wrong." One can, however, laugh at it.

LOL!

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#57 Dec 10, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
They could be doing that NOW....or drinking, for that matter. How would this be different?
it's sort of illegal now....when it's legal, their defense will rise up to claim it's acceptable in the use and therefor beg the court to toss the case.

Are the ponytailed ex hippie college professors stoned when they teach our children? I figure you'd know, you being a professor and everything.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#58 Dec 10, 2012
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
it's sort of illegal now....when it's legal, their defense will rise up to claim it's acceptable in the use and therefor beg the court to toss the case..EDIT....
Only if we were stupid enough to allow people to get high and drive, teach, operate buses or heavy machinery, etc.

Obviously those should all be illegal, just as it is to DRINK and do those things.

Or are you claiming that people don't drink and drive, etc. now because it's legal?:)
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#59 Dec 10, 2012
"E.J. Graff, writing in the gay and lesbian news magazine The Advocate, summed it up this way in September: "If the court does take up Perry, be afraid, be very afraid." She continues:
Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry's heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe the Supremes would be ready to say this in 10 years, after LGBT forces have repealed most of the state [bans], replacing them with marriage equality in all but a handful of Southern states. But not yet."

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#60 Dec 10, 2012
neutral observer wrote:
If gay marriage is ok then that opens up the door to all sexual minorities. Those whose sexual preference is pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia...
Those who are bi will need to be allowed both a husband and a wife.
Marriage should be for those who are going to start a family. That is its main purpose. To protect the kids... family... it has never been about two people and their base sexual desires.
Keep my sheep out of this!

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#61 Dec 10, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if we were stupid enough to allow people to get high and drive, teach, operate buses or heavy machinery, etc.
Obviously those should all be illegal, just as it is to DRINK and do those things.
Or are you claiming that people don't drink and drive, etc. now because it's legal?:)
when it's been legal for a while, and the populace gets comfortable with the ease of entry, the whole state will be in a perpetual state of bliss, and everybody will be all huggy lovey and singing kumbayaya, just hope you or your kids are not destroyed by them.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#62 Dec 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
"E.J. Graff, writing in the gay and lesbian news magazine The Advocate, summed it up this way in September: "If the court does take up Perry, be afraid, be very afraid." She continues:
Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry's heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe the Supremes would be ready to say this in 10 years, after LGBT forces have repealed most of the state [bans], replacing them with marriage equality in all but a handful of Southern states. But not yet."
I'll be laughing when their ruling on DOMA makes Perry completely irrelevant and sets new precedent in the matter of marriage rights for gay Americans.

Your wishful thinking is noted with amusement.:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 min cpeter1313 320,439
News Donald Trump tells troops - we're really winnin... 4 min NeoCrusader7 4
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min mdbuilder 1,643,840
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 7 min Bongo 42,552
News Trump all but endorses GOP's Moore despite sex ... 7 min spud 50
News Trump discounts sex assault accusations against... 14 min spud 64
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 20 min cpeter1313 14,266
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 20 min Logic Trumps Dogma 1,218
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 25 min IndoEuro 229
News Sen. Al Franken accused of inappropriate behavi... 2 hr CodeTalker 150
More from around the web