Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCT: October 19-23, 2009

<< < (50/62) > >>

thaX:
Ok... skimming through the thread... a couple of things...

Awwww... (concerning the comic and the characters) A proposal. Wonder if we will ever see Marty propose to (insert character name here)

now...

First and foremost, One is not born with inherent wants concerning their sexuality, or to be wild, or to crave chocolate. One is born to suck tit and poop.

The influx of the "gay community" is the result of the modern lifestyle where one can eat, sleep and live without having to hunt, find shelter and survive the elements. Part of the decline of human civilization is the growing ease at which we travel, going further apart from our families and having more leisure time than what we had before the invention of modern conveniences.

second, there needs to be an alternative to marriage that does not involve the church for legal purposes. Gay marriage isn't federally possible because of the separation between church and state, but the legal lifetime partnership of dedicated couples needs to be recognized. This is something that seems to make one "side" or the other mad, since an alternative is not "Marriage" or that it is simply "Marriage" without ceremony. I maintain that the "Gay community" needs to realize that gay marriage is not the goal, equal representation for the couples living together in the same manner is.

third,You are born as you are. If you have problems with being the gender you are, there is something more going on than being "stuck." Part of the modern problem is that Physiology has leaned toward a crisis mode, where there is ongoing problems continuing with patients rather than simply healing the poor sucker. It's like a bad movie, where one goes "your a monkey." "No, I'm not" "You are..." and poof, there is a monkey.

and lastly... Lady, I know you have issues with the downturn of society, but your generalization of your first post, that a gay man would not hug his son, was insulting not just to the gay community, but to every parent ever to have a kid. You should be ashamed.

jonarus_drakus:
^ A good point has been raised here. Just because 'Gay Marriarge' (I dont like terming it like that, the actually 'union of two people' part doesnt change, so marriage is marriage reguardless of who is marrying who) may be legal, doesnt mean that individual institutions (churches) that offer marriage services cant deny that service to gay couples based on internal principles.

Of course, there are alternatives to 'church wedings', and the fact that the union is made official by a Judge or some similarly state-empowered individual doesn't make it any less of a marriage (not to my mind anyway).

The point being that while 'gays' should by all means have the same right to marry as 'straights', that DOSNT counter the right of service providers to pick and chose who they offer thier service too, even if they exclude some people for entirly inapropriate, prejudiced, reasons. I mean really, would you think it was appropriate if your government were tell you that you were legaly obliged to violate your own beliefs? I didn't think so...

hanalways:
First off:
The comic made my day and definitely made me smile :D

Second:
Has anyone noticed the subtle shift from "...by the powers invested in me by God..." to "...by the powers invested in me by the state of _________..."? I noticed it last summer when my brother and I got married in a little family wedding by the lake. The ordained minister spoke of the state, not of God or any Christian churches. Yet it was the same legal, powerful words that bound a male and a female together in marriage. If it was true that it was completely up to the church to marry two people, then why that shift of wording?

:/

Is it cold in here?:
If they're going to have a party they should for sure invite Raven.

the_shankmaster:
I think that in a church wedding you are married in the eyes of God (by the power He gives the priest) and also in view of the state (via a license that the state issues churches to marry people).  I'm not completely sure, so if anyone can correct me please do.  But if this is the case, that is why they mention the state.  When my Aunt got married in the church, the priest mentioned both sources of power.


Wait, you married your brother?  Or it was a double-wedding?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page