Comments on: More Conservapedia Wisdom: Marriage

By: Beth

Beth — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:58:00 +0000

Oh, for goodness’ sake. This whole gay marriage thing shouldn’t even BE a controversy. So two guys are married. Whoop de do. What I wanna know is, how does that affect you? It doesn’t.
You may think it does, but at the end of the day, you go home and read your paper and eat your frozen pasta, so who cares whether or not you saw a couple of guys holding hands at Albertson’s this afternoon? T_T

By: K.C.

K.C. — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:50:00 +0000

I’m afraid that’s probably wishful thinking.

By: DSL is awsome!

DSL is awsome! — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:45:00 +0000

I think the person who posted that was a parodist. They get a lot of them over at CP.

By: kevjohn

kevjohn — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:43:00 +0000

I have yet to have anyone explain to me exactly how gay people getting married will in any way diminish my parents’ 40-year marriage.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:56:00 +0000

Hmm. Never heard of the monkey. Let me know which one,if you ever remember. I had always heard it was just Humans and Dolphins which did it for pleasure.

But like I said–for the non-human/humanoid…it’s DOMINATION (Your dog example)

My dog tries that to me, He’s sent to his room!

By: Wilfred Fan

Wilfred Fan — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:59:00 +0000

Chuck, ever had a dog hump your leg?

Mine mounted everything - male, female, inanimate - it could get its paws on until I had him fixed.

There’s a monkey that has sex for many different reasons (can’t recall the species), such as for comfort, to settle disputes, and just for pleasure.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:02:00 +0000

So, there’s no basis for heterosexual marriage in the constitution. Neither is there any for homosexual marriage. It’s a two-way street, but the cars are driving in opposite directions on the same side of the road.

No basis for heterosexual marriage in biology? Non-human animals (with exception of dolphins, the mammal, not the fish) have sexual intercourse for one reason: To reproduce. However, if overcrowding occurs (There was a study on this–mice, I believe…and I can’t point to the source, anymore) then homosexual activity begins to occur. It’s for DOMINATION, rather than reproduction.

A friend of mine once said, “Parts is parts.” There may be no “Basis” in the constitution, common law, or Bible–but parts is parts. If the are made to fit together, honestly–then so be it.

::sigh:: How do I get into these discussions, anyway?

By: Tiffany

Tiffany — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:31:00 +0000

As long as civil unions have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS, privileges and responsibilities of “marriage,” I’d have no problem with calling it a Union, and I’m pretty sure most supporters of equal marriage rights would say the same. The problem is, civil unions aren’t the same. It’s like Whites and Coloreds water fountains, you know the White one’s going to be better.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:24:00 +0000

Shows again the danger of “research” on the Internet.

This strikes me again as another “either/or” polarization of an issue rather than seeking to obtain an objective. What’s desired? Inheritance rights? Adoptions? Medical care, spousal and child support, other issues? It doesn’t have to be called “marriage” - desires by some to be “equal” to others notwithstanding - if fact, that’s a pretty good way to sink the ship while it’s still at the dock. Call it something else - domestic partnerships, unions, whatever, with the rights and responsibilities defined by law, then the chances are better. Lots better. I listen to plenty of people say “same sex marriage? No Way! Partnerships? Who cares?”

Or maybe some really do have an “all or nothing” view to politics - I’m speaking of same-sex marriage advocates - and they like battles for the sake of battles. If so, they’re going to wait a long, long time. It’s not just the Right who has claim to rigid ideology.