Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Most states no longer recognize common law marriage. In those that do, they have to hold themselves out in the community as married. If they don't claim to be married, they are not. Finally, do what? Straight couples deal with the same issues.Everything has consequences. Has anyone thought of common law marriage and how this will come into play. There are many homosexual men that each make a large amount of money. If they live together as husband and husband whether they are married or not will this be considered as common law marriage. If their combined salary is over 400,000 a year will their tax rate not sky rocket.Same sex marriage is constitutional.
Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?
What happens when two men live together and then split up in the states that have spousal support laws? This marriage thing will or could affect the situation where homosexual men or homosexual women live together even though they are not married. I am sure many homosexuals will be financially disappointed by this law and many will wish it did not exist.
And you just proved that you know more about Unwin than Bonzi, who never read his book or anything other than some blurb on a right wing nut job site.The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture.
Such as?
In Sex and Culture, JD Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.
Well I am unfamiliar with Mr. Unwins work, but "primitive tribes" are hardly "great civilizations". What I can gather from the few sources that are online about this book is that it was written in 1934 in Great Britain during a time when British women were gaining more rights and freedoms. Mr. Unwin apparently believed that women should remain subservient and thus published his work in an effort to provide an argument that women should should revert back to their status of Victorian England. The book doesn't seem to be one that is widely referenced by scholarship and, from the little I have been able to find, those that do consider it a study in the manipulation of data in order to establish a pre-conceived, political agenda.
"In order to attain this absolute correlation, he has had to manipulate his definitions of both sexual restrictions and of cultural achievement. His restrictions, in fact, only concern the limitation of pre-nuptual freedom in women and the nature of religious rites...in defining cultural achievement the standard is surprising. The lowest level recognized is that characterized by religion without post-funeral honor of the individual dead or without worship in temples, these two being the criteria of the middle and highest levels of primitive cultural achievement. For a culture to rise from the lowest plane to the next highest level it is only necessary to restrict pre-nuptual freedom of women; to rise to the highest level, where they will be capable of building temples, it is only necessary to demand tokens of virginity. It is not necessary for all restrictions to be enforced on all females of a society....
It is impossible within the limits of a brief review to criticize the long list of absurdities that are involved in the correlations of this volume.....This volume is an extreme example of the manipulation of anthropological material to support private programs of social reform, in this case, a program of return to the immediate Victorian past. It makes clear, as has already been abundantly demonstrated in anthropological literature, that any thesis, no matter how unlikely, can be upheld by a suitable rearrangement of cultural facts from primitive peoples. Only insistence upon a greater scrupulousness and a greater intelligence can prevent the recurrence of such volumes of special pleading"
-Dr. Ruth Benedict, Ph.D.
Columbia University, Department of Anthropology
GENERAL Sex and Culture. J. D. Unwin. - Benedict - 2009 - American Anthropologist - Wiley Online Library
.Dr. Benedict also mentions in her review, that Unwin completely ignored several tribes that were in the immediate area and time frame of other tribes he did consider that would have totally destroyed his hypothesis such as the Cheyenne and Menomini. So, it appears that you are supporting your thesis by quoting a source that was designed to subjugate women and appears to be the 1930's British equivalent of AGW; i.e. 'we will only consider data that supports our political aims and we will ignore the rest'.
Absolutely no reasoning exists to indicate gays will regret their victory. None.
Selfishness in demanding that others live according to your hateful version of faith.Absolutely no reasoning exists to indicate gays will regret their victory. None.
Even if this country suffers for it, they won't regret it, because of selfishness...
Selfishness in demanding that others live according to your hateful version of faith.Absolutely no reasoning exists to indicate gays will regret their victory. None.
Even if this country suffers for it, they won't regret it, because of selfishness...
Not your business about other's private lives, Bonzi.
Spar me the God stuff. This is a secular republic. I am an atheist. I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. That is all.Care to elaborate on that inane assertion??
RE: passage of the Gay Marriage law...
I said above, we have a motto of "One Nation Under God" - we are not "under God" if we keep ignoring what He says, and making our own rules of what is right and wrong. If we are willing to submit and surrender to His will, we are guaranteed an abundant life. But remember, our life is NOT just our years on this Earth. Our lives are ETERNAL.
God WILL punish those that do not listen to him. He did it to the Israelites. Why would he not do it to US?
It's not your business. I did not say you were hateful.Not your business about other's private lives, Bonzi.
It's not hateful.
It's not your business. I did not say you were hateful.Not your business about other's private lives, Bonzi.
It's not hateful.
It's not your business. I did not say you were hateful.Not your business about other's private lives, Bonzi.
It's not hateful.
I didn't say it was forcing the churches to do anything. Nothing ever prevented churches from performing gay marriages in the first place.That makes NO damned sense at all. Only the government has to recognize the marriage. No one is going to make the churches do anything. You really can't be serious with thatHappy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy. Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies. So much for separation of church and state!
And you just proved that you know more about Unwin than Bonzi, who never read his book or anything other than some blurb on a right wing nut job site.The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture.
Such as?
In Sex and Culture, JD Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.
Well I am unfamiliar with Mr. Unwins work, but "primitive tribes" are hardly "great civilizations". What I can gather from the few sources that are online about this book is that it was written in 1934 in Great Britain during a time when British women were gaining more rights and freedoms. Mr. Unwin apparently believed that women should remain subservient and thus published his work in an effort to provide an argument that women should should revert back to their status of Victorian England. The book doesn't seem to be one that is widely referenced by scholarship and, from the little I have been able to find, those that do consider it a study in the manipulation of data in order to establish a pre-conceived, political agenda.
"In order to attain this absolute correlation, he has had to manipulate his definitions of both sexual restrictions and of cultural achievement. His restrictions, in fact, only concern the limitation of pre-nuptual freedom in women and the nature of religious rites...in defining cultural achievement the standard is surprising. The lowest level recognized is that characterized by religion without post-funeral honor of the individual dead or without worship in temples, these two being the criteria of the middle and highest levels of primitive cultural achievement. For a culture to rise from the lowest plane to the next highest level it is only necessary to restrict pre-nuptual freedom of women; to rise to the highest level, where they will be capable of building temples, it is only necessary to demand tokens of virginity. It is not necessary for all restrictions to be enforced on all females of a society....
It is impossible within the limits of a brief review to criticize the long list of absurdities that are involved in the correlations of this volume.....This volume is an extreme example of the manipulation of anthropological material to support private programs of social reform, in this case, a program of return to the immediate Victorian past. It makes clear, as has already been abundantly demonstrated in anthropological literature, that any thesis, no matter how unlikely, can be upheld by a suitable rearrangement of cultural facts from primitive peoples. Only insistence upon a greater scrupulousness and a greater intelligence can prevent the recurrence of such volumes of special pleading"
-Dr. Ruth Benedict, Ph.D.
Columbia University, Department of Anthropology
GENERAL Sex and Culture. J. D. Unwin. - Benedict - 2009 - American Anthropologist - Wiley Online Library
.Dr. Benedict also mentions in her review, that Unwin completely ignored several tribes that were in the immediate area and time frame of other tribes he did consider that would have totally destroyed his hypothesis such as the Cheyenne and Menomini. So, it appears that you are supporting your thesis by quoting a source that was designed to subjugate women and appears to be the 1930's British equivalent of AGW; i.e. 'we will only consider data that supports our political aims and we will ignore the rest'.
Didn't that happen to other great empires in the past, such as those of Britain, Spain, Rome, Persia, Babylon and Egypt? Is America' s future more secure than theirs was?
Sir John Bagot Glubb (1897-1987), a highly honored British general and historian better known as Glubb Pasha, wrote about the collapsed empires of the past. In his 1978 book The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival, he described a common pattern fitting the history of some fallen empires. They went through a cycle of stages as they started, expanded, matured, declined and collapsed.
1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).
2. The age of conquests.
3. The age of commerce.
4. The age of affluence.
5. The age of intellect.
6. The age of decadence.
7. The age of decline and collapse.
I didn't say it was forcing the churches to do anything. Nothing ever prevented churches from performing gay marriages in the first place.That makes NO damned sense at all. Only the government has to recognize the marriage. No one is going to make the churches do anything. You really can't be serious with thatHappy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy. Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies. So much for separation of church and state!
But now suddenly the government is forced to accept these queer "marriages", which will also mean these queers will be given equal opportunity for things like adoption. Only assclowns like the idea of young boys being handed over to perverted queers. Next they'll be given the right to mutilate their adopted children for a "sex change".
I never cared what fags do with each other, but pretending they are normal is bullshit. Most queers are batshit crazy and belong in a mental institute.
Sounds like you looking to conjure up problems just to say "I told you so" Divorce and alimony are touchy and difficult subjects for all couples of all kinds. Alimony reform is long over due. I would guess that there is a need to develop case and statutory law to deal with new situations. It is not a reason to say that gays are going to regret marriage any more than a lot of straight people do at some point. Now be nice and wish them well.Everything has consequences. Has anyone thought of common law marriage and how this will come into play. There are many homosexual men that each make a large amount of money. If they live together as husband and husband whether they are married or not will this be considered as common law marriage. If their combined salary is over 400,000 a year will their tax rate not sky rocket.Same sex marriage is constitutional.
Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?
What happens when two men live together and then split up in the states that have spousal support laws? This marriage thing will or could affect the situation where homosexual men or homosexual women live together even though they are not married. I am sure many homosexuals will be financially disappointed by this law and many will wish it did not exist.
I didn't say it was forcing the churches to do anything. Nothing ever prevented churches from performing gay marriages in the first place.That makes NO damned sense at all. Only the government has to recognize the marriage. No one is going to make the churches do anything. You really can't be serious with thatHappy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy. Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies. So much for separation of church and state!
But now suddenly the government is forced to accept these queer "marriages", which will also mean these queers will be given equal opportunity for things like adoption. Only assclowns like the idea of young boys being handed over to perverted queers. Next they'll be given the right to mutilate their adopted children for a "sex change".
I never cared what fags do with each other, but pretending they are normal is bullshit. Most queers are batshit crazy and belong in a mental institute.
Claiming that being gay is like being a pedophile, as you have repeatedly done, is hateful. You are hateful. A person who does not approve of gay marriage who does not hate simply disapproves; they don't work to deny others the right to their happiness and the don't call them perverts or sinful.It's not your business. I did not say you were hateful.Not your business about other's private lives, Bonzi.
It's not hateful.
Everyone gets to make their own choices. It was someone else that said I was hateful.
I am not saying people have to believe as I do, but I am saying everyone, one day, will answer to God, whether you believe it or not.
