Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

[Kepler]

Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

Generally I agree, but I would like to propose a "hot redhead" exception to this...

All in favor?

Challenge accepted.

[joecct]

Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

As a union member I can tell you that unions have nowhere near the political influence as corporations.

Then why do the unions spend all of that money on candidates? It would then seem to be lost money.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

if you're sleeping with a chick that is that crazy, you deserve it for having terrible judgment of character

Generally I agree, but I would like to propose a "hot redhead" exception to this...

All in favor?

[unofan]

I don't understand. Isn't the whole concept of "marriage", and therefore the use of the word, intrinsically religious? Why would someone who is not religious care about identifying themselves with the taking of a vow of fidelity and unity?
Did the institution of marriage ever exist without a religious basis to compel it?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm puzzled if this is an actual complaint made by non-religious people who want to be together. I would expect people who are anti-religious to reject the use of "marriage" in favor of a non-religious institution like "civil union" or something.

It's like saying, why should we cede the worship of Jesus Christ to Christians?
(tangential question) Is a Bible used for swearing the vows if done in a courtroom? Or the constitution? Or what? Or are there no vows?
This seems interesting, possibly just because I'm an idiot though.

Marriage derives from Latin. In its purest form, it simply implies a lasting bond between two people (yes, traditionally man and woman, but that's a separate argument).

It has never been an exclusively religious term, and attempts to claim otherwise are bullshiat.

The only people pushing for this are religious people who need to feel superior to someone else. If it can't be the gays, then it might as well be the atheists and agnostics by stigmatizing their relationships as some how less than marriage.

[geezer]

Re: Riots and Racists and Looting...OH MY!!!

I have issues with almost every one of your positions, but let's start with this one. Why should we cede the term marriage to the religious? Being married by a judge is still a marriage, and fark you for claiming otherwise.

I don't understand. Isn't the whole concept of "marriage", and therefore the use of the word, intrinsically religious? Why would someone who is not religious care about identifying themselves with the taking of a vow of fidelity and unity?
Did the institution of marriage ever exist without a religious basis to compel it?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm puzzled if this is an actual complaint made by non-religious people who want to be together. I would expect people who are anti-religious to reject the use of "marriage" in favor of a non-religious institution like "civil union" or something.

It's like saying, why should we cede the worship of Jesus Christ to Christians?
(tangential question) Is a Bible used for swearing the vows if done in a courtroom? Or the constitution? Or what? Or are there no vows?
This seems interesting, possibly just because I'm an idiot though.