The laws in my city are especially based on scripture. The other day this guy had a willful child so he took him down to city hall where the city elders stoned the little bastard to death.
Its his blog, why dont you let him say whatever he wants. Anyway he has won by generating backlinks all over by writing on contraversial things, just what he wanted. Congrats joel, you know your marketing.
I don't think any of us are telling him he can't say what he wants. We're simply discussing it. Relax
No one said he doesn't have a right to say these things. People are just saying he is an idiot for saying these things.
it seems sort of stupid to alienate a lot of the population on a business site but i guess any attention is good attention?
I honestly just don't understand this viewpoint. If two adult males wish to marry, my marriage to my wife is utterly irrelevant and utterly not threatened. What these two males wish to do is just not something I care about one way or the other. Other fish to fry. I simply don't see how this is a threat to marriage - mine, or anyone else's - unless that marriage is also threatened by any number of other, equally irrelevant, things. It isn't a threat to my marriage unless there is a law, now, or in the future, banning heterosexual marriage, no? That as a straight guy I may not be all that ease in a room full of drag queens, well, O.K., I won't head out to the nearest leather bar. But threat to me? Nope. Perhaps someone could speak to this.
Actually, Tim, I believe the constitutional debate does swing towards a wall of separation...I've posted elsewhere on this...I'll do so again, in the hope it adds to the debate (my article posted in our local rag):
Plus, gay people can't have kids so there's really no point to them getting married. If they adopt, the kid has to get made fun of throughout his/her schooling once somebody figures out that his/her parents are homos.
So if I love Sally, Brittany, Ashely, Ashlie, and Britani, nobody has a right to tell me not to marry them, right? The point being is that each state has the right to create laws as supported by the people through elected officials. If you want to give beneifits to homosexual unions you need to grant polygamists the same right. Homosexuals have it pretty well in the US (go try flaunting the homosexuality in an Islamic country) and they also bear little cost of raising the next generation that will be providing their income through the commerce they generate and the tax that will be transfered to them through Social Security. So why should they get the benefits of marriage?
That's what this country is all about: maximum benefits, minimum contribution. That's why illegals think they have some right to public welfare. The average family has 2.5 kids. I wonder how many kids the average same sex couple has. We can then prorate their marriage benefits accordingly.
Your points on future contributions from children are food for thought. As for the above quote, I would imagine for the same reasons that any longstanding domestic partnership should be given preferential treatment under the tax code.
Kids are kids -- they are going to make fun of one another regardless. To say that gay parents cannot adopt a child (or have one via a sperm donor, for women) is silly. If they are capable of raising a child and providing food, shelter, clothing and other necessities for that child, there's no reason whatsoever for that couple to be banned from doing so.
True, but if your parents were gay you'd feel pretty wierd wouldn't you. It's not just childhood either, it's the rest of their lives.