General Discussion

RainDog

(28,784 posts)

44. religious belief does not require coherent thought

Reply to NNN0LHI (Original post)

Sun May 13, 2012, 07:28 PM

May 2012

and is, too often, the enemy of rational decision making and policy.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Have you ever heard anyone ever give a single 'coherent' reason to be against marriage equality? [View all] NNN0LHI May 2012 OP

No, Sir: And If they Meant It About 'Preserving Marriage' They Would Be Crusading Against Divorce... The Magistrate May 2012 #1

And adultery. nt laundry_queen May 2012 #29

And many a battle against those -- divorce and adultery -- has been fought and lost. JDPriestly May 2012 #36

Hell, I have a pretty good imagination and I can't even THINK of one. I've certainly ... 11 Bravo May 2012 #2

Of Course. Any person that owns a co. that will have to pony up health care, retirement, etc. WingDinger May 2012 #3

Actually, retirement benefits can go to whomever one designates. GoCubsGo May 2012 #10

Not so with Social Security, which is all the retirement $ most folks will ever see. kestrel91316 May 2012 #16

that's not a "cogent" argument (as the OP asked)...it's an argument that denying civil rights saves CreekDog May 2012 #28

So that lesbian woman at the next desk should pay for Social Security that JDPriestly May 2012 #37

They can't say it, but they try to dance around it... targetpractice May 2012 #4

Nope sakabatou May 2012 #5

No Solly Mack May 2012 #6

Yes thelordofhell May 2012 #7

Well, "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly coherent reason malthaussen May 2012 #8

I've never heard a single rational argument about why marriage equality may be detrimental to ANYONE kestrel91316 May 2012 #17

There is one just upthread. malthaussen May 2012 #20

Most/many employers do not cover family Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #22

No. Starry Messenger May 2012 #9

I never have. Jazzgirl May 2012 #11

Nope Kalidurga May 2012 #12

no d_r May 2012 #13

sure arely staircase May 2012 #14

Well, Since You Asked, On the Road May 2012 #15

Not bad. But you ignore the Common Law. malthaussen May 2012 #19

marriage does not require a wedding in texas arely staircase May 2012 #21

I don't know if it's still the case, but at one time in Texas HillWilliam May 2012 #31

dont know about the two witnesses0 arely staircase May 2012 #47

No marriage requires a wedding obamanut2012 May 2012 #53

First, what state requires a ceremony Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #23

It's not that hard to parse malthaussen May 2012 #25

Then that isn't an argument for equal marriage, IMO. Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #33

Poster defines "marriage" as being among members of both sexes malthaussen May 2012 #35

In fact, as I have posted in the past, the word "marriage" has two meanings. JDPriestly May 2012 #38

The religious definition is prior to the civil definition, however. malthaussen May 2012 #39

Yes, the religious one came first, which is why people are confused. JDPriestly May 2012 #56

I was using "prior" in the logical sense... malthaussen May 2012 #57

Never in my lifetime. Rex May 2012 #18

No. All the arguments start from the false premise that homosexuality is an abomination. aikoaiko May 2012 #24

Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment malthaussen May 2012 #26

the need for small tribes arely staircase May 2012 #27

Ha, I hadn't thought of that at all malthaussen May 2012 #30

That is because in primitive societies and earlier ages, society feared underpopulation. JDPriestly May 2012 #40

but all societies everywhere have not so conspired RainDog May 2012 #45

As to your first point malthaussen May 2012 #46

actually, that's not the case RainDog May 2012 #49

Ah, interesting. Dr Boswell would appear to have lucked into a good lode malthaussen May 2012 #51

Oh, and what I also find really interesting RainDog May 2012 #50

Most people haven't read The Source malthaussen May 2012 #52

thanks for the conversation RainDog May 2012 #54

The pleasure was mine, assuredly. malthaussen May 2012 #58

I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about it interfering with his ability to get married every couple of madinmaryland May 2012 #32

yes " I don't want to do ritual you straight people do" said one of my childhood friends, He said it mulsh May 2012 #34

I don't belive the polls, I don't think anyone for the most part, cares if gays get married. crazyjoe May 2012 #41

Then with respect, you live up to your user name malthaussen May 2012 #42

Never have, never will. Initech May 2012 #43

religious belief does not require coherent thought RainDog May 2012 #44

Because it would create more married couples, requiring more married benefits? haele May 2012 #48

You ask the best questions, Don. n/t EFerrari May 2012 #55