The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.
Latest Activity: yesterday
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Daniel W yesterday.
Started by Jacob Dreiling. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan on Friday.
Started by Neon Genesis. Last reply by Grinning Cat on Friday.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Susan Stanko Mar 17.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 11.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Feb 11.
Started by Pat. Last reply by sk8eycat Feb 10.
Started by Christina Fiscus. Last reply by Susan Stanko Jan 25.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Janice Rael Jan 18.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Daniel W Jan 18.
Dear Cat...there was/is NO marriage ceremony (with exchanging of vows and stuff) in the buybull at all. (As far as I know)...just the wine-drinking party at Cana.
A Christian rebutting the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument:
"The Genesis 2 marriage model says nothing about wedding gifts therefore God must be against wedding gifts. Of course, no one believes that and no thinking person would draw that conclusion from Genesis 2." (Rick Brentlinger, from gaychristian101.com)
Similarly, it's just as illogical to conclude that God must be against wedding rings... and against getting married in church... and against adopting children... and against same-sex couples.
Charles P. Pierce comments on the upholding of marriage bans
-----I can hardly wait for the Nine Wise Souls (finally) to weigh in on marriage equality. We will get to hear Antonin (Short Time) Scalia say "sodomy" a lot. John Roberts will seek to excuse himself when the testimony gets too icky. Clarence Thomas will say nothing. And Anthony Kennedy will show up in a white sarong, blindfolded, holding a scale. It ought to be a hoot, it should.The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals fast-tracked the issue up the food chain late yesterday, handing down a ruling that upheld bans on gay marriage in four states, reversing lower court rulings on the subject. Because there is now a "split" between the Sixth Circuit and several other federal circuit courts of appeal, the Nine Wise Souls can't duck the issue any more -- not since Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who wrote the majority opinion for the Sixth Circuit, has positioned himself in his arguments as the last person holding back the forces of unchecked Fabulousness.
-----He also quotes the one out of three dissenting judge's statement:
-----The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state's constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise-that the question before us is "who should decide?"-and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority's resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for "proceeding with caution" (otherwise known as the "wait and see" approach), I dissent.
Then what about the parable about the seven virgins who were all going to be married to the same man on the same night? What did all those extra women do while their husband was busy elsewhere? I have read in several different books and articles that in plural/polygamous families that the women usually formed special attachments to one or more of their "sister-wives."
And then there was Solomon and his 300 wives and 700 concubines.....the harem guards may have been gelded, but what about the women?
For that matter, how many wives does the King of Saudi Arabia have right now? Who do they "sleep" with when he's not around?
Hypocrites, all of them.
Linking opposition to same sex marriage to dominionism rather than just religious traditionalism.
This showed up on RD today under the title Gay Marriage Isn't About Christianity So Much As Christian Nationalism
Eerie coincidence or scholar-geist?*
From last month’s RD interview with Leslie J. Harris, associate professor of communications at the UW-Milwaukee:
I’ve become convinced that today’s debate about same-sex marriage is not simply about preserving a seemingly sacred and unchanging institution, or securing particular rights and privileges. Rather, it is about negotiating the boundaries of American-ness.
From yesterday’s RNS blog post by political science prof Daniel Bennett:
[S]ame-sex marriage is about more than morality or ideology. It is about how people view the United States of America.
*It’s been brought to my attention that this post could be read as an implication of plagiarism, which was the furthest thing from my mind. I meant only to highlight how fascinating it is that two entirely different data sets yielded a similar, though slightly unusual, conclusion.
If it made a shitload of money and "created jobs" we probably would. In the 2016 elections, the republicans could interview Joe the queer.
Really? One day after the election??
Hopefully this will be a good thing in the end, but when your future depends on a coven of staunch catholics, anything goes.
In some settings being atheist is "worse" than being gay. I don't know about tech industry.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2015 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.