Atheists: do you also support or will support?
Q. incest marriages and human-animal marriages? Im pretty sure this topic will be raised in the future so what will be your stance on it? keep in mind they are both harmless acts and dont hurt anyone (just like homosexuality) justagirl: as if homosexuals produce perfect babies and dont spread diseases? lol use ur brain girl
Asked by junior high atheist - Mon Jun 9 14:10:46 2008 - - 26 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Yep, sure will...I mean christians in the south already approve of those things why should I object just because I'm an atheist.
Answered by Kent S - Mon Jun 9 14:17:38 2008

Definition of marriage?
Q. 1. Do you think there should be ANY standards for who is eligible to marry (gay, siblings, parent-offspring, human-animal)? 2. If you answered yes to question 1, who should set those standards, judges or society as a whole(voting)? I know the standard has been set. Some would like to revise it.
Asked by scott44273 - Wed Apr 22 12:00:45 2009 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Look through history, marriage was initially an entire community event, and was first intended as a license to have children...both parties were fit to marry, fit to procreate. Everyone had input, elders, parents, friends, family...and usually the couple was stable, they were both ready or seemingly ready, and both knew certain roles (remember that at that time, that was PC, now it is not) People had a right to object to another's marriage, in the hopes that if they were not good as a couple, they could NOT procreate. homosexuals are not capable of procreating in the natural manner, nor are people/animals, nor are relatives etc... The standards used to be set by society, communities as a whole, based on aforethought, and preparation… [cont.]
Answered by unknown - Wed Apr 22 12:13:52 2009

Why SHOULD Prop 8 be overturned?
Q. 1) It was passed by the voters TWICE 2) Judicial activism will turn our democratic nation into a nation run by tyrant judges. 3) Marriage is NOT about love. Marriages were historically for going up in social status, financial purposes, and a family. 4) This the people's government, not the judge's government. These judicial activists will nullify your write to vote! 5) What's next? Legalized polygamy, child-adult unions, human-animal unions, human-plant unions, human-fungi unions, and even human-inanimate object unions. Gays already have all of the same rights of marriage, thus they are fighting over a word and not rights. The Feds wont recognize a gay marriage anymore than a gay domestic partnership or civil union due to DOMA.
Asked by NONAME - Thu Mar 5 02:49:33 2009 - - 9 Answers - 0 Comments

A. 1) It was passed by the voters TWICE. True. I honestly doubt that the judges will overturn this ruling. Even if they are liberals and wanted to (some not all) it would not sit well with the voters of the state and protest on the apposing side would immediately start. And the process would start all over again. 2) Judicial activism will turn our democratic nation into a nation run by tyrant judges. Interesting thought. 3) Marriage is NOT about love. Marriages were historically for going up in social status, financial purposes, and a family. While some of this is historically accurate it is still a generalization. 4) This the people's government, not the judge's government. These judicial activists will nullify your write to vote! It… [cont.]
Answered by Wichita LOL - Thu Mar 5 03:22:43 2009