If Everyone's Wearing a Tuxedo, Will it Still be a Bridal Party?
Marriages without a bride, or a groom, would make many traditions obsolete. Guests could walk into church and sit on either side of the aisle.
Marriages without a bride, or a groom, would make many traditions obsolete. Guests could walk into church and sit on either side of the aisle.
Lou Pierce
9:52 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Gee, this is really tough, to-wit:
Usher: Good day, Sir/Ma'am, are you a friend of Mary/Tom or Angela/Craig?
Guest: Please seat me on Angela's side, thank you.
Usher: Right this way. <offers arm to female guest>
Mr.Ethics
11:14 am on Sunday, May 13, 2012
The brides side is traditionally to the left, since no one will know who the bride is, all guests should sit on the right.
Gregg Slapak
12:36 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
"Equal rights for all" and in won't hurt!
NancyC
3:49 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
Not equal and definitely not right.
G.Ryan
8:41 pm on Sunday, May 13, 2012
I totally agree with you Nancy....
Pam
7:50 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
I don't. And thankfully most people also do not.
mel j villicana
2:14 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
In every family tree, if you shake it a gay person will fall out of it
Charley Krebs
11:34 am on Monday, May 14, 2012
Thanks everyone for commenting on my cartoon, whether you agree with it or not.
The Lone Gunman
4:52 pm on Monday, May 14, 2012
You're born the way you are, except for bigots, they have to learn how.
NancyC
1:08 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
But none of us are born fully developed. We must learn and grow in charity and truth. We are all born with a tendencies, healthy and unhealthy. We must all strive to control our errant desires, and help one another grow in goodness, no matter what. It is very deceitful and uncharitable to lead people to believe that unhealthy habits are healthy and the healthy ones are the opposite. The definition of bigot in the dictionary as you are applying it, The Lone Gunman is: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to is or her own opinions and prejudices, I believe that you may in fact be that which you called others, those who
do not share your opinion on this issue. Studies do show and any health insurance company will tell you the truth about the same sex attractive lifestyle, for men, it is an uninsurable event. This bigot for one, loves the person but not the chosen behavior.
dan
9:20 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Thank you , Lone Gunman! And Nancy C, I don't know if you've ever met or spoken to a gay person, but this is not a learned behavior- gay people are born that way, and if you've ever known any, it's not an act. They can't help who they are , so they should be who they are - with the same rights as any other citizen. Don't worry, they're not out to recruit you or your children. Live and let live!
NancyC
11:21 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Come on Dan, do you really believe people with same sex attraction can't help themselves? These days it is more the case that they are told they do not need any help, that they are fine, that is the lie. Yes Dan, I have met and known many, men and women with same sex attraction. No one ever mentions the fact that these relationships and their "activities" require behavior altering substances, not healthy in any relationship and certainly damaging to all. I have also know their family members.How can you say "don't worry, they're not out to recruit you or your children" when in fact the agenda is to normalize this disorder beginning with our children.
NancyC
1:13 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
This is an excerpt from a 2007 testimony given by Charlene Cothran, who had left behind 29 years of Lesbianism. She was a leading African-American homosexual activist but now says: " I am proof that change is possible in the homosexual community." "Another very active and powerful segment of the gay community claims that being gay is innate... that all gays are born this way. And I believe that this is the most viscous lie that has been released against God's people. It is a lie!... This is a lie that was hatched in some boardroom, basically so that we could gain civil rights for gays and lesbians. They needed to level the playing field, and this was the one that went out..." Just Google Charlene Cothran she is the publisher of Venus magazine.
mel j villicana
5:20 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Good Comment Dan
Tony Cesare
11:55 am on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wow Nancy, your ignorance is astounding. 'Behavior altering substances'? I think your the one who has been using them.
Susan Carroll
1:19 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
"In less aware times, left handed people were considered evil or bad, with some even burned as witches. As late as the early 1900s, some parents still tried to switch their children to using their right hand." So, you CAN use your right hand! You just CHOOSE to use your left one, and now the scissor industry has to bow to your demands and create special scissors just for YOU! I'm sick of your left-handed alternative lifestyle! Oh, wait, am I off topic here?
Ray
2:33 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
See? We failed to control people's errant left-handed desires, and even encouraged the use of behavior-altering substances which enable "opposite-hand-preference". Then the special scissors you mention, which are an affront - an abomination - to anything I've ever cut with my right hand! This world has really gone downhill.
David
1:20 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
I vote to live and let live. I think it is ironic that everyone against gay marriage cites the promiscuous behavior of gays, then when they want to enter a monogomous relationship, we tell them they can't!
Gay rights for all!!!
Dave
3:31 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Without taking a position on whether gay marriage is or is not appropriate, it's interesting to note that however marriage is defined, certain kinds of relationships will be excluded. For centuries in western civilization, marriage has involved one man and one woman. Now, many are saying that limitation is not justifiable because it is based on nothing more than an outdated, unenlightened tradition, and that same-sex marriages therefore should be allowed. But even if the definition of marriage is extended to include same-sex couples, this new definition still excludes other relationships that some people may passionately argue should be eligible for the benefits of marriage as well -- such as three-person relationships. So no matter how marriage is defined, some people and some relationships are going to be left out.
Now some may say it is ridiculous to suggest that three persons of any sex should be able to get married. But the notion that marriage should be between two persons (not three or more) ultimately is based on tradition, isn't it? If the idea that marriage should be between a man and a woman can no longer be justified because it is nothing more than an outdated tradition, what justification is there for holding on to the idea that marriages must involve two people -- when that view also is based on tradition? If you are going to cast aside one tradition, how do you explain holding on the other?