We already stopped the FAGS from destroying our PRECIOUS UNIONS. Now it is up to us all to further enforce the SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE by banning divorce in our Golden State.
I un-ironically support making this joke into reality as a giant fuck you to everyone who voted yes on Prop 8.
Well, I'm laughing, anyway.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
JFYI.
I find that I am much more amenable to crazy xenophobia if compared to natural disasters.
quote:
Karnaj wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Dude, this a parody site. A well-done satire, nothing more.Well, I'm laughing, anyway.
No, they're seriously sending it to the California State Attorney to get turned into a petition to try and get it on the ballot: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#ag
The fact that it's a real petition drive makes the whole thing more golden. If you liked the website itself, you should check on an interview with the guy here: http://cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php Dr. Gee fucked around with this message on 09-11-2009 at 03:54 PM.
quote:
Jesus still loves you if you get divorced - just not as much as before.
There is no possible way that this isn't satire.
quote:
We were all impressed when Pvednes wrote:
I like it. It'd better not be satire.
/facepalm
Yes, it is satire, but what makes it great satire is that it's an actual petition to put this one the ballot in California.
This is the CA Attorney General's page. At the bottom is the listing for the proposition that, if it got enough signatures, would be put to voters to amend the CA constitution to prohibit divorce in the state.
quote:
Dr. Gee was listening to Cher while typing:
/facepalmYes, it is satire, but what makes it great satire is that it's an actual petition to put this one the ballot in California.
This is the CA Attorney General's page. At the bottom is the listing for the proposition that, if it got enough signatures, would be put to voters to amend the CA constitution to prohibit divorce in the state.
I'm aware. I just think it'd be great if it succeeded.
Why would they think a divorce ban would be a poison pill to people who support traditional marriage?
I'm going to email the guy and see what needs to be done to get some official petitions going behind the Orange Curtain (aka Orange County). I'd love it if we could get people to sign on to it.
Pvednes fucked around with this message on 09-12-2009 at 03:06 PM.
quote:
x--Dr. GeeO-('-'Q) :
Because the great "defenders of marriage" are the ones getting divorced the most.
Wait a second, this smells fishy to me. Did they correct for the possibility that Atheists just aren't getting married in the first place? The stats in that article certainly don't seem to suggest so, all the numbers they give are per-capita and not per-marriage. 4.2/1000 people? How can that be a meaningful figure if they're counting children, homosexuals, and other demographics that either can't or don't want to get married among those 1000 people?
We didn't need a poll to prove to us that places with higher marriage rates would also have higher divorce rates.
I'd like to see some numbers on how well Atheists who actually choose to get married fare against religious people who choose to get married. Those numbers would actually give us an idea as to how well Atheists hold their marriages together when compared to the religious - these numbers don't, because they didn't control for rather obvious variables.
I certainly agree with the premise, but this article absolutely reeks of yellow journalism. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-13-2009 at 12:04 PM.
Oh, look at this.
According to the article, "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma" are the top 5 states for divorces, but according to the CDC data, of these 5 only Alabama has a divorce rate that's above average (around 65% for Jan-May, 2001-2003). Arkansas is average at about 50%, and Tennessee is below average at around 43%.
So it took me about five minutes of googling and spreadsheeting to cast pretty considerable doubt on the correlation between religiosity and divorce rates. Why didn't mr. Austin Cline do this?
I agree with the idea that religion makes a poor foundation for a marriage (or anything else, for that matter), my only gripe is using cooked data to make the claim.
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Maradon! liberally with Old Spice!
I doubt like hell that atheists get married at the same rate as religious people, if that's what your suggesting, but even if they do the study would have to furnish proof of it in order for their other numbers to mean a damn thing.
Further muddying matters is when an atheist marries a theist. Where do you count that couple?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about John Romero:
Further muddying matters is when an atheist marries a theist. Where do you count that couple?
By the religious alignment of the head of household listed on the census or taxes.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Damnati screamed this from the crapper:
By the religious alignment of the head of household listed on the census or taxes.
Actually, the Census Bureau (and presumably other government agencies) are prohibited by law from mandating religious questions in their questions. Any data they receive would be on a purely voluntary basis only. There are various private agencies which handle it, presumably each with their own axe to grind one way or the other(one group might count the above couple as an atheist couple, another a theist couple, a third as some oddball category). Karnaj fucked around with this message on 09-14-2009 at 03:12 PM.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
That's why we desperately need a new taxonomy.
The ceremony in a church should be called marriage, and all faiths free to define their specific requirements. The certification with respect to public benefits or status should be a civil union, and everyone should be free to participate. The former should have no legal standing. The latter should not be bound by the hangups of any particular faith.
Hell, if you remember Nivens' Tales of Known Space, such unions should be simply contracts--the ulitimate expression of the pre-nup, if you will--open to adults in just about any combination or duration.
In short, being an atheist is sort of a dumb reason not to get married. It's not like you need a church, fercryinoutloud.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Though that might cause undue erosion.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Actually, the Census Bureau (and presumably other government agencies) are prohibited by law from mandating religious questions in their questions. Any data they receive would be on a purely voluntary basis only. There are various private agencies which handle it, presumably each with their own axe to grind one way or the other(one group might count the above couple as an atheist couple, another a theist couple, a third as some oddball category).
Huh, I would have thought they'd ask if only to offer research statistics. Now that I think of it, though, there certainly aren't any such questions on any other government applications I've seen.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Karnaj gently hums:
Or we could just continue to call it marriage, open it up to everyone, and tell the religious loons who don't like it to go to the beach and pound some sand up their asses.Though that might cause undue erosion.
While the image is amusing, I think it'd be better to have different terms. 
Let the loons define marriage however they want; it would no longer have any standing in law.
See, in my system, even Tilda Swinson's family arrangements would fit neatly within the law.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
hindus and gnus marrying!
karaoke as a national sport!
SANCTITY
OF
AMRRIAGE
