Should it be banned?

In a word, no.

Fruits and vegetables make for a good diet, but are gross when mixed together. :)

I sure do like V-8 juices. Oh wait... aren't they <horror> vegetable/juice blends??? (V-8 Spash and Fusion)

So much for keeping those vegetables and fruits separate forever!

If the republicans think that they can save the world from sin by banning the marriage of fruits and vegetables - they can just think again!!! :poke:

:no:

:thanksgiving:

Turkeys for mixed produce relationships!

I know, what immense controversy over Produce Marriage. The grocery store will never be the same if we permit this.

V/8 = blech! :yuck:

IF that were the goal of banning the fruits from marriage then you are correct, it would not rid the world of sin. Not just Republicans are against this, silly.

Put the stick down!

Well... let's see - each and every time state amendments, or federal amendments discriminating against vegetables and fruits marrying come up - it would be a republican at the helm. But, yes I realize that a good number Christians of either faction feel they need to inflict their views on everyone.

I'll put my stick down when you admit that V 8 Spash is GOOOOOODDDD! :woohoo:

Oh yeah, then WHAT exactly is the goal?

Is it possible for you to make a point without coming down on entire groups of people? Just curious.

As long as there is human life, there will always be sin.

Some sinful things are less harmful then others.

You'll notice that I specifically did not say that the ENTIRE Christian coalition was responsible, but that a good number of them would have jumped on the band wagon to vote for a ban.

Is it instead the godless who would ban the state of matrimoney for fruits and vegetables? :D I didn't think agnostics and unbelievers claimed to own marriage as a sanctity.

I don't know about those militant Buddhists though! They all get so riled up about raisins put in a hot potatoe. Each and every one of them!!!

GIVE PEAS A CHANCE!

Just play nice - you with the stick!
And no, I will not say V8 is good just because you want to hear it and you want the world to recognize it. Nor do I want you to stop liking it because I think it's gross. I just don't think it was meant to be on the same shelf in the fridge as the whole milk.

I give early peas a chance at least once a week :)

GOOD post, go_noles06! I appreciate your point of view. I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) not wanting fruit/vegetable juices on the same shelf as milk, but why prevent them from taking up space in the refrigerator if everything else is allowed that consideration?

All of the constitutional amendments in the country would deny fruit/vegetable blends from garnering any of the benefits of refrigeration. Extremely not fair, but it allows people to feel sanctimonious about the restrictions.

Oh yeah, about that stick.... you're right I shouldn't be waving it around like that! :D

Would this go well in a Kosher kitchen?

Marriage is an institution created by and ordained by God to join a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony. There were no variations of this in the Bible. I understand that many don't believe in God or the Bible, so why would they want to be a part of a religious ceremony that was established by God and carried on throughout history? Why can't they (the fruits & veggies) be satisfied with the same rights and call it civil unions and leave marriage for its intended purpose?

The biggest problem I see with broadening the definition of marriage as recognized by the states:
Polygamists and Polyamorists are two of many groups that are waiting on rights to be granted to the fruits/veggies. Then they will come full force and demand their rights to marriage as well. Soon, marriage will not exist as we know it because we did not honor it for its original purpose.

I've bolded the portion of your comment that I'd like to address:

If marriage is just a religious ceremony, then why afford it all the legal benefits that it currently holds?

Why not establish two doctrines - one religious (with out any legal rights) and one a contract pertaining to all the benefits and rights currently afforded to couples? Why not go further and say that you may have one or the other but not both?

How many of those who currently profess the religious meaning of marriage would still prefer that their union be recognised by the church and not by law? I'd warrant - very few! Now you ask, why take away those benefits from people just because they prefer a union sanctified by the church? Why not? What gives them more worth than say, my husband and I who chose to be married by the court?

Be that as it may, many states have enacted amendments which restrict good fruits/vegetables (people) from even obtaining a civil union in order to be at their loved-ones bedside in death, in order to inherit estate, in order to maintain custody of their children, in order to make life and often death decisions for their mate, in order to carry insurance for their mate or those children - who in most states can't even be adopted into loving homes because some faction has determined that they're not worthy parents!

How can good people think that it's OK to do that to others?

Oh, and that "slippery slope" argument? Fuhgetaboudit! It doesn't wash. If that's a risk then, meet it as a separate challenge just like everything else.

I would just like to point out that marriage in the bible is not typically one man, one woman. In fact, polygamy runs rampant in the bible, so I don't think you can hold the Biblical idea of marriage as the end-all be-all. We have laws against many of the things that are related in the bible and accepted as okay in this context--polygamy, animal sacrifice, slavery, viewing women as property, etc.

Honestly, it seems to me that a lot of people are against broadening the definition of marriage because they think it will cost them money. Sure, civil unions would be an extremely satisfactory result; but that's not acceptable to many people either. This is evidenced by the fact that an equal rights bill (not marriage) was denied in Colorado. This bothered me quite a bit, because I had always thought that it was the word (and religious context) that made people against gay marriage; as it turns out, it's really a financial concern. For example, more people will have rights to others' health care, thus raising the overall cost. I find it incredibly sad that people can be so selfish as to deny people who love each other rights and responsibilites (hospital visits, estate rites, and yes healthcare), just to save themselves some cash.

Also, since when is it up to the popular vote to determine who gets rights and who does not? If we always went about it that way, what kind of life would people in minority groups have?

It should be permitted and we should grant the same rights that are currently being denied to Same Sex couples. It's time to show that we are truly a nation that embraces diversity and tolerance.

That's a funny joke.

I don't think we have ever been that country.. and I think we are far far from it.

but i totally agree with you. It's high time that people start accepting things for how they are. The reality of certain situations will never go away.. so just accept it and move on.

I don't understand it either. How can people say we live in a free country when the rights of certain people are still limited or denied by federal law? It's pretty sad that people can have such a hatred for and actively discriminate against people simply for who they are. To me, life should be about learning to embrace our differences and understand people better rather than jumping to incomplete conclusions and stereotypes.

i think we are crossing some lines on this issue!

mind your crops, people!