Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous riot helmet $75.99, police pants $45.99 leaving doggie treats in the pocket priceless. | gift shop Next »
Progress You’re finally doing it right!
(Civil Unions)
picture: dunno source, via our lolcat builder. lol caption: jooni
Bay Area churches opened door to same-sex vows
Bay Area priests began blessing the partnerships of gay and lesbian couples at least three decades ago, but often in clandestine gatherings.
…Continued.
 | waggle237 on The Running Man |
 | Geary on Cool Front Moving In |
| Geary on The Running Man |
 | fish eye no miko on Tim Gunn Eyeroll |
 | MrsQ of Philadelphia on Cool Front Moving In |
| waggle237 on The Running Man |
| waggle237 on The Running Man |
| Geary on The Running Man |
| waggle237 on The Running Man |
| MrsQ of Philadelphia on Time to Get FLOTUS Fit |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
What IS it with lesbians and backpacks?
We can’t put all that stuff in our POCKETS, now can we? Our butts look fat enough as it as!
I find them most uncomfortable though, nothing wrong with a large handbag.
I never carry around a handback, they’re so freaking hard to hold onto ! Backpacks are SO much more comfortable.
*handbag – FAIL. >< sorry guys.
Handbags totally fail. You might aswell tie one arm behind your back all day.
Amen to that. And not to mention it’s a lot easier to steal a handbag than it is a backpack. And more room in a backpack, so if you go shopping you don’t have to carry things like clothes and groceries around along with a bag.
^_^ So many advantages.
woo hoo!! congratulations, california residents! my aunt is getting married to her partner today……it’s about time!
Congrats!
Why are my comments censored? Homosexuality is not normal and this is not progress. It is decline.
Homosexuality is normal actually. There has always been a population of homosexuals in our species and in others. And lets just remember that our way of sexual reproduction isn’t the only way out there…and yes…we are capable of making babies in our methods so they can have their genes passed down.
You use the same way heteros do, you don’t have another way of sexual reproduction. It’s one man/one woman, that’s the only way, sorry.
I assume that since you say “our methods” you are not referring to artificial insemination or anything like that because they are not specifically “Your methods.” Please enlighten us though how a man and a man or a women and a women can make a baby with anyone else stepping in?
Besides, haven’t you ever heard the saying, “Just because you can do it, that doesn’t mean that it’s right to do it.”
Some people are proven born to have the “killer” gene but that is not “normal” but condemned some people to have the “fat” gene but that is not “normal” but attacked, why should any “homo” gene (should it really exist) make you any different?
Feel…
/Nothing/ is normal, my friend. There is no “norm” for society.
Finally, someone understands! There is no normal! In the act of saying that everyone is different, you’re saying no one can fit into a set clique of people who call themselves normal. Sure, I believe in average, but no one’s normal.
It’s really depressing that such a large population of the wrold believes that there really is a “normal.” It’s really depressing that these people think “normal” is a person that is heterosexual, skinny, perfect skin, smart, and an all-around-good person. Life doesn’t work like that. Basically, “normal” is what most people see as “perfect.” When I was in school [only a few years ago], everybody saw “perfect” and “normal” as skinny, blonde, smart, beautiful, and “popular.” – Like cheerleaders and jocks. Not the “freaks” that had dyed hair, different tastes in music, that were bi/homosexual, or had an opinion of themselves and the world around them. People like me. I was constantly ridiculed for being bisexual and I am so happy that anybody other than heterosexual can get married… at least in one state anyway.
Two now
WEll done for surviving an American highschool. I barely survived a British one and they aren’t nearly as bead, so it seems.
What the hell are you talking about!? NOBODY said normal = perfect but YOU! By normal all that is meant is “accepted by society.” Like I said, if you have this aggresive killer gene that makes you aggressive and violent and you give in to it, you get locked away. If you have the “fat” gene and you give in to it, you get told your fat, made fun of, and basically get a scarlet letter of unhealthiness. So my point is, if you have this supposed “gay” gene and you give in to it, why should we treat you any different than a kleptomaniac, pyromaniac, or any other person who has a disposition to certain lifestyles? The fact remains that a man and a man and a women and a women CANNOT NATURALLY reproduce which means it cannot be naturally. SO I ask again a question that conveiently got lost, how “in your methods” without intervention from someone else does a man and a man or a women and a women reproduce. When you finally admit it is not possible let me know. If you find that it is possible then contact National Geographic.
Kleptos affect others by stealing their property. Pyros affect others by burning their property. Aggressive killers affect others by aggressively killing them.
Gay people don’t affect anyone but themselves. “Ew, it’s icky” is not a valid complaint.
I am hetero and married, and my wife and I have no intention of reproducing. Do you have a problem with that? Is there some law that I’m not aware of that all married couples must reproduce? What about old people? What about infertile people?
Finally! Thank you for being a voice of reason. A couple being gay does not negatively affect ANYONE. No one is being killed or injured….in fact, there’s just more love in the world! If you have something against gay marriage, don’t have a gay marriage. Otherwise, just look away.
Only affect themselves, eh? Take a look at the agenda gays have hired high priced lawyers and lobbyist to push – a done deal in Canada, at least 80% done here. My young relatives have homosexuality pushed at them as just another lifestyle in Grade School, traditional Christians (and may I include Muslims) who believe in marriage being one man and one woman are labeled as intolerant Haters……What’s to stop polygamy, group marriages, and adult-child unions? No, it’s never right to mistreat another person for being homosexual, nobody should ever condone that. But this is not progress!
You, sir, are an idiot.
One or more of your young relatives may be homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or in some other way queer hirself. Zie deserves to learn from an early age that the way zie is is an okay way to be.
Love is the most important treasure we as human beings possess. As a bisexual woman who married a man this past Saturday, I am proud to say I believe all love should be celebrated.
Kudos for using “zie”…although I’m sure it probably confused some.
and where on the human genome is the “aggressive killer gene.” i’m a
biologist and can tell you this is b*llsh*t. there is no such thing. and who
cares if they can’t reproduce naturally? many straight couples can’t
reproduce naturally–should those people not be allowed to marry either?
this whole thing comes down to religious bigotry, really. the only reason
people are against gay marriage is because “the Bible says it’s bad.”
(though that’s actually not true, i would love to have any gay hater show me
where the Bible actually literally says homosexuality is evil.) guess what?
i don’t believe in your stupid little Bible or your stupid little religion. and as
far as i know, this country supposedly has separation of church and state,
meaning your religion doesn’t get to rule other people’s lives.
Nice hateful, bigoted comments, Sandy. Thanks for sharing!
“and as
far as i know, this country supposedly has separation of church and state,”
FYI, there is no Constitutional provision for separation of “church and state”. That is relatively recent construct and doesn’t have a lot of historical support.
The Amendment that has more recently been interpreted as such is intended to address the head of state simultaneously being head of the official state church, e.g. the King of England being head of the Church of England, and thus having sovereignty over body and soul, theoretically.
Alas, Constitutional literacy is not common these days.
Thomas Jefferson was the person who coined the term “separation of church and state” in one of his letters. Therefore it is not a recent construct as you’ve stated, but you are half right in that there is nothing in the constitution that specifically mentions it. Just like there is nothing in the constitution that proclaims this to be a nation founded by Christians on Christian values. That may or may not be true, but the constitution does say that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Allowing same sex marriage does not prevent anyone from practicing their religion. Making it illegal on the basis of religion violates the idea that congress can not make a law that establishes one religion over another. There is no other argument besides one based in religion that would prevent same sex marriages. If it makes you more comfortable to call them civil unions and have them done be a justice of the peace then fine, as long as they have the same rights and benefits that straight couples get when they go to a justice of the peace and keep the word marriage for religious ceremonies only. Although, in that respect, they could just get “married” in a religion that has no problems with same sex unions.
Calvinist principles also included separation of church and state…
wow, so there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government shall make no law respecting one religion over another? Which in essence means no belief system takes precedence over another including xtianity, buddisim, islam, etc… The government should be a neutral party when it comes to questions of religion unless of course your faith makes you commit capitol crimes, felonies, or otherwise affect others around you in adverse ways. And since the Government cannot show favortisim to any faith it must rule logically based on the rule of man made laws not those handed down by (insert favorite god/goddess here)
You’re right….religion doesn’t get the right to rule over our lives….GOD DOES!!!!
I know you won’t understand this, but that statement is utterly silly.
“You’re right….religion doesn’t get the right to rule over our lives….GOD DOES!!!”
So if genetics makes you an idiot am I allowed to say so?
The basis of your argument is fundamentally flawed. There is no such thing as a “killer gene” or a “fat gene”; people don’t “give into” their genes. Genes DO NOT code for behaviors, it doesn’t work that way.
well, why shouldn’t we ridicule people for having a gene for brown hair? Or a gene for green eyes? You people should want gay people to marry eachother, that way they don’t pass on their genes. Why should gender matter so much if it doesn’t negatively affect anyone or anything?
Homosexuality isn’t caused by genes. The very suggestion that it is demonstrates a rather frightening lack of understanding of how natural selection works. A gene that specifically prevents sexual reproduction would not have been lasted this long, nor would it be evident in as many species as it is (homosexuality has been observed in all species of apes, including humans, naturally, dolphins, penguins and probably a few others I haven’t read about).
Although there is no absolutely proven cause of homosexuality, the most commonly accepted theory – and the one that makes the most sense – is that it’s caused by hormones. Human behaviour is almost entirerly determined by hormones rather than genes and sexuality is no exception. Gay people are gay because certain hormones tell them to be.
Of course, on that same token, you’re only straight because certain hormones call you to be. Don’tcha just feel special now?
Yeah, created like sapphires.
wow so….. you’ve never had sex for fun?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. that is all- NO WAIT
HAHAHAHAHA. okay
Sterile people can’t reproduce, but sterility occurs naturally.
Nice half baked point there, bub.
It’s a lie to say that nobody’s perfect – there was a guy, but we killed Him.
exactly, we should all learn to tolerate each others opinions- apart from
Texans and Christians
wtf? It’s got nothing to do with genes. It’s a fricken life decision.
Evidence, please?
Do you remember back when you chose to be heterosexual? I imagine it was quite the day for you….
Well, I would argue that sexual preference is not a choice, per se, but I would argue that it is affected by environment and experience over genetics.
Actually, I’d like to amend the first part of that statement, because there are individuals who make a conscious choice surrounding their identity, even in the arena of sexual preference. The most important part, I think, is recognizing that it may be different for different people.
I totally agree that homosexuals choose to act on their feelings, but no one chooses the gender that they are attracted to. This is a totally moot point, because if you turn it around, us homos could say that hetersexuals choose to act on their feelings as well. We can make it look like heterosexuality is a choise just like they can do to us. Either way, the attractions NEVER change and NEVER go away.
Also, I’m sure that you could argue that sexual orientation is affected by environment, but I doubt that you could do so with any logical, science-based proof. All of the arguements for that side are pure speculation.
Well, it’s all a nature vs. nurture argument but in my mind it doesn’t really matter. Let’s say for the sake of argument (and I don’t completely believe this) that homosexuals DO choose to be homosexual and that it is all they’re own choice without genetics at all. SO WHAT?! What two consenting adults choose to do is there business, it doesn’t hurt anyone, and why do people who are against homosexuality and/or gay marriage think they have a right to tell other people how to live their lives. You CHOOSE to go to church and I as an Agnostic do not tell you that you can’t. My next door neighbor chose to marry a lazy douchbag and no one told her that she couldn’t (and really, someone should have). Live your life by the example you wish to be set and don’t worry about how other people live theirs.
Urg, passionate speech ruined by grammer. I meant “their own choice” not “they’re own choice”. I thought that looked wrong with I briefly scanned it.
Ack! Also “their business” not “there business” what is wrong with me today?!
Just becouse something exists, does not mean it is normal. Cancer has always been there in the human body, still I would not say it is a normal state of the flesh.
the….
No, but it is a naturally occuring thing and it’s not a choice someone makes.
So what other species would you be referencing? I would like some of the scientific data supporting this claim. If none can be provided then the rest of the world will be forced to assume that there is no truth to your statement.
Surely the burden of proof here is on those who seek to limit other people’s behaviour, not on the people being limited?
Dear Austin,
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Bruce Bagemihl writes that Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was a “labor of love.” And indeed it must have been, since most scientists have thus far studiously avoided the topic of widespread homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom–sometimes in the face of undeniable evidence. Bagemihl begins with an overview of same-sex activity in animals, carefully defining courtship patterns, affectionate behaviors, sexual techniques, mating and pair-bonding, and same-sex parenting. He firmly dispels the prevailing notion that homosexuality is uniquely human and only occurs in “unnatural” circumstances. As far as the nature-versus-nurture argument–it’s obviously both, he concludes. An overview of biologists’ discomfort with their own observations of animal homosexuality over 200 years would be truly hilarious if it didn’t reflect a tendency of humans (and only humans) to respond with aggression and hostility to same-sex behavior in our own species. In fact, Bagemihl reports, scientists have sometimes been afraid to report their observations for fear of recrimination from a hidebound (and homophobic) academia. Scientists’ use of anthropomorphizing vocabulary such as insulting, unfortunate, and inappropriate to describe same-sex matings shows a decided lack of objectivity on the part of naturalists.
Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo wraps her legs around another female … while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually “greeting” behavior, or “appeasement” behavior … almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior.
Throw this book into the middle of a crowd of wildlife biologists and watch them scatter. But Bagemihl doesn’t let the scientific community’s discomfort deny him the opportunity to show “the love that dare not bark its name” in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity. The second half of this hefty tome is filled with an exhaustive array of species that exhibit homosexuality, complete with photos and detailed scientific illustrations of the behaviors described. Biological Exuberance is a well-researched, thoroughly scientific, and erudite look at a purposefully neglected frontier of zoology. –Therese Littleton
“What did you do with your life?”
“I spent it looking for gay lizards.”
“um, ok…”
I can think of worse ways to spend your life…
I can think of one….My life would be much worse spent going around telling other people who they should and shouldn’t be and who they should and shouldn’t love.
Sounds like time well spent to me.
So because animals eat their poo…
How, exactly, is that like having sex with a partner to whom you are attracted?
Also, humans are animals. Often neglected fact.
Dolphins. I’m not even kidding, there is scientific evidence of gay dolphins. Two male dolphins will sometimes mate for life, and such http://www.godhateshomophobes.com/video-homosexual-dolphins.php Frickin’ National Geographic, can’t really argue there for scientific fact.
/endargument
Actually, just to throw in my 2 cents I have heard that National Geographic is not considered a credible academic source b/c they’ve been known to bias and even fake information in the past to put a political slant on things. I haven’t confirmed this yet, but just so you know not to believe everything you hear from them. Future reference.
In the wild: Hyena, Grizzly Bear, Domestic Dog, and Cattle. Those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.
If placed in overcrowded conditions, every mammal that has ever been studied for it.
Start with Malthus, and follow it up.
Stupid uppity-ass dyke.
Oh dear. I’m glad I dont live in the US, and im not even gay!
I love it when people say god hates gays. amazes me. you know i dont think i could every live in a country with such narrow minded stupidity in such abbundance
God does not hate gays. People do not go to hell for being gay or being an aldulterer or for any other “sinful” activity. People go to hell for the simple reason of rejecting Jesus or deny his work and diety.
Congratulations! You have started the 1,000,000th internet forum discussion on why it is stupid to believe that a mass murderer who has accepted Jesus in his life will go to heaven and a decent person who just happens not to believe in your particular flavor of god will go to hell.
heh heh LOL
gawd has a flavr…
lmao
Get a pic of that and caption it?
bet you it’s chocolate
i know that god doesnt hate gays, what im saying is that there are people who *think* god hates gays because theyve been indoctrinated with some absolute b/s
“when a man lies with another man it is an abomination”
yeah god hates gays.
i hate god.
i am not gay.
Amen to that. Wish I could movie out.
dan…i <3 you
Please don’t base your opinion of the rest of us on their words and actions. Most of us are perfectly nice people. ^^
congratulations, commander fail. you just lost the internet.
People like you annoy me. If it’s that big of a deal that someone you will never meet loves another person, you’d just better kill yourself now because it’s gonna happen as long as humans continue to live.
And yes, I’m a Christian supporting homosexuality.
Then you aren’t a Christian. It says in the Bible, that a man laying with another man as he would a woman is wicked, and not of God. How can you support things that are not of God?
Just like wearing clothing woven of two different materials! STONE THE UNBELIEVER!
…or maybe there are no gods.
First of all, Luke 6:37
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get into what ELSE the bible says. And if you do not obey everything here, remember, you’re not a christian.
If your brother were to die, would you marry his wife and name your first born after the dead brother? Deuteronomy 25:5-8 says you must.
Did you know that Numbers 35 sets up rules requiring towns to set aside portions of land reserved for people who accidentally killed someone? Also, if you leave this land you can justly be murdered!
How about Deuteronomy 25:11, which states that a woman who grabs her husband’s testicles while he’s fighting another man must have her hand cut off?
Also according to the bible, it is your duty as a christian to go to any place you hear of where there are other religions and kill everyone. The town then must be burnt down and can never be inhabited again. Deuteronomy 13:13-17
Have you ever eaten pork, bacon, or any other pig meat product? How about a lobster, crab, or other shellfish? Leviticus 11:7-10 forbids that. Right next to where it condemns homosexuals.
Here’s one that really boils peoples’ blood. If a woman is raped and nobody hears her scream, do you really think she should be put to death? Deuteronomy 22:23 does.
Leviticus 19:27-28, no shaving your beard or getting tattoos.
Ooh, how about adding insult to injury? A man whose testicles are crushed isn’t allowed to go to church! Deuteronomy 23:1.
Women who aren’t virgins when they marry are to be stoned to death on their father’s front porch! Deuteronomy 22:20.
I hope you obey all of these laws, and expect everyone else to!
Thank you! That was much needed and will sadly be ignored by those who most need to read it.
don’t forget teh one about killing your kids if they talk back. i loooooove thatone. “gawd of love” my muscular ass…
Well now you’re just being fundamentalist. I admit, the bible is up for interpretation, but only the parts that society has forgotten or let up on. And society shouldn’t let up on the homosexual issue. People may say that they were born gay or lesbian, but face it: they weren’t. They were somehow pushed that way. It’s not natural to be homosexual, and it’s not right.
Um… what?!
If you want to lead a good Christian life, and shove the Bible down the gullets of those who would rather be left be, then by your own God, you should follow *ALL* his rules. None of this cherry-picking crap. “Well, my wife likes to wear pants, and I can’t bring myself to stone her for it, so we’ll just cast that one aside… Oh, but we ought to underscore that bit about hating gay people!”
Good gravy.
“the bible is up for interpretation, but only the parts that society has forgotten or let up on.”
pure arse-wiping comedy gold
Seriously? You looked this over before you posted and thought this was a logical well thought out argument? Who gets to decide which parts of the bible are okay to be followed and which ones aren’t? Are you in fact implying that progress leads us to the realization that certain “rules” in the bible are outdated, unfair, and in violation of basic human rights? Oh, except for the gays, of course, that’s just “unnatural”.
LOL. I’m a Christian and it always cracks me up to see how many people think that following a bunch of rules makes them closer to God. What about respecting the core values that were set forth by Jesus? You know….those little things called love, tolerance, and compassion? Soooo outdated.
Many of the teachings in the Bible are applicable today, many are not. It’s important to remember that the Bible was inspired by God, written by men.
Waaaaaaaaaait a minute… are you saying we get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe? You mean, we get to decide which parts of God’s oft-mistranslated word are true?
SIGN ME UP.
i was gonna say something…but you are too stupid there is no point is there? have a nice life
I kind of like you.. But no one but me is really going to pay attention to comments on these old LOLs.
You forgot this one: Missing church on the sabbath is a mortal sin and unless confessed with sincerety you will go to hell. Never mind the fact that you were severely ill that day, it’s still a MORTAL sin, supposedly the worst kind.
Oh, and talking to psychics, and using a ouija board. Those are mortal sins too, What’s even better is the fact that the bible doesn’t even touch these subjects because they weren’t around back then. Instead, the pope has decided conveniently decided this for us.
Quite easily, actually. I choose to believe that God would not send someone away to hell just for finding love, even if it’s not the “norm”.
Simple, this is America, where it’s citizens are entitled to certain freedoms. These people aren’t asking to be married in your church, they’re asking to be legally married. You are entitled in every way to believe in God just as they are entitled not to. It’s a free country, after all. Now yes, as a catholic, I would believe that these people are going to hell, and all that the bible tells. But those are MY beliefs, I hold MYSELF to them. It’s up to other people to hold themselves to their beliefs, not yours.
Have you done any further research, or looked into translations of any of those passages condemning homosexuality?
If you look deeper and in context (something that you fundies always seem to forget to do when it’s convenient), you’ll find that back then, women were treated as property, meaning lesser than their male counterparts. Therefore, for a man to get penetrated by another man would be like equating him to a woman, or in otherwords, that other man’s property.
The problem is not homosexuality, but the sexism of the bible. Women are not seen as property anymore, so this is a moot point.
I’m preeeeeetty sure you’re misquoting, considering you just used the wrong verb. “Lay is transitive, meaning you can lay an object down. “Lie” is intransitive, meaning you can be the one to lie down.
It’s a common mistake, but an unfortunate one.
I support things that are not “of God” all the time, by the way. It’s doable. Promise. I encourage others to try it.
you are NOT christian!
yay
and neither am i
You are decline.
Touche!
oh just DIE already!
and god hates you.
i know you didnt mention him but still
just thought i’d remind you
Centuries of persecution are no excuse for plaid plus-fours.
Well… you do have a point…
yeah those pants hurt. they cause me pain.
Their marriage will not affect yours…the sad thing is that those who are gay that want to get married might have a better chance of staying together longer, those who don’t want to just don’t. But…there is also the norm out there….which says that both Gay and Straight couples will have the same chance of divorce…
The straights are all convinced that gay marriage will kill straight marriage. What I am interested to see is, HOW??? Do they all file for divorce tomorrow?
I’m not. I live in the Netherlands and we’ve had same-sex marriage for 8 jears now. Things are fine. And our divorce ratings are still lower than in the US.
I say go gays. Don’t let the insane fundamentalists stop you for a second.
i’m more concerned that Britney is killing the sanctity of marriage and motherhood.
right on!
Poor Britney.
LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
*high fives*
I love you.
!
who me? love you too!!
“All”? Listen, I’m on your side, but your “all” is clearly misplaced. I know MANY “straights” that have no problem at all with gay marriage. Myself included.
Idiomatic, I think. Some straights are “all convinced”, not “every straight is convinced”. This is about California, remember
Plz to have advancement of liberty and human rights!? Thanx Califourniaz. Kthxbai.
Everyone has the right to be miserable! Hurray for Gay Marriage!
Yay for hoomans rites!!!1
I’m happy that some places are finally allowing gays to get married. Love is love regardless. I’m not gay, but I have friends who are and if they want to get married they should be able to.
No reason for gays to get married, they can easily live together in this most tolerant country and lead normal lives. They can in most cases get benefits – so why I wonder is there an insistence on getting married? The same institution we all fought to anihilate in the 60′s remember??? Why not leave marraige to the religous, it makes no sense to me except to stir up the pot…
The bottom line, ema? It’s none of your damn business what these people want to do.
You should concern yourself with your own life and not trouble yourself – or the government – with trying to control how other people live theirs. If two people want to express their commitment through a marriage ceremony, why should you have ANY right to say otherwise.
You’re just a close-minded busybody with too much time and not enough sense.
You don’t know me. What do you mean “trouble the government”? I’m saying keep the government out of it. Anyone can have a marraige ceremony right now… I have a right to say whatever I want.
Anyone can have a marriage ceremony, true, but that doesn’t mean state legal or civil offices will recognize said union, or allowed for domestic partnership rights when it comes to taxes, insurance, or other base rights offered to wedded breeders.
It’s a matter of principle. Against gay marriage? Don’t marry a gay person.
You are telling someone not to tell other people what to do.
I rest my case
It seems simple enough at first, doesn’t it? But look a bit deeper and you begin to see why this is important:
The following material was provided by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. It is used by permission. The list appears to be based on a request by Representative Henry J Hyde, in 1996-SEP. He was chairperson of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and asked the General Accounting Office “to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights and privileges are contingent on marital status.” Their response, which runs 75 pages, is available online. 1
The list below was compiled for a couple living in the United States. However, similar provisions exist in many other countries.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims’ recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more….
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
You = Win
Back in the 60′s (If you were alive), were you also saying “No reason for colored people to eat in the same restaurants, go the the same schools, or drink from the same fountains, they can easily use the ones marked “Colored” only. They can in most cases east the same food, or get the same education, even get the same water [albeit away from any good, god fearing, gay bashing white folk!] – So why i wonder is there an insistence on equal rights?”
If there is a god, I hope he’s gay, just to send you right wing fundamentalist wackjobs over the edge after you die.
Not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a right wing fundamentalist. I say that as a lesbian who doesn’t want to impose her secularist ideals on a religious institution.
Erm, forgot to say that I’m incredibly pro-domestic partnerships though.
I am too, it makes more sense to me too.
I can’t believe that even people within our own community don’t understand the different between civil and religious marriage?! These are two different institutions. Civil marriage is when two people go before the government to get their commitment recognized and get the benefits that come with it, whereas religious marriage is going before god to do similar. No rights come out of religious marriage itself. What *most* of us gays want is the civil rights, which has absolutely nothing to do with religion!
thankyou brother!
This is why I am a big fan of Vermont (and others)’s term “civil union”. Any couple can get a civil union, and this is the document that confers the rights addressed above.
Finding a person of the cloth to bless the union, that’s a different story.
I like the idea of abolishing the term ‘marriage’ to describe the civil institution to underscore this division.
That’d be fine in the long run, but I can’t ever see the term ‘marriage’ being abolished from civil institutions. Having civil unions only offered to homosexuals provides for a separate but equal instutition, and that sure didn’t work with segretation.
They obviously aren’t in a church, what made you think it was a religious wedding?
Even better, god is a lesbian, and you all have been using the wrong pronouns^^
ema, most of the time gays do ***NOT*** get benefits. I have to pay for my partner’s insurance. The insurance is only $36 per paycheck, but there’s a tax on it for almost $200! if that’s not discrimination, i don’t know what is
I honestly spent about two hours before asking myself and asking everyone else if they could think of one reason that would hold up in court – example, not religiously speaking – that would deny a man and a man or a woman and a woman to get married.
Nobody found an answer.
Yup.
Hell, marriage licences cost money. If anything, they’d be helping the economy by getting married
Ha, until they start costing as much as gas [proportionally, saying].
Then marriage should be banned until the dollar goes up.
Wrong.
Legal benefits levied by federal and state governments. You have to be legally married to get these 1000+ benefits from the government, so gay couples can’t legally get these.
so you do no research eh? without marriage do you know how many benifits gay couples don’t get? try all of them!!! amrriage is the only way to get marriage benefits, not living together, not civil unions, not anything else but marriage, why should you be happy and not every other human being on the planet?!?!?!?! no one should have to leave their country because they arent the same as someone else. seriously
If “Love is love regardless,” then what if a grown man wants to marry a little girl? What if the little girl loves that grown man and wants to marry him? They want to get married. Should they be able to? What if it is a pair of kissin’ cousins or a pair of siblings or a father and a daughter? What if it is a man and his dog or girl and her horse? There has to be a standard, otherwise all these would be acceptable and allowable as well. Now, whose standard do we use? Is one person’s standard better than another’s? If “no,” then we’re back up to the top of this post. I reiterate, there must be a standard, and it has to be from some source greater than a human.
I hope you realize that there IS a standard. Two adults who can LEGALLY give their consent are allowed to enter into marriage (except for extenuating circumstances that requires the courts). Little girls, dogs, and horses cannot give their legal consent. However, two grown men or women can. I’m awfully glad you are so respectful of your country that you think that Americans will degrade into anarchy and amorality by simple progress. If people REALLY did everything they were supposed to, according to the bible, divorce rates would be zeroed out and my parents would be able to sell my little sister to be a whore to get my brother through college.
Who decides that the little girl, litle boy, dog, horse, or other animal consents? If the girl wants to marry the grown man, or boy wants to marry a grown woman or let’s go the homosexual route as well, boy-man, girl-woman, then they consent. Yes, our laws prevent that from happening because a minor cannot legally give consent, but there, we have a legislation of morality. There we have the government deciding what someone cannot consent to do. Do animals consent to have sexual relations with one of their own species? Can they consent to have sexual relations with one from a different species. A human cannot decide what an animal consents and does not consent to do. I’ll ignore the last bit of your comment because it has nothing to do with the argument.
It is not a legislation of morality but of science that tells us that children and animals do not have the same cognitive decision making abilities. That is why we don’t let children smoke or drink.
thats also why we don’t tell children that homosexuality is perfectly normal and healthy. probably much like yourself, you were told this, you thought it was ok, started doing it, and before you know it your a raving lunatic on the internet who thinks the whole world is trying to persecute her. Lets stop creating more people like you and tell children the truth, that your sexual urges are for the opposite sex.
Ummmm, actually I’m not gay although you are right in that I was taught that there is noting wrong with homosexuality by my open-minded parents. Clearly that makes me a raving lunatic. Although if you are an example of a “sane” person then sign me up for a straight jacket.
“nothing” rather. Man, I’m the typo queen today.
geez there goes yikes and his obsession again. take a xanax, man.
anon you really haven’t thought this through very well.
the law doesn’t enter into what animals do to each other, because animals are not legal persons, e.g. it’s not murder if a lion eats a gazelle. it is murder if I eat you.
“legislation of morality” is only valid if it’s about someone harming someone else. adult same-sex relationships don’t harm others. ergo, saying they shouldn’t count is arbitrary posturing.
Ashley’s comment was valid IMHO. you said higher authority than humans should be referred to (i presume you meant religion), Ashley gave you an example of something god’s apparently ok with. it may shock us today, but that’s progress…
Anon is clearly a supporter of Rick Santorum, “frothy mixture” and all.
Two consenting adults.
Adults can legally vote, own property, make medical decisions for themselves without parental consent, write wills, etc. The definition of an adult is pretty rigid. Kids and dogs cannot vote, make medical decisions for themselves, have wills, etc.
Ugh, slippery slope fallacy. Stop it.
Consenting adults. No children, no animals. Neither can legally consent to a damn thing. If you can’t sign a contract, you can’t get married. Simple as that.
Also, it wasn’t all that long ago that marrying your cousin was a-ok. (And, if I remember correctly, the normal rate of genetic mutations is 1-2% in humans, and only jumps to about 3% when the child was spawned by first cousins). And girls used to be married off to grown men right after their first period so that they could pop out as many babies as possible. Ever read Romeo and Juliet? Yeah, Juliet was like 13 and they were marrying her off. Good old Virgin Mary was about 14 when she had Jesus.
Hell, there are some countries where girls are still married off super-early. I believe an 8 year old in Yemen recently filed for, and was granted, a divorce from a muuuch older man.
So whatev.
Actually, do a google search on marriage laws and you’ll find that a significant amount of states have no problem with you getting married to your first cousin. If I remember correctly there is maybe only one state (if any) where you can not marry your first cousin once removed (which is your parent’s cousin). So, in this country you can find your future spouse at a family reunion, but not a gay bar. That is sad.
A grown man can’t marry a little girl because the girl is not considered old enough to make decisions regarding sex and marriage. As far as I can tell, there’s no reason someone should be considered TOO GAY to get married. “Well, they’re so gay, they’re not even thinking straight” (oh, unintentional pun FTW).
As far as I’m concerned (and a lot of people will disagree with me, here), if cousins or siblings want to get married, they should. The real taboo ought to be on reproduction between such closely related individuals. You know, it increases chances of bringing out harmful recessive genes, and it decreases genetic diversity. The father-daughter question is trickier because there’s no real way to tell if pressure is being put on the younger party going into this union.
In the end, I don’t really give a damn if people want to marry animals as long as the animals are not being abused. I don’t know why one would seek such a relationship, but I shrug. And this is the argument I consider the most irrelevant to gay marriage. Marrying within one’s sex versus marrying outside one’s species… engh?
If two consenting human adults agree to get married, they should have that option. The end.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Marriage is a crapshoot anyway; might as well open the game up as wide as possible!
Amen!
I’m not sure on my opinion of what’s going on in California. I’m still pretty young and am trying to form ideas in my head. I’m sorry to bring religion back into this ppl, but I’m a recent convert to Christianity and as far as I know, homosexuality is not …promoted. My grandparents have been married for 51 years and my parents are still together. None of them really approve of homosexuality, but my only childhood friend in bi, and her mother is lesbian. My head is spinning! Is there any “right” way of life, or love, or whatever?
nope.
Yo go the way you want to. Religion, no religion, gay, straight, bi, man, woman, it is all up to how you want to live your life.
There is no manual for life, and anyone offering just wants your money or your control.
Check Ezekiel 16:49 for a true definition of sodomy (for those who don’t want to check, it’s greed and selfishness). Then read Matthew 25 for a definition of what true Christianity is.
No, there really isn’t. It just depends on how you feel about it. Are you grossed out, or could you care less. Yes, in Christianity homosexuality is pretty much frowned upon, but that doesn’t mean if you’re a Christian you have to disagree with it. One of my best friends is a very strong advocate for the Christian religion and she’s bi. It all comes down to your outlook on it.
Some “organized” sects don’t necessarily follow the Bible’s teachings.
The paramount “laws” are to love God over anything else and to love your neighbor.
You will inevitably sin. That is why Christ died on the cross. Sin is sin; one sin is not “worse” than other. Judging and condemning someone for being homosexual is just as grave a sin as performing homosexual sex acts.
Why do we have to advertise this cr*p? Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket? Not too hard to ffigure out.
..St00pid!!!!
I’m sorry, I’m against gay marriage.
This is anti-progress, in my point of view.
yes you certainly are, thanks for your apology
They shouldn’t have to apologize to you for their belief.
I always feel I need an apology from the ignorant and intolerant….
Remove the plank from thine own eye. Show some tolerance for those with differing opinions.
after you
But you see, I didn’t show any intolerance. In fact, I haven’t even pointed out my own stance on the issue. I simply pointed out that those who are opposed to this decision should not have to apologize for what they believe.
May I inquire as to why you’re against gay marriage? I’m not trying to say that you’re wrong, but I am curious to know your thought process behind this subject.
Equal Rights!!! (straight and pagan)
This has absolutely nothing to do with equality. A man, be he homo or heterosexual, has the same right as any other man, homo or heterosexual, to marry a woman. If you want equal rights, then California is going to have to abolish same sex marriages. Now we don’t have equal rights. A man in (almost any state besides california) can marry only a woman. In California a man can marry a woman or another man… That is the definition of inequality. I know people will say my argument gives reason that the rest of the country should change their ways, but what my argument is doing is showing that California has done the country wrong. By making up their own laws that contradict the federal laws California is promoting inequality.
Having the ability to marry someone of the same sex does not make rights unequal. The idea is that any man or woman in California now has the chance to marry the person that they LOVE. Why do conservatives and anti-gays always leave this out of the picture? Before, gay and lesbian Californians (and those from Massachusetts) did NOT have the ability to legally wed the person they LOVED. THAT’s what made their rights unequal.
ah, but I see Guy’s point: everyone had the right to enter a sordid loveless arrangement of convenience, and that’s what everyone should be fighting for!
what a tosspot.
I interpret the equal rights in this way:
A straight man may marry whomsoever he wishes. (Generally a straight female).
Why can a gay man not marry whomever he wants?
It’s the sort of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” type of thing. You should be able to live your life with the liberty to be happy, as long as you’re not, say, raping and murdering.
VIKING RIGHTS NOW!
yeah for the pillaging!!! not so much on the raping…
I’ll bring the mead if you bring the lutefisk.
So, by your definition, Florida, because it does not levy state income taxes in addition to the federal ones, is promoting “inequality” because people in other states have to pay both state and federal income taxes?
Federal laws can be found unconstitutional. And DOMA, the federal anti-gay law, gives STATES the right to decide what they want on gay marriage, just that other states don’t have to recognize gay marriages. And DOMA could very easily be challenged by the Supreme Court.
Federal laws get knocked down all the time. It’s called the Supreme Court.
If there is no manual for life, how can anyone say ANYTHING is wrong, including oppression of homosexual rights?
If there is NO manual, then if I WANT to be an oppressor, then I can be an oppressor, right? “It is all up to how you want to live your life.”
Your right to swing your fist ends where another’s nose begins.
Because you are unnecessarily harming another person.
Until the homosexuals cause you blatant damage, you may not be an oppressor of them.
I’m a big fan of California for legalizing gay marriage; I do think it’s a lovely point of progress. Am not, however, so much a fan of the public displays of affection, both of the hetero- or homosexual variety. So, IMO, gay marriage = progress; PDA = anti-progress, and also ick. Not while I’m checking out my library books, please. :p
AMEN.
I’m so SICK of people making out in front of anyone. I think it should be saved for when you’re alone – a peck on the lips and a hug in public, but I don’t want no tongue, you know? It’s disgusting. I don’t care if it’s two guys, two girls, or a man and a woman, it’s sick.
Yes, the day of your own wedding to the one you love is clearly the wrong time to display your affection.
That’s one thing. But I’m talking about a time when you’re not devoting your entire life to someone you love – like when you’re going to the mall, or sitting in a park.
I have a gay friend who doesn’t think that same sex marriage should be legalized. I start to wonder when even the gay guy doesn’t agree.
Your friend doesn’t speak for everyone.
Do you have a “black friend” and an “asian friend” and a “hispanic friend” too? How many more do you need before your tolerance punch card is filled?
Well, the white person’s Black quota is approximately twenty. The Asian quota is about five. The Latin@ quota is elevenish.
A straight person’s queer quota (alliteration is my love) is approximately six. So this person is well on their way.
do queers have a straight quota too? i am curious
If you’re against same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex. I mean, really, how does the marriage of two other people hurt you? It doesn’t. Don’t like it? Look the other way. Leave them alone to find happiness.
Ok, I’ve got no problem with gay marriage, but I’ve got a problem with all of the public displays of affection. Gay and straight couples annoy me with that. Please save that for when you’re alone please.
yeah but this picture is of people’s WEDDING day. surely you’re ok with kissing the bride???????????????????
way to overreact.
We’ve had gay marriage up here in Canada for a while now. I promise you all God won’t drown the whole country for this. Most straight people won’t notice a difference in your life at all.
It still kinda boggles me that people still get huffy with it and say it isn’t natural. We learn in university anthropology just for an example that bonobos under normal circumstances will have sex with members of the same sex. And I think I saw on the news a few years ago some people got upset about a gay penguin in a zoo somewhere in the states ^_^ that made me giggle.
And does it say anywhere in the Bible about lesbians? Or how do you console the fact that it also says you should kill gay men?
And Americans wonder why a lot of ourselves wander up to Canada so often!
lesbians are gawd’s chosen ones. srsly.
but… but… but… then the Republicans and Evangelicals might have to talk about ACTUAL problems in peoples lives… and lose some of their ability to confound and control the less educated…
I just want to say I love you for bringing bonobos into this. Bonobos are awesome. They are super-peaceful and constantly sexing. Good times.
Marriage is not just a religious institution – many of the laws in the US were written to apply to married couples differently than single persons. That’s the real issue here. As long as certain rights are tied to marriage and homosexuals are denied marriage, homosexuals are denied rights, which is discrimination. I personally don’t care who gets married to whom. It’s none of my business what other people do.
Yeah, I grok this. I am all over separation of Church and State. There are plenty of other belief systems than Christianity which are followed in the US who are more open to marriage between same-gendered folks.
Personally, I’d love to see the institution of marriage completely separate from the government and allow any legal aged adult to have the rights formerly allowed in marriage to whomever they wish, so long as they are co-habiting (to include those who work away from the home, such as military or truck drivers, etc) –just have those rights in a civil union. Because I know that there are lifelong friends who are like family who should have as much right to raise kids together or be there in the hospital as any married couple, straight or gay.
But yes, as much as I’d love to see marriage be only socio-religious and not a legal institution of its own, I’m even more in the minority than those debating marriage within the legal confines.
Since not all married couples are REQUIRED to bare children, what does it matter what gender-preference is involved? Or do you want me to phone up my Aunt and Uncle and tell them they have to adopt a child, now?
Every time I see conservatives get so worked up over this I ask myself, “why can’t we just agree that things like energy policy are probably a better thing to focus on?” I mean seriously, if I were to make a top 25 list of “threats” to America, gay marriage would not even be on it.
And that is the point really, isn’t it? In order to limit others freedoms you have to make the case that “x” limitation is for the common good. I have a feeling 50 years from now when ice is melting some people will be claiming it is because of gay marriage. No way to argue with that.
“Every time I see conservatives get so worked up over this I ask myself, “why can’t we just agree that things like energy policy are probably a better thing to focus on?” ”
I think gay marriage…the “Defense of Marriage Act” and its clones, the preoccupation with whose idea of morality is right…all these non-threats are specifically brought up because it gets people’s emotions in a turmoil and diverts us from the REAL threats to our society…like the fact that for the past 50 years we have been throwing trillions, gazillions, of dollars down a rathole building weapons systems that we neither want nor need.
How many million-dollar (and now “obsolete”)jet planes are sitting in “graveyards” out in the deserts of this country? Hmmm?
I did not write this, but it is pretty apt here.
1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Woot! This is awesome.
I second that, this pretty much sums it all up!
thirded.
Satire for the Win!
If two people love each other and want to formally commit to each other for the rest of their lives, then all the power to them – no matter what their gender.
Love is what matters.
Though how signing a piece of paper helps, I’ve no idea – NB this applies equally across all genders and preferences. If ‘Love is what matters’, what’s the significance of ‘formally’ committing?
Have you not been paying attention? The significance of ‘formally’ committing is to be granted rights. Rights that most married people take for granted. I got a great idea. How about we take those 1,400 rights away from “married” people and make those rights only available to people who sign contracts (other than marriage liscense) with eachother. That way, straight people can get married just for fun too.
Yuh-huh, paying attention already! My point is that the whole damn shooting match is archaic hogswash and I see no reason to accord rights (which by context are clearly actually *privileges*) to people prepared to sign marriage licences whatever their sexual orientation. More succinctly, why does being in love (and hence, by Tototsie’s assertion, in a position to enter into a formal commitment) qualify one for more “”"rights”"” than a single person?
Some of them make sense to me. The way I see marriage is as formally bringing a non-related person into your family – hence terms such as “sister-in-law.” This way the person you love and most care about can make decisions regarding medical treatment and can visit you and all that.
But I see your point.
Thanks, I see yours too of course – I just wasn’t going to let darktygr get away with accusing me of ‘not paying attention’, given that they’d largely missed my own point.
Gee, Amanda, how about federal law and the law of 48 states and several US territories. Not to mention overwhelming popular votes in 35+ states (including California) defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. What’s next, plural marriage? Repealing laws against marrying minors? Marry your cat? Why not!
Minors are below the age of consent. Cats can’t sign a marriage license or consent to anything. I’m for plural marriage, but that’s another debate. Tell me for what reason you think marriage is only for one man and one woman, telling me “other people agree with me” may be a fact, but consensus is far from always right.
I’m gonna have to just agree with this instead of repeating it. A minor is hindered by hormones and doesn’t have enough life experience to make a decision of marriage – I’d know, I’m turning 15 this Saturday and I would never become married anytime soon, to anything. I think as long as two people – meaning of the same species – can make the informed and non-impaired [meaning they're not impaired by any substances or natural hormones] decision to marry another of the same species [regardless of gender or race] should be allowed to marry that person.
the same WAS argued about Racial Rights at one point, I believe…
Hey! We’re already having this argument further up on the page. Scroll back up and post there so we don’t have to repeat ourselves!
As a longtime promoter of so-called “homosexual rights” and a reverend who promotes love and true being in all its glorious forms, I applaud the decision in California and await the day that our LGBT friends can be seen as equals, and as “friends” instead of “our gay friends.” Gay folk getting the same rights as heterosexual couples (particularly medical, financial, and judicial rights) is one step forward for our nation.
We are a fine nation, and getting better all the time!
i can haz gubbmint rights?! Yay! kthxbye.
Hai fyve!
Minors are below the age of consent. What does that matter? It’s just a law. Repeal it! Or better yet, have the 9th Circus Court determine that it’s unconstitutional.
Tell me for what reason you think marriage is only for one man and one woman, telling me “other people agree with me” may be a fact, but consensus is far from always right.
Hmm. How about 6000+ years of recorded history? Virtually every society known to man has enacted stringent laws prohibiting homosexual marriage (or at least homosexual activity). Oh, I forget, we’re soooo much more evolved than all those people in those stuffy history books. What did they know? they’re dead, right?
As California goes, so goes the country, unfortunately.
Considering statutory rape laws, I find it far-fetched that marriage to a minor would ever be legalized. But anyway. About your history, many societies in the past have been overwhelmingly accepting of homosexuality. The greeks are the easiest ones to cite. But based on your argument I’d say history is pretty inconsequential. The majority of historical societies viewed marriage as between many women and one man. I don’t think that correlates with your one man one woman viewpoint.
Yeah, those ancient Greeks sure knew how to punish teh gheys.
Oh, wait…
Also, 6000+ years of recorded history would result in women still being property, blacks still not able to marry whites, and divorce still being illegal.
Progress, try it sometime! You might like it!
Just as a point of reference, many ancient societies including Greece and Rome, which were some of the models for modern democracy, considered homosexuality acceptable if not actually respectable. I am not certain, but I also think many Asian countries (at least Japan) have little to no social stigma against homosexuality.
as a relevant aside here, ages of consent for minors have actually gone UP worldwide over the last 100 years, as our ideas of what constitutes “healthy and moral” sexuality have changed.
case in point: Victorian England, home of domesticity, prudishness and family values – age of consent 12 (and 20% female adult population were full-time prostitutes).
like I say, progress…
Yes, and the Greeks also encouraged gay relations between older men and youth. That is, as long as it stopped after they got married.
2 things about this pic.
1. that backpack weighs more than her.
2. no one likes to see public displays of affection, regardless of sexual preference. Children don’t understand it either.
Gov’t shouldn’t put restrictions on marriage. Let them marry, who cares. If you’re bent out of shape about it…why? Are they hurting you? The only debate is if the church will recognize it, and they probably won’t.
1. The backpack could be filled with helium.
2. I agree that few people like PDAs, but come on, this is basically their wedding, after all… I’d say they should get a pass on this one. Unless there’s any other single more appropriate time for a PDA than one’s own wedding.
Yeah, they get a free pass on it.
They look happy and that all that matters really.
no one likes to see public displays of affection, regardless of sexual preference.
Bull. There are all sorts of voyeurs around. I only worry about whether it’s okay to look.
Considering statutory rape laws, I find it far-fetched that marriage to a minor would ever be legalized.
Remember s0d0my laws? I find it far-fetched that marriage between sodomites would ever be legalized. Not.
It just blows me away evey time I see someone useing the bible as an “example” of why the bible/christianity is right. That’s ridiculous. I don’t understand why people oppose gay marriage so much. If you don’t agree, don’t get one. It’s that simple.
Blame the parents, they keep having all the gay kids.
Again, I ask… how does same sex marriage hurt anyone out there? If you don’t like it, don’t do it. Leave the rest of the consenting adults alone!
Ok people, aside from the whole biblical issue, it’s really about human rights. Even if you believe that homosexuality is a choice, that’s still akin to barring someone from getting married because of their religion. For the rest of us that believe that it’s not a choice, it’s about civil rights – just because their skin isn’t a different color doesn’t mean they’re not getting discriminated against. If you want to keep gays from getting married just like everyone else, we haven’t learned anything about equal rights.
Seriously. I mean, we can look back on the civil war now and question why we included that everyone’s equal, but enslaved a whole race of people. I hope that years later now, we can all look back on this and say “Well why didn’t they realize EVERYONE was equal then?”
Hmm. How about 6000+ years of recorded history? Virtually every society known to man has enacted stringent laws prohibiting homosexual marriage (or at least homosexual activity). Oh, I forget, we’re soooo much more evolved than all those people in those stuffy history books. What did they know? they’re dead, right?
As California goes, so goes the country, unfortunately.
This is really the rational underneath the sexual conformity hysteria. I mean come on guys; if we legalize gay marriage, society has to fail, right? No. Sexual standards within American society have changed greatly over time.
The thing is, sexual “deviancy” has been around forever. Like look at the greeks oh wait, their society is gone!?!? Ok, fine whatever, just look at the other bazillion examples that are still around.
France, circa 1600 used to have rampant pre-marital sex and hermaphrodites could marry whichever sex they wanted to (though they had to stick w/ their choice). Mormons in the U.S. used to practice polygamy. English lords used to rape their serfs quite regularly. Tons of countries today arrange marriages from birth. The point is, despite their karrraaaazy sex behavior, they lived to tell about it. Just because people are not comfortable with “gay” does not mean the sky is falling. The status quo is not necessarily right.
For the rest of us that believe that it’s not a choice, it’s about civil rights – just because their skin isn’t a different color doesn’t mean they’re not getting discriminated against. If you want to keep gays from getting married just like everyone else, we haven’t learned anything about equal rights.
I disagree. Let’s be straight about things. It’s not about ‘civil rights’ or ‘equal rights’, it’s about special rights. Repeatedly, in virtually every state where it’s been brought up, the people have voted not to grant marital rights and privileges to people based on their sexual habits. And those votes are not narrowly contested – it’s routinely in the range of 60-40, or higher. That means dems and republicans both are opposed to it.
But now the 9th Circus Court jumps in and tells the people they’re not allowed to decide on the matter. Go figure.
There’s a little thing called the US Constitution (and by extension, various State Constitutions), and the purpose of those “liberal judges” is to interpret the Constitution. If Congress (or state legislatures, or etc) pass laws that are in conflict with the Constitution (for example, if a state passed legistation legalizing slavery), then that Circuit’s (and ultimately, the Supreme Court’s) very job is to invalidate those laws. That is their *JOB*, it’s not them being “activist,” it is in fact their very reason for existing.
There are established procedures (called out within the Constitution itself) to amend the US Constitution to change the ultimate law to whatever you want. Feel free to follow them to change the prevailing US law into whatever you want. Good luck. (incidentally, that is one reason why the elected president matters a lot — the Prez is the one person who can nominate justices to the US Supreme Court).
The “special” right to do what everybody else is doing? Like when blacks wanted the special right to have their vote count more than 3/5ths? Or when women wanted the special right to be paid the same amount of money for the same amount of work?
Don’t talk about the woman-thing. We didn’t win that.
Tell me about it! It still hurts when you bump your head on that glass ceiling!
Amen to that.
Oh come on! You got a huge victory there! In 1959 (year that Pay Equity Act passed) you were making $.54 to every $1.00 I made. By 2001, you were up to $.79 per $1.00!
$.79=$1.00!!!
Of course, now you’re back down to $.71 per $1.00…
Eh, just get the money from your husbands, or you make less because you “choose” to work less over the course of your life (never mind that these are annual numbers, and not career-averaged), and other such crap.
Or there’s my personal favorite; last year, the Supreme Court put a limit on how long a woman has to sue her employer over pay inequity; in order to attempt to correct the problem, Congress attempted last month to pass a law to extend said statute-of-limitations. It failed in the Senate. Among those not present was Senator McCain, who spoke against the bill during a speech in New Orleans, saying that the pay inequity is not caused by discrimination.
No, apparently, pay inequity exists because women need “more training”.
/End completely irrelevant rant. I’m staying out of the over-all debate because homophobes alternately disgust me and cause my eyes to well up with tears of mirth.
Let’s also not forget that most employers fobid employees from discussing how much they make with each other. So often it’s impossible to know whether or not you are not making as much unless you break company policy and talk about it. This is especially true in the retail world.
As long as no one forces someone else into doing something they don’t want to do, I don’t care. And if you don’t like the idea of “gay marriage”, then lets call all legal commitments “civil unions” and only let religious groups give out “marriages”.
To all you homophobes out there, lemme remind you of the generally accepted statistic that one in 10 people is gay, lesbian, bysexual, transgender, queer, or questioning. Think of how many people you deal with on a daily basis, how many hands you shake, how many shoulders you brush past on the street…you prolly came in contact with a GLBTQQ person!
Any red-letter Christian can tell you that Jesus spent his life trying to get people to live in peace and love one another. He said to love thy neighbor…well, are you gonna say no to Jesus if your neighbor happens to be gay? Seriously ask yourself, if you were to have a conversation with Jesus and you told him your neighbor was gay, he’d probably say that you should still love him. Wouldn’t refusing a direct order from Jesus Christ Himself make it very difficult to be able to continue saying you are a good christian following the word of God and Jesus?
For the record…I’m a Buddhist.
Good job California, HUMAN RIGHTS WIN!
CONGRATS CALIFORNIA!!!! And congrats to all the lovely gay couples getting married!
This can be framed in terms of individual freedom. I should have the freedom to entitle anyone I choose, regardless of gender or familial status, as my legal representative, empowered to make decisions for me if I am incapacitated, inherit my property, enter into contracts, be covered by my insurance, et al. If I’m straight, I can do this by marrying someone and paying for the license. The wedding ring automatically endows my spouse with legal rights that are very rarely questioned. If I’m gay, I have to enter into extensive and costly legal contracts with my partner, any of which can be contested or even ignored by healthcare providers, insurance companies, family members, et al. Allowing gay marriage simplifies the whole thing. One license, as compared to three inches of legal paperwork. Take your pick.
Im just amazed that the next generation of america is being brought up in this madness. to me i findit absolutely amazing. in fact, its religions meddling in US Government thats got it in to the mess its in today. Religion and politics should not mixed, not today nor in the future. to me it seems that being legally married and for that marriage to be accepted by the state is a symbol of acceptance for those couples.
There are too many bigger issues in the world today, and people being happy should be the least of our problems.
Life isnt black and white, simply shades of grey in between
I heard a guy on NPR this morning say that god is punishing us for same-sex marriages by sending our jobs overseas.
Interesting. Aren’t there several places overseas that same-sex marriages are legal. Did he forget to think that one through a little. Maybe the jobs are going overseas because we are arguing about same-sex marriage rather than making a plan to help the economy or enviroment. Hmmm. Let me think on that a while.
How did this dude wind up on NPR? Did he get lost?
Maybe God is punishing us for other things. Like sending soldiers overseas to kill and be killed over… wait, what was it?
Cheap gas.
THAT worked out well.
you know you stupid LGBTQQ idiots are what put this country where it is. Your absolute refusal to put down this issue is what alientated many voters from the democratic party 4 years ago. Look at the threads online, it was almost unanimous that gay marriage was the primary issue for swing voters. Now when we see a clear shift in politics, you start in again as if all the people who told you SHUT THE HELL UP 4 years ago have gone away. You’ll never be happy. If somehow you manage to get your sexual relationships classed as ‘marriage’, you’ll then move onto other areas like education and child rearing, pushing the vast majority of people who disagree with you into the margins. Why does the majority feel alienated? Because of your fear tactics that try to turn our reasoning into HATE- which it is not. You are deeply resentful human beings who wish to turn the entire world on its head so you can feel ‘accepted’. This is a DEMOCRACY not a DEMOCRAZY. Gay people are in the minority.
I think what we should do is phone in our Democratic candidates and assure them that we do not support this idiocy. I am not religious nor particularily hateful towards people who have gay sexuality. I do not appreciate however their constant attacks on our norms for the past 30 years. They are constantly organizing and recruiting people to their cause, alientating voters to side with the radical war mongering right. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THIS TIME IDIOTS.
“I do not appreciate however their constant attacks on our norms for the past 30 years. They are constantly organizing and recruiting people to their cause, alientating voters”
Yeah, just like black people in the 60′s. I guess we showed them not to attack our norms.
how do the “vast majority” get “pushed to the margins”??
please explain that, rhetoric-boy.
and while you’re at it, explain why gay people are responsible for the right-wing demagoguery that co-opted them to centre-stage of the presidential battles of the 90s?
gay marriage was a made-up issue, a manufactured controversy! LGBTs were really fighting for decriminalisation and anti-discrimination in the workplace, and the pundits lumbered in and said “they’ll be wanting marriage next! quick, stop them!”
well the jokes on them now. cos queers went, “really, marriage? wow”…
maybe thats how it looked to you in between meth binges and weekend long raves. oh is that part of your natural instinct as well?
the rest of the world really has to take a long cold look at what the LGBT community really is, and start to think about whether its even worthwhile to consider your constant pleas for more and more ‘rights’. Maybe this election the center of the democratic party will start treating you the way you deserve rather than accepting payouts and empty pleas for ‘equality’. or Maybe we should give NAMBLA their own action committee?
the fact that all gays just *luv 2 party!* is just a statistical anomoly. When you create laws that illegalize any kind of commentary on gay people as ‘hate speech’ the public image starts to become quite contorted.
honey, I’m home!
bruce! hows youre anus? it was a bit sore last night.
nothing a little vaseline wont fix! wheres jimmy?
dad!
hi Jimmy!
dad, I learned about scrotal clamping in school today!
thats my boy!
the people who are pushing for this are total psychopaths and the people who are going along with it are braindead.
This coming from someone who claims s/he’s not “particularily hateful towards people who have gay sexuality”?
I think your feeble mask of “I’m okay with Gays, really” as an excuse to be all against them for wanting the same basic rights as heterosexual adults is starting to falter there.
Worry about your own damn self and quit trying to fire back, it’s tiresome.
Actually, this is a Republic, not a democracy. That’s why we elect “Representatives” to write our laws. Also one of the reasons our federal government was set up the way it was (you know, with lots of restrictions and checks and balances?) was to PROTECT the Minority from the Majority. Not to say “Haha! We out-number you, sucks to be you.” Majority and Minority have nothing to do with law and policies and were never meant to.
being black and being gay are not synonymous you wretched twit. Why is this constantly used as a justification for gay marriage? Why not go to Obama’s church and tell them:
“hello ppl! Blacks and Homosexuals are the same thing and should be treated alike.”
In the 50′s and 60′s “separate but equal” was the status quo. Not giving up your seat on the bus, trying to sit at the same lunch counters, going to the same schools, getting people registered to vote, these were all seen as attacks on the norm for white america. However, by constantly organizing and recruiting people to their cause, the people involved in the civil rights movement were able to make great strides and change the way this country looks at fairness and equality. We’re not all there yet, obviously judging by some of the hate-filled comments on this board we’ve got a long way to go, but think of where we would be if Martin Luther King Jr. was told to be quiet and stop alienating voters. I’m glad he didn’t listen to that.
And I am glad we don’t have to change ‘spouse’ to ‘partner’ on every govt document in existence. Black people fought not to be judged by the color of their skin. You people are sick bastards and if we have another 4 years of repub licans, its the LGBT communities fault, because you cannot understand the concept of democracy. We need to work towards peace in this country, not crusades against society when its really hatred of your parents that you are trying to express. Trying to liken your sick form of hedonism to Martin Luther King Jr. is revolting at best.
Seriously, are you on medication? That was the most incoherent, rambling excuse for an argument in the English language. You have some serious anger issues that I think would best be worked out with a licensed therapist. I am both repulsed by yet strangly compelled to correct such abject stupidity, yet I know that will be a never ending crusade that I can not win. Therefore I will have willpower and not respond to any of your posts ever again. Or at least until you seek and receive the medical treatment you so obviously need.
thats an excellent excuse for having no rebuttal whatsoever. Why not go back to calling me a douchebag?
“By Conversion, we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life [than subversion] …We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean…to turn their hatred into warm regard whether they like it or not.”
I am hoping that the Democratic party pushes LGBT so far left they fall off the spectrum completely. Time to get back to working family values- this is what this country needs, not your brand of insanity. I want my political party back.
In the 70s gayness was synonymous with flamboyance and disregard for responsibility. Has its foundation really changed? Or have we adopted these justifiers and excuses as moral truth? Youre actually trying to blend homosexuality with child rearing? Do you have any idea how totally absurd that is?
I’ve known quite a few gay people in my life and I have to say that most of them are more well-adjusted and moral than a large percentage of heterosexual people I’ve known in my lifetime. I know several gay people that blend in seamlessly with heterosexuals and the only reason I knew they were gay is because they confessed as much to me.
By working family values do you mean child-molesting priests that stand at the pulpit and preach hypocrisy every Sunday? Or do you mean the fathers who get drunk and verbally accost their families every evening? Or maybe you mean the fathers who physically abuse their families and the mothers who “stand by their man” because they “love” them?
Most of the people that I’ve known to preach the “family values” ticket are the same Nascar-loving, beer-swilling people guilty of all the things mentioned above, so maybe you should reconsider what you call a psychological attack.
I’ve never known a gay person that psychologically damaged anyone (beyond making an off-hand remark about a person of the same gender’s attractiveness), however, I’ve known plenty of heterosexual people that have destroyed lives based on their actions.
Not all gay people are the hedonists you see on television. Maybe it’s time you reevaluate your concept of who’s subjecting you to subversion – the gay people who just want to live their lives like everyone else and profess their love to their partner through a common ritual such as marriage or the media who stereotypes gays as hedonists and the religious nuts who demonize them.
funny how the proverbial ‘well adjusted’ ‘nice boy next door’ or ‘nice girl next door’ homosexual seems to only come in contact via anecdotes and anonymous postings. all the lesbians I’ve met are brooding pychopaths. all the gay men I’ve met are sex maniacs.
wow… so many levels of FAIL in yikes’ post….
Well damn. You need to be hanging out with more of the queers, because I’ve never known *any* like that, and I am often surrounded by them.
Seriously, I can imagine you frothing at the mouth when I read these vile, hate-addled posts of yours.
Gays are no more damaging to your precious Democratic party (which is my party as well) than an interracial couple.
And those quality of “gays” and “lesbians” are what you measure your opinions of them on, then one must really have to call into question the “straight” sort of people you keep as company.
Once you cling to the adult notion that Marriage = Love and that Love is a gift between two people, then you should continue adding to this admittedly adult discussion board. Until then, I suggest a trip to a vet for a rabies shot.
Alright, I consider myself to be a well-adjusted bisexual girl. I a 2-year-old student going to the University of New Brunswick getting my Bachelor of Nursing degree. I live in a suburban neighborhood, with a very supportive family. I graduated from High School with Honors and was the first person accepted into my degree program. I party a couple times per month, less than the average university student, because I have bills to pay and things to study. I have been in relationships with both men and women, and I have never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. Yes, I support same-sex marriage. I have never slept with someone outside of a relationship (I know that is a personal thing, but since we are talking about something personal ie. a person’s sexual preference, I thought it to be acceptable). I volunteer in my free time with various organizations, and also like spending time just talking with my friends…Do you think I am psychotic or mal-adjusted?
Haha, I mean 20. I am 20-years old :p
Two adults, in love, choose, of their own free will, to mark their commitment to eacher with a legally recognised ceremony.
Congratulations! To the Couple and California.
Enjoy.
I was so intrigued by how many posts were on this particular picture that I decided to actually read them all. I find it interesting that the so-called “open-minded” commentees (is that a word?) Are just as judgemental as those they are accusing of being bigots or racists. I choose to share my opinion by VOTING, and serving my country. I suggest we all quit the bickering and excercise our right as Americans…November is not that far away.
If you feel the need to be nasty when you comment don’t bother, I won’t care or respond to it.
I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here, is it that we don’t vote? I personally have voted in every election (local and national) since I was old enough. As for serving our country my great-grandparents, grandparents, uncles, father, and brothers have all served in the military. I am an Army “brat” who spent my entire life moving from post to post in support of my father’s career. My brother is currently in Iraq. I believe that being able to openly express my opinions on politics and the way the government is run IS excercising my right as an American. Yes the debate gets out of hand sometimes, on both sides, but I’d rather be able to have that debate and have access to the ideas and opinions of others then live in a world where no one speaks up out of fear that it’ll turn into an “argument” and upset people. As Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
“and have access to the ideas and opinions of others then live in a world where no one speaks up out of fear that it’ll turn into an “argument” and upset people”
good. then tell teh gheys to get rid of their horrendous ‘hate speech’ legislation.
Meh, it’ll get overturned in November. Lifting a ban doesn’t make it legal.
I seem to be missing something. I see two women at a counter who may or may not be together in some fashion, and a man and a woman kissing behind them.
What does it have to do with homosexuality?
Hi Bill. Uh, yes, the two women at the counter may or may not be together, but the “man and woman” kissing behind them are two women. Yes, I’m serious. Fashion victims maybe, but still, two women.
<3
I don’t get this picture at all!!11!!!! it just doesn’t look rite, no affence to the lezos and gays, but I just don’t see anything good bout that picture, soz
I lost my spot trying to read all the other comments but I was reading somewhere that we live under a Democracy. You are so wrong, the type of Government we live under in America is a Republic. You can tell but how much our own Government, the one the people are supposed to control, is the one controlling the people. And the name of the government has nothing to do with the political parties we can choose from.
That is just a correction I would like to make.
Also, it is impossible for one to be completely open minded. It is just simply inhuman, as humans we all have something we strongly dislike. We all have to simply learn to deal with it and get on with OUR OWN lives.
Thank you.
Luna-A said:
No, but it is a naturally occuring thing and it’s not a choice someone makes.
Not so, Luna. Are you ruled by your gonads? That’s we separates us from the animals. Homosexuality is not something you’re born with. At best it’s an inclination or a tendency, as to alcoholism. You can choose not to act on your tendencies. So, yes, it is a choice. Why should someone receive special rights because of who they choose to have sex with?
You’re right, Steve, we’re not animals. So many factors make us superior to animals, all of which (I hope I’m not giving you too much of a benefit of the doubt on) should be apparent to anyone.
However, in defense of Luna-A’s comment, she was stating that homosexuality, by virtue of being present in animals shows that it is not a human construct. Just like the need to sleep, eat and breathe, homosexuality is an inborn trait that we as humans have the ability to acknowledge and act upon, or deny. Unlike the body’s biological needs, there’s really no adverse effects to denying that impulse.
As to its correlation to the animal kingdom, it shows that if it occurs there, then it’s completely natural. Where animals are different than you and I, Steve, is that they don’t feel societal pressure to inhibit such natural urges and especially are not pressured by an archaic scripture to do so.
To be granted “special rights”, as you and your fellow narrow-minded bobble-heads seem to like calling them, is for homosexual people to say, “I’ve decided to act upon my urges that I’ve known to have been born with and marry someone of my own sex/gender.” This also makes the statement that they have agreed to spend their lives together and would love to have the same basic rights that are undeniably granted to heterosexual unions.
It’s not a matter of being treated better than any other group, it’s a matter of wanted to be treated equally.
Yes, of course people choose to be persecuted against, called names, hated by once loved ones, and not have the same rights as other people. I mean, wouldn’t anyone want to abandon their dreams (like someday having a child) for an inclination?
And tigers occasionally eat their young. What’s your point? If it happens on rare occasions in the animal kingdom, it must be okay for man? That’s a weak argument. We’re not animals, so let”s not act like it. Your best argument is not that it’s genetic, but that their may be a genetic predisposition toward a particular behavior (as to alcoholism). My wife comes from an ethnic group that doesn’t tolerate alcohol well, so she knows not to drink. You’re not forced to have sex with a person of the same gender, so exercise a little self-will.
As to rights, I’m sorry, but you are asking for a special right, not an equal right. It goes beyond the ‘marriage’ issue. You want society not just to accept your behaviour, but to condone and encourage it. At that point, why not encourage pedophilia, or polygamy, or drug abuse? It’s a social order question.
Unlike the body’s biological needs, there’s really no adverse effects to denying that impulse.
Hmmm, let’s talk AIDS, shall we? What’s the percentage in the homosexual population vs the heterosexual population? That’s a public health question.
Are you an alcoholic, Steve? Because you certainly seem to bring that up (it may also explain your blatant ignorance at all logic thrown your way). Alcoholism or any intolerance to it is inborn. People can have allergies to it, people may have addictive personalities and might imbibe more than they should. But for you to say that once a person who decides to act upon feelings towards their same gender that they know they’ve had from birth is the same as going against how you feel about alcohol and taking a drink anyway is ridiculous. Yes, you’re definitely not forced to have sex with someone of your own gender, you’re also not forced to drink when you know you shouldn’t, so what’s your point?
Are you to say that the people in the 60′s who chose to recognize their love for each other despite their differing skin tones were asking for special rights as well? No. They were asking for the government to allow them the same freedom that is guaranteed to every other American out there. Rights that as defined by the Constitution should not restricted to them.
To say that people of the same gender who choose to want to marry are asking for special rights is absurd. There is really no sound reason to disallow them this right, other than personal religious-based bigotry. How exactly are two men or two women who want to marry hurting you or the country in any way? Any religious-based answers are not admissible–though poorly enforced, our country is supposed to have a distinct separation between Church and State.
I could really care less about Polygamy. If people are of consenting age and aren’t hurting anyone, then I feel they should do whatever makes them happy. Pedophilia does not involve consent, so to allude that that’s the next step in the slippery slope of what happens next if gays are allowed to marry is a weak argument. As for drug use, I’m sure that you’ll find that from more enlightened nations, that by not criminalizing or demonizing such things as drugs or alcohol, people will not be as tempted by the forbidden and won’t abuse them as such as we are apt to do here in Good Ol’ America. Sure, the possibility for addiction is always there (as stated above in my refute of your alcoholism point), but that’s unavoidable and shouldn’t be something to try and prevent.
Penultimately, how does your “refute” of my point about denying bodily functions have anything to do with AIDS? Yes, there may be a slightly higher presence of AIDS/HIV amongst the homosexual population than in the heterosexual, that doesn’t mean that by allowing gay people to marry EACH OTHER will cause some sort of global pandemic (even though there already is one–in spite of the fact that guess what? homosexuality is still criminalized in less civil parts of the world). If you’re so afraid of public health and the spread of HIV, then don’t have sex with a gay person. It’s pretty simple. And you may not know this, but it’s a fact that’s become a publicly-accepted standard since at least the early 90′s, but AIDS is no longer a “gay disease.” It’s now fastly becoming integrated into the “heterosexual” world as well. Like it or not, it’s true.
And finally, the bit about tigers eating their young is confusing at best. According to my research, male tigers will eat a female’s cubs to make her receptive to him and so she can bear his cubs. Which is to say, no more common than homosexuality. But get this, not all animals do as tigers do, yet multiple species of animals have been reported to have instances of homosexuality.
We coddle and shelter our children before sending them off into the world longer than any other living creature, but does that make it right? No. Yes, children do need more time to be released into the world to be able to function in a civilized world than an animal does into the wild, but its becoming increasingly common to keep children at home long past 18, seriously impairing their ability to live independently and successfully on their own.
We are not animal, Steve. I think you and I both know that’s clear. But my point is that we are not above inborn natural urges. We might deny them all we want, but they’re still there, trust me.
you are such a f’ing pig
Very good cartoon caption (from The New Yorker):
“Gay rights don’t threaten my marriage, it’s those straight women who keep sleeping with my husband.”
That quote totally rocks. ^^
you all need to chill. You are going nuts at Pundit Kitchen. Go out in the world and shout at real people.
Am I looking at the right photo? I see no progress in that one.
Ouch, trying to read all this gave me a headache so I am just going to go with my little rant here.
Being gay does not hinder anybody in anyway as far as being a lover or a parent. I don’t say this because I am gay but because I have met lesbian parents and gay parents who love their children, adopted or otherwise with the same devotion as I show my own sons.
I will admit that I have an internal ick reaction when I see men kissing or being intimate. Though in all honesty, I can’t say that I like watching every hetero couple or even every lesbian couple. Ugly knows not just one sexuality. That said, as a country, I see no point in saying that persons A and B can be married but C and D cannot when all are adults. My ick reaction is no reason to stop two people from being happy with each other and having the same rights as I have with my fiancee’.
As for the God argument, I am sorry. God called and wanted to remind ya’ll of the fact that he said Love thy Neighbor and Judge Not lest ye be Judged which I believe both boil down to being respectful of each other and minding your own business in life.
It is very simple. Government exists as a ruling body to keep us all in check and do its best to give equal protection under the law. That means that every citizen should have the right to marry any other citizen of legal sexual age. As for people thinking that homosexual marriage is a gateway, stop being stupid. Homosexuals just want the same stupid rights that Christians flaunt every day while getting divorces and having adultery with a small chance of actual happiness since most marriages flop anyway. Stop whining, I am sick of tax money being spent arguing this.
We have real problems. Who Bob has sex with isn’t one of them. If Tom and Bob want to have sex, why care? No, the black book you obviously haven’t read enough doesn’t count as a reason in a court of law.
I figure this, as long as Bob and Tom don’t bring over sex tapes to my house, I won’t do the same and I shall do my best to fight the urge to ask Jane and Jill for sex tapes. There, we can all get along and grow up. You can’t catch “the gay” and it won’t spread. Who you are attracted to is in your head and body already. You don’t vacation in gay, you either are or you aren’t, just like being hetero or bi.
Can we please move on and take care of real problems now?
great point. This is pretty much redundant, but I want to put my point out. If you ban gay marriage, why don’t you ban marriage between hetero couples? And also with god, we are supposed to keep church and state separate, because we are a country with religious freedom. I’m bi, so gender just doesn’t matter to me, gay people are still people and should have the same rights as hetero peolple
I think the two on the right were the two nerdiest guys in my 8th grade class.
GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
GGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
GGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
GGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY
GGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY
GGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYY
GAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
GGAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY
GAAAAAAAAAAAYYY
GAAAAYYYYYYYYY
GAYYYYYYYYY
GAYYYYYY
GAY
IS A SIN
SIN SIN SIN SIN SISN SISNSISNSNSNSN SISN SINS SINSINSINSISNINSISNSINSINISNINSINISNSNSINSISNS!! gAY SIN
gay666devilsatangaysin gaywitchdevilantichristevilmonstergaysatan
This picture just makes me really happy. Gay people are great.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear you with your boyfriend’s co(k shoved so far back in your mouth…
NOT progress!
i agree. homo marriage is fail.
*stamp stamp fail*
If this is progress I want none of it. For over 5000 years marriage has been between man and woman (or occasionally man and women). No society has ever legalized gay marriage, even the Greeks who were very accepting of homosexuality never made it legal to marry someone of the same sex. There is no reason to for or against legalizing gay marriage, though it does deprive the government from some taxes. The only real justification for gay marriage would be inheritance rights, which could easily be fixed. And for all you who think I’m some hateful Christian I’m not I am an atheist, and dislike it when people assume that my viewpoints on life must mean I am religious.
Whether you use a turkey baster or not, it’s still the same old way.
So if I jizz in my boyfriend’s arse and then felch it out and spit into a cup, and then my lesbian friend gets ahold of that cup and dribbles it onto herself and gets pregnant, does that count as “the same old way”?
(note, none of this has ever happened to my knowledge and sexual preferences of all involved may have been fictionalized for dramatic effect)
They still have those laws here in MS. There was even a lawsuit brought to a couple that runs a sex shop down in my home town. The lawyer was trying to get the point across about vibrators. Ended up in him saying “If I can into your house and found you and your husband having anal sex, I could arrest you.” Her response”Umm…no sir. First off, that’s breaking and entering and second we shoot intruders.” There’s no way you’d catch us doing anything.”
Judge threw the case out.( she happened to be a customer of said shop.)
Point of story: Whatever you do in the bedroom is your business.
LOL
Everything in your first paragraph is EXACTLY how I feel. It’s good to know I’m not alone in my feelings towards religion.
Haha, LOL indeed!
I officially love that couple.
So I suppose if homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to get married and are not ‘normal’ because they can’t have children, then people who are sterile shouldn’t be allowed to get married either? What about an older couple who are well past child bearing age and are extremely unlikely to have children? What about couples who don’t -intend- to have children?
Are they all ‘not normal’ too, and should be barred from having the right to marry? After all, the same reason applied as an excuse to deny this right to homosexuals can be applied to them? Or does you argument only apply when the context suits you?
Stop hiding behind your paper thin, nonsense reasons. The reason people don’t want homosexuals to marry has nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with draconian prejudice. At least have the guts to admit it.
It’s fortunate that such prejudice shouldn’t have a place in the law. Let these people get on with their damn lives and marry who they want to.