Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous ATTENTION | Is that the Constitution in your pocket… Next »
I’m so glad the Civil Rights Movement made it possible for me to encourage discrimination against others.
Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: fastfood
 | Vikavid on Crowd Pleaser |
| Vikavid on Straight to Video |
| Vikavid on Next Comes Finger Waving |
| Vikavid on I’m So Live |
| Vikavid on I’m So Live |
| Vikavid on I’m So Live |
 | Nightshift100 on Progress Poker |
| Nightshift100 on Progress Poker |
| Vikavid on Better Than Coffee |
| Vikavid on Better Than Coffee |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. 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!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Although, he and the gays don’t appear to be giving each other any hassle…
And i don’t see too much ‘hate’ on the black guy’s board.
I do see a misspelling though.
“Marraige”, I see it too. Is it just me, or do black demonstrators on this blog all have issues with spelling?
Any group of demonstrators is going to have a misspelled sign or five in it, and honestly I’ve seen more pics of white people with misspelled signs than any other. Most famously the one that said something like GET A CLUE MORANS.
I see what you mean ‘Moran’
You have been listening to Verdi, maybe?
Moran = Italian for “they will die”.
LOL! Get a clue or you will die? xD
I like the one (about illegal immigration) that said “Make English are official language”.
Very true. I don’t like the school of thought that believes disagreeing automatically equals hatred or homophobia.
QFT
What does QFT stand for?
Quit F**king Talking..
I don’t know why Xavier thinks he’s the moderator, but there ya have it.
ERM, fail?
QFT = “Quoted For Truth”.
A simple Google search would have kept that size 11 out of your mouth eddie.
Google says it can mean either, actually.
I stand partially corrected.
In the interests of clarification, my post of QFT above is intended to mean “Quoted For Truth”.
And apologies to eddie for the confusion!
Excellent! I will remove my shoe and offer my apologies as well.
-
Glad that was cleared up!
Hey, you two. QFT
Ugh! Postus Interruptus strikes again..
I did offer up an apology as well, but it has gone to the great Post Heaven, but it may appear at the Second Coming.
I did Google it and based on your other posts, I made the incorrect assumption. Can I now plant my size 11 shoe up your ass?
*gives Eddie another cookie*
Xavier is hot.
Does that mean something else in British English?
.
It’s okay if you’re gay, but I’m totalling ragging you for bad taste.
Straight as a die, old love…
But Xavier is just so hot he could turn me…
you are fat and ugly
But you didn’t quote anything, so “*quoted* for truth” would not be a sensible interpretation.
It literally means . It actually means (or something to that effect).
(Still a Noob here) “QFT”….Oo! GR8 new acromym to add to my
exponentially growing collection. But all the 1s wth “F”s in ‘em
do tend to be problematical. One’s brayne tends to cut to the
FIRST “F” adorned word that comes to mind.
Oh noes. I said “First”, din’t I? I tk it bk. Sry.
Quite F’n true
That’s what I’ve always seen it as.
*offers everyone cookies*
*takes cookie* Thanks!
YAY!
yo
*wonders why Xavier doesn’t want a cookie*
Have one sitting next to me, thanks though!
I thought everyone would like to take a break after the heated exchange over nothing. It was like a Seinfeld episode, without the jokes.
I shall henceforth be Kramer! Cosmo Kramer that is..
Hmm, my cookie sucked — can I have one of yours?
Only if your nice..
*gently removes the ‘your’ from eddie’s hand*
-
*gives him a ‘you’re’ instead*
Thank you froo–That was bugging me!
::eats 5 cookies::
::passes out in corner::
hypoglycemia+lack of self-control=lots of passed out in the corner
I don’t know why I just told you all this.
*injects insulin*
No no! That’s for diabetics! You just made me…
::NO CARRIER::
*contemplates CPR; dismisses it*
*grabs snake bite kit and magic spell book*
*makes heroic rescue efforts*
Saving roll +6
Wait I was late for the cookie party, I had work to do. Can I still have a cookie?
*hands charro one of his*
-
Eat and enjoy!
nom nom nom.
Great thanks! Now can I have a fifth of jack?
Are these the famous rho^2 cuddle cootie cookies?
OM NOM NOM NOM!
The very ones!
.
*scratches behind left ear*
Disagreeing is fine. It is when you try to make your view into law when your view is about something that in no way actually affects you that hate is interpretted.
Like if I decided that I just did not approve of Scots. That’s fine, just means I would be a jerk. However if I went into motion to ban all Scots from America it would show a real ignorant hatred on my part.
Besides, how is protesting and going out of your way to pick on gays through legal means NOT homophobia? I like to think that people only protest something they feel very strongly against. I know that I personally would only protest if I felt a real fear or anger about something.
By the same token, isn’t legalising gay marriage trying to “make your views into law”? Also, does this man have any less right to air his views simply because his life will not be directly affected? People protested about issues in Burma, even though it’s on the other side of the world.
AC, name a law that wasn’t a “view” beforehand.
Laws of physics.
No such thing as a ‘law’ of physics… simply models that approximate what we see…
Point understood but you are still not getting the difference.
The man’s view restricts the freedom of another without any sort of reasoning besides his own personal feelings.
The gay’s view simply allows them to marry. Nobody is forced to watch, nobody is even forced to read the little blurb in the newspaper.
How is that so hard to fathom? One view is a restriction on something that does not affect him. One view is simply making the process equal across the board.
He has reasoning. He has all the reason he needs (notice the mention of God on his sign). Just because you don’t believe in what he believes doesn’t mean he lacks reason. I mean, if there WAS an omnipresent of infinite power and wrath, I would certainly try to follow his instructions.
“How is that so hard to fathom? One view is a restriction on something that does not affect him. One view is simply making the process equal across the board.”
Wrong. The reason most people such as the man above are opposed to homosexuality is because they believe it is WRONG and unholy. Make marriage encompass man and man, and woman and woman, and suddenly the union is no longer a holy one to them.
It’s not a matter of rights to these people, it’s a matter of marriage. Currently they view it as a sacred holy union between a man and a woman. Make exceptions and the practice is no longer holy to them. Indeed, it might as well not be marriage. The left side of this argument thinks they are working for for the opinion of homosexuality to be lifted up to the level of marriage. However, the evangelical side believes that such an action will only LOWER the staus of marriage.
Here’s another thought. A similar argument could be made using your reasoning for the practice of polygamy, yet I see no argument being made by any of you people. The practice does not FORCE anyone to do anything; it only allows a man to have as many wives as he wishes. So why prohibit it?
Indeed, should someone be allowed to devour their own arm? It’s not like they’re inconveniencing someone. He only suddenly desires to consume his own flesh. Is there anything WRONG with that? NO! Because according to the left wring there is no such thing as wrong.
Why do we prohibit suicide in this society? If someone decides that life is too hard, why do we still try as we might to persuade him otherwise as he stands upon the ledge?
You talk of rights, but that is not what these people seen above have on their minds. It should not be allowed because it is wrong. Not because homosexuals do not deserve it, but because they shouldn’t even be homosexuals. They don’t hate homosexuals, they just hate homosexuality. To them, homosexuality is very bad, and marriage is very good: mix the two, and you’ll only end up with Marriage being bad.
These people have morals, and they simply don’t want those morals to be violated. You can’t understand their reasoning because your morals are so drastically different. That doesn’t necessarily mean they HATE, and it doesn’t mean they’re irrational. They’re reasoning is simply on another plane of existence from yours, and you cannot see it right away.
You argue that gays are equal, and I agree. Hetros and Homos are certainly both real people, but I don’t see why that means we should change the very basic definition of marriage. Homosexuals are simply asking for the wrong thing. It was never designed for them, it was never meant for them. Does this make me a Bigot? I do not believe so. I am not calling for homosexuals to be taken out to a field and shot, or forced to use different sides of the bus, or have to go to different schools. Such arguments would probably consist of “They’re gay, so they should not be allowed to use it,” and while I suppose someone COULD make a case that homosexuals and heterosexuals should go to separate schools, my opinion is different: I do not care for whether the parties involved are homosexuals or not; Marriage should only be between a man and a woman or a woman and a man. Same sex couples are free to do what they want, but marriage is not an institution meant for them.
If someone calls me a bigot or homophobic, I simply ask that they actually read what I have written.
“Because according to the left wring there is no such thing as wrong.”
…wat?
“Homosexuals are simply asking for the wrong thing. It was never designed for them, it was never meant for them.”
Shall we also apply this comment to black slaves wanting citizenship? Women wanting to vote? Mixed race couples wanting to marry?
Do you have a Cliff’s Notes version of your post?
I can supply it.
“Blah blah blah, I’m a giant bigot, I hate homos, but I try to come up with an argument that makes me seem reasonable when I’m actually just a giant doosh.”
I hope you are appreciated in your own lifetime.
Yep. That pretty much sums it up!
He doesn’t mind if homosexuals have equal rights, as long as those rights don’t include marriage or adoption.
By the way, we’re not asking you to “Change the Definition of Marriage”. Mirriam-Webster already has it down correctly:
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
He has all the reason he needs (notice the mention of God on his sign). I can mention God on a sign, and still be wrong.
Here’s an example: “God hates witchcraft!! Buuurn the witches!!”
(First sentence should have been in quotes.)
IT was in Leviticus when God said Homosexuality was an abomination. However, later in the Bible, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Jesus says the greatest law is to love one another as yourself. So Christians should have no issue if they read the whole Bible. But alas, many have not, they latch onto one passage that gives them authority to hate.
I can’t remember exactly where it is, but there is another passage “Judge no, lest ye be judged”
There are several places in the New Testament where homosexuality is mentioned as a severe sin as well, but it’s along with other sexual immoralities. Romans 14 is the ‘judge not’ passage you’re thinking of. That’s why I don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s not my place, nor any other Christian’s place. It’s up to God and the other person.
Depends on the translator’s prejudices, actually, but accuracy is seldom a priority with apologists.
I’m in complete agreement with you Matthew. Just thought I’d throw in the fact that along with the passage again homosexuality in Leviticus there are also some other more “absurd” passages. Besides, shouldn’t Christians be mostly concerned with the New Testament? After the birth of christ?
“Clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are abominations to God.” 11:10-12
“Every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination.” 11:41
“Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with a mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.” 19:19 – What? We can’t wear clothing of mixed fabrics?
“And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” 15:29
What can I say? It’s just so fun to take things out of context!
Forgot a great one:
Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would “profane” it. 21:16-23
That law had a reason behind it too : )
and it still applies according to some… but then, there are a lot of nasty people out there…
And the reason was that the ‘imperfect’ offended god…
There’s also a law that states that he who has had his testes crucshed or removed can’t approach the altar either… I presume if you have had testicular cancer, you have to sit at the back
Out of context or not, back in the day, all of those laws had reasons for being in place, mostly to keep the people from killing themselves with improperly cooked foods. And it seems like I read a study one time that said that pure fabrics (ie not mixed) are better for you…..that mixtures tend to sap your energy for some reason. Not sure where I read that, or if I could find it again. But I swear I read it : )
At least you’re not taking it out of context to prove your point : )
I love reading the Pentatuch. It seems that God was on kind of a tear at that point in history : )
the pure fabrics seems reasonable. I know whenever i change into a pure cotton shirt or something it feels so much better on my skin.
~
reasonable that it’s better for you i mean. not as a law for our time period
Basically all of those archane laws had a reason, whether it was to keep inbred sheep herders from killing themselves through ignorance, or to point them ahead to what would happen in the New Testament. It’s pretty cool if you take it all in context. It all flows together beautifully, even the bloody book of Judges (one of my favs : ) )
OR one can view it as a master work of editing, which is the more likely outcome… apart from the parts that are either unredeemable (“Kill all that lives”)
or condradicts other bits whe keeps the scum that are clerics inbusiness explaining away… Ah, the Great and Terrible OZ, now just don’t look behind the curtain…
None of it really contradicts itself. When Jesus abolished the old laws, that event was prophesied by Isiah. I cant remember the passage, but he wrote of a time when the law would be abolished, and Jesus did that. It seems like you are doing everything you can to hold on to your tiny minded little view about what religion is, refusing to accept any other evidence. That is called bigotry, a word you certainly love to throw around.
just as you are holding onto your “tiny minded view” of what marriage, love and sanctity are, you hypocritical bigot.
stop using your religion as an excuse for your hatred.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that. I disagree with you, though, about gay people getting married somehow changing the status of my marriage. My marriage is a covenant between myself, my husband, and God. Nothing anyone else does changes the nature of our commitment, or of God. There are people who get married for money, or convenience, or because they’re pregnant teenagers. None of these circumstances in other people’s marriage changes mine. Lots of people get divorced. Does this change my marriage? No. That is their issue, not mine. Nothing you can do would change my obligations, or make our union any less holy. So perhaps you are not a bigot, but theologically I believe you are wrong.
Wonderful!
People agreeing to disagree!
It’s not that hard…
1. It’s gender discrimination.
2. Separation of church and state.
Religious marriage and legal marriage are different, in my eyes, although usually performed simultaneously. The legalities of one person having his name next to someone else’s shouldn’t matter from a governmental perspective. If you have a problem with “unholy” gay marriage, go to a church that doesn’t marry them.
Agreed. My marriage was performed without mention of God, outside of a church, as a legal and emotional union between two people. God was not invited. God may have a place in someone else’s marriage, but not mine. Does that mean my marriage is invalid? By the tired old “marriage is a HOLY UNION” argument, yes. By law, no. Homosexuals want equality under the LAW. These people aren’t petitioning the Vatican, they’re petitioning the United States of America.
Also, as a biracial woman whose parents had to leave the state to marry because of laws not allowing interracial marriage in many states until 1967, I am sick and tired of bigotry deciding the laws of this nation. We need to move FORWARD.
All marriages are legal marriages, not “church” marriages. You get your marriage license from the court, not the church. The state does not care who marries you, if you get married in a JP’s office, in a church, or in a park. They just care that they get their fee, and that your marriage is performed by someone licensed by the state to perform it. Marriage is a civil contract, with a service performed by someone who has the power vested by the state, not by God. if you chose to get married in a church that’s fine and if you don’t that’s fine too. The state does not care, so why should it care who get married, as long as they pay their fee and get married by someone licensed by the state?
Okay I shall grant you the idea that God’s word is a good reason for the sake of this argument. Okay now that we have both agreed that let us continue. The problem with mixing laws with reasons based on faith is that this is a country where there is no official religon. Christianity is perhaps a majority but it is not the official religon. This allows us to let everyone choose which doctrines they would like to follow and which divine law they percieve as “right”.
Now if we begin to make laws based off divine law there is a question of which religons to follow. Do we pick all or only a few. Is there anything definitive that says we should pick hinduism or christianity? both are right, both have members that feel they are right.
Well we can’t go with all, that would contradict too much and we’d be stuck. Picking implies that one religon is more right than the other. There is a good reason why we don’t use religous laws to make our own laws.
~
For the sake of the argument let us say we managed to pick christianity as the one religon. It seems we are home free but, there are so many interpretations and denominations that once again you have to choose which is the right one. both have god as their reason, what makes one better than the other? Will we also ban shellfish, pork, clothing with two blended fabrics? you want a law based on leviticus, why can you pick and choose which parts become law, are the others simply too inconvient?
~
You see religon as a law basis is a slippery slope unless you use one specific denomination of one religon and that’s it.
~
The “reason” we like to base our laws off of is logical reason. laws which ensure that the society as a whole can function. Often times these laws can coincide. it is wrong in the eyes of god to murder, and unpunished murder would bring down society. however in cases of rights, if there is no logical evidence that something with hurt society and cause it to fail, there is no reason to prevent it, and there should be no law enacted.
It is unfortunate if you feel gay marraige makes a union less whole, but the data from other countries and our own short time with it tell us it is not detrimental.
~
Have you wondered how it must feel to someone of another religon to see something that seems so incredibly wrong to them? To see someone eating a burger comprised mainly of an animal you see as sacred? If you are ready to create laws based on religous reason, are you also prepared to ban hamburgers and pork? It’s something to think on. Logical is cold and unforgiving, but it is fair and universal.
Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
Came to say I love you.
I wonder when christians will learn they are not the only religious people on the planet.
Yeah, the Muslims and Buddhists are all for gay marriage…
Actually, we are all for gay marriage, at least us Zen Buddhists.
I don’t think there are many Buddhist extremists. That would sort of upset the balance.
Again, people reference the fundamentalist Christians on this sort of thing because they are the ones representing themselves with the largest megaphone.
And they make the rest of us look bad.
-
*sigh*
-
As someone smarter than I put it, “Lord, please save me from Your followers!”
They kinda have to have a huge megaphone, minerva, to be heard over the shouting coming from the left.
Regarding Dan’s post — clearly many responding to it did not actually read it. Dan is not saying “this is what *I* think”. He’s saying “this is what that man holding the sign, and those link him, think”, for the benefit of all of those in here who continnue to profess some sort of righteous indignation at the “ignorance” of those “unenlightened” fools who have the temerity to beleive that same-sex marriage, isn’t.
No Xavier, sorry. They are a vocal minority, nothing more. They want everybody to think they represent a lot of christians, but in truth, they don’t. They continue to make this and several other issues, much bigger than they really are. Even Froofrou agrees, hence her post. You are only instigating and twisting people’s words around instead of sharing an actual opinion. I’m pretty much most of us didn’t need to be told what the guy with the sign thinks. he’s declaring it with said sign. Someone who is, in effect, defending that position, is going to get responses.
The megaphone guys shout about how they”re being opressed, and people believe them because they said it loud, even though no such thing is going on. Apparently you fall for it too.
they don’t have to be, the point is if you make one law based in religous reason you will make more, religons condradict one another. you can not have a society with free reigon and base laws off one specifically, and you can’t choose which divine laws are conveinent. If we want to stay a country open to other cultures and religons we must admit that church and state need to be seperate.
Beigning up Chritianity’s bastard brother, Islam, as equally small minded and nasty somehow doesn’t make it ‘better’ really…
“We’re evil, but just look at THEM!” really doesn’t cut it… as an apologist postion, it’s empty… Two evils simply make a bigger evil…
I also came to say I love you.
We should start a fan club. We could bake cookies. =D
Seriously though. You’re my hero.
cookies really? i shall post philosophical arguements more often then.
I read what you wrote and yes, you’re a bigot. God said love thy neighbor and Judge not.
Your religion is not doctrine with which to govern our country. Also, in case you haven’t been reading, we have at least three states where gays have been getting married. Is your marriage any more or less unholy than it was before I told you this stunning revelation?
I didn’t think so. What two people do as a couple is between themselves and whatever God is actually up there. Not you. Not your preacher. Not anybody else who opposes their union. It does not affect you.
If what two other people do in their bedroom or with wedding vows somehow cheapens your marriage, then your marriage was already in trouble. I will wait and see how many marriage crumble because them dastardly queers got hitched. You go ahead and let me know how many straight marriages were ruined or cheapened by two gays exchanging vows. Specific examples while you’re at it.
No, religious beliefs are not rational excuses for denying equal rights to all consenting adults with whom they get married to. As for the polygamy issue, my understanding is that it is mostly a tax issue and interwoven benefits issue.
I am sorry, your God or anybody else’s God has no place in my laws. Separation of Church and State. It’s there for a reason.
Try giving logical reasons for a ban and we can talk.
what you wrote is kind of ignorant. you don’t even provide a backup plan for us. most people who are against gay marriage are also against civil unions, or domestic partner benefits. also, when over 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce, i don’t think heterosexuals are allowed to talk about it’s “tradition” or “sanctity” anymore. under the constitution i’m garunteed the same rights as everyone else. just because i like boys, and just because someone dislikes me because i like boys, doesn’t mean i shouldn’t have the same rights as them. i had an argument with a coworker over this today. she said she had no problem with us having civil unions, but was againts calling it “marriage” because t wasn’t the same. i asked her about her marriage, why she arried her husband, and she said it was because she loved him and wanted to share a life with him. i asked her what marriage in general meant to her, and she said one man and one woman coming together to ake a family and love each other. she said the ultimate and biblical purpose of marriage was to pro-create. since two men and two women can’t procreate it shouldn’t be called marriage. she said it would hurt her marriage, it would take away it’s meaning. i told her that the majority of straight americans have already taken away the meaning of her marriage, and i also pointed out that she married her husband post-menopausal and that she has stated on several occaisions that she never wanted to children, so i told since she violated her own rules for marriage it wasn’t a marriage and i would call it by her definition, a civil union. she tried to argue that they could’ve adopted, but i pointed she had already told me that adoption didn’t count as procreation, it counted as having a family, but not as procreation, and that she had in the past stated she never wanted kids of her own. i asked her about straight couples who are infertile, and again she couldn’t argue the point. she conceded, but said she felt it would still hurt her marriage. i asked her if it would cause her to lover her husband less, to cherish thier relationship less, to cause them to divorce, or that magically one of them would become gay and she said no, and she got the point.
Ooooh, I do love a happy ending… >_>
And the story ended well too.
It’s good to know that strangers under unkind cercumstances can have moments in live where things go their way (I’m not being sarcastic, it may look like it because the internet lacks ettential tones, but i am happy this stuff happens)
happy endings are the BEST……
speaking of, have you ever seen the movie “happy endings”? it has t do with the massage technique and a lot of other things, staring that chick who played pheobe on friends, that guy that rosanne was married to and used to beat, and the sexy-sexy maggie gyllenahl, one of the women who’d be my turn around girl…
lol
Because marriage is so holy, what with Britney Spears and all.
Fail.
A very cogent and well reasoned statement. A recent idea that
occurred to me is that just because someone wants to have or
do something doesn’t mean that they have a *right* to have
or do that thing. Yet the GLBT forces seem to think that because
they want to be able to be married, they suddenly have a “right”
to be married. An analogy is that I suddenly decide that I want to
land a huge contract and play professional football. So I start
screaming that I have a “right” to play professional football, in
spite of the fact that I am not qualified, according to the requirements
laid out by the NFL, i.e., I am too old, out of shape, and lack the skills
necessary. I would never dream of demanding that I be allowed to
play for my favorite NFL team, yet this is exactly what the GLBT
activists are doing, throwing a tantrum because they can’t have their
way. *And* getting pretty ugly about it, if even *half* of the reports
of violence against supporters of Prop 8 are true. Wow, that is
really tolerant.
That’s not the same thing at all. Who says people who love each other DON’T have the “right” to get married. You do not get to say that others, with equal standing as residents of your municipality, don’t have the same standing under the law on this one issue? Like somebody else said, do we get to “vote” on YOUR marriage next?
If you’re ONLY looking at the requirements needed to get married, he’s got a point. He doesn’t qualify for an NFL contract because he doesn’t qualify. The laws right now (as voted on by the masses) have said that same-sex marriages don’t qualify as marriage.
-
Not saying I agree with him (because I most certainly do not), but according to his parameters, he’s right.
-
That just means that the NFL needs to change its standards to allow him to get in. ~_0
That’s a bit of a stretch, and the logic pretty much fails as I’m pretty sure he wasn’t getting that nitpicky about it.
Why is PK still eating posts. Has anybody notified support? Sheesh!
Anyway, I said I think that’s a bit of a stretch, as The poster was probably not being that nitpicky.
Probably not, but I was using his narrowly defined little world to define my post : ) .
-
I think the whole thing is silly anyway. Let’s assume that gay people getting married is going to end the world. Well, we’ve done a lot of things over the last 2000 years that according to the Bible and the fundies will bring the eventual downfall of the earth. I think that gay marriage is the least of them. And if that’s the straw that’s going to break the camel’s back as far as God throwing His hands up in the air and saying “Alright, fine! I’ve had enough! Jesus, you’re up for the second time!” then I say great! Bring it on! I know where I’m going, so I’m not really worried about it.
-
OTOH, if this is NOT the straw that breaks said camel’s back (poor camel), then we’ve allowed a part of the population to be happy. Where’s the harm?
Ya know, call me intolerant all you want, Profile. Doesn’t change the fact that you’re an a**hole. Your argument is weak. Apples =/= oranges.
“With liberty and justice for ALL” you douchebag.
Plus, a lot of times the “violence” supposedly committed by liberals is often exaggerated by these people to suit their agenda.
To be fair, when those words were written, slavery wouldn’t be abolished for another 75 years
With liberty and justice for all? Now we’re using the Pledge of Allegiance for legal precedent? This place just got curiouser…
But you CAN play football. You might not be able to play for the team you want and you might not be able to play professionally, but there’s nothing keeping you from playing football in general unless you have severe physical disabilities.
A better example would be someone who isn’t qualified to play for the Dallas Cowboys being denied the right to play football AT ALL because of the lack of specific qualifications to be a Cowboy – not even playing recreationally. And that would be a perfectly valid thing to complain about because it wouldn’t make sense to disallow someone the right to do something general (play football / get married) because s/he doesn’t meet much more stringent qualifications for a specific group (play for the Cowboys / marriage by a clergyman of a strict religion.)
Bravo. Ignorant analogies make my brain hurt. Thank you for pulling an ACCURATE comparison out of that dung heap.
Text wall! AH! NO! All in all you’re just another text in the wall!
You’re ducking the question.
Tell me, briefly, how Tia and Lori’s marriage had ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on your own. You don’t know them, never knew them (and now you never will because Lori is a widow now). You never had to see them, didn’t know they were married – legally, in Massachusetts – until I just told you.
So how did their marriage affect yours?
*wind noise*
“if there WAS an omnipresent of infinite power and wrath, I would certainly try to follow his instructions. ”
If there was an omnipresent being it is derelict in it’s duty. I have looked for it my entire life and see only the man behind the curtain. That man screams and screams horrible slanders about me. He punished me in school for being intelligent and he beat and humiliated me after school for being gay. F876 him, The man behind the curtain is not worthy.
Blah blah blah blah blah. I actually sympathize with your argument that if someone believes in that type of God, of course they are going to be against gay marriage. However, I’d like to remind you that we once had laws against interracial marriage with the SAME JUSTIFICATION. We have also had laws against women voting that were ALSO excused with religion. AND, I’d just like to point out to you that we DO NOT have a state religion, therefore we SHOULD NOT be passing laws based on ONE religion’s teachings.
You can’t say that marriage is a union considered holy to christians considering all religions have marriage and atheists do too. Everyone except gays have the right to marry and it has become such a standard part of civilization that it is now a social thing rather than religious. Beyond any other reason it’s just not fair to deny one social group something they so obviously want and it won’t do any harm to give them.
Marriage was “redefined” by the US Supreme court about 50 years ago to include interracial marriage as valid. Many people opposed that decision on religious grounds, citing biblical passages that they believed prohibited interracial marriage. These days, interracial marriage is widely accepted.
I believe that it’s an issue of equal rights. If gay people are paying the same taxes as straight people, why don’t they have the same tax benefits/ inheritance benefits/ visitation rights, etc?
“He has reasoning. He has all the reason he needs (notice the mention of God on his sign). Just because you don’t believe in what he believes doesn’t mean he lacks reason. I mean, if there WAS an omnipresent of infinite power and wrath, I would certainly try to follow his instructions.”
If an omnipresent being of infinite power and wrath bothered to personally instruct me, I would certainly be inclined to follow those instructions. However, many people seem to have very different ideas of what God expects of us, and so we must follow our consciences. So we must have some reasoning to determine what we believe to be the will of God.
“Wrong. The reason most people such as the man above are opposed to homosexuality is because they believe it is WRONG and unholy. Make marriage encompass man and man, and woman and woman, and suddenly the union is no longer a holy one to them.”
That’s flawed reasoning. If someone uses the Eucharist to perform an act that is grotesque and profane, that does not invalidate or defile every other Communion that has been given. For that matter, employee abuse by another person within another company doesn’t invalidate my contract with my employer. I might find the practice blasphemous or immoral, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to legislate against it.
“It’s not a matter of rights to these people, it’s a matter of marriage. Currently they view it as a sacred holy union between a man and a woman. Make exceptions and the practice is no longer holy to them. Indeed, it might as well not be marriage. The left side of this argument thinks they are working for for the opinion of homosexuality to be lifted up to the level of marriage. However, the evangelical side believes that such an action will only LOWER the staus of marriage.”
See there? Going back to the original discussion, that is hate. Any assessment that basically states, “I consider you so far beneath me that I am lessened and cheapened when you behave as I do, or are afforded the same privileges” is an attitude that reeks of contempt.
“Here’s another thought. A similar argument could be made using your reasoning for the practice of polygamy, yet I see no argument being made by any of you people. The practice does not FORCE anyone to do anything; it only allows a man to have as many wives as he wishes. So why prohibit it?”
Why, indeed? Let people marry as many people as they like, I say. What do I care?
“Indeed, should someone be allowed to devour their own arm? It’s not like they’re inconveniencing someone. He only suddenly desires to consume his own flesh. Is there anything WRONG with that? NO! Because according to the left wring there is no such thing as wrong.”
Actually, there is. We prevent blatant self-harm all the time. Also, your claim that the left wing recognizes no wrong is just plain lazy – what would we be condemning here, if we were incapable of any frame of reference? You just seem to find it easier to accuse the “left” of complete lack of values than to address the difference in standards.
“Why do we prohibit suicide in this society? If someone decides that life is too hard, why do we still try as we might to persuade him otherwise as he stands upon the ledge?”
Why *do* we prohibit suicide in this society? Keep in mind that in most cases attempted suicides do not just get sent to prison; they receive medical attention. In general, because the desire to end one’s life is indicative of some other problem, not just the decision that “life is too hard.” Because we as a society value life, we try to keep people among the living and address those problems that would cause them to hurt themselves.
“You talk of rights, but that is not what these people seen above have on their minds. It should not be allowed because it is wrong. Not because homosexuals do not deserve it, but because they shouldn’t even be homosexuals. They don’t hate homosexuals, they just hate homosexuality. To them, homosexuality is very bad, and marriage is very good: mix the two, and you’ll only end up with Marriage being bad.”
From an evangelical perspective, all sorts of things are wrong. Sex out of wedlock is wrong. So, for that matter, are other religions (“wrong” in the sense of “incorrect” at the very least, and pointed in the wrong moral direction depending on the details of one’s doctrine). But in this society, we recognize that not all of those beliefs are given the force of law. Besides, that’s faulty reasoning. Marriage is good but domestic violence is bad. But generations of spousal and child abuse have not “made marriage bad,” nor have they degraded or devalued the marriages of those not affected by them.
“These people have morals, and they simply don’t want those morals to be violated. You can’t understand their reasoning because your morals are so drastically different. That doesn’t necessarily mean they HATE, and it doesn’t mean they’re irrational. They’re reasoning is simply on another plane of existence from yours, and you cannot see it right away.”
Yes, it does mean hate, and it is irrational. I have a moral code that other people violate all the time. But moral choices come from within, and I don’t think that every value I personally hold needs to be signed into law.
“You argue that gays are equal, and I agree. Hetros and Homos are certainly both real people, but I don’t see why that means we should change the very basic definition of marriage. Homosexuals are simply asking for the wrong thing. It was never designed for them, it was never meant for them. Does this make me a Bigot? I do not believe so. I am not calling for homosexuals to be taken out to a field and shot, or forced to use different sides of the bus, or have to go to different schools. Such arguments would probably consist of “They’re gay, so they should not be allowed to use it,” and while I suppose someone COULD make a case that homosexuals and heterosexuals should go to separate schools, my opinion is different: I do not care for whether the parties involved are homosexuals or not; Marriage should only be between a man and a woman or a woman and a man. Same sex couples are free to do what they want, but marriage is not an institution meant for them.”
You want it that way, then cut out the civil aspect. You remove all the legal, social, and economic benefits from marriage, THEN you might be able to say you’re not trying to deny gay people any rights. Until then it’s a denial of rights and privileges no matter how you dress it up. Either straight couples don’t merit it, or gay people deserve a cut.
“If someone calls me a bigot or homophobic, I simply ask that they actually read what I have written.”
Okay, I’ve read what you’ve written. I found it to homophobic and bigoted. I’m not sure how you think asking me to review it all is going to discourage me from applying those labels.
tl;dr
I’m assuming “tl;dr” stands for “too long, didn’t read.”
This seems to me to be a fairly pointless response, since my post was directed at Dan2025, whose own post was rather verbose as well (though shorter than mine, since mine included all or almost all of Dan2025′s in the process of responding to it.
The target audience is really Dan2025 and those who read Dan2025′s post – a group with an apparently high tolerance for long posts.
Still, sorry if I got too wordy for you.
I’d vow to do better in the future, but I probably won’t.
“If someone calls me a bigot or homophobic, I simply ask that they actually read what I have written.”
I read what you have written. You are a homophobic bigot.
Thats just not nice or fair. He said several times he didn’t hate, but wanted to stand by values.
.
Maybe you need a cookie? Hugs?
.
Passes out cookies
Char isn’t saying he hated… but that he was a homophobic bigot, which is pretty accurate based on what he wrote.
The only thing more dishonest than pretending discrimination is not hate is pretending your religion gives you the right to control others behavior. Hey, you know that religion that has any proof besides their own book? Me niether…
define proof? I know of several religios that offer ways to get your own proof. have you given it an honest sincere try? I thought not.
.
Good will be called evil and evil will be called good. Just calling it like I see it.
.
There are several things more dishonest…like, actual dishonesty for example
.
yay for you thinking that because someone doesn’t like your ideas they hate you. have you ever been to a business meeting or planning committee? People don’t always agree…and they may think your ideas are downright stupid. They don’t start hating them until you try to force them to like your idea. Sort of like a swarm of those darn mosquitoes. So, try a different idea. Theres gotta be a way to get what you want without forcing the religious right to swallow Gay + Marriage. Perhaps try a different tactic? Just a thought.
The religious right doesn’t have to SWALLOW anything. They just have to get out of the way and quit interfering. There’s a big difference between permitting or tolerating something, and giving it your blessing.
While I’d prefer that the religious right give its blessing to same sex unions and treat them with as much dignity and respect as they do opposite-sex unions, that’s not even what’s on the table now – this is about basic legal recognition, not social acceptance. That’s not to say that I won’t campaign for the moral acceptance of gay love as well, because I consider it to be the right thing – but at the bare minimum people should be afforded the same legal rights.
What “different tactic” would you suggest? But don’t give me the “call it something different” argument again, until you can address the many problems with attempting to establish a separate institution; I’d prefer a tactic that works.
It really confuses me when the people who support “marriage protection” acts of legislation, they always defend their ethics by saying, “I’m not a bigot, I just believe that you are wrong. Bigot – a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. The only reason that Christians and similar monotheistic religions believe homosexuality is bad is because it’s written in their holy books, which have been manipulated, translated, misinterpreted, etc. over the course of many centuries.
And as to marriage being a sacred, unchanging, infallible institution, how many times do christians have to hear that the definition of marriage has been changed multiple times in American history alone:
Slaves weren’t allowed to be recognized by the law as husband and wife. Whites even believed that their unions weren’t recognized by God. Last time I checked, minorities can be legally and religiously married.
Then there were miscegenation laws (miscegenation is just a fancy word for interracial marriage and procreation). This meant that after the blacks were recognized as being legitimate people, they were allowed to marry each other, but it was ILLEGAL to marry a white person. Those laws still existed up until the 1960′s. Currently, it would be unconstitutional to forbid a white person and a black person to marry.
Even in earlier times, families were encouraged to marry their cousins for financial and societal reasons. Now marriage has been changed so that close relatives can’t be legally married.
How has marriage been unchanged?
Now the issue is upon us as to change the definition of marriage to encompass gays and lesbians. I understand that some religious institutions believe that homosexuality is wrong and that any who practice it are going to hell. I used to believe that too, but now I realize that what you do in bed doesn’t make you good or bad. It’s just something you do. Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong often have internal issues with their struggle for their sexual identity, as evidenced by the revelations of leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard. These people are torn between whether to be who they were created as, or follow a few verses in an ancient book that advocate hate and intolerance without any rational reasoning behind that viewpoint.
But essentially the issue comes down to two questions. One can be answered now by Americans as a whole, but the other must be discussed by religious leaders across the world.
“Do homosexuals, American citizens who pay taxes and contribute to the improvement of society, have the same rights as heterosexuals? Can two men or two women be recognized in a LEGAL union under the law, with the same protections and benefits as a man and woman?”
The second question that must be asked to every religious institute and answered on their own time is, “Does God really hate homosexuality? Does the entity who created homosexuals really despise who they are? What can be done to create a more perfect world that doesn’t discriminate irrationally? Can religion be used as a uniting force instead of a dividing one?”
“no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. -14th Amendment, US Constitution. Judge for yourself the definition of UNCONSTITUTIONAL
I rather like this post and its logic. Thank you.
Don’t forget the biggest change from earlier in history, when the christian church came along and stuck it’s nose into the *pre-existing marriage customs* of pre-christian societies and decided it needed control over this aspect of society too.
People in my tribe were getting married thousands of years before the church even existed.
It is not so much the marriage part that is important.
It is the rights that come along with marriage.
Imagine your lover got hit by a bus or something, and you were not able to visit him/her because you were not officially married.
You are born with homosexuality, on religious terms your “god” made them that way. It is not a choice.
“isn’t legalising gay marriage trying to “make your views into law”?”
–In that we share the same views, specifically “all men created equal” & ” pursuit of happiness” & “liberty” & all that good stuff, if this were the case, I don’t see how that is a problem.
“does this man have any less right to air his views simply because his life will not be directly affected?”
–Fair enough. But, opinions should be weighted according to the impact upon the lives of those it involves. For example, he is straight & it has no impact on his life, versus someone who is suffering because of the oppression this proposed law would make…
“isn’t legalising gay marriage trying to “make your views into law”?”
NO. It is merely being recognized by the law.
No one is trying to make *you* marry a homosexual, they’re just trying to make it possible for gays to enjoy the right to marry who they choose, just like you.
Agreeing with you. To paraphrase the words of a very wise, unnamed person: “So, he’s against gay marriage. Can we vote on his marriage too, then?”
LMAO!!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the tone of your post implies that I am against gay marriage. In this instance, my view is irrelevent. Does believing that someone can air their views freely mean that I agree with their views? Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t.
My point is that this man is not necessarily homophobic or inciting hatred. He is standing amongst many pro-gays but doesn’t seem to be indulging in a mindless shouting match or violence. I do believe it’s possible for people to agree to disagree.
Compared with others, this man seems fairly moderate. However, he seems to have been labelled as one of “them”. In defending his view, (or at least his right to express it) I seem to have been tarred with the same brush. Yet, I have not, so far, said anything about where I stand concerning gay marriage.
Doesn’t assuming that I am homophobic seem, I daresay, “narrow minded”?
“I do believe it’s possible for people to agree to disagree.”
Not when it comes to people’s rights. Agreeing to disagree used to mean “separate but equal.” As far as we’ve come in this country, it’s remarkable how far we still have to go.
I think the point is, there was a time being black meant you couldn’t marry who you wanted to… or white for that matter… does the man have the ‘right’ to marry outside of his ‘race’?
To recast your post back to the 1940s
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the tone of your post implies that I am against miscgenated marriage. In this instance, my view is irrelevent.
Does believing that someone can air their views freely mean that I agree with their views? Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t.
My point is that this man is not necessarily racist or inciting hatred. He is standing amongst many pro-miscgenation marriage but doesn’t seem to be indulging in a mindless shouting match or violence. I do believe it’s possible for people to agree to disagree.
Compared with others, this man seems fairly moderate. However, he seems to have been labelled as one of “them”.
In defending his view, (or at least his right to express it) I seem to have been tarred with the same brush. Yet, I have not, so far, said anything about where I stand concerning miscgenated marriage.
Doesn’t assuming that I am racist seem, I daresay, “narrow minded”?
”
If he was a man against mixed marriage (which he may well be, a lot of black people don’t tend to look kindly on it), would the view be acceptable, andle to protest about?
Your point is valid and an interesting thought. The main reason for my post was that I dislike automatic assumptions and labelling. Saying that someone has a right to protest has caused several posters (not just PortlandMark) to make groundless judgements about me and my views. I find this slightly disturbing.
Anyway, back to your post. The difference between the hypothetical protester and the one in the picture is that one can object on religious grounds and one can’t.
If the man was protesting by fire bombing gays’ houses, then I would be wrong in saying he could do that. However, I think that anyone, wrong or right, should be allowed to stand holding a sign if they so wish
So, it’s ok to protest against equality before the law? I don’t see the Klan getting that right too often, but then I’m not American…
Seems to me there’s a lot of hair splitting going on, mostly based on weak semantics poorly covering bad temper, bigotry, and a hate
mongering religious ideal…
I think it’s interesting that replacing the ‘Gay’ references with Black (race), or Jewish (religio-race) ones makes people uncomfortable and try to make it some how that the comparison is specious…
Jings!
You seemed fairly intelligent. Why did you misconstrue everything I just said?
1. I didn’t say the guy was right, I said he had the right -which he does.
2. I said fire bombing protesters were wrong: that includes people like the Klan.
3. I fail to see how your paragraph on “hair splitting” relates to my post that you replied to. (Unless, of course, you have jumped to the same groundless conclusion as the others and placed words in my mouth which are not my own. Did you not read what I said concerning that?)
4. If, by: “uncomfortable” you were referring to my use of the word “disturbing,” then I suggest that you re-read what I’ve written. I was referring to the attitudes of those mentioned in no. 2.
5. I pointed out the flaw in your comparison because it was not perfect in this instance, not because of fear, discomfort, dislike or stubbornness.
It’s not about whether he’s holding a sign, and you know it. It’s about what that sign says and what the man obviously stands for.
By the way, I don’t appreciate the photo more generally because the black vote actually was NOT the deciding factor in CA’s passing Prop 8, and yet we have this meme that blacks are OK with discrimination when it’s against geh gayz. Know what? I think a whole lot of white people felt dirty after voting for a black man for President, so they are expressing their racism in another way to make themselves feel better. Face it: whites are still the majority in California. It was as much their fault Prop 8 passed as it was any other race’s. So whoever did this and whoever agrees with it can stop the ideological lynching just any old time now.
so, people parading the streets with signs “black people have tiny brains” are allowed to do this without bieng opposed?
Not opposed. But they should not be oppressed either. Opposed with signs like “People who hold signs that say black people have tiny brains have tiny brains and small d!cks”.
I’m charro and I approve this timely message.
Wow, thats alot of words to use just to be wrong. How can you be moderate in your discrimination? Thats as ridiculous as combining “Religious” and “Education” in the same label.
AC, Legalising gay marriage does not hurt any rights the heterosexual people have. Not legalising hurts the rights of gay people – their right to be happy.
Can you show me in the Constitution where everyone has a “right”
to be happy?
“….life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”
That’s the Declaration…;)
Sorry, knee jerk reaction to a jerk
Even if that phrase were in the Constitution, it’s only the pursuit of happiness, not a right to achievement of same. You can’t acquire happiness like you shopped for it at Wal-Mart, you know.
It certainly can’t be achieved if people’s dreams are disallowed by bigoted and uniformed laws.
Okay if you were to want to marry and the government said no, that would impede your pursuit of happiness, you would miss out on all that lovely married stuff. If relationships are roads at the moment the government has made a road block, allowing everyone but the gays. So everyone else can continue down the road to happiness, except them.
~
Now if you want to get married and you arn’t very good at dating, your lover doesn’t want to, stuff isn’t working out, you might not be able to marry then, but you can still sure as hell try later. Nothing is stopping you from getting married and eventually travelling that road exept your own social skills and how others feel about you.
~
Do you see why there is a difference? No one can be sure you will be happy in this life, but no government should create blocks against you so that if something would make you truely happy, you’ll never get it.
You would arbitrarily say who does and who does not have a right to be happy? Aren’t we all supposed to be able to pursue our own American Dream? Maybe getting married is a simple one for many people, but some aren’t allowed to do it. We are a secular nation. Christianity and it’s particular view of morality should have no say on others who may or may not share the same views. Why do you care? It doesn’t affect you or your own marriage at all.
Honestly? If you truly believe that not everyone is born with the right to be happy, I think we have a bigger problem on our hands than gay marriage.
How in the world can you have the right to something that nobody can take away from you in the first place? Others can contribute to a situation that would encourage or discourage happiness, but since when can anyone control your mind? When they actually invent something that changes your mood without any control on your part, then we can talk about the right to be happy.
Amendment XIV, Equal Protection of the Law. If you have the right, they hae the right. Go look it up. Come back when you’ve actually read the Constitution, sport.
They figured protecting people from having the religious views of others would cover that, as most unhappiness comes from religion.
That’s an unfair statement.
You don’t have a strong grasp of History do you?
You know, I have no idea who pissed in your Cheerios, but it sure wasn’t me. Why you have managed to single me out to stalk just makes me think that the things I say must be right to inspire such vitreol and pettiness in your replies. I’m done speaking to you. You can post stalk me and bait me all you want from here on out, and I won’t be replying to anything you say. It’s pointless, and takes away from actual discussion.
*zips up pants* hmmm hmmm hmmm *walks slowly away from cheerios* It wasn’t me pissing in the cheerios.
Also, don’t eat the cherrios.
hell i’m atheist and I say that’s an unfair statement. most unhappiness comes from the human condition, our own realization of mortality and uncertainty of our impact of the universe. Religon happens to deal with that specifically, but it is not the cause. Cause and effect fail.
It matters not if a religious person is more happy than the athiest any more than a drunk man is more happy than the sober one.
Actually, you’re failing at a grasp of history there…
for the most part, in Western Europe, most of the real nastiness that has gone down is down to Religion in Politics. From the church of Rome through to the sub-Pagan posturings of the Nazis, religion’s bony hand can be found.
Religion is a abstract concept that cannot, in itself, cause damage. It requires the human touch for that.
grammar fail: religion is AN abstract concept
Just a fact correction, the Nazis were and were supported by the Catholic church.
The primary point is valid though, when a judean-based religion is in charge of the government, millions of people die.
bottom line if you dnt like gay marriage dnt marry a guy if yur a guy and dnt marry a girl if yur a girl. its a free country so y do ppl insist on excluding otherppl from basic rights based on sexual orientation.
*brain melts trying to decipher internet-speak*
-
*dies twitching on the floor*
*attempts CPR on froo* Is it sad that I understood that?
we can forgive you for understanding it as long as you can properly write and speak as well. Oh, and also don’t use that L33t speak on PK.
Oh, never. I just read a lot of fanfiction, so I learned to translate dumba** from the really bad ones.
They write fanfiction in L33t? WOW, sad.
They do, and it’s hilarious. I’m not sure they mean it to be, though.
Probably not. Jane should go over there and smack them with a ruler.
*comes back to life*
-
I did too, that’s what killed me.
-
*dies again*
*administers chocolate/chocolate chip cookie IV*
Let me attempt to help
Translation:
I agree.
You can disagree with being gay as much as you can disagree with being black. You can disagree with opinions, not with unchangeable facts. The assumption that you can “disagree” with being gay not only makes you a homophobe, it makes you an uninformed homophobe most of all.
That assumes being gay is an unchangeable fact. You don’t want to base your whole argument on that. I’ve heard too many stories about people who “turned” gay or “turned” straight, including directly from the people experiencing it. Now, I think they’re just bisexual… but as far as it goes. Do you really want to base human rights on whether someone chose something? By those lights we should outlaw religion, which is always chosen.
Too bad Dana being a braindead moron is unchangable. Otherwise, she might have a shot at being a worthwhile human being, instead of continuing her family tradition of sucking and failing as a human, just like all her realatives.
Really, why don’t you cite some of these “stories”? Ask almost any gay person whether they ever “chose” at some point. Did you choose to be straight? I feel sorry for those who deny themselves their own true nature. it must be a miserable existence, especially if they did it for some arbitrary man made social construct rules based on vague religious references.
You said yourself that they are bisexual, do you think perhaps being attracted to both male and female would make it different than a person who is only deeply attracted to one gender? I don’t believe that bisexuals are faking, that their sexuality is any different than anyone elses or that they’re just sluts, however in this case it seems they might have a slightly better chance of fitting in, particularly if the person they love does fit social norms
~
It also makes me wonder if perhaps you are biased unwittingly. People like to find groups where they are comfortable, we slowly establish friendships with people we find we like to be around. If a person holds an idea that you are the way you are through choice, or that you shouldn’t have the same things as them, it’s highly unlikely you’d be comfortable with them, and certainly questionable that you’d be comfortable telling stories of your own sexual orientation. Just a thought
The assumption that you can “disagree” with being gay not only makes you a homophobe, it makes you an uninformed homophobe most of all.
.
.
.
*cough*
.
.
.
Now THAT is certainly the most elegant and educated of piece of literature I have ever read. You deserve an award of some kind.
.
In case you couldn’t tell. I’m sort of playing up the sarcasm a little bit.
.
I Disagree with Sparky. That makes me a sparky-a-phobe and a misinformed one as well.
um there is a big difference between disagreeing and making a public display that being gay is a rebellion against god.
that would be, in fact, the definition of homophobia on a grand scale.
It depends on what the disagreement is about. When it’s one side saying the other shouldn’t have civil rights, then yeah, it is hatred.
Disagreement in beliefs != respecting someones desire to discriminate against you and deny your civil rights. If they want to hold the personal belief that gay people are immoral and should not marry that is their right. Taking actual actions to deny civil rights to a group of minorities is indeed hate, just not as blatantly so.
Should we also legislate sexual acts? If I scratched together several conservative asshats and legislated that people who have had sex out of wedlock should be denied the right to a fair trial in court on the distorted belief that the courts are there by the authority of God and such adultery is sinful, would that be cool with most of the US? Or would you rightfully believe that the actions taken by my supporters and I was a simple disagreement in beliefs to be respected?
Who said anything about hate? Perhaps it is discrimination of the loving and caring kind.
I’m sure your ilk thought it was loving and caring to outlaw “miscegenation” too.
sarcasm recognition FAIL
Yes, he’s saying in the most loving and supportive way that we’re engaged in a grim rebellion against god. Logic fail.
Yeah he just wants to deny them rights, not hassle them. You moron.
Dunno about the people, but the building is the Florida capital building in Tallahassee.
Florida, home of Anita Bryant–PERFECT!
Ah, Florida–home of tolerance! Anyone else remember Anita Bryant?
congrats heres a cookie. and that would make them floridians then.
Why so snarky? Kim possibly meant, I don’t know about those guys, but, at any rate, the building…
Chris, first you misinterpreted Kim’s post. Second, being in Florida doesn’t automatically make them Floridians, protests often draw individuals from other areas.
*hands Martel a delicious Florida orange*
*Bump–snatch–grab–run–nom!!!*
Sorry, recent lack of fresh fruits seems to affect my judgment.
Ah, Florida–Land of Tolerance! Anyone here remember that darlin’, Anita Bryant?
Aw, man! And here I had safely deleted her from my memory banks!
How would you know?
OUCH!! … Brain freeze!! … Had to think!!
Rebellion against God.
Never heard that one before.
You haven’t?
!
I wouldn’t have thought such obvious sarcasm would need </sarcasm> tags.
You may have read it as sarcasm, but it didn’t come across that way to me either.
Ummm…actually, I did mean Adam and Steve. Typesetter’s error, printer was in a hurry, proofreaders didn’t catch it.
So sorry.
So it was Adam and Steve right up to the movable type era, who knew? So much persecution could have been avoided.
Time to go fresh your memory in Biblical study, mate. You might want to start with Adam and Eve and work your way forward.
IIRC The book of Enoch covers a proper ‘rebellion’ as opposed to a child eating the wrong thing and God getting pissy
From a Biblical perspective they were told don’t do it, but they did anyway. Sort of like telling your kid, “No, you can’t go to the party.” But they rebel against your authority and do anyway. Rebelling doesn’t necessarily have to be violent, just going against the authority
They were told ‘Don’t do it’ but they didn’t know the difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ so how would they know that not doing what they were told was ‘evil’ until after they’d eaten the fruit… God wrote Catch-22
Ummm…actually, I did mean Adam and Steve. Typesetter’s error, printer was in a hurry, proofreaders didn’t catch it.
So sorry.
should have been: gee, never heard THAT one before
I’m sorry why aren’t civil unions good enough?
Well, as a looong-married person myself, I know my husband and I have rarely been civil. Usually swinging from one extreme to another, but not so much with the civil.
Seriously, if they’re good enough for you, get one. But other couples have the right to want more.
Okay so again why aren’t civil unions good enough? Its the same thing as marriage, why is it necessary to “redefine” marriage?
but it’s not the same thing. THAT is the key issue.
Separate but equal doesn’t work.
Why not?
Read up on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Thx, was just asking for a cite!
Read history and ask that question again. Seperate but equal by definition is not equal as equality would be the SAME rights for everybody not different rights for different groups off an arbitrary factor.
Ask Brown and/or The Board of Education.
Interesting question: What if women didn’t have the right to “vote,” per se, but were allowed to “choose politically?”
If that means that I can have a vote and a half, I’m all for choosing politically
Hey, yeah! Can you imagine how different the world would be if women had 1.5 votes each? I would petition for legislation requiring a 3-to-1 restroom size requirement in all public places. We NEED 3 times longer, dammit!
Help! I’m being repressed! I want larger bathrooms! Let’s picket!!……but only if there are reasonably sized bathrooms near where we picket
That just means they’d shrink the size of men’s rooms to meet code. ;P
Not speaking for froofrou, but I don’t have a problem with that. After reading several posts on here, I’ve decided not to be bothered with the needs and legitimate rights of others not like me.
*peels delicious Florida orange*
And they’re men too, so they count even less.
*takes a slice of orange, pops the top on a Dr. Pepper, offers one to rhorho*
*glugs Dr. Pepper better’n a Baylor Bear*
.
Oops, Froo, have you seen a ladies’ room around here?
See, now, this is exactly why we didn’t want y’all to vote in the first place! Please to remove your shoes (fabulous though they may be) and return to the kitchen okay?
(BTW, I am so kidding here)
If you’re smart, you’re scared! Good try putting that little remark at the end, but you’re still in HUGE trouble!! While I think about your punishment, you can guard the Men’s Room door. I have a Dr. Pepper issue, OKAY???
L O frickin’ L (Line stolen from Dennis Leary)
Oooooo! That would be too cool! I would *immediately* petition for a public restroom ratio of F:M=3:1.
WOW–All of my lost posts came back from the Bermuda Triangle! Sorry for the “flood!” >-<
“Civil choosing”, heh.
“Good enough”?
Your wording expresses your idea that same-sex couples are second-class. Unless you’d agree that the fair thing would be to eliminate civil “marriage” entirely, and let religious groups decide who they will “marry” but all state-approved unions would be redefined as “civil unions.”
And BTW, my church has been very supportive of legalizing same-sex marriages.
When I wrote of that church that was the “whore of all the earth”…I Might have been talking about that one.
.
Its kind of interesting to watch you all fighting about this issue down there.
.
Points in the opposite direction than where you are headed. The purpose of life is to see what kind of people you are going to be when you don’t know “dad” is watching. Apparently its time for me to call up my prophets and tell them to send more Moses style plagues because you kids don’t get it.
.
Let me tell you the “plan”
a) You get a body (which involves well, hetersexual relationships)
b) You get a period of time to get used to your body and grow up with adults to sort of guide you. Those parents are supposed to teach you what is right, and what is wrong…but ultimately, you get to show me your true character by what you say and do.
c) In the end, those of you who have shown dedication, honor, obedience, selflessness and the like, will be given all that I have (no skin off my nose, divide infinity by infinity and you still get infinity).
d) Those who are doing pretty poorly (lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, etc) won’t get to have all the knowledge I have, nor all the benefits, but the place you’ll end up is still a paradise.
e) To get the official title of going to hell, you’ve had to have met me during your mortal life and then totally rebelled against me…much like Satan when he rebelled against me in my very presence.
.
As part of the Plan, its imperative that my children get parents who love each other and respect marital vows with all their hearts. To help you out, and the children possibly born to you, I’ve set a few ground rules. I know you’re upset and it feels unfair that I would ask you to control your desires and use them as I’ve asked. But, I need to see some self discipline, some selflessness, then i know you’re ready for Eternal Exaltation. Yes, some of my children who claim to represent me are seriously misguided… I don’t need you to worry about them. Just turn the other cheek. I don’t like it when you hurt eachother…believe it or not, I do cry.
.
Gender roles and marriage are part of that eternal plan…so if you want to particiapte with all the benefits, then you need to comply with the rules. If you are aware of those prerequisites, and choose to ignore them, then I’m sorry. Truly, I am. Your lake of fire is not one of physical fires….for I have a paradise for all my children. No, the lake of fire will be the anger, and anguish you feel at knowing that it was your choice. That lake of fire is one I cannot save you from…but you can, by repenting of all pride, humbling yourself like a little child and listening to my guidance.
.
Some of you will hate me for saying the things I’ve said. The hate is your choice. I expect better of you.
.
~God~
Well, thank you Captain Saccharine… :/
I love it when some mere human actually believes they understand the mind of God. It reminds me of the difference between humility and humiliation.
Theology EPIC FAIL
Nobody is trying to “redefine” marriage. In fact, what the anti-Prop 8 folks want is for the government to stay out of the business of defining marriage and let them live their lives. Why isn’t that “good enough” for you?
Actually, i live in Arizona and it turns out a little piece of legislation called Prop. 102 actually calls for the definition of marriage. and it also includes adding it to the AZ state constitution. and as far as civil unions and marriage goes,
lets say civil unions are allowed to everyone.
would you get a civil union or get married?
if you think no, then i ask you whats the difference?
civil unions do not have the same benefits as marriage for one
I think we should have civil unions for same-sex couples and then a couple hundred extra benefits than married couples get. Maybe some extra tax breaks. How fast do you think the fundies start yelling for the right to enter into civil unions?
I heard a neat description. What if men were allowed to “vote,” but women were only allowed to “politically choose?”
The problem is that this is being forced on the religious institutions… Government should only be able to change their own policies on this (ie civil marriages), letting religious institutions handle religious policies. Marriage is a religious construction, so if you don’t agree to its terms, you shouldn’t fight to be included in it. I believe this for straight couples too- if you don’t believe in Christian ideals about marriage, you shouldn’t get a Christian marriage. I wouldn’t get married in a mosque; it doesn’t make any sense!
No, marriage is not a religious institution. That would imply that atheists never get married and that agnostics are confused as to whether or not they are married to their partner.
Plenty of people are legally married without it happening inside a church. No one religion invented marriage, nor do they own it.
Furthermore, wouldn’t it still be up to the individual religious leaders to
decide whether or not they would perform the ceremony? The
government can’t force them to do that, they can just make it legal for
those religious leaders who actually would perform a same-sex marriage
to do so.
I’m not sure if this is true, but on another site, some churches were for prop 8 because they believed that if they refused to perform the ceremony for a homosexual couple, then the couple could sue them for discriminating. I can understand why they would have concern with that. Someone listed instances where churches & religious people were being taken to court for it. One example was a photographer who didn’t want to do the photography for the couple getting married. I’d have to check sources to determine if it’s true, but if that’s the case it sucks for them.
I’ve heard about that photographer on NPR, along with a fertility specialist who was also being sued for not wanting to work with a lesbian couple, and a church which rented out their meeting hall, but didn’t want to rent for a gay marriage. The state in quesiton is California. And for those anti-mainstream media folk, NPR’s extended presentation of the situation convinced this lefty liberal type that California has it wrong. Seems to me that aside from life and health-saving situations, a non-governmental professional should be able to refuse to work with someone whose beliefs they disagree with–so long as they provide a referral to another qualified professional who does not feel that way.
But I haven’t heard mention of forcing a church to marry gay couples–that seems wrong to me, also.
That opens a whole lot of doors. I’m a pagan. Should my doctor be able to decide not to see me because he’s a fundy and I’m “going to hell?” Should the photographer who did my wedding be able to say, nope, I don’t take pictures for witches? Or for people of color marrying white people? (I’m bi-racial and married a white man.) Do I as an IT professional get to tell my boss I won’t work with Christians?
Many small towns and rural areas don’t have a lot of options for doctors or lawyers or photographers etc. Why should they be able to turn away someone they don’t like?
We have anti-discrimination laws for a reason – to protect (often unpopular minorities) from bigots.
Also good points. I’m bi-minded on this one…
“Seems to me that aside from life and health-saving situations, a non-governmental professional should be able to refuse to work with someone whose beliefs they disagree with /…/ But I haven’t heard mention of forcing a church to marry gay couples–that seems wrong to me, also.”
I agree that religious institutions should be allowed to be as insane as they deem their religion calls for them to be. But. Marriage (the marriage that, as far as I know, homosexuals really want to be allowed) is not very non-governmental.
I guess my point is that I come back to the thoughts of a separation of the civil/legal/governmental part of a marriage and whatever mumbo-jumbo people choose to have for their ceremony would make this issue easier to handle.
While they may have believed that, it simply isn’t true. Churches are, as far as I know, exempt from most (if not all) of the legislation that allows for those kinds of discrimination suits. Hence the reason that no one has sued the Vatican to become a female priest. Separation of church and state works both ways. Not only can the State not base it’s policies on a church’s doctrine, but the State also cannot create any laws that regulate churches.
Sad but true, many groups in California ran ads with the same misinformation you received in order to swing voters to their side of the issue.
Wouldn’t happen. Didn’t happen with interracial marriage. Won’t happen with gay marriage. The people who were sued in the were private citizens, not churches and they were being sued for violations of equal protection statues that have been around for a while.
Churches already have the right to refuse to marry people who aren’t part of their denomination, because their marriage would violate church doctrine (think Catholics and divorce) etc. No one is trying to force churches to marry anyone. There are plenty of churches that will marry gay couples and failing that, plenty of government officials.
zOMG that’s funny! Agnostics would have to go on honeymoons-or-not, and have anniversaries-or-not. And what if an agnostic married (or not) an atheist?
Um… If “marriage” is a “religious institution” then why do you have to get your “marriage license” from the secular court system?
A civil union is totally not the same. A marriage gives you rights that even a civil union doesn’t, such as survivor/spouse benefits from social security, not being forced to testify against your spouse in court, etc.
“Separate but Equal” What’s wrong with that?
Seriously, I’d like to erase “marriage” from all laws. The government should *only* be involved in civil unions. If marriage is a covenant with God, then let the churches marry who they want, and leave my secular government out of it, thank you.
Except for that small matter of filing jointly on income tax, right?
If civil unions were the only legal status recognized, and all federal ‘marriage’ benefits accrued to them, then we wouldn’t have a problem with the religiously loaded terminology – gay and lesbian couples could have civil unions recognized by all levels of government everywhere, straight couples could have civil unions recognized &c., and religious couples of whatever orientation could have symbolic rituals in the houses of worship of their choice to make them ‘married’ in the eyes of $DEITY without state sanction.
THAT would be fair and ought to satisfy all the religiophiles’ reservations.
If it were up to me, this wouldn’t be an issue at all, of course. Your solution sounds good to me personally, but I can see straight people objecting to their change in LEGAL status. As it is, pro prop 8 peeps are already screaming that gay marriage would affect their marriages (yeah, I know…), so if a solution actually *did* change straight marriage status, even if only in a legal way, I imagine they would turn more hostile still.
I believe there’s a similar discussion elsewhere here, but I can’t remember whether it’s “up” or “down.” I’ve been bumped off this thing so often, I’m getting vertigo. I’ll be hitting the evil “Add Comment” button soon–wish me luck!
Correction: …I can see *some* straight people…
Agreed. Although I’d prefer it if they extended the rights of “civil unions” a bit to include some of the “marriage” stuff.
It doesn’t offer the same rights as marriage. It’s NOT the same thing.
Anyway, many states have outlawed even that.
When straights will be satisfied with just civil unions for themselves then they can ask for just civil unions for gays. Last I checked, they don’t give the same rights.
Ya, and if they redefine marriage as something only a church can grant, does that mean my atheist, non-church marriage is going to be downgraded to a “civil union”? I THINK NOT, BETCHES.
presumably you are straight (as am i)… so i’m going off that presumption.
imagine you are in a loving relationship, have been with the person for years and years and years (often times decades), you live together, you do everything together, you attend church together (yes, i know… it’s hard to wrap your mind around those sinful gays attending church), you are so completely happy and you want to make it official both religiously and legally.
if you are straight, you march down to the courthouse and get your marriage license. you can get married where ever you want within the next 72 or so hours.
if you’re gay, you either have to march down to the courthouse where they tell you that you’re not good enough for a marriage and have to settle for a civil union (which is not the same as a marriage at all or else it’d be called a marriage) or that you have to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees to make your partner your legal next of kin and all the appropriate documents to get your partner in your will.
as a straight person you don’t have to go to court to have your significant other as your next of kin if you’ve been living together that long. it’s called a domestic partnership… this too is not extended to gay couples.
now to the root of your idiotic question… civil unions aren’t good enough because they don’t hold the same connotations. you hear someone is married to the person they love and there is a certain element of longevity and companionship and all that sort of stuff. you hear someone is civil unioned to the person they love and there is an element of “meh”.
and then there’s the whole “separate but equal” element that i’ll let others dig into because i don’t feel like it.
all in all, they’re not good enough because it’s like telling them THEY aren’t good enough for marriage.
I gotta say, that “meh” sums it up better than anything else!
i tried to come up with some examples and that was the only thing that came to mind and when i STILL couldn’t come up with examples i figured that was the best way to describe it anyway.
You did a great job, but I’m going to get you a Shift key for Christmas!
i don’t like them. i have two, but they’re not my friends
I don’t blame you. They are pretty shifty.
Shift Keys: The only time “separate but equal” was a good idea.
LOL! Logic reasoning FTW!
Why wasn’t the back of the bus good enough, it was the same bus, whay were seperate schoold, entrances and water fountains not good enough. Our supreme court has said that seperate but equal is not “good enough’ is the answer to your question.
brilliant comeback. I will definately use this if it comes up in conversation
Really? Where?
You again? Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
*snort*
Because ‘separate but equal’ is inherently NOT equal.
See: separate but equal.
Civil unions don’t offer the same benefits as marriage. Some of the benefits not offered in a civil union include social security benefits and property rights after death or disability to the partner, hospital visitation, insurance, tax breaks, recognition of the union in other states… the list goes on and on. Some of the rights a marriage is automatically granted transfer to civil unions, but it depends on specific laws that vary state to state.
Should have scrolled down some more before posting… d’oh.
Because they aren’t recognized in all 50 states (in direct violation of the 14th Amendment) and they don’t confer the same rights as marriage.
Personally, I’d rather leave the term “marriage” to the religious groups and have civil unions that are administered by the state, for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. And civil unions would be recognized by the government but marriage wouldn’t. End of story.
Right, but I had a non-religious marriage ceremony, but don’t feel my marriage is any less valid than one performed by a cleric in a religious building. i don’t want it downgraded to “civil union.”
Although not possible for me to spell.
Now if he would just choose to not be black…
?
you don’t choose who to love either.
Oohh ooh i love this one…
Because I’m sure we *all* remember back in middle school when they said “you can be straight, or you can be gay”
And I’m sure all those anti-gay marriage people that think sexuality is a choice, remember when they chose straight.
Yeah right.
*reminisces* Ah, yes. It was a Saturday, and I had just finished my homework. As I lay back on my bed, I looked at my Farrah Fawcett poster and my Peter Frampton poster. Hmm, now which way to go…?
so you became asexual?
LOL–BINGO!!
So of course you became asexual!
They didn’t tell me this test would be Multiple CHoice!!! I didn’t study!!!
so *that’s* what’s held up the posts today. Pesky smilies!
Oh boy–I can haz 2nd chance to answer!
-
Yes, I just divided for the first time last year. Isn’t she pretty? She looks just like me!
Never did twins before…
It’s ok…
Are litter mates technically called “twins?”
Since there are more than two, they’re called ‘Super Twins’ (triplets and above)
Super Twins powers, activate!
Indeed… one really can’t help what the professionals call them…
They don’t choose to be gay either, they just choose between hiding it or trying to be happy and accept who they are instead…
And would that even matter if it was a choice? Would they not be human anymore? Are they hurting anyone? There’s no reason for this kind of inequality, and these days we should be beyond that kind of thinking…. in our ‘enlightened’ society…
The engine always gets there before the caboose. If you’re near the engine, it’s frustrating to wait for the rest to catch up.
He could choose not to be Christian, therefore (because he made a choice) the choice he made to be Christian is incorrect.
.
See? That line of reasoning doesn’t work either.
.
EVEN IF sexuality was a lifestyle choice, then it is protected by the same precedent that other lifestyle choices enjoy as demonstrated by freedom of religion.
True, Lynn and I discussed it and chose to live a M/s relationship. She is subservient to me by her own volition and I chose to go along with it. Keep in mind we have been together since 1999 and this choice was made within the last year so she definitely wasn’t forced into the matter. If anything, as crazy as it may sound, I was the one needing the convincing.
That bit said, our lifestyle choice is still considered valid and we are allowed to marry. How we like our sex isn’t a factor and I would be allowed to marry a redhead, a latino, a negro, or any other type of woman. I could even marry a Lesbian if she wanted the tax benefits. I just have to marry a woman. I don’t have any other option and that rather disturbs me as much as it doesn’t affect me.
I didn’t choose to fall in love with Lynn, I actually felt I was going to just bring her down so I tried to avoid it. We got together anyway and plan to be wed. The only hold up is wanting a bigger wedding than we can currently afford. I don’t see how my “choice” in lover is more valid than somebody else’s which is why I support gay marriage.
Hell, I am actually rather put off by the mental image of man sex but that isn’t a reason to stop them. Nor is my attraction to girl on girl validation for their lifestyle. Neither couple require my input for their love but it is still valid. Still love. Still should be just as protected as my love.
/oddball rant.
Oh! That’s who Lynn is. Well, if you want to rape her face I suppose that’s ok.. I’m just confused on the anatomical level. Like the nostrils are too small.. The eyeballs would get in the way.. Earholes too small.. And the commonly accepted term for oral sex is.. oral sex. Oral Rape?
Pretty much. We need a stronger term for oral sex so face rape was coined.
What about give/get head?
I think he’s more talking about TAKING head.
Ah. Brilliant. Hats off to you good sir.
There’s plenty of places online to make un-funny political statements. Can’t this be the one where they have to be funny too? This completely lacks any form of lol.
I agree and it’s going to generate a couple hundred comments that have all been made a week ago.
*sigh* New material, please!!!!! (and I’ve been making my own, so don’t b*tch at me about that)
I think the irony of a minority that fought so hard for equal rights wanting to take rights away from another minority is funny in a grim kind of way. I don’t understand people who post ‘this isn’t funny.’ What exactly are you trying to accomplish? If seeing a LOL gets you so uptight that you feel the need to vent about it, hmmm, a few push ups or two minutes of meditation will probably release that nervous tension much better.
“What exactly are you trying to accomplish? If seeing a LOL gets you so uptight that you feel the need to vent about it, hmmm, a few push ups or two minutes of meditation will probably release that nervous tension much better.”
So, he should just shut up and keep his thoughts to himself? Tolerance fail, Seth.
Maybe he isn’t actually trying to “accomplish” anything — maybe he’s just making a comment, in the “Comments” section?
No, I tolerate him. I just don’t like his actions, whining about an unfunny LOL is pointless.
Jeez, why so snarky, Sparky?
And Seth commented to the comment.
And then you commented to the comment to the comment – ALL IN THE COMMENTS SECTION! IT’S AMAZING!
If people are free to disagree then why can’t they be free to disagree with the disagreement?
Feel free to disagree
Because as I read it, Seth was inviting said poster to exercise instead of venting his opinions in this forum. I think we’ve cleared it all up now.
Well, what you’re not seeing is that the man in question in the pic is not being part of the minority in his protest, he’s being part of the majority…namely christians.
This has nothing to do with him being black. Is the Black community, at large, intolerant of homosexuals? Yes. Is it because they are black? No. It’s because they are, for the most part, a community of Baptists or derivatives thereof.
when it comes to sexual orientation, race really doesn’t play a part in it. For example, gay men don’t have a certain color of women they’ll sleep with, and vice versa for lesbians.
A vast majority of black folk will tell you, without pride or shame, that they flat out don’t like gay men. Most of them will cite the bible when doing so.
There was a documentary done called “POV Flag wars” about a community of Black Americans that found their neighborhood suddenly becoming populated with a large gay community. It’s a very interesting and telling watch.
And while I’m at it…years ago all my white redneck buddies used a term called “reverse discrimination”. I’d chastise them for it. To use that term means that only whites can be discriminatory and racist. With guys like Calypso Louey, Shabazz, etc, it’s pretty obvious the only thing that all rasicts and discriminators have in common is that they are all….human.
No, sorry, fundies don’t speak for all christians. Not to mention, even “minority religions” have equal protection under the law. So christians don’t have the right to speak for everybody, even if all christians felt this way, which they don’t
Didn’t say they did, just pointing out what no one else is willing to say.
I agree. I need to make a shopping list, but I don’t type it out in the comments section, because nobody else wants to know that I’m out of bread. To me, “This isn’t funny” is no different than “First!”
Or ‘SHOPPED!!!!!’
OUT OF BREAD!!!!!
*offers slanagat a lettuce sandwich*
Obviously your new around here. Lot’s of these get put up that aren’t funny, but certainly cause a lot of controversy. Personally, I don’t mind the discussions that ensue as it helps foster a better understanding between people of different viewpoints.
More controversy equals more posts. More posts equals more page reloads. More page reloads equals more ads delivered. More ads delivered equals MO’ MONEY!
I completely agree with you Eddie. If it wasn’t for reading the discussions on this board concerning gay marriage, I would have never changed my opinion on it.
I doubt one can engender much ‘understanding’ from anyone who thinks the other side is a ‘sinner’ or ‘bigot’ (which covers the opposing sides in this case), even when there’s a level of tolerance.
Actually, most Christians (evangelicals) are quite tolerant, if you define tolerant is feeling that ‘I don’t care what people do on their own time in their own homes as long as it doesn’t bother me.” I feel that way strongly myself. The whole “gay marriage” movement isn’t about tolerance at all. It is a DEMAND, not just that I don’t disapprove of what you do, it is a DEMAND that I (and society as a whole) ACCEPT what you do and bless it with a legal declaration to that effect (ie marriage.) “Live and let live” has been replaced with “Live and tell me you approve, or ELSE). I will gladly tolerate behavior I think is sinful. I will NEVER grant it my nod of acceptance.
Carlos – I don’t need for you to accept me or my partner, or our daughter. OK, sure, it would be nice, but heck, my mom loves me, but can’t deal with having a lesbian daughter!
What I DO demand, to use your term, however, is legal protection. I am confused as to how asking for legal protection is making you approve of something besides my humanity?
Please explain.
Thanks,
Shelli
Dear Shelli,
♥
Confoozled
Please enumerate the legal protections do you lack.
She did already, a little further down.
Keep reading, Xavier..
Are you really that clueless? You go on and on about this issue and that issue, but claim you don’t know what rights the Gays lack?
Xavier just likes to stir the pot to see what surfaces.
He knows. This is the third time he’s asked this question on this page. He’s just being a dick.
“What I DO demand, to use your term, however, is legal protection.”
And acknowledgement. I couldn’t care less who *approves* of my marriage to my wife – and yes we still call it a marriage regardless of the legality. But as you say, what I do demand is the acknowledgement and recognition, as well as the legal protection.
ps Does the tolerance thing include teenagers who are practically having sex in public? You know, the straight ones? Because OH MY, I must be getting old, because if I have to listen to one more pair of teens “sucking face,” and now I understand where that term comes from, I’ll hurl! EWWW.
I must have gotten old one day, because the “PDA’s” of today seem WAY more than the hand holding we used to do….
Ugh.. and have you seen the way tweens and teens are dressing? Friends of mine have a daughter and when she was 13 she was parading around the house dressed in what I could only think of as a “Whore’s Uniform”. I was completely revolted. I’m completely revolted that people of any age view sexy as being the same as slutty. There is nothing wrong with sex or sexuality, but seriously. The “Look at me I’m easy” look is just not appealing. To me. I am suddenly very angry.
*hands Charro a cookie, and hot cocoa*
Ah… *adds kahlua and jack to the cocoa* Much better. Thank you, Not Me.
hey, i’m with you on that one, shit i can’t legally drink and i’m feeling old :<
Asking for the same rights as everyone else is not the same thing as asking for approval. After all, plenty of straight people are desecrating the sacred bonds of marriage right now. I’m probably going to have a three way with my wife and a friend this weekend. People are cheating on their spouses as I write this. People are getting divorced, and married for the wrong reasons, right now. Spouses are beating each other up, both consensually and non-consensually, all the freaking time. Somewhere, there’s a wife dressed up as a squirrel pegging her husband who is wearing a baby bonnet with his diaper around his ankles. I’m sure you don’t approve, but you aren’t protesting and saying that straight people who don’t follow your ideals should have their right to marry taken away. Why is that?
I request a video of your weekend.
I second that request.
Will it be Pay-Per-View…?
“Somewhere, there’s a wife dressed up as a squirrel pegging her husband who is wearing a baby bonnet with his diaper around his ankles.”
-
-
you have GOT to stop spying on DWN and lynn…
O_O
No no no… Not into age play. Not what is called a Little. I’m a Service Dominant, BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
*sucks on thumb*
haha! i couldn’t resist.
I still don’t see where the “right to marry” is an actual “right” for anyone, straight or gay. Given that, there isn’t a “right” in jeopardy here.
How about the right to the pursuit of happiness? Or equal protection under the law? Do those count? No? How about the right from a government establishment of religion?
How about the right to visit your loved one one his/her death bed? Inherit property? Raise children? How about the right to retain custody of a child you’ve already been raising if your partner dies or is incapacitated? These things are not guaranteed to us. How about the right to place your spousal insurance coverage? Joint filing of taxes? I could keep going but I’m getting depressed. I’ve been through the process of trying to write up a “Domestic Partnership Contract” and all of the *bullsh!t* you have to cover is both disheartening and depressing.
“How about the right to the pursuit of happiness?”
Is not a right, it’s a statement in a famous political document.
“Or equal protection under the law?”
Again, what “protection”? “Benefits” are not “protections”.
“How about the right from a government establishment of religion?”
How is a law stating that marriage is between one man and one woman, abridging the establishment clause?
A law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman… Made by a man using religion as reason for the law… And you don’t see the problem?
Some may have voted for the measure for religious reasons. However, the text of Prop 8 fails to meet the standards of the Establishment Clause, which you have cited again as an example.
Actually I was attacking the law that states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I am also questioning what other reason would there be for denying gays the right/liberty/whatever to marry. I can’t think of a logical one and I haven’t read one yet that made sense in terms of equality and liberty.
“Actually I was attacking the law that states that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
That’s Prop 8 (in California anyway, which unless I am mistaken is the only state to have passed such a law this cycle).
“I can’t think of a logical one and I haven’t read one yet that made sense in terms of equality and liberty.”
That’s because in secular terms, there are none. However, the mistake you are making is applying logic to faith — those are mutually exclusive.
But the issue I have is that I am not trying to apply logic to religion. I just want logic in my government…………….
*gives DWM a map to a hideout in Montana*
Because the primary argument against gay marriage is based on Christian beliefs.* Passing bans based on these arguments equates to passing bans based on religious beliefs.
.
.
*Biological/anatomical arguments are refuted by myriad examples in nature. Cultural arguments fall against other myriad examples (detailed elswhere in this thread).
“Because the primary argument against gay marriage is based on Christian beliefs.* Passing bans based on these arguments equates to passing bans based on religious beliefs.”
And yet, that still fails to pass the test for abridgment of Establishment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
What religion is being established by a law that states (in its entirety):
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
“Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man” — U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia
That’s a quote from a judicial opinion. I am asking for you to show me where it exists in Public Law.
Your citation is like saying that abortion is a basic civil right because a judge said so in an opinion.
Honestly, I will take an informed judge’s opinion or interpretation of the law before I would take a holy man’s view on the law.
The point is still, that the judge isn’t making the law. The most he can do is find that a given law runs counter to the Constitution that governs the jurisdiction at hand, and send it back to the legislators to “try it again”.
If a law is found unconstitutional, it ceases to exist, because it does run contrary to what the constitution allows/doesn’t allow. So in a sense, the courts “unmake the law” and set a precedent for what can not be made into law. Judicial opiniom is not technically “law” but it sort of amounts to the same thing in these circumstances. You are splitting hairs (as per usual I guess)
The Majority Opinion of a Supreme Court Justice in a landmark marriage rights case isn’t good enough for you? Whadaya want–A couple of stone tablets? Geez!
“Somewhere, there’s a wife dressed up as a squirrel pegging her husband who is wearing a baby bonnet with his diaper around his ankles.”
And the husband will go back to the state legislature on Monday and re-introduce an anti-gay amendment to the state constitution, to protect the moral fiber of our population.
Irony++
Laugh it up: I’ll have you know that diaper is made of 100% moral fibers.
Chew on that, hippie!
But it was one man one woman so god approves. Also, god made squirrels, so he approves of that as well. Duh.
You aren’t being asked to nod at anything. You are simply being asked to have the same laws that grant you the benefits of legal marriage to another couple. How is that unclear?
You are confusing Tolerance with acceptance. You are impeding MY choice of who I want to legally marry based on YOUR values from YOUR view of religion.
You want to decide for two consenting adults what is acceptable and what is not by your choice of standards. That is not tolerance.
I am demanding my rights, to be considered no better or worse than you are. No more no less. If you feel so threatened by that, you need to take a look at yourself, and why you feel that way.
Getting drunk off your ass is legal as long as you don’t drive, but that doesn’t mean I accept it. The law isn’t about you personally. Unless, of course, it’s outlawing something for you that everyone else gets to do, with no good (unreligious) reason given.
How would you like it if everyone were required to keep kosher?
I will say, that the African American community is getting a BAD rap for all of this – when in reality? ALL colors of humanity (using the term loosely) voted for Prop 8.
Now to answer the “civil unions” question.
Why not call the little piece of paper down at the court house a “civil union” between ANYONE, and let it come with FEDERAL benefits (because, you see, if I get a civil union with my partner, we STILL would not be eligible for death benefits from social security, and about 1,133 other FEDERAL rights.) And why not call what a Priest or Rabbi or Iman does, a “wedding?”
Because you see, my Rabbi will marry us.
That’s not my problem.
My problem is having the United States of America, which gladly accepts my taxes, by the by, deny me the rights of PAYING those taxes.
“Why not call the little piece of paper down at the court house a “civil union” between ANYONE, and let it come with FEDERAL benefits”
I am well on record as stating that this is the only practical way to resolve this issue.
Imam. Iman means something else.
Mrs Bowie, IIRC
Sheli,
You already have legal protection. There is not one state in the union where you can be legally prosecuted for your sexual preference and there is not one state where any discrimination against you based on that preference does not grant you legal standing for redress of your grievances in either State or Federal court. What additional protection are you demanding.
There are at least 1,049 protections, benefits and responsibilities extended to married couples under federal law, according to a 1997 study by the General Accounting Office. Gay and lesbian couples in lifelong relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections under the law. They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner, despite paying payroll taxes. They must pay federal income taxes on their employer’s contributions toward their domestic partner’s health insurance, while married employees do not have to pay such taxes for their spouses. They must pay all estate taxes when a partner dies. They often pay significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401(k) from their partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. All American families deserve these crucial protections.
ooooh, Shelli, thanks for that quote…where did you get it?
Unfortunately, you are mixing “benefits” and “protections” in some places. Indeed, the quote refers to “benefits” in terms of SS.
That said, as I mentioned above and in other threads, the only way this ever will be resolved, is to remove the term “marriage” from the legal arena, because it carries such a religious connotation for so many people.
People can adapt. They do it every day.
My marriage has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of religion.
He’s atheist from a Catholic family, and I’m agnostic from an atheist
family. And yup, some of my in-laws still won’t speak to me.
So what?
The point is that gays who wish to marry don’t want to wait for people to adapt. They want it now, “whether we like it or not”, if the supporters are to be believed.
So if immediate satisfaction of perceived inequality is *all* that this is about, then the most expedient path is to stop calling it “marriage”, thereby eliminating the resistance from those who oppose it on religious grounds.
The fact is, for many on the pro side, it’s *not* just about equality under the law — it’s about “I’m queer, I’m here, and you just have to deal”. And with that attitude, it’s not going to be resolved quickly.
Maybe not, but it *will* be resolved. And resolved before
*everyone* agrees. There is no “adapt” if everyone’s on
the same page. By your logic, we’d still outlaw interracial
marriages. Is that what you’d want?
I’d not hold your breath for Xavier to answer that one…
So they don’t deserve equal rights because they are being uppity? I was unaware that we were throwing a bone to a lesser set of beings. I thought it was simply trying to grant equal protection and liberties to all citizens.
I understand the more flies with honey but their aggression and outrage doesn’t invalidate the issue that they are not granted the liberties and rights that heterosexuals are granted.
No, I am simply explaining the most expedient course of action to resolve the issue in the most widely acceptable way possible.
Even those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds can’t argue against “giving to Caesar, what is Caesar’s” when it comes to the laws governing secular civil covenants. Especially when it solves that sticky little problem of reconciling divorce and religion-based opposition to gay marriage.
already addressed below.
“the most expedient course of action to resolve the issue in the most widely acceptable way possible.”
-
That sounds like the reasoning behind the famous “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. Sure, it’s a step in the right direction, and, yes, we could get over 50% of people to accept that much. The sticking point is that it’s still not constitutional to deny one group of law-abiding citizens the same rights and privileges as another group.
But, this goes back to whether marriage is a right or not.
Accept the fact that it’s you vs. the entire legal community on this one.
As for privileges, we deny one group privileges enjoyed by another, every day, routinely, and as a matter of course.
OOoh, this should be interesting, spill!
Well, let’s start with the most obvious — driving.
We don’t deny the driving privilege to a class of people for any reason other than public safety. In Texas (and I believe most states), hardship licensing is possible, even then. What do you think would happen if a proposition came up denying gay people the privilege to drive? I think most people agree that there is no reason to deny that group of people that privilege.
-
So why is gay marriage different? Simple distaste (disguised as religious righteousness) is not a valid consideration for law. Gay marriage objectors have claimed that such would cheapen their own heterosexual marriages somehow. That’s the only secular argument I’ve heard, and it just doesn’t fly.
Um… Driving? That’s just plain ridiculous. Driving is operating a 1 to 2 ton (generally) piece of machinery that when improperly handled can cause massive destruction, injury and death. Marriage is something that when improperly handled can cause children and divorce. However, everyone of a certain age is given the opportunity to drive. If they fail to meet the standards, they are not allowed the privilege. Everyone of a certain age is given the opportunity to marry, with no standards, EXCEPT THE GAYS.
I don’t recall “Are you a homo?” being on my driver’s license application… Which you think it would have been being that it was in AZ. But it was in Pima County and Pima County DID NOT PASS Prop 102.
The point is that gays who wish to marry don’t want to wait for people to adapt. They want it now, “whether we like it or not”, if the supporters are to be believed.
So if immediate satisfaction of perceived inequality is *all* that this is about, then the most expedient path is to stop calling it “marriage”, thereby eliminating the resistance from those who oppose it on religious grounds.
The fact is, for many on the pro side, it’s *not* just about equality under the law — it’s about “I’m queer, I’m here, and you just have to deal”. And with that attitude, it’s not going to be resolved quickly.
=
The point is that black people who wish to be free don’t want to wait for people to adapt. They want it now, “whether we like it or not”, if the supporters are to be believed.
So if immediate satisfaction of perceived inequality is *all* that this is about, then the most expedient path is to stop calling it “slavery”, thereby eliminating the resistance from those who oppose it on moral grounds.
The fact is, for many on the pro side, it’s *not* just about equality under the law — it’s about “I’m black, I’m here, and you just have to deal”. And with that attitude, it’s not going to be resolved quickly.
?
Um, getting Social Security payments if your partner dies IS a form of protection. It’s called “security” for a reason.
I thought the right to marry whomever she pleases of consenting age was the no brainer answer here…
As a no-brainer, I must concur: Yes, that is my answer.
*curtsey*
Have you read the posts bigot. Spousal insurance, inheritance and next of kin rights are just the surface.
I suppose being raised in a macho heritage you feel threatened in some manner by gays. that is your own issue. Please just stop hating
Um, I’m afraid that is not correct. My understanding is that there are many states in which one can still legally be fired from one’s job, simply for being known (or suspected) as a homosexual. The link connected to my name claims this is the case in 31 states.
Anyone else notice this guy spelled MARRIAGE wrong? Genius. Should be failblogged as well.
And Lo, I saw the black talking smack about the love that goes between another’s crack. Instead of tolerance, he wanted to give it a whack, knock it back, put the law upon the rack when he should have given them the same slack his people were once given.
It was during this stint that he would not take a hint on how his world view’s tint blinded him. And thus with Irony dripping and my sides almost ripping with laughter were the issue not so gripping, that my ability to write further is slipping.
And so with fervent zeal, the man will squeal about how their right to marriage should be repealled, never remembering how once his fate was so sealed. So History is but a wheel, always turn, ever yearning, yet with no memory of those we were burning.
*always turning.
-_-
Nice. Very very nice.
Thank you, I do what I can to bring a bit of levity when I can with my ranting.
Cause you know he musta, you know he musta….
He musta got LOST!
(Really and c’mon, tell me you weren’t hearing Peter Wolf doing that rant….)
Love it
Mr. Nexus, your creativity and sense of humor never cease to amaze me. If I lived another umpteen miles in your direction I might be tempted to give Lynn a run for her money… or at least get in on a little something.
That was so good, I take back two of the things I have said about you!
horizontal rule
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:
bullet joint parenting;
bullet joint adoption;
bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
bullet status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
bullet inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
bullet veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
bullet decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
bullet crime victims’ recovery benefits;
bullet loss of consortium tort benefits;
bullet domestic violence protection orders;
bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
bullet 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.
erm, those “bullet” words were bullet points when I copied. SOrry!
Sheli,
you just made my point for me. Those benefits and responsibilities are granted to MARRIED couples. Marriage is not a state of nature that one automatically enters into without a positive action on the part of the state. The benefits you mention are not inherent rights given to all citizens. They are ADDITIONAL benefits given to a union that society as a part of its normal process of governance has decided to grant individuals entering those unions. Society, through government, grants those rights to individuals entering into unions which society judges to be right and advantageous (ie, they ACCEPT those unions as good). What the gay marriage crowd is demanding is that society EXTEND the list of unions that they believe are good for family and society. That is, they have stopped asking that I tolerate them, they now additionally demand that I modify my definition of what I accept, and include them in it so that they can get the same legal goodies that I get, because society ACCEPTS my heterosexual marriage, just like all human societies for the past 8,000 years of recorded history. They want membership in an exclusive club from which all societies have excluded them for all of history. The 1,049 additional benefits my wife and I get are ours because we have voluntarily submitted to a legal commitment ACCEPTED by our peers in society and by the judgment and experience of thousands of generations. I am taking nothing away from you that you don’t already have. I am just refusing to grant you my acceptance that what you propose is good, right and advantageous to society. Live and let live.
“Live and let live”? That sounds absolutely contrary to what you’re proposing here. “Live and let live” implies that you can do what you want, I can do what I want, and we won’t bother each other or infringe on each other’s rights.
Wow–AMEN!! His argument sounds like a girl saying to another girl, “I’m prettier than you are, so society accepts me more, so neener-neener, Cinderella!” Then “live and let live?” O_O
SRSLY??? “Live and let me keep you out of my thoughts” seems apt, tho.
Then by your statement, you must prove that your marriage is advantageous, good, and right to society. As well as all the other marriages. Starting…. Now.
Your last sentence does not sync up with the rest of your statement by the way. Just thought I would mention that. Kuro already pointed out why.
First of all: history fail.
What about those prior to Loving Vs. Virginia? They had, in the past, not been accepted by the all-powerful “society” you spout. “Society” was once fully accepting of slavery, rape, and murder based on things no one can change about themselves. “Society”, and history, by any means, should not be a meter-stick to which we decide on how we govern, especially to minorities.
Women. Racial minorities. Hell, even men who did not own land or have a title in front of their name. These were all people who, historically, and social norms, were not held equal. But you, Mr. White Male who views himself and others like him as superior, are now a minority. Get used to it.
please, please, PLEASE…. tell me you’re just saying this because you want to cause controversy?
-
shelli marrying her partner who she obviously loves and has been with for a while is not going to affect how YOU feel about marriage. rather it will affect the way that the legal and religious systems feel about marriage. go back several LOLs there are discussions about separate but equal… it wasn’t enough for the black people to have to sit in the back of the bus, they needed to be able to sit where ever they wanted to. that is what is truly equal. there were plenty of close minded people such as yourself (and my dads whole side of the family) who believed that the back of the bus was “just fine”. but it’s not.
a civil union or anything that is NOT a marriage is NOT fine. this is a minority being repressed by a seriously conservative majority. it wasn’t fine in the 60s, why should it be fine now?
plus, what makes your opinion on what is accepted so definitive? where i live, gay marriage isn’t even really an issue… a suburb not far from where i live has the second highest gay population in the US (behind LA), around here gay marriages are accepted yet not legal.
you say live and let live: then you should keep living your life and let shelli and her partner live theirs as they want to….. as a married couple.
I was going to stay out of it this time, but I am drawn to respond to CarlosHawes indication that government has granted these rights to heterosexual unions because society accepts those unions. I would like to remind the viewer that when the government granted the right to marry to mixed-race couples, over 70% of the population of the United States were AGAINST interracial marriage.
Thank you for that statistic. It puts things into perspective, doesn’t it?
I’m assuming then that you have 8,000 years’ worth of documents to back that statement up, right?
*ahem* In fact, in many ancient tribal societies gay men were considered to be sages/shamans because, while male, they also encompassed the feminine, thereby representing both sides and being more in balance and in tune with the creative force, what ever it was considered to be.
The very term “lesbian” is a derivitave of the Isle of Lesbos, on which the renowned poet Sappho lived with her all-femal cult in worship of the Goddess of Love (amazing poetry, BTW). Where they also receieved supplicants and worshippers. Homosexuality, MTM and FTF both, were widely accepted and practiced in Greece.
Wow! I mean, just wow.. I can’t believe you actually believe that drivel. Not only that, but it’s chock full of hypocrisy. You want the rights granted to you by the state, but not for others that you don’t view as acceptable. Who are you to determine what is acceptable in this regard?
He is using Fallacy of Tradition, Fallacy of Majority, and a couple other fallacies I can’t quite think of. I am sure Uncle Fester or Seth know the correct terminology and will be along at their own speed to carpet bomb us with information.
Shock and awe.
In bed or on the couch, where I usually do the shocking and awing. Then again, Seth sounds like he is getting more action than I am this weekend so my imaginary hat is off to him.
I don’t know that I would want to be included in that kind of ‘action’. That is just to abnormal for me!
Eh, Lynn and I have a girlfriend in CT we are in love with too so it isn’t that abnormal for me, we just want to actually get to the cuddling part.
Hey, DWM. How can you forget a fallacy? Aren’t you the keeper of all things fallack? … … … Oops–never mind: Spell check save!
-
Carlos’s comments are thoroughly creeping me out! I keep rereading them like they’re going to change, and become rational somehow.
Hehe, phallic maybe possibly sorta. Fallacy-wise, I will admit to flaws in my debate skills and terminology.
So… in other words, if the gay people want those rights, they have to get a straight marriage. Lovely.
You for someone who says you’ll tolerate those big bad gays, you sure to sound like an intolerant assbag.
sure *do sound
i don’t have a citation, but i’ve heard of a gay couple and a lesbian couple getting together and pairing off into marriages so that they get the tax breaks and stuff like that. obviously it’s not an ideal situation…
-
you mentioning gay people wanting those rights needing straight marriages and i thought of this.
“Don’t think I don’t tolerate gay people, I tolerate the HECK out of them”
Ah, Tina Fey, you genius you.
With a few exceptions, women having equal rights with men is a fairly new thing, yet it would be laughable to use the thousands of years of tradition argument against it. It would also be a poor reason to make laws that divorce is only allowable in the case of marital infidelity.
I have yet to hear how gay marriage hurts someone in a heterosexual marriage, other than some of them feeling uncomfortable or angry about it. If I marry a man, it doesn’t take away anybody else’s rights or make their marriage no longer valid.
Carlos – the ONLY reason you do not wish for gays and lesbians to marry is based on your RELIGIOUS views, yes?
Or is it just the “ick” factor?
Which is it? Honestly and truly. Is it that you cannot fathom a loving, committed relationship between two people when one of them lacks a P*nis? Because as I mentioned in my earlier post, I am grossed out “by these kids today,” who practically have sex on the NYC subway. And all I want to do is hold my partner’s hand in public without the fear of being beaten up.
So the fact that an infertile, or “childless by choice” couple choose to marry deems MORE legal guardianships than me?
Just a nitpick:
They want membership in an exclusive club from which all societies have excluded them for all of history.
Er, wrong. Greece, Rome, and quite a bit of modern Europe are societies which do NOT exclude them.
Furthermore, how do you feel about interracial marriage? A lot of societies STILL frown on that, and have for thousands of years. Yet we allow it, if only since the 1960s.
Do I have the RIGHT to practice medicine? No, not unless I get a medical license.
Do I have the RIGHT to practice law? Not unless I pass the bar.
Do I have the RIGHT to marry? not unless I get a marriage license.
Who determines the qualifications for these licenses? The STATE. It grants POSITIVE AFFIRMATION that a certain set of criteria and standards have been met and that the holder of said license is entitled to the benefits attached to said license. Have I been denied some inherent right to cut someone open and remove their gall bladder if I don’t have a medical license? I sure don’t think so. Do I want to open people up and remove their gall bladders? If I do, the state has enumerated the things I must do to be granted that privilege. Do I want the 1,049 additional benefits granted to married couples? Then I can meet the enumerated criteria defined for getting them. To change those criteria is possible, but in doing so, you are by definition, changing the definition (pun intended) and extending the list of what is acceptable.
Apples and oranges. If you practice medicine without a license, someone dies. If you practice law without a license, an innocent person potentially goes to jail. Marriage, however, requires no prior knowledge and has few potential side-effects.
Yeah, tell that to the children of divorced couples.
Very true, all married couples should take a lengthy exam about child raising and home economics. ALL married couples and like the Bar Exam or the licensing for Doctors should be open to all willing and of proper age to try for the exam. That way, criteria is met and those too ignorant to be doctors, lawyers, or married would be weeded out and society bettered.
Agreed. In the Catholic church (like so many others, I am a “lapsed” Catholic) the whole Pre-Cana course is supposed to be that. There should be a civil equivalent — if we have to get a license to obtain the privilege of potentially killing others with a 4000-pound vehicle, then we should also have to get one if we potentially can wreck the rest of some innocent child’s life…
Indeed, and just like being a doctor or lawyer, it should be open to any consenting adult, thus allowing gays. Gays should be able to adopt just as any straight couple is allowed to adopt and thus the children’s lives would be enriched by caring parents.
Glad we could clear that up.
Yeah, except we’re not talking about adoption.
If you continue to call it “marriage” (even though it is)
you will never eliminate the resistance to gay marriage.
So it’s about whether you actually want to resolve the issue, or whether you just want (“you” being the anonymous gay community) to ram your position up the public’s ass. The best I can tell, it’s currently more about the latter.
Well voting survived being voting despite letting minorities and women do it. Why can’t marriage stay marriage? The only reasons I am finding are religious ones and there are plenty of churches to dictate who should be married.
Civil rights for women and blacks were forced up the public’s ass and I don’t see the world ending. Somethings are not about your beliefs, they are about what is right, fair, and/or equal.
Our language is an evolving language and you haven’t been able to prove how it will be destroyed if we let gays marry. We already have states still that allow gays to marry and they aren’t exploding in fire. So I don’t really see why you are making this into a resistance issue.
“Why can’t marriage stay marriage?”
Again, for reasons of expedience. One solution instantly eliminates religious opposition, the other instantly creates a pair of warring classes that may fight over it for 100 years like happened with slavery.
I don’t see downgrading all marriages into civil unions as expedient… If anything that will make more people mad and require rewriting of tax laws and removal of benefits. Also, try telling the religious groups that they are going to lose their marriage privileges and see how little they oppose it.
No, still saying that the easiest way is to simply allow marriages to any consenting couple of adults. Just like you said, if the Prop 8 had failed, the people would just moved on. And the warring classes issue is already going on as strong as it is going to go.
Realistically people have way more to deal with than whether or not gays are getting married. Now I think would be the best time. Nobody has any real time to take a lot of action. We are busy paying bills and by the time they have the energy to care, we will be ten years or more down the road.
Can’t argue with most of that — I just still think that when this comes up on ballots, that each side is actually voting on different things (and neither are voting on what the actual text of the measure says).
I just still think [...] that each side is actually voting on different things (and neither are voting on what the actual text of the measure says).
.
On that, we can agree. And I *do* understand your point re: semantics of “marriage.” Sort of. It just frustrates me that everyone’s hung up on a word.
.
English is one of the best languages for creating neologisms; why can’t we come up with something other than “civil union” to describe government-sanctioned m******e? I guess it’s because everything else sounds like new-age hippiedom that won’t get the same respect as being able to say “Yeah, we got married,” “a happy marriage,” etc. (I mean, I’m sick of my love sounding like a business contract.)
.
So I suppose insistence on the use of the word “marriage” comes down to respect. We don’t want to feel like we were grudgingly let in the back door* to America’s little society party. Why don’t the religious groups come up with a word for their unions, and then we can all be “married;” they can additionally be “matrimonied” or something, and then we can all live happily ever after?
.
Amen.
.
*Pun absolutely not intended. But enjoy it anyway, if you’d like.
“Why don’t the religious groups come up with a word for their unions, and then we can all be “married;” they can additionally be “matrimonied” or something, and then we can all live happily ever after?”
That’s the crux of the matter — the secular term was taken from millennia of religious usage, mostly for matters of convenience at the time; it was generally understood in 1789, for example, what “marriage” meant.
I said marriage. I didn’t say children. Personally, I think a license should be required to have kids, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Except that for many, marriage is about the obligation and responsibility to have and raise children — for many, the two are inseparable.
Hence the need for the test both DWN and I mentioned earlier. But marriage is no longer only for the purpose of creating offspring in this day and age. It’s not even socially required anymore.
And for many, kids aren’t even part of the equation. Still not a reason to restrict marriage to just straight people. Plenty of child free and barren couples getting married.
I am just explaining the anti-gay-marriage arguments. Doesn’t mean I believe them (I certainly have no dog in this fight), just explaining.
From what I recall, you apparently felt enough stake in the matter to vote against gay marriage. Your reasons were summed up as you didn’t like their attitude and traditional values.
Nope. My reasons were:
1) the fact that SF mayor Gavin Newsom accidentally let slip the “real” agenda during the rally celebrating the decision against the original measure; that it wasn’t about equality, but instead about shoving it down everyone’s throat, “whether you like it or not”
2) the fact that prop 8 opponents had become so spiteful and hateful over the measure that they had taken to criminal acts over it;
3) and the least reason of all, because if you are going to ask me whether I think that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, then I agree with that definition (as do the Dalai Lama, and Barack Obama, to name two)
So their attitude and traditional values…
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. –John F. Kennedy, 1962
Hissy fit was the description I applied…
As for having a stake in the matter, then yes, as a registered voter, I do — not only a stake, but a civic duty, to register my vote on the matter.
As for having a dog in the fight, I am not gay, no one in my family is gay, nor am I married or divorced, so no, I don’t have a vested interest one way or the other.
So because you were spiting the attitude you saw and because you can vote, you decided to vote against something that won’t harm you or only set gay rights back…
So you had a civic duty to vote because you are registered. And you voted to let your beliefs dictate what another couple should do that in no way harms anybody else’s freedoms.
I honestly don’t know what to say to that.
It’s no different than voting to take someone’s money and spend it on something I find worthwhile, even if they do not. It’s how the democratic process works, DWN, I think you understand that.
and it was a hissy fit
I understand the democratic process as something that is supposed to liberate its citizens not hold one group above another.
Taxes =/= equal protection. Apples and Oranges.
right, so if we want to “protect the sanctity” of marriage, why aren’t we banning divorce?
except divorce… which straight people are REALLY good at doing. but of course if “the gays” are allowed to marry it’ll ruin the institution of marriage and divorce rates will go sky high and straight marriages won’t mean the same thing anymore because it’s tainted….. /sarcasm
My sister is a paralegal in probate and estate, and the attorney she works for wishes that it would be legal in Ohio (where she lives) — it would double her divorce business.
…so you should have voted “no” to Prop 8, to help your (I assume) straight sister prosper in this tough economy, but you voted “yes,” instead.
Congratulations.
(I replied before, but PK killed it.) Your vote for Prop 8 goes against your sister’s prosperity, as the ripple effect from CA was quashed this time. Justice delayed is justice denied, so I disagree with your vote. The number of divorces will increase when gay marriage finally becomes legal (and it eventually will), but the divorce rate will likely remain the same. Inasmuch as CA famously initiates progressive trends for the rest of the nation, you have, in a way, affected your sister’s stock in trade. Maybe you should get her something nicer than usual for Christmas.
I keep trying to get her to come work out here instead of Cincinnati, but she’s a homebody…nothing I can do!
Your comparisons are flawed. Gays can be lawyers and doctors, they just have to pass the exams. Marriage has no exam and gays aren’t even allowed to try unless in certain states.
You are also missing the part in our American documents that state that all citizens have Equal right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Ergo, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Equal protection under the law thus anybody is allowed to TRY to be a doctor and lawyers, they just have to school up and try the exams. Even those dastardly queers. However, Marriage is only allowed to be pursued by a certain group of people based on an arbitrary sexual preference question.
Except, the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document. The Constitution is.
One of the rights that constantly is overlooked here, is the “right to self-governance”. *That* is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.
Nice point.
Point taken but the same rationale would state that slaves should still be slaves so the Declaration of Independence is still taken seriously. Still it is stated that no law will be put into practice that restricts the liberities of the citizenry. That was apparent with the Civil Rights movements and blacks.
“the same rationale would state that slaves should still be slaves”
Except for that little matter of the 13th Amendment…
“Still it is stated that no law will be put into practice that restricts the liberities of the citizenry”
Which part is that?
“extending the list of what is acceptable” is our issue, between us, I think.
In the states that have banned gay marriage? They have CHANGED THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS TO DO SO. The courts, when faced with the choice of interpreting “marriage” as seen by law, have largely given those “goodies”as you referred to them to homosexuals.
It all lies in the interpretation of the law, and that changes with time. That does not make any new interpretations invalidated, but shows *gasp* your all powerful “society’s” acceptance.
The pro-gay-marriage crowd has the same equal access to the Constitutional process as those that put the gay marriage bans on the respective ballots. I’m most offended at the knee-jerk reaction of the pro-gay-marriage crowd to take it to the courts and try to have their way legislated from the bench, instead of taking their arguments to the people. In California, if the anti-prop-8 crowd would have been a bit less complacent between June and November, maybe we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The complacency has been a large issue that has irked me as well, but if it
had passed, I think, we’d still be having a similar conversation. I don’t think
this will be adequately removed from topic for another two decades or so, if
the current trends keep going.
Loving Vs. Virginia, Brown Vs. Board of Education. Facts are, that society’s
acceptance of a group of people has always followed the courts. And there
is always a fear-based backlash against those people that forces the supreme
court to step in.
Both of those decisions were unpopular at the time. Like we’ve said, over and
over again, I do not need your acceptance. I just want protections offered
to others not denied to me because of who I love and want to spend the
rest of my life with.
I disagree. If Prop 8 had failed, those who voted on it would have gone about their lives.
Of course they would, because it doesn’t affect them. The group that has some of their rights taken away will be understandably mad about it.
The complacency has been a large issue that has irked me as well, but if it
had passed, I think, we’d still be having a similar conversation. I don’t think
this will be adequately removed from topic for another two decades or so, if
the current trends keep going.
Loving Vs. Virginia, Brown Vs. Board of Education. Facts are, that society’s
acceptance of a group of people has always followed the courts. And there
is always a fear-based backlash against those people that forces the supreme
court to step in.
Both of those decisions were unpopular at the time. Like we’ve said, over and
over again, I do not need your acceptance. I just want protections offered
to others not denied to me because of who I love and want to spend the
rest of my life with.
The courts exist to protect the minority against the excesses of the majority. That is their explicit purpose. Why should it surprise you that a minority, traditionally subject to both legal and violent oppression, anticipates failure with legislature and plebiscite, and so seeks the protection of the courts? They are performing the function for which they were designed.
I realized I missed a very glaring flaw in my previous post.
“Do I have the RIGHT to practice medicine? No, not unless I get a medical license.
Do I have the RIGHT to practice law? Not unless I pass the bar.
Do I have the RIGHT to marry? not unless I get a marriage license.”
Actually you do have the right to try for all of those. That is the key word, try. Anybody can be a doctor if they pass the exams. Anybody can be a lawyer if they pass the exams. Anybody can get a marriage license… Unless they are gay.
So you do have the right to try and be a doctor or lawyer. You can only be refused if you can’t pay for the schooling or just can’t figure it out. Who you sleep with isn’t a factor. For marriage, we are saying that certain people can’t even try. That is the whole problem you seem to be missing.
DWM, I’m glad you addressed this because I was about to do the same thing. Forgive me if I’m redundant here.
As DWM pointed out, you *do* have the right to try those things. And, having tried and fulfilled all other criteria, the governing body then has an obligation to grant you the license in question. Otherwise, it is discrimination.
My wife and I are competent, self-aware adults capable of making our own decisions. There would be no compelling reason to have us declared legally incompetent, or taken under the custody of the court/state/other guardian. IOW, we’s all growed up.
We pay our taxes. We work full time jobs, and each of us has a second job as well. We live on our own, pay bills (although not always on time), go to the grocery store together, cook together, fight, laugh, etc. Heck, we’ve even broken up and gotten back together.
So…aside from having the same “equipment”, what qualification is it *exactly* that we don’t meet? What, aside from gender, makes our relationship less valid than yours? Less loving? Less hopeful or promising?
Dammit, I’m tearing up now. i frequently avoid this issue because it gets me pretty upset. *slinks away*
If it is any consolation, the best father figure I ever met was a Lesbian named Michelle that I worked with and had to watch emotionally tear herself asunder when technicalities made her lose her adopted son. I know you girls love just as strongly as I do.
And look hawt doing it… >_>
*hugs*
“What, aside from gender, makes our relationship less valid than yours? Less loving? Less hopeful or promising?”
Nothing. But what about your relationship (indeed, anyone’s) needs to be codified into law (or protected from it)?
Just as much as yours or mine would need to be codified and protected.
You need your love and caring to be codified into law? :\
Apparently a lot of people do or the vote for Prop 8 wouldn’t be such a big deal as we would let whomever marry whomever (consenting adults) without resistance.
But there is a large group of people who seem to want to codify what is a valid marriage and what is a valid relationship to get benefits of being married.
I’m still puzzled at the resistance to letting gays get married. If marriage isn’t such a big deal, why vote against letting gays get married… As you did?
So Xavier, what is the big deal? You say it doesn’t matter but you sure as hell opposed it. I see a glitch in that.
So since I don’t have a dog in that fight, I’m not allowed to register my vote on the issue? Gang violence doesn’t affect me either, but if a measure came up on the ballot, say, to force minimum sentencing laws in cases where gang activity was foudn to be a cause, I should say “no, it doesn’t affect me, so we can’t have that law”?
Voting is the ultimate opinion poll. My opinion was solicited, so I registered it.
as a hissy fit…
Gang violence does affect you as it is a crime statistic that you might blunder into one day. Gay marriage is something that will most likely never affect you unless you decide get married to a member of your own sex. Big difference.
My issue is that if you have no stake, why vote against evening the field for another group. That is what bothers me.
Since I’ve been away from the ‘net for 2+ days, I don’t know if anyone is still reading this, but…
Xavier, do you actually bother to read and attempt to comprehend any of the replies to your posts? Or do you post simply to restate the same tired questions that have been repeatedly answered, in a variety of ways??
My relationship is my relationship. It is an intangible thing that can no more be codified than the smell of my favorite meal ( if you knew me, you’d know that food is only slightly lower than family on my love-o-meter). What *can* be codified are the rights that are afforded when two parties enter a legal contract. More accurately, what should not be codified against are those rights.
My wife has two kids from her first marriage – also to a woman and also not legally recognized. The children and partner were a package deal, but they lived and raised the kids together during the time of their relationship. Her partner died in the hospital. She wasn’t allowed to visit her partner, and after her death CPS removed the kids and placed them with their bio-father, a violent man who hadn’t tried to be involved in their lives before then. My wife has not had contact with these kids in years, and still wonders if they even remember her. She keeps their pictures, art projects, etc. Each year we put on our Christmas tree ornaments that “the kids made.
You still don’t get it, do you? Or do you just not want it? If my relationship doesn’t need to be codified, then neither does yours. Are you advocating the dissolution of all marriage, forever and ever amen? My question to you was, and is, what makes our relationship less worthy of “codification” as you put it? What makes our union undeserving of legal protection, and by extension subject to persecution? Quite frankly, I personally don’t care what the name of the institution is, but separate but equal is *still* inherently unequal.
Oops, apparently I didn’t do the end-Italics bit right. should have ended after the bit about not being codified against.
Also, thanks to the rest of you for the hugs and support.
Big hugs to you and your partner! Holidays must be extra
hard. Anyway, I’m glad to see you mustered your
give-a-d@mn today
*more hugs*
honestly as i was reading that I couldn’t tell via the description you were a gay couple until the end. That’s a perfect example that there’s no difference in the relationships are their core, just some mechanics. I’m glad you guys have such a good relationship
You have not made a moral case at all. You have simply said, ‘This is the current law. As defined by the current law, gays can not marry. Therefore, gays can not marry.’ You have not made a case as to why the law should not be changed. As the current debate is about CHANGING the law to make it more inclusive, you have added nothing to the debate and wasted all our time.
In bed… with a man.
*snork*
.
@Seth: Would that be called “Fallacy to Address the Topic?”
“You have not made a moral case at all.”
Why should there be? The question was asked, and answered, is all the poster is implying.
As long as we all recognize that Carlos is just flapping his jaw. He isn’t adding anything to the discussion, he is clouding the issue. He was implying a lot. He was implying that the law is immutable, that what is is what is right and good, that the law is how it should be, that the law protects people like laws regarding doctors does, and that somehow marriage is dangerous and should be given to responsible people only. Go reread his post. The ‘question’ was never asked, and if it was, the answer is irrelevant. The SCOTUS will decide, as it did with segregation. And any sane court will find the same way it did back then.
In this case SCOTUS probably will decline to hear the case. If it were that much a slam-dunk, all of the states that have banned it thus far would have had their amendments overturned as well.
No, you’re wrong on this one. Anyone with a knowledge of history can extrapolate the course of this movement to its eventual outcome. Your grandchildren will be as aware of this difficulty as you are aware of Women’s Suffrage.
Actually, I’m probably right. Researching further into this, I came across this regarding the applicability of Loving v. Virginia to same-sex marraige (link in name):
“Certainly, the ruling did not generally override state law with respect to marriage, nor did it signify that all marriage restrictions were equally invidious. Only a few years later, for example, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in Baker v. Nelson, one of the first cases to challenge the constitutionality of a state’s ban on same-sex marriage, “for want of substantial federal question.” It thus left the state bans on same-sex marriage intact, despite Loving’s strong language about the fundamental importance of the right to marry.”
I meant you’re wrong on this topic. Simple extrapolation, based on U.S. history of social movements, indicates that this movement has a predictable path. It may take a generation to die, but these people will get this right/privilege eventually, and probably sooner than you think. Depending on your age, your grandchildren or great grandchildren will accept gay marriage as a given, being perhaps vaguely aware (as you are of Women’s Suffrage) that, once upon a time, gay and lesbian couples couldn’t marry. For them, it will be a trivia fact. For you, it’s a skull splitter.
How can you even compare something academic to a marriage? I know plenty of straight people who are married and shouldn’t be, and I know gay people who are together and shouldn’t be, but why should the STATE, as you put it, decide? Are we in Brave New World or 1984? Are we even in Marxist Communism? NO! We are in a democratic society that is intended to be for the people, not for the state. There are no good reasons that gay people should not be allowed to marry that don’t also apply two straight couples once you take religion out of the equation. Since our Constitution (you know, that thing the founders came up with a really long time ago… that paper that defines our government… that big state you mentioned.. ) separates religion from state, there is no reason that marriage should not be extended to everyone.
I understand that you have your opinions and you are welcome to them, but when your opinions become more than opinions and they are harming another or preventing them from being happy, it turns into cruelty. This is America. The so-called land of dreams. Gay people are no different from any other group of people. Yeah, they have their own social norms and they like to be loud and flamboyant, but certain traits come along with certain cultures. It goes back to civil rights. Black people have dark skin and curly hair, so mainstream society didn’t want to accept them into their group. Its like school all over again. Do we really need an adult to come along and tell us to play fair? Or can we, as a society, grow up and be accepting?
That doesn’t mean that you have to suddenly love gay people. You can still go on thinking that what they do is wrong, but you shouldn’t stop them from doing it. I think that you being a bigot is wrong, but that’s still legal.
“Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other’s eyes for an instant?” – Thoreau
I may be wrong here.. But aren’t there gay doctors and lawyers?
DeathWyrmNexus–
>> Then by your statement, you must prove that your marriage is advantageous, good, and right to society. As well as all the other marriages. Starting…. Now. <<
No, I have to prove nothing. The law is written so that by meeting certain criteria, I am already judged to be doing what is right. That is the entire purpose of law isn’t it? We judge certain behaviors and actions to be just and good and others to be wrong and destructive. We codify those things as law. Society throughout history has unanimously determined that, on the whole, members of opposite sexes joining together in a lasting legal commitment is a good thing that brings more benefit than harm to society. The question underlying gay marriage is simply the same one. Does society wish to say that members of the same sex joining together in a long term legal and moral commitment is a good thing to society? You may think it does. I don’t. The law already agrees with my choice. Society ACCEPTS it. Do you want the same legal standing? Change the law. Get society to accept your choice. Oops, not having much luck there are you? Society disagrees with your assertion that what you propose is good and right. Your only choice? Find a court or judge to say that you do have some inherent right to additional benefits and then have them force me to accept your moral claim. That is what is happening in California right now. Not a request for tolerance, an attempt to force me to legally bless your choice in violation of all my core beliefs.
Now what is good and right is for me to get back to my work and earn my paycheck. Lunch is over
Again, interracial marriage was made legal BEFORE the majority of American society found it acceptable. Would you have had them wait for society to catch up before they were allowed to marry each other?
And what you are saying is that all you had to do right was marry a woman. A simple and arbitrary choice.
Society also determined throughout the ages that women were property, men of various backgrounds were property, that governments could just pull you off the street and kill you, that rape was legal, that working children was legal, that killing gays is legal, etc etc.
Laws changed with the times to adapt to the fact that those were legal issues to be resolved. As for your legal blessing, unless you are a judge, your blessing isn’t required.
This issue at hand isn’t the majority and what they want. If that was the case, a lot of the above I stated would still be around. It is a matter of what is constitutional and right.
You are stating that your core religious beliefs be the doctrine by which all people live which is a direct violation of Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State.
Finally, my choice? What choice are you talking about? I simply chose to believe that all consenting adults be allowed to marry whom they choose as this is America, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. However, I am seeing in my country Fear and Discrimination which are anethema to what I was told this country stood for.
I am in love with the mother of my sons, Lynn. I was born straight and thus for arbitrary reason, I am allowed to marry the person I love. However, I see my neighbors, friends, coworkers, etc who are denied what I feel is a very basic thing. It doesn’t even involve you and requires no action on your part. Yet action was taken when nothing of yours was threatened.
When/if you finally get back around to this, I only care about this next part being answered or even acknowledged.
“What does two men or two women getting married have to do with you and how does it offend your core beliefs since you don’t have to do it?”
Yes, I know, it is deceptively simple. These couples you never have to even be around, at least no more than you already are. So I am just curious what it actually affects of yours personally.
Why not, Carlos? WHY is gay marriage NOT good for society? When you think about it, MORE gay weddings = MORE money pouring into our troubled economy.
I have LOTS in common with straight, infertile couples. NO Sp*rm at home, so we adopted. Should all infertile men be barred from getting hitched, too?
WHY is my relationship LESS loving and “good for society” than yours? You just say that it is so, without base, or fact.
“Do you want the same legal standing? Change the law. Get society to accept your choice. Oops, not having much luck there are you?”
Oh, seems to me that we are having some luck. Quite a lot, in fact. It’s just a bit slower than should be necessary.
If anybody cares, that picture was taken in front of the Old FLorida State Capitol Building in Tallahassee, Florida.
It’s been mentioned, yeah. Thanks, though!
It is called Irony. Read history and then read the above sign being posted. If you don’t get it then, you never will.
Again, thanks. I just couldn’t quite muster up enough give-a-d@mn to reply to this guy.
I got your back hun. *hugs*
I think we all can agree that this dood isn’t ever going to get it. Based on his evident ability to grasp simple irony, we can already guage what benefit a re-read of history will provide him. BTW, when was the last time anyone heard the term “Afro-Americans,” anyway? … o_O
i’m not black or anything but, i think i’d find “afro-american” to be a more insulting term. Nothing like N***** but still insulting
OOh ooH another gay posting
At the end of days, at the end of time.
When the Sun burns out will any of this matter.
Who will be there to remember who we were?
Who will be there to know that any of this had meaning for us?
And in retrospect I’ll say we’ve done no wrong.
Who are we to judge what is right and what has purpose for us?
With designs upon ourselves to do no wrong,
running wild unaware of what might come of us.
The Sun was born, so it shall die,
so only shadows comfort me.
I know in darkness I will find you giving up inside like me.
Each day shall end as it begins
and though you’re far away from me
I know in darkness I will find you giving up inside like me
Without a thought I will see everything eternal,
forget that once we were just dust from heavens far.
As we were forged we shall return, perhaps some day.
I will remember you and wonder who we were.
© VNV Nation 2000
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
And when they come to ethnically cleanse me
Will you speak out? Will you defend me?
Freedom of expression does it make it all right?
Yes, laws change. That is the way it is supposed to happen. Laws regarding interracial marriage did have the force of law. Society originally did not accept them as acceptable criteria for defining marriage. Society eventually decided that interracial marriage was acceptable even though it was dragged kicking and screaming. The same may happen with “gay marriage.” If it does, I will respect the law even if I diasagree. But just because society has been wrong before doesn’t mean that it is always wrong. The thing to realize is that society as a whole, even in the bluest of blue states, California, still isn’t willing to extend membership in the marriage club to gays. Try to change minds, just don’t run crying to the courts every time you loose.
Again, there is plenty of human history of families of mixed race, mixed religion, or mixed nationalities being denied as “married.” I am as yet unaware of any society anywhere that gave the same legal standings under marriage to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. I would welcome any knowledge to that fact as it would be germane to my argument.
So pretty much you require a historical precendence before we can actually advance as a society…
So blacks getting abused and not having rights was them crying to the courts? I am so glad a willfully intolerant person such as you is so willing to grace us with your ignorance.
“I am as yet unaware of any society anywhere that gave the same legal standings under marriage to homosexuals as to heterosexuals.”
Try HI, NV, and I believe MA for what you have missed as in states, as in parts of this society.
Yep, Massachusetts was the first state to pass gay marriage. And at this point, it is becoming a comfortable old shoe for many here. Homosexual couples just want to become the boring family next door, that’s all. Nothing that folks should be afraid of!
I’ve said it before, I have good ole boy values when it comes to neighborhoods but I don’t fret over who can be my neighbor as long as they don’t rob, kill, or otherwise get on my damn nerves.
Hell, let Bob and Tom bugger each other blue in the face, I don’t have to watch. I will even be happy to invite them over to hang out.
I actually like the good old values like nice neighborhoods and getting along. I might have to move to MA so I can get a bit more diversity while still have a safe hood.
Actually, most of the state is “red.” The “blue” voters are concentrated around places like L.A.
Strange how the Reps, who pride them selves on the freedom of the individual, seem to feel the need to legislate such that some people are more ‘free’ than others.
excuse me …there is plenty of human history of families of mixed race, mixed religion, or mixed nationalities being DEFINED as “married.” …
typos are my curse
Most people here are plagued by typos. Speaking for the group, most of us read through other’s typos, because most of us make plenty of our own.
While I’m here, what do you suggest in the way of a solution. Forgive me if you’ve already offered a solution, but, if you have, I haven’t read it. Do you think this issue will disappear? Do you think civil unions would be a good solution? Do you think we should deny this large group every time a proposition comes up for voting? If so, how long do you think that will go on? Do you think people fall in love in their brains and hearts, or in their plumbing parts?
-
As for me, I think some people genuinely lack the ability to empathize, and I think you may be one of them. I haven’t read anything on this entire post (or another recent one on the same topic) that involved gay people desiring to change any component of straight society. There is no demonstrable example of how Tom and Fred wearing rings, living together and filing a joint tax return will change what you eat for breakfast.
-
I don’t want to offend you, but, if you’re willing, I would really like to get into your head on this issue. I genuinely don’t comprehend your feelings.
so lets make things crazy and actually put a gay person in the comment stream here. So from reading this ive determined that: A. Blacks are exercising their right to protest B. Marriage is exactly the same thing as a civil union, just, “different” C. Society used to change laws in the past to incorporate things like Legal interracial marriage, but its only history so it couldn’t possibly change again to incorporate Same-Sex Marriage D. There’s people in Florida who can’t spell, but i know people in AZ that cant spell so i cant say anything.
lets address them, shall we?
A.
I dont care that hes black. Yeah its insanely ironic and the caption made me do a combination of a lmao and a rofl “ROFLMAO” But come on, if i want to attend a gay pride parade then by all means he can hold up his dyslexic sign any day of the week and not get any crap from me.
B.
Let’s say that civil unions get passed.
its open to everyone to get one.
now you have a choice; Civil Union, or Marriage?
ill assume you chose marriage and then proceed to ask you “why” if they’re supposedly the exact same thing?
hmmm…
perhaps just maybe, it’s because they aren’t the same thing, and marriage is better.
but wouldn’t barring somebody from marriage be like having second class citizens?
anyone who knows history knows that just because its the same thing, doesn’t make it equal.
its like trying to pick between having Starbucks specialty coffee and coffee at the place that fixes your tires. its coffee, right? but if you had the choice which would you pick?
C.
Interracial marriage was illegal, women couldn’t possibly vote, and blacks couldn’t possibly sit in the front of the bus. And that’s just how it was. Whites outnumber blacks in the united states, if we took the popular vote, I’m sure my friend carl down the street wouldn’t be living there, and my school would be white white white, and basically everything would be how it was back then. the masses cant be trusted. hence the electoral college. And i have unyielding faith that we will suddenly get the push in the direction of legalized marriage for us damned second class citizens not allowed to marry.
D.
If asked, this guy might tell you hes edumakated on the issues. But, on the other hand, he may tell you that he would support legislation that allowed him to marry his dog as long as his dog wasn’t a queer. and based on the proximity of the man next to the sign that says dont legislate im going to say that they’re all together from one place, and that it was nothing but a hate rally.
not that i have a problem with hate rallies though,
i have to admit that i hate those god damned bigots. they shouldn’t be allowed to marry or raise children…..
Are you serious? Do you really think you’re the first gay person to comment??
.
I do like your “B” argument, though.
meh, it was sposed to be for an argument but i got lost and found myself at the bottom of the page replying to nobody.
PK is becoming less and less funny and becoming more and more an excuse to flame people in caption format.
Agreed.
Of course, the hypocrites doing said flaming are the same ones that complain about the “tyranny of the majority”…until they are in the majority (by vote on the various pics, so we’re told), and then it’s just fine.
Our word isn’t law here and you are not forced to be here. There isn’t a tyranny, just a majority. You are not suppressed from making lulz. They are not deleted out of your account.
Are we actually stopping you from doing anything? I personally don’t recall suppressing or oppressing anybody nor have I stopped anybody from exercising their rights. Opinions and statements have been posted and I respond as I see fit. Just as you or anybody else do.
Wow.
That’s an awfully defensive and Orwellian response to simple statements about flaming and lack of humor.
And as I have done.
I’m not sure why you feel these remarks are directed at you, however.
At any rate, do you disagree that in the context of PK, the “tyranny of the majority” is in full effect when it comes, as I stated, to the tone of the pics chosen for display?
(my reply was to DWN; damn and blast the lack of a basic threaded forum software!!!)
Eh, I blame my guilt complex. I feel like I am being blamed a lot. My apologies. Just one of those threads and I tend to respond to every damn thing, even some of the stuff that have nothing to do with me. Again, I apologize.
I will give you that the pictures are over the line of majority tyranny but this place is more a democracy than a republic. Mob rule and the like.
His sign is confuzzling. Which god are the fabulous gay people rebelling against?
Seriously, there’s nothing wrong with Gay people getting married. However, there is something wrong with hypocrites breathing.
Does he not realize that he’s marching with the wrong people?
Do they not realize that he’s holding up a pro Prop 8 sign?
How the hell did he get over there?
o_O
Prop 8 was on the ballot in Florida too?
I might’ve made a slight mistake.
But at least it wasn’t misspelled on a big yellow sign.
Some may argue that making this kind of mistake online may very well be the equivalent.
But you most likely won’t see this as on an LOL!post.
Or will you?
<3
Doubt anyone will read this so far down, but here goes anyway.
For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. It organized the basic “family” social structure and ensured that children would be taken care of.
Flash forward to present day. Marriage still encompasses those basic tenets, but its sadly become a matter of convenience for some. Get married, then get divorced / annuled / whatever whenever you feel like it. Its obvious the marriage of today is far different than the ones of ancient times. Society as a whole has changed, but “Marriage” no longer adequately suits society’s needs. Today’s society needs include a way for people who don’t fit the archaic definition to enjoy the same benefits. Currently, that is impossible for civil unions. Many have already stated that its a “marriage-lite”. I say this though, why does it have to be so?
A new term should be used to replace any and all references of the archaic concept of marriage from secular law. Without doing this, “Seperate but equal is inherently unequal” will always surface. This way, marriage could be preserved as what it is without denying rights to members of society that don’t fit the archaic definition.
“Civil unions” won’t work simply because its already been tainted. I welcome any attempts at coming up an acceptable all encompassing term for rights granted to two consenting people of any orientation however.
Third sentence, no. Marriage never ensured children would be taken care of. Mostly, for thousands of years, it had more to do with ensuring that PROPERTY would be taken care of. To the extent that children and women were part of that property and the headman gave a damn, they sometimes benefited.
Considering the facts of the actual “grand old traditions” of marriage, many of which have previously been enumerated by others, maybe redefining the word could do more good than harm.
Along those lines, I am all for enforcing “till death do us part” — if you want a divorce, sorry, one of you has to die.
Marriage was not defined that way for ‘thousands of years.’ The Bible mentions plenty of polygamous marriages. Christian churches blessed same sex partnerships up through the 800-900s. Other cultures have very different ideas about marriage. Otherwise, a good post.
wow……………………….wow….
Brings all new meaning to ” Butthurt over election results” ( or proposition)
As the Dems say to the Repubs — “You lost ! Quit whining about it ! And that goes for you too, Al Franken!”
Sorry, we won’t stop whining until the Supreme Court has overturned all these unconstitutional laws. Just like they did with segregation. And Al hasn’t lost yet, in fact, the margin is closing and they haven’t even recounted the highly pro-Franken districts yet. Go cry over your own losses.
Ha ha ha !! Even I have to laugh over how stupid you are !!!!!!!!!
“overturned all these unconstitutional laws”
How DARE those peons think that their votes matter !!!
How DARE those southerners think their votes on segregation matters? Haha, we live in a constitutional republic, so you can stick your tyranny of the majority up your ass.
Boy, I say boy, how dare you refer to Californians as Suthernahs!
Awww, is the poor conservative all sad? I love it when you guys lash out like that, let’s me know I’m doing something right. Please, froth some more, it’s highly amusing.
C’mon, Seth, you’re troll-feeding now?
Just let them froth and die on their own time.
You’re right. Sigh. I should take my own advice on forgiveness…
But your LOLness was through the roof! We fairness addicts miss a lot of chances at great humor. Like a good stretch, a little flame throwing is good, once in a while.
Al- leave the little gay boy alone- you’ll make him cry !
Aww, more sad conservatives, licking their wounds and trying to figure out why they are no longer relevant. How funny. You really are making my day, thanks!
Seth you know Bob and his minions are don’t deal with facts well.
Jellybean?
?? I don’t get it. I’m not the person that used to come on here calling themselves Jellybeans and if there’s another reference, I’m afraid I’m missing it.
I have no idea who used my name there, but could they please stop it?
This has been a polite request…
Not sure where the comment I just made went, but I have no idea what the significance of ‘Jellybean’ is, other than as a sweetmeat..
So, whoever that ‘Uncle Fester’ is, it is not the genuine one… that would be the pompous arse typing this…
Maybe I should be doubly confused now? At any rate, it’s usually bob who hijacks id’s, but it’s the second time someone posted, as Fester the word Jellybean to me. No idea why as I am quite comfortable in my own ID. I don’t need anyone else’s. Nor do I think that person has any desire to use mine, as she was fine sharing her own opinions on her own id. Bob apparently has more multiple personalities than usual.
WTF does ‘jellybean’ mean?
This caption has the longest quote trees I’ve ever seen in my life.
Good lord people!
This is my favorite caption so far…
Mr. Burns
*Excellent…….*
I just lol’d at myself for only now realizing what the sign just to the right said. I saw a comma there for awhile:
Don’t Legislate, Hate!
So, anyone feel like making a joke about Prop 8 detractors bombing Mormon churches? Or is that too controversial? Guess it’d be better to go with another joke about the parentage of the grandchild of a former VP candidate. Much more relevant. (Incidentally, what are we going to do for lols after Obama is inaugurated? Two or three more years of “lol bush/palin is stupid” ones? Those are already older than McCain.)
lol mccain is old
i’m confused… there are a few pictures here which show people with picket signs AGAINST gay marriage (SAME -SEX MARRIAGE IS A GRIM ACT OF REBELLION AGAINST GOD), but there are people behind them with signs that sound like they’re SUPPORTING gay marriage (DON’T LEGISLATE HATE; I LOVE, THEREFORE I AM)… could anyone explain?
They could be different factions picketing the same courthouse, etc.
it looks like it’s both types of people protesting/demonstrating
some for and some against gay marriage
It looks like freedom of speech in action.
I came across this.
The Devils Dictionary defines a bigot as someone who stubbornly holds on to an opinion, that you do not agree with
Whenever one part of our society resorts to intimidation, defamation or violence to silence dissenting opinions from their own, it is called “tyranny.”
Some would use the true principle of tolerance as a gag to silence dissenting opinions. By redefining anything they do not agree with as “bigoted” and “intolerant” they justify intimidation, defamation or violence.
This “tyranny of tolerance” does not accept that tolerance is fundamentally bilateral and cannot exits if it does not apply both directions, for all involved. We will likely never come to accept each others opinions. But that does not justify persecution under the guise of “tolerance” for the purpose of stifling the discourse.
TOLERANCE = The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration. (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance)
BIGOT = A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot)
I believe it is hard to call someone a bigot without becoming one.
Fair enough, I’m completely an unashamedly bigotted against people who wish to strip the rights from their fellow citizens on a matter that does not concern them in the slightest. Luckily tehre is no turning this back – it can be delayed but in time the idea of gays not being able to marry will be as absurd as homosexuality being illegal, blacks using different drinking fountains and women not being able to vote. Even those considered to be on the right of the republican party in future will not argue against it. You can see this shift happening all the time, young evangelicals are increasingly disaffected by the brand of the republican party and the religious right – what kind of political and religious landscape do you think there will be when these young christians are 50, 60, 70 and leading their communities, communities including young people who may even consider the broader horizons of todays young christians astoo narrow and negative?
Gay marriage is in no way, shape or form, ANYTHING like the segregation or suffrage.
I’m not saying I am against gay marriage, I believe they should, but arguments that connect it to the civil rights and suffrage movement are annoying
Civil rights movement-Fighting for the right to not be arrested for sitting at the wrong spot at a diner or on the bus
Suffrage movement-Fighting to give women a voice in politics
Gay marriage: The fight for a little piece of paper that says “your married” on it.
My aunt is a lesbian, and she doesn’t really give a damn if gay marriage laws pass(for or against) because she told me she doesn’t need the states approval to be with her girlfriend
The right to be legally the next of kin of a loved one isn’t like suffrage… the vote is a lot less important than family…
I really don’t think you even try to understand the issues, which as a medical student, one would think that you’d have a grasp of the medico-legal implications… but the right to approve medical treatment isn’t a civil right it seems… nor to be able to claim the body of a loved one, post mortem… after all, the family that rejected them for being gay has just so much more right to decide what is ‘best’ for the individual, how they’re to be buried etc…
Exactly. I may have worded it poorly, but the juxtaposition of marriage with voting rights is ridiculous.
“I believe it is hard to call someone a bigot without becoming one.”
“Whomever goes to fight monsters should take care not to become a monster himself. And when you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.”
In the end one loses the battle to remember what one was before one joined the battle… and it’s a long way back to humanity.
they “justify” violence, huh?
.
.
.
I really think you need to re-read those definitions you posted. Calling bullshit on an obviously bigoted opinion is a tolerant action, according to your definitions.
I love this. Awesome awesome point!
I was actually there that day…the guy must’ve moved from the street corner after I left. As to those who are confused about the nature of this protest, it took place at the old capitol building in Tallahasse, Florida on November 15. It was a protest march against the passing Ammendment 2, and there were a couple people, like the guy pictured, who protested the protest.
hey it’s tallahassee.
574th comment
GEEZ We’re so sick of the guys that come in here and have to shout what number comment they made!! (oh, it wasn’t a FIRST, my bad)
I’d put a smiley, but PK would eat it.
Not even *trying* to read all the posts. (500+ guys? Wow!) But yes, that’s Tallahassee on 11/15/08, and (since I was there, though I’m not in the picture) I can honestly report that the single pro-2 protester somehow managed to co-exist peacefully with us Horrid Ghey Peoples. It was a pretty amazing rally, but I had to give him props for staying as long as he did when he was in such a clear minority. I don’t remember his sign being misspelled, but I admit I wasn’t really looking.
Because it’s a great distraction from the real problems. Get people riled up about Teh Gay Buttsecks and they’ll ignore everything else.
Ya, let’s go with this one.
Going for the Indiana Jones Award for digging up dead threads?
Actually, I hate to admit it but I am more the sidekick in this adventure. Ignatz is the Indy here.
Ummmm, I totally live in the city this picture was taken. That’s all I have to say. That’s the Florida capitol in that picture.
Liberal fail yet again.
Hmm, how so?
LOL! Hilarious picture. And so true, too.
better watch it these darkies might get al sharpton and sue using their race cards saying this pic is racist bwahahaha
This is a bit off-topic, but bear with me, ok?
I am straight and married.
When I was about 8 yrs. old, before I even knew what gay was, I played with my older cousin a lot while my Mom was working. I told my Mom that that he was more of a girly-girl than I was. She shushed me and that was that. I sensed even then that he was somehow different.
Flash-forward.
My cousin has been in a monogomous relationship with his male partner for the last 15 yrs.
I was raised Quaker. Accordingly; I was taught that we are all God’s children and He loves us all equally. That means He loves mass-murderers EXACTLY as much as Mother Theresa. It’s hard to imagine that perfection of love; but there it is. He hates the sin; not the sinner.
He alone can see all things perfectly. That is why He alone is the Judge.
We will ALL be judged for what we do in this life, be it lying, cheating, JUDGING OTHERS, killing or just not loving your neighbor as you do yourself.
That said; this country’s Constitution doesn’t say that all men are created equal EXCEPT FOR GAYS. Therefore, according to our Constitution, my cousin should have all of the same rights that I have; no matter what MY religious beliefs are. If Church and State is supposed to be separate; then it has to be separate. Period.
If you need more to think about; the fusing of religion and government has done WONDERFUL things for Islam, hasn’t it?
“That said; this country’s Constitution doesn’t say that all men are created equal EXCEPT FOR GAYS.” I wanted to die of laughter after you said that.