In late breaking news…
Californians protesting the passing of Proposition 8 have escalated protest tactics.
(The Italian Air Force)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: jratv1
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous So you were here almost eight years… | I’m either going to shake your hand… Next »
» 309 Comments
-
Recent Comments
Catholic and proud o… on Invisible 10 year old boy Catholic and proud o… on Invisible 10 year old boy Catholic and proud o… on Invisible 10 year old boy meglet on CURIOUS GEORGE Catholic and proud o… on Invisible 10 year old boy Default User on Gay or straight… Eddie the Floydist on Gay or straight… KissAdonis on Comixed Extra: The … Eddie the Floydist on TIANANMEN SQUARE Solitaire on Gay or straight… 
Cheezburger Network Blog
*flashes her jazz hands singing, “If you were Gay”*
‘Avenue Q’ Win! Because everyone’s a riddle bit lacist!
The more you rove him, the more you want to kirr him!
Haha, for a second I thought you were talking about the Stephen Lynch song. I had to look it up to find the Avenue Q song.
FABULOUS! And the Pro prop 8 people may have a sense of humor about this one. So it’s a win-win as well.
I doubt it… they’re too busy restricting folks rights ‘democratically’
Oy… the people have spoken, and they’ve said “we’re a bunch of bigoted homophobes.”
Indeed…
It’s pretty funny to hear the pro-prop8 spokesman talk about how “the voters have spoken” in response to the backlash that has ensued considering that many of the same folks sponsored prop 102 in AZ even after the voters spoke in 2006 and voted that crap down. I guess – according to him – only the god-bothering nut-bag voters get to speak twice.
When you don’t get your way, resort to tantrums and name-calling. How adult of you…
You mean, like the African Americans did when they didn’t get their way (at first) with civil rights? They should have just accepted ’separate but equal’ and not thrown those tantrums and called their oppressors names like ‘racist.’ Thankfully, we live in a constitutional Republic, so the tyranny of the majority can go hump a duck. The majority in California can kiss my constitution. See ya in the Supreme Court, losers!
Win!
Not really, the argument isn’t the same, despite what Gay rights supporters wish. actually this argument is a mistake, but Gay rights activists don’t want to hear it.
Fail!
Why, because you know everything? I think not…
Can you please explain why you believe this is a mistaken argument, CF?
stepnerd, I wish this double post would have been here before. Sorry for the late response, see my reply below, if you happen to stop back.
Can you please explain why you think this argument is mistaken, CF?
D’oh
Gay people dont want to hear it?- We have too, because
of doche’s like you who decided your extremely important
opinion (which of course you have no reason to question
cause hey, no ones stopping you from having the same rights!)
is more important than people’s own choices.
You can feel however you like, but whatever two
concenting adults want to do with there life, is NONE of your
snotty, self-rightous business.
Go ahead say it, make it out like YOUR the one hard done by in
all this, damn gays just wont shut up. =x
^^
thats a reply to Charlie Foxtrot btw
read my comment below, dipshit.
PK grabbed my original response to your rant. Too bad, because you are moronic.
Bravo! I give you a perfect 10 on the High Jumping to Conclusions event. Too bad you only got a 4 from the Swedish judge. I think you’re still in the running for a medal though.
Sure. Race is clearly defined without dispute. Pursuing a genetic context for homosexuality is dubious and irrevelent since it ignores the power of behavioral responses. A lifetime of behavioral responses is just as difficule to change as genetic ones, besides assigning sexuality to geneticas rather than behaviorial responses implies something is wrong about being gay. Regardless of whether someone is gay due to genetics or behavioral responses is the wrong arguement… The government has NO right to interfere in our choices. Additionally, the first amendment explicitly states the government cannot promote on religious belief over another. The ONLY argument against full gay rights is religious. Gays have as much right to legal couple protection as any other American, i don’t get why gays are so hung up on calling it “marriage” but hey, if you really want to achieve equality in an event that is less than 50% successful, go for it.
Thank you, that was much clearer. Would it kill you to do that first? I know you like throwing out random statements and watching people scramble to figure out your meaning, but with you working on the shed it takes you too long to come back and clarify these days. Now people just think you’re crazy, and I’m the only one who has the right to do that.
We all have the right to think CF is crazy, Jane – your conclusion is just better informed!
@CF – Thanks for the explanation!
stepnerd, you are welcome, I did really intend to come back sooner, but as Jane noted, i was preoccupied. However feel free to acknowledge my insanity, she may have insider knowledge, but not exclusive rights…everyone is free to remind me of my looniness… well except for the resident trolls — but we all know who they are.
ummmmm just pointing out, that in a gay marriage the partner is not currently considered a dependent and they therefore each need their own insurance
equal rights? my arse
also, separation of church and states
so basiaclly your argument boils down to….
black people are black… gay people might be gay…
ummm so?
just so you realize, that makes no sense, its not like anyones gonna say they are gay to be married, first of all, they would have to be marrying someone of the same sex, second of all, why the fuck do you care, its not like it will affect you
What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the post? He didn’t say he was against Gay marriage, he was saying that in his opinion using the genetics argument implies that there is something wrong with being gay and that it would be a more successful argument if they said the government has no right to interfer in our CHOICES especially in light of the fact that the only argument against homosexuality is a religious one, and the government has no business mixing religion and laws. He finished off by taking a jab at the 50% divorce rate and saying he didn’t know why gay people would want a part of that, but more power to them if they did. Reading for meaning, it’s a lost art.
*too nameless* What?
the reason we want it called marriage is because the only thing we can regularly get is a civil union – which is minus more than a thousand of the federal rights afforded to married couples.
On a general note, this (civil unions versus marriage) doesn’t even count as a separate but equal institution because it doesn’t even pretend to be equal.
I can’t speak for gays as a whole, but lesbians are, on average, more faithful in long-term relationships than even heterosexual couples. If you remove gay men from the statistic, same-sex marriage might bring up the statistic on the longevity of marriage, lol
But calling it ‘marriage’ doesn’t get you the federal rights either; ask any Massachusetts gay couple.
Please tell me how gay rights in NO WAY correspond to African American rights or the rights of ANY American?
I was born here, I will die here, I pay taxes here and so do my family. Why do i deserve EXCLUSION? Why do you feel it’s okay to keep me from having the same blessings you might have received?
Please read above argument
Poster above wins.
total win. =) Props for you, my friend.
Nicely done! Your pundit-fu is superior.
I want to gay sex you for that awesome comment, but you seem to be a guy. Dildo teims?
You mean like ’socialist’, ‘Marxist’, ‘Arab’ or ‘Terrorist’?
I’m still waiting for a reason that Prop 8 was good without invoking Christian values…
I gave one to you already. You simply refused to accept it.
Let me make this clear, I DO NOT oppose gay marriage, and I DO NOT equate gays with pedophiles, polygamists etc. But if one form of marriage outside of “One Man, One Woman” is to be recognized, why should any others be outlawed? Promoting the rights of one minority group while restricting another doesn’t make much sense.
I truly believe you don’t really give a damn about equal rights, you just want an excuse to tell people “your god is imaginary)
“But if one form of marriage outside of “One Man, One Woman” is to be recognized, why should any others be outlawed?”
Surely this argument also applies to heterosexual marriages? If one form of marriage is to be recognized, etc?
If you can’t make an argument against homosexual marriage, just give up, don’t try to change it to an augment against marrying a chair.
I wasn’t making an argument against homosexual marriage. I was saying why it may be logical. I even explicitly stated That I am NOT against it.
Your argument is circular. You say if one form, other than the “one form” that you approve of that is. Second, no one said anything about imaginary gods, except, of course you. According to your logic, your God is supreme, the Gay guy, or Gals is not? Talk about making someone else’s God imaginary…Your problem, and the problem of all who cry about “marriage is only between a Man and a Woman” crowd is that you really don’t believe in religious freedom.\, therefore, you really don’t support the Constitution of the USA.
I’m sorry dad but… what?
That’s right!
I think Charlie’s trying to say that his points only lead into one
giant, annoying circle. Stating what constitutes a marriage by religion
brings you around to who’s God is right, which in turn brings about
to the whole separation of church and state, which brings us around
to which types of marriage should be legal, which brings about the
declaring what a marriage is according to religious turns…
which then leads BACK to who’s god is right.
Basically I think he’s saying that to bar one marriage from happening
by using God as your shield spits in the eye of the idea that
the constitution gives us religious freedom… which grants us
the right to wed whomever we want, despite what the Christian
god says is right…….
Right Charlie?
Except I didn’t say anything Charlie says I did.
Well you did… and how you cant see that is why you’re so lost
as to why everyone keeps shooting you down.
i totally thought he was trying to use the “slippery slope” argument. you know, which if it’s real, means i can finally marry my cat and quite this whole “gay” charade i’ve had going for the past 8 years. we all know it’s just a gateway marriage plan right? RIGHT?!
No, I don’t think Matthew ever brought religion into it. I think what he’s trying to say is if we open up “marriage” beyond one man + one woman, are we ready to accept one man + 4 women, or other nonstandard marriages? (and before you flame me, I happen to be gay and wishing I could marry.)
.
I also think he’s trying to say it’s not gay marriage he’s against, but perhaps the way it’s been enacted. However, while I don’t know the details of the rulings in CA, I think the above, valid, argument should easily be outmaneuvered with “any two consenting adults.”
.
And why should we allow an exception for gays but not polygamists? Well, a large number of Americans is beginning to accept homosexuality as a biological fact, whereas we see polygamy as a cultural choice. Maybe someday down the line this will change. But probably not in our lifetimes.
whoops, didn’t realize the conversation went on below. Well, now, don’t I just look the oblivious ninny.
CAT MARRIAGES FOR EVERYONE.
W00T!
Thanks Max, I need you as a translator, even my daughter can’t figure me out that well. BTW sorry for the late response, hope someone actually reads this.
Its read, and you’re welcome. I get like that, towards the end
of my shift… its why I stop posting at about that time.
Seriously. I have said about a million times now I DO NOT OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE!!!!
I was speaking of society as whole generally thinks of marriage as between a man and a woman. That is the traditional marriage. And read anything Uncle fester wrote. It’s not about equality, it’s about how the Christians are using this ban as a tool of oppression
yes yes society as a whole generally thinks of marriage as between one man and one woman… now. They used to think of marriage as between one man and many women then laws changed and so did society’s perception so society as a whole began to think of marriage as between one man and one woman of the SAME race of course . But again laws changed and now we have the updated new traditional definition of marriage where society as whole generally thinks of marriage as between any man and any woman. You see what happens there? the classic definition of things changes to extend the same rights and freedoms to minorities it’s called “progress”.
If we kept things the same in the name as “tradition” only white male landowners would be able to vote after all that is the “traditional” way our government worked.
Also quit complaining about fester saying Christians are using this ban as a tool of oppression because they are, they make no secret of it and they have no logical arguments for there position other then there antiquated book of desert scribblings tells them its icky.
Its really ignorant to assume that of all of christiani
ty(sorry posted early, idk why) I am a christian, And I want you to really read what I wrote, and see how I never once said i did not approve of it. I simply offered an explanation as to why some lawmakers may feel the need to ban gay marriage. I really dont understand why that is so complex.
We keep railing you over the issue because you say “Im not opposed
to gay marriage, but they shouldnt be allowed to marry”
Why is THAT so complex to understand?
Fine, MF, we get it, you’re actually all happy and fine with gays getting married and all this back and forth has been devil’s advocacy on your part. We get it.
You’re still talking out both ends of your digestive tract.
maybe he just plays a bigot on Tv?
Matthew, despite what others here have said, I think I understand the point you are trying to make. I just think it’s getting lost in translation though.
-
To everyone bagging on MF, it almost sounds like people are trying to put words in his mouth. The way I read his post was that if gay marriage is to be recognized, then why shouldn’t all of the other ‘non-acceptable’ forms of union be accepted as well (such as polygamy, bigamy, etc.)
-
By all means correct me if I’m wrong though..
THANK YOU! Someone who gets it. IT is very true that they simply put words in my mouth and project on to me what they want me to say. I do not oppose gay marriage, but contrary to what maxwell believes, i never once said I opposed it. (this about the millionth time ive said this) I simply offered an explanation, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE LAW MAKERS, as to why they may justify this ban
Actually giving a damn about what others have to say, WIN!
I think we stopped reading at paedophile marriage, since that is not a consenting adult relationship.
Now Matthew, you have finally explained your thoughts. Trust me I know how to confuse others while trying to make a statement, read string above.
That logic states we should abolish all marriage and I already told you why we don’t do polygamy in another thread.
so if gay marriage is recognised, so too should other forms be? there’s only a few other possibilities, all of which WOULD adversely affect society, unlike gay marriage.
other than man-woman and man-man/woman-woman combos, there’s polygamy, this is a bit of a grey area, but could adversely affect society if it doesn’t balance out over multiple marriages.
adult-child, again, not an option given children cannot consent.
last one i can think of is adult-animal. well you’ve already stated you don’t equate gays with polygamy or paedophilia, so are you pro-bestiality?
Last time I checked, Paedophilia is blanket illegal and singularly unsavoury and non consensual. Polygamy, I have no issue with, if you can make it work then more power… it would make the tax break interesting, but since we don’t have any tax break in the UK for marriage at all, I don’t care how many people are involved, long as it’s consenting adults.
So, one is just a straw man, the other no one has told me why polygamy is ‘bad’ either…
Technically isn’t bad but it would screw the tax break system to all hell and back as far as marriages go. Especially when there wouldn’t be a defined limit as to how many can actually gain from the breaks and let alone how the divorce proceedings would go considering that some might want to just one of a married tax entity and… Ow, I hurt my head thinking all the permutations.
Because polygamy increases the chance of co-sanguine relations. It also leads to things like harems of wives, which seems pretty degrading to women.
Also, I’ve heard of guys who just have their wives work for them while they sit back and collect the loot. Personally I’ve always found the idea of a hive or serial marriage interesting. Robert Heinlein wrote about them in several of his books and he thought that it was one way that the institution of marriage would change in the future. I’m not sure if they could be made to work at the current level of social mores though.
Heinlein was a randy old perv. Wrote some great SF though.
There are men that marry a single woman to control and abuse her. I can see where polygamy would cause problems socially as there are many that cant handle a single marraige much less multiple, however in theory each wife would consent to being part of this group. Women would also have the chance for multiple husbands, so it isn’t necissarily degrading because they are getting the choice to join, or make their own “man harem” >.>
~
I think i’m with uncle fester on the idea that if you can make it work all the power to you. If you are bullying, abusing, or making life miserable for said husbands or wives then no marraige for you. just like a man that bullys and abuses his wife (or vise versa but you hear about it less) they no longer get to be married to that person.
Who said I thought it was one man – many wives… far as I’m concerned folk should be able to sort their own damned lives out, with the legal support ot ease inheritance and power of attorney (esp in medical choices and disposal of a loved one).
As to giving people tax bens to marry. Now, that’s insane. Always thought so I don’t see I should fund anyone to be married other than me, nor would I care to fund other folks tribe of simian visaged offspring. IF people want to treat the family womb as a clown car, then more power to them. However, I don’t see why I should fund them per head they pop out…
Yeah, our society is having a hard time adjusting to the fact that our species does NOT need to worry about propagation any more. Really, we non-breeders should get a tax break for easing the strain on our resources.
.
That sounds like a nice add-on to a green policy bill. Oh, Mr. Obama…!
I’ve never understood the attraction of polygamy. Keeping ONE woman happy is hard enough for most guys.
“the other no one has told me why polygamy is ‘bad’ either…”
Because I’d have to cook for somewhere between two and ten husbands? Oh, wait, that’s polyandry.
Never mind.
True… my Greek fail
If you have that many husbands, surely at least 2 or 3 of them are able to cook their own darned selves?
*Generally*, when a society has polyandry, it is a more egalitarian society, so the idea that “cookin’ is woman’s work” foesn’t so much apply.
Polyandry, like polygyny, is a form of polygamy.
Actually, in the US we tax married couples more heavily than singles, if they have no children. Strange, but true.
“I gave one to you already. You simply refused to accept it.”
Well, let’s look at your reason then, Matthew. Just because you’ve provided a reason doesn’t mean it’s an acceptable one, otherwise you could have just come back with “because jellyfish don’t have toenails,” and even though it makes absolutely no sense, it can’t be discounted as a reason, once presented as one.
“Let me make this clear, I DO NOT oppose gay marriage, and I DO NOT equate gays with pedophiles, polygamists etc. But if one form of marriage outside of “One Man, One Woman” is to be recognized, why should any others be outlawed? Promoting the rights of one minority group while restricting another doesn’t make much sense.”
I suppose we can go ahead and address this one:
Why not? Rather than arguing the evils of polygamy, I’ll just say that until you can prove to me some of the evils of polygamy, as far as I’m concerned we can legalize that as well. And if you CAN prove that polygamy is a net social ill, then we can keep it off the books and *still* proceed with gay marriage unless you can prove that gay marriage promotes the same evils.
And keep in mind, this has to be a bad idea for more than the family involved – people jump into marriages that are bad for themselves and their future offspring all the time, and the state doesn’t legislate to stop them. It doesn’t have to be outlawed just because it’s a bad idea – part of freedom is the freedom to make some poor choices.
If there are forms of marriage other than polygamy you want to bring into this, I’ll have to ask you to name them in detail and we can discuss or not each form includes any reason it should not be validated by law.
I never said anything was wrong with polygamy. Personally I can’t deal with more than one woman lol. I never said anything was wrong with gay marriage.
What I said was this: From the point of view of the legislators, why should one group of minorities benefit while one does not. I never supported that, I simply observed it as a probable cause for laws against gay marriage to go on the books. It is not my personal belief, It is my guess as to why such a law would be allowed
I really don’t think I can make this any clearer
What other group of minorities are you referring to?
Polygamists, The term isn’t pedohile, but the situation where say someone is 16 and their lover is 26. I’ve seen it, they were both consenting, I know it sounds crazy. Minorites in thic case referring to groups of people who’s desired marriage is not legal
If nothing is wrong with polygamy, then its use as an example for the argument against gay marriage is fallacious – it’s just using one prejudice to justify another.
As for the 26-year-old and the 16-year-old, there are other issues there. The rights being limited are those of a minor, whose rights and choices are limited as a matter of legal protection – as you said, we have to draw the line somewhere. Minors are not given full rights and privileges until they reach the age of majority because they are not considered fully responsible for their actions until that time. The question isn’t whether the teenagers are an oppressed minority, but at what age the full rights and responsibilities of adulthood are given to an individual. No matter the sincerity of theur relationship, the younger partner would have to be able to enter into a legally binding agreement before the marriage could take place. In any case, the difference here is the potential for the exploitation of a minor.
Gay marriage (and polygamy, come to that) don’t have this problem, so it seems to me that the line has already been drawn. While it may not be the best situation for everyone, if the happy couple can tough it out for two years, they get the option to marry.
Yes they should. That’s what I am saying. I offered a possible explanation why some lawmakers may feel the need to ban gay marriage, and i explicitly stated a few times that I did not agree with it, it may be thier reasoning though
You know, people who aren’t gay should STFU about this issue unless they have some meaningful insight to bring. A lot, like I think men should never debate abortion since none of us have ovaries. I don’t think straight guys (I’m assuming here…) should debate gay marriage like they know WTF they are talking about. So please, quit trying to outsmart each other with “logic bombs” and STFU. This is a human issue, with a human face, and you two sound like morons debating an issue that niether affects you, nor it seems that you know anything about. You both sound like pompous asses trying to PWN each other into internet submission and as an unapologetic faggot, it offends me to read this drivel. Charlie, Ema, Froofrou, DWN and others on this site, this doesn’t really apply to you.
The 16-26 thing is more of less down to state
Age of consent in the UK is 16. Thus I could at least tupp a 16 year old. although I’d find the post coital conversation severely limited
Interesting things about UK law
You can have sex at 16
You can legally smoke and join the army at 17
You can legally watch a film of someone *doing* what you were doing legally from the age of 16, get drunk, and vote on the govt that can send you to war at 17 only when you’re 18
I doubt the former colonies are any better organised on that front
Sorry in advance for the lack of profundity in this post, but you all seem to have it handled excellently.
My question is, if one of these 16-year-olds made a sex tape and watched it, would that be illegal? Or is just that the sale of porn to people under the age of 18 is a no-no?
Uncle Fester gave me another good piece to my argument. If a British man were to have a wife, age 16, that is legal in the UK. However it would not be legal in the United States. If homosexual marriage were to be recognized, shouldnt the right to marry his lady of 16 be observed if he were to move to the states? (hypothetically speaking)
Once again, I am not against gay marriage, I simply feel like offering an explanation form the point of view of lawmakers why they would justify the ban(I really need to stress that, It doesn’t seem to be going through)
Well Kuromisa, It is illegal to possess any pornographic materials of anyone under 18, no matter how old the owner is. True story: my little brother is in junior high, and one of the cheerleaders of said junior high had a nude pic of herself on her cellphone,it got sent to a couple of her classmates. They all got in trouble for possessing child pornography
What? Massive logic fail! That’s…wow. Wow.
Yah its twisted. Luckily my little brother did not get sent that pic
As far as I’m aware, a putative marriage to 16 year old girl would be recognised if it was enacted in the UK, between UK citizens, and then they went to the US.
I’m pretty certain that John Barrowman’s (41) civil partnership to his long term partner Scott Gill (40) would not be recognised.
Interestingly he dislikes the word ‘marriage’ due to its baggage.
“Why would I want a ‘marriage’ from a belief system that hates me?”
well hypothetically speaking, suppose they became U.S citizens?
I have no idea. The US has no Federal standard, so lets see
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland , Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming all have 16 as the age of consent.
So how do you deal with married 16 year olds crossing a state line?
Wow Uncle Fester! I guess I can go back to High School!!!
If you’re 18 in New York, South Carolina, Iowa, Indiana, Colorado or Arkensas, you can screw as young as 14/15
I’m in NY state and i don’t think that that’s true about being able to have consenting sex with 14/15. They might go lighter on you in the statuatory category, but they don’t just let it slide, esp if the parents pursue charges.
Since I appear to be the one engaged in debate tactics, I’ll assume this was aimed at myself and Matthew Fitzhenry.
i_tego_arcana_dei
“You know, people who aren’t gay should STFU about this
issue unless they have some meaningful insight to bring.
A lot, like I think men should never debate abortion since
none of us have ovaries. I don’t think straight guys
(I’m assuming here…) should debate gay marriage like they
know WTF they are talking about. So please, quit trying to
outsmart each other with “logic bombs” and STFU. This is a
human issue, with a human face, and you two sound like
morons debating an issue that niether affects you, nor it
seems that you know anything about. You both sound like
pompous asses trying to PWN each other into internet
submission and as an unapologetic faggot, it offends me to
read this drivel. Charlie, Ema, Froofrou, DWN and others on
this site, this doesn’t really apply to you.”
You’re right, i_tego_arcana_dei, you ARE assuming here.
So let’s clarify a few things: You do not know anything about me, and you do not know anything about my situation. You do not know how personally this issue affects me or my loved ones. So, while we’re discussing whether people should shut up about issues they don’t really know about, I’d like to suggest that my personal life and experience fall into that category.
Now on to the meat of your objection. I’m not sure what you mean by “logic bomb.” Nor am I sure how exactly you’d *prefer* I present my arguments here, nor how you’ve come to the conclusion that I have no knowledge of the issue. While I’ll own the label of “pompous ass,” and even accept that my attempts to rationally defend gay marriage only amount to “drivel,” I’d argue that despite that my tone and attitude thus far has been less insulting than your own.
I’d apologize for the offense, only I’m not really sure what I did to offend, and since you’ve chosen to take payment in kind with this little tirade, I’d call us even. But hey, this is the internet, and punditkitchen is devoted to political mockery. All things considered, I’d suggest that you develop thicker skin.
But, for the sake of argument, would you have felt the same if I were also an “unapologetic faggot”? If I lived in a state that had just been denied gay marriage rights or just been granted them? If that change had any effect on the lives and futures of myself or those I care about? For that matter, how far do you think this issue is going to get if the gay-friendly straights don’t weigh in?
i_tego_arcana_dei:
“You know, people who aren’t gay should STFU about this issue unless they have some meaningful insight to bring. A lot, like I think men should never debate abortion since none of us have ovaries. I don’t think straight guys (I’m assuming here…) should debate gay marriage like they know WTF they are talking about. So please, quit trying to outsmart each other with “logic bombs” and STFU. This is a human issue, with a human face, and you two sound like morons debating an issue that niether affects you, nor it seems that you know anything about. You both sound like pompous asses trying to PWN each other into internet submission and as an unapologetic faggot, it offends me to read this drivel. Charlie, Ema, Froofrou, DWN and others on this site, this doesn’t really apply to you.”
I’m assuming this is aimed at myself and Matthew Fitzhenry.
That being said, I had a long post in response to this, but it disappeared when I tried to postit, so I’ll try again with something shorter: STFU
For someone who takes exception to people who don’t know what they’re talking about, you seem pretty comfortable doing it. You know nothing of my situation, or what this issue means to me. If I were a fellow “unapologetic faggot” with a personal stake in the gay marriage issue, would you have responded the same way? What if I had a gay friend or family member who has been personally affected by recent events? What if I’m a closet case? How far do you expect to get if the gay-friendly straights aren’t allowed to weigh in?
I’ll accept that I’m a pompous ass. I’ll accept that my attempts to rationally refute arguments against same-sex marriage rights amount to drivel, and that I sound like a moron doing it. But I don’t think that any of that really justifies your response; your objection seems to be that you assume I’m an ignorant straight guy dropping “logic bombs” instead of a personally-involved gay guy making a “human” argument, but you haven’t really pointed out anything wrong with what I was saying.
This is always an extremely stupid argument. Marriage as it currently stands is a legally binding contract between consenting adults. Children can not enter into that. To further, the legal frame work is currently built for two. This is called a slippery slope fallacy with little to no actual reasonable conjecture.
It’s not even Christian. It’s exclusionist and elitist. As soon as any government tries to be non-secular, the religion in power immediately asserts itself and maes the “lesser” people suffer for decades and even centuries.
By “way” do you mean “unalienable rights”?
And the people also spoke and said “We want a president who’s a Marxist and will destroy this country” .
Who isn’t a Marxist in any shape that anyone who’s looked even briefly at Das Kapital would recognise, only some Joe McCarthy bullcrap…
No, the people spoke and said they didn’t want moronic right-ing Megadorks running the country anymore.
Ahem. I don’t think anyone can complain about the democrats being socialist after bailing out several companies to the tune of 700 billion. Sorry.
Yup, pretty sure that’s what the ballot said on it…
President choices:
“McCain/Palin”
“Marxist Countrydestroyer”
What color is the sky in your world? It happens to be blue here.
that was @ ck
Lets have a vote to see if Uncle Fester should shut up.
Sometimes, but not usually.
Hey look, another attempt to legislate away somebody’s rights. Will this be the ongoing Republican strategy for the foreseeable future?
I’m not American; I have the right to be imprisoned without legal representation, shipped to the Former Soviet Bloc and worked over by Ex-Stasi men who now work as US Govt sub-cos…
Ah, well, obviously you have no rights… never mind that hullabaloo about “all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.” That was just boilerplate.
I enumerated my rights… The right to be worked over with a rubber hose and water boarded…
In bed. Preferably with a jar of honey and an eager Great Dane ;>
and a monk fish stretched around my privy member…
*wince*
…
Double wince. Ever seen a monkfish? Ugly suckers, second only to ling cod. Darn tasty, though.
Dunno if you are trolling or not, but here goes: what Uncle Fester says seems to be the actual written law in the USA. If you are not a citizen of the “Shining City on the Hill”, and a few people (really, it only takes one, the president) decide you might be associated with a terrorist organization, your rights are forfeited, regardless of where in the world you are. Or how flimsy the evidence against you is.
Now, that IS Stalineque by even the most Uncle Joe Friendly standard.
I don’t know n8. Uncle Fester, although obviously liberal (so I can’t fault him for that) told me my opinion was worthless just because I asked him (respectfully) to stop harassing froofrou so much, so I’m not sure I’d consider him the victim of anything.
Why, thank you for telling my my politics… I’d not have known otherwise.
And as to worthless opinions… If you can defend Madam ‘Kill them all, God shall know his own’ with a straight face, then forgive me for thinking you’re a pretty poor judge of character.
Yea, well then just say what you think and move on, you seem to get a certain amount of pleasure on torturing people on here.
I’ll defend her too. Not her ideas necessarily, but her character. She means well, Fester. Trolls, you can beat up on. Good-hearted but (IMHO) misguided people should be treated with respect. Defending other regulars, even those who don’t think like you do, is part of the culture of Pundit Kitchen. I like it. Sure, I got yelled at too, when I first stormed in here all piss and vinegar, but I took a step back, saw what was going on, and said, ‘hey, that’s actually refreshing.’ And guess what? I bet if you are nice to froofrou and ema and the other conservative regulars here, they’ll be nice right back and you’ll be forgiven for being a jerk. I was. If you want a liberal echo chamber with no dissenting opinions, DailKos is nice. If you want a place with a kind community of intelligent people who will challenge your ideas respectfully, look no further. Just play nice with the locals.
took me a little while to learn that
Well… don’t go TOO soft, we’d get bored.
You should be Bizarro Seth, that’d be fun!
I have yet to actually change either way for better or worse. O_O
That’s ’cause you’re perfect just the way you are!
Ooooh, careful. That kind of talk gets you places, my ego is way too much like a puppy.
And continuing on in this loving fashion Im going to ask
Who wants to be first to have a mustache ride!?
Bizarro Seth? HOw so? lol
Seth… by my accounts, I’m not a liberal… so please, unless you fancy a war, stop telling me my god damn politics…
Well, Unc, to be fair…you are in the UK. The Overton window has shifted so badly to the right here in the Colonies that your moderately conservative looks like our centre-left.
That was great, Seth! And coming from someone who used to get flamed on a regular basis by the Republicans, that’s saying a lot. You certainly have earned my respect, as well as numerous others here of the non-conservative mindset.
Seconded. I was a little nervous about posting here at first, but everyone’s so nice (well, the regulars are, anyway) that I come back every day at least once to read, even if I don’t post anything. What can I say? I love you guys!
This “place” has changed enormously in the few months I’ve been reading it. I used to have to stop reading and go to another site b/c nobody was actually reading others’ arguments. For that matter, there was mostly emotional talking points and unsupported statements of “fact.”
.
I’m quite impressed that this forum seems to have *risen*, rather than being overrun by the lowest common denominator (as I have seen on some other shall-remain-nameless sites around here.) And I’ve actually–gasp!–learned some things!
I don’t require all my friends to have the same opinion as me. That makes for a boring world. I NEVER defended her stance on the death penalty, I defended her right to say her opinion without being attacked. I don’t expect everyone on here to play nice all the time, but when you consistantly respond to a person’s posts with insults instead of arguments you lose your credibility on both sides, which is exactly what I told you. You chose to lash out with more insults.
She has every right to the opinion, I agree. I have every right to think she ’s a blue arsed barbarian for having them, and pointing it out.
Sauce for the Goose etc
and tell me, what ‘intelligent’ response is there to ‘Kill them all, let god sort them out’? You tell me…
Because all of your posts have been reasonable and non inflammatory? We grade school teachers tend to tell our students that two wrongs don’t make a right. Not to mention that you didn’t just argue with her on that one issue, you started insulting her several threads before that and kept jumping on her posts with insults, even when someone was responding to her, you jumped on their post to say, “yeah well froofrou…” and followed with an insult. When I said, quite nicely btw, to lay off, you lashed out at me. This is the behavior of a spoiled child, not an intelligent reasonable adult. If that’s what you want for yourself then fine, we’ll consider you in the same category as megabob/miner/magnum from now on.
Teachers always play the nagging surrogate mommy on the internet.
Nah…not always.
This one happens to be charming, smart, and witty, so you should count yourself lucky!
Cause its such a damn shame when teachers, who hold a majority
of the burden (unrightfully so) of educating kids, start to act like
they care about other people and try to get them to straighten up
and fly right… am I correct?
Who is this ‘we’? The royal we? Some sort of informal group who are ariters of taste on who can and can not be called an idiot for holding dumb ass opinions.?
Well, I can think of one…kill em and see if they were right!
I have to agree with you there Jane… Didn’t care for the continued attacks on froofrou.
I second that emotion!
Third
Is this where some random troll shows up and accuses us of a circle
jerk?
It’s that sort of friendliness that caused Bob to post porn last time. (along with pity for his pathetic hide)
OK, posting porn is just stupid… the sign of a severe lack of, well, any redeeming feature at all…
I heard there was a circle jerk? (unzips) I’m in.
Fourth!
Seriously? You are going to blame the Republicans solely for this one? Wow… from what the vote was, I have a hard time believing that there weren’t more than a few Democrats in on it as well. Time to remove your head from your backside and take a look around. We are talking about California of all places.
California “of all places” is rather more diverse politically than most people think. You’ve got the fairly liberal major coastal population centers – but even there, San Diego is more conservative – but the interior of the state including the capital are shaded more to the red. Also, a lot of the blue on the coast his hispanic, a population that trends progressive economically but more conservative on social issues.
True. People think the same about NY. While NYC tends to lean quite blue, as well as in a few of the other metro areas, like parts of rochester, a lot of the state is rural and tends to be a bit conservative. I’m of the opinion that the rural conservatives are voting against their best interests with the way the republican party has become so skewed towards religious wingnuts and greedy corporatists, but there’s no convincing them otherwise. The thing with NY though, is that in presidential races, NYC has the heaviest population, with as many people in that area (or more) than there is in the entire rest of the state. What NYC says, goes. I’m lucky to live in a tolerant county for the most paart, but even my family is dyed in the wool conservative. We’ve had a few “chats” this election cycle.
Of course, our supposedly democratic governor(we didn’t elect him, he’s spitzer’s leftovers) has just proposed ways to close the state’s budget gaps by cutting funding to Education and healthcare. It’s all screwed up. It’s in my link if anybody is interested.
Awww, gimmie a big wet kiss Cobra Joe… you can slip me the tongue and cop a feel…
Awww, gimmie a big wet kiss Cobra Joe… you can slip me the tongue and cop a feel…
OOOh! lookit that! I offered it up twice… It’s his just rough handed manliness that gets me all a fluster…
Oh, you don’t know how rough handed I can be
Ugh, furries…
How very dare you! I’m lovely and smooth…
Foo. There goes my fantasy. I like ‘em with some fur.
I have a beard… but that’s just to tickle the bollocks…
Now, where’s Cobra Joe?
Can I watch?
Hell, I’m videoing it!
Tickling the bollocks while videoing…damn, you’ve got talent.
Prehensile toes….
Or a tripod
and you can interpret that anyway you want.
you know of another way to pull focus?
I’m here!
I don’t know how this started…
But I like it!
Micro-evolution NOT Macro.
*eyes grow really wide and starts to back away slowly*
… what have I started here.
Roy G. Biv fail? lol
I was wondering when the Pride flag changed to red, white and green. After they give you the toaster, they suck at keeping you updated…
WIN
GAY!
Really Stupid & Really GAY!
_______________________
A Total Waste of Electrons!
I agree. Oh wait, you were talking about the pic? I thought you were describing your own post.
Actually the comment was a premonitious precurser to your comeback, as you’re highly predicable there Seth.
Subtlety in trolling EPIC FAIL! I might have to take you downtown to the County
Fail Jail… you know what they make you do in County? Toss the Fail Salad!
He should follow the advice in his name a bit more.
It looks like a signature to me. I’m pretty sure he actually is describing his post.
Jane was referring to how his actual NAME.. or tag, or whatever you want to call
it is “Think First”
His signature is a little bit too ambiguous and therefore, too easy of a target…
It was kind of stupid and somewhat gay. Funny enough though.
…wut?
LOL! Awesome!
I LOL’d hard.
Wouldn’t it be “FAAAAABULOUS!!” ??
I tought it was “FA-BU-LOUS!”
It’s both. It just depends on whether or not hand snaps are involved.
I think it would be more “Faaa-bu-LOUUUUUSSS!!!” *snap and catwalk away*
This is almost getting into a Gay-off…
Is that a challenge?
As camp as I am dear, it wouldn’t be a challenge…
No more “don’t ask, don’t tell”? Honey, because this is a big “tell”.
NICE!
I always favored “Show, Don’t Tell”.
Stupid neo cons~ I wonder if wonder grandma will be out today with her cross? Maybe she’ll get it stuck up her poo poo hole.
With due respect, unless she’s hitting people with it, she’s got every right to protest.
Same as the Phelps posse… and the Freedom Riders have every right to drown them out in counter protest…
Freedom is a lovely thing. But it is simply amazing how many people think ‘freedom’ means “I’m free to do my thing, and you’re free to shut up about it,” or “I have the right to be free from all annoyances.”
I’m a great fan of fairness…
I’m impressed that either of you made any sense out of GLB’s post.
I speak bad typing like a native
Im still boggling over you speaking type… Fingers with little mouths scare me.
I don’t actually exist… I was written by H.P. Lovecraft…
I know she does~ Free speech even for douche bags. Do you really think some is actually going to stick a cross up her ass, not likely but I would still LOLZ over it if they did.
I tried to link to the pic but apparently that gives the site fits. Type in Google Images -> free speech even for douche bags~
What part of democracy do you not understand? I’m disappointed that it passed, but the people have spoken. “Vox populi, vox dei.”
What part of ‘constitutional Republic’ don’t you understand? The people can speak all they like, but the Constitution trumps everything except a 2/3 majority. We’ll be seeing this one in the US Supreme Court. And a big thank you to the kind folks who got this passed, now we’ll have a national ruling that trumps any idiotic state attempt to discriminate. Suckers.
The current Supreme court will actually do something? I somehow doubt they’ll do much… bearing in mind their general politico-religious leanings.
We’ll see. You know, Obama may get to appoint some justices.
I thought they had to die to get rid of them…
I think they can retire voluntarily. We just can retire them.
Is that retire to go fishin’ and gardenin’, or ‘retired’?
I seem to recall hearing that two were in poor health (Ginsburg was one), and Souter wanted to return to the woods of New Hampshire. I could see Ginsburg not wanting to retire while Bush was in office!!
The problem is that the ones getting ready to retire are the left wing of the court. When Obama replaces them with progressives, he’ll only maintain the status quo. We won’t see real movement unless Scalia steps down – he’s around 70, making him the oldest right winger.
Every day for the past eight years, I have earnestly prayed for the continued good health of Mr Justice Stevens.
we can help them retire voluntairily of course
not a good plan though. I’m pretty sure they frown on threating justices
Send Scalia duck hunting with Cheney again.
Problem is when Cheney shoots em, they ain’t dead
Can’t. We can’t make them do it.
I thought the ones heading toward retirement were left-leaning anyway?
I’m not terribly educated on this subject, but according to a news program I was listening to on Air America, the next few justices who are most likely to move on are the liberal ones, not the conservatives. At best, Obama might prevent the Supreme Court from swinging hard right for eight years; then we gotta elect ANOTHER democratic pres to make it more progressive yet. *SIGH* I’ll be an old man before I’m confident of the future of my country.
WHen I was asked if I wanted to be president, I said HELL NO. I want to be a Supreme Court Justice. They get to decide what the constitution means. THAT is power
lol
You, sir, are a great big walking target. *examines the basket of rotten veggies at her feet*
See… this is why I’m an atheist… the howl of the mob is the voice of no god I’d care to follow…
The vox populi is by NO MEANS the vox dei. THe people’s voices are generally raised in clamour for bread & circuses. The voice of god… well, that’s the thing that tells them to do what is right, just & usually not so easy as laying about & wanking.
If it’s not about laying about an wanking, then it’s not a God I’d follow either.
For the most part, the voice of God seems to tell folks who to hate…
No it doesn’t. It just that people misinterpret shit. I’m against prop 8 and all for gay rights but that doesn’t mean that I’m not a Christian. This kind of pigeonholing of ideas/values is what screws up both sides of most political/religious discussions. You’re excluding a whole segment of people who agree with you on political ideas due to your religious/anti-religious ideas and your own bigotry.
Mr. Wholesome FTW!
Thank you! Someone who remembers that the name of God is Love.
Literally. Look up the Hebrew roots.
Yes. Unfortunately, the ones with the loudest voice are the extremist nutjobs though. They are a very vocal minority who wants everybody to think they’re the majority. Hence all the namecalling. Also unfortunately, fundamentalism is growing.
You forgot the other important function of the voice of God: telling you who to give money to.
(southern preacher voice) “Does god deserve a circular driveway? I SAID, does God deserve a circular driveway? YES HE DOES! Does God deserve a new Mercedes? YES HE DOES, and He’s asked me to drive it. So I want you to look DEEP! Look DEEP into your pocketbooks, brothers and sisters…”
“rabble rabble rabble rabble”
>.>
Newsflash – democracy does not mean mob rule. Democracy does not mean 3 cannibals can vote to eat the fourth. How many of the people who have a sudden love for “democracy” when it means a slim majority of voters in one state can strip people of their rights would have agreed on a referendum of whether to attack Iraq in 2003?
I was just thinking that apparently the only person who doesnt understand democracy was BAW him/herself
The fact that the people have voted to remove the rights of part of the population. Even the founding fathers were against democracy for this very reason. Look up “tyranny of the majority” and get back to me.
But isn’t legislating from the bench in favor of a minority (and a small one) just as tyrannical?
Regarding “tyranny of the majority” — you mean, like a slim lead in Congress for either party? Last I checked, it only takes one vote in the Senate to pass or reject a bill…
No matter what decision is made, someone won’t be happy. That’s called “life”, where I come from.
For everyone pissing and moaning about Prop 8, here’s an idea: put together a ballot measure to repeal it. That’s how the process works. If enough people agree with you, it will be overturned, and there will be much rejoicing. It won’t be as much fun as calling someone else names, I understand that, but by all accounts it would be the most legitimate way to settle the issue, no?
Oh come on Uncle Fester hate is a family value~
Not all religious people are whack jobs. Just like that old bitch has the right to wave her cross around “true” christian’s have the right to not be lumped in with the extremist.
Ah the canard of the True ™ Chrisitan… doctrinally, over the widest sample of sects, she’s acing the whole True(tm) Christian thing… so which are you accounting as True(tm)?
Well the opposite of the haters maybe would be a good way to express it? Not all of them are radical whack job haters.
You’ve not read the bible, have you?
I guess I am not getting correlation between the bible saying in two places that gay sex is wrong and giving the green light to be haters? I believe it’s hate the sin love the sinner. Yelling faggot and hateful things doesn’t quite cut it.
It also says in the bible that eating shell fish is abomination. I believe it says slavery is ok. I also believe there is there something about women being property? So what was your point again?
All Old Testament Stuff. In the New Testament, Jesus said that all the laws boiled down to just two. Love God, and Love others as you love yourself. Don’t let the vocal, few, nutjobs sway you.
Perhaps you non nutjobs should maybe be a bit more vocal instead? You
know to show your faith… or prove it.. .or something…
I cannot speak for the rest of the “non nutjobs”, but I personally am a strong believer in the “do not judge lest ye be judged” way of looking at things. I tend to keep my mouth shut and try to show my faith by living as I feel God wants me too. I lurk in here all the time but tend not to post too much because I don’t care to be flamed for being Christian.
I think that most of us that fall in that category tend to try to live out our faith and beliefs, rather than being obnoxious and shouting in people’s faces. And it is impossible to “prove” faith to anyone’s satisfaction. But the nutjobs yell and scream and demand attention – the squeaky wheel and all that.
I won’t get into what defines a “True” Christian, it’s not my place. I will say that my understanding of the Path does not include hatred, discrimination, violence and so on. For many years I referred to myself as a believer, instead of a Christian, because I didn’t want all of the connotations and baggage that often comes with that label. I am a lesbian who married my wife in a Unitarian Universalist Church in Texas. It’s not legal, but we are married in our hearts and souls, and I believe also in God’s eyes.
Nice!~
Ah a fellow Texan
Right but lots of the nut jobs use the old testament that you know?
I think too many take what part suits them out of the bible and leave what doesn’t. Maybe we should call it selective faith?
pretty much yah
In Acts, i believe, Paul had a vision where the Lord instructed him to eat a pig, previously considered unclean. Paul replied “but Lord, that is unclean.” He replied saying that ntohing is unclean that the Lord has created” basically abolishing the old laws regarding clean and unclean animals.
So you’re taking the word of a guy who saw things?
Well, I have seen people quote Neitzeche and other great minds. I am pretty sure anybody who has ever had a thought, saw things at some point. Damn you, now you have me defending Christianity… I will get you for this…
Mad Freddie had syphillis… he didn’t try and sell it as reality, just a rotting brain stem.
Yeah, I couldn’t quite go so far as to defend christianity. I do like some of what Nietzeche though, does that count for anything??
Part of me really believes that all of you have such intolerant and bigoted views toward christianity, because some of them are bigots. So in order to facilitate the reactions you want so your stereotypes can be fulfilled, you attack them.
Hypocrisy WIN
Matthew, as a Christian myself, I can say with all honesty that the perception of Christianity is based on how some present themselves. A case in point is the intolerance some Christians show towards others. You have stated yourself that Jesus said we should “Love our brother as ourself.” When Christians go around proclaiming that “fags will burn in hell”, they are displaying their intolerance. From that display comes the perception that Christians are a bunch of wing-nuts. So while you say that people here are bigoted, the truth is they are reacting to how Christians present themselves.
No, if you read my other posts from other discussions, I have said that FUNDAMENTALISM is dangerous in all religions. I have also defended people’s rights to teach their kids intelligent design as long as it’s at home or in sunday school, and not in public schools. I know most mainstream christians are harmless, and most mean well. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
The only other thing I have said is that Revealed religions, i.e. “by the book” religions, particularly those in the abrahamic tradition (Judaism, christianity,, islam) have become so polluted by the numerous editings by church founders, translations and transcription errors, etc, that they’re almost impossible to determine the original intent anymore. Not to mention, that most of the included “books” were written at a time that was not contemporary with the happenings they represent. They are wholly a man made reconstruction and therefore flawed. I know you may not see the difference, but this is a criticism of the religion itself, not its followers directly. You accuse me of being bigoted about christians.
Ok, I was wrong to go after you minerva. To be fair, you were not the main target in that post. Uncle Fester, who really has had very few valid points and pretty much everything else has been tearing down christians and looking for any excuse to do so. The post which he replied to of min, was a response to GLB’s post about shellfish being unclean to eat. So I explained why that was gone, and the only law is really just to love others and God. And UNcle Fester tells me “So you’re taking the word of a guy who saw things?”
I was addressing some of the issues that were raised with The Christian faith. There is just no reasoning with that (yes, I am about to do this) troll. There I said, no-one else had the guts to call him out as nothing more than a glorified troll
Gay marriage, eh? I was very disappointed when prop. 8 passed. I am not gay, and as far as I’m concerned, I do not know anyone who is gay, but I was still a little upset at the injustice. Sure, this is a democracy, but majority rules should NEVER overwrite the minority rights.
To everyone who voted yes on 8.
When can we vote on the legitimacy of your marriage?
You mean like the people who are on their 4th marriage screaming how dare them gays ruin our marriage? LMAO~ You gotta love it~
If I were married, I’d say today. In another thread I tried to make the point that the major roadblock is the fact that we call it “marriage” in the legal world.
If “marriage” were something recognized only by religious institutions, and “civil union” or “domestic partnership”, “between consenting adults of majority age” were something recognized only in legal terms, then there would be no argument. You could still get married in a church if you like (where you swear to God in front of the Church and all of the assembled that you will stay together “until death do you part”), and it doesn’t mean squat in secular/legal terms until you both sign that civil contract.
Problem solved. If gays want the most hassle-free route to equal status under the law (and there is no legal reason that they should not have it) then the most expedient path is to stop calling it “marriage” under the law. You instantly lose all resistance from any religious groups of concern, because that “threat” is now gone. So long as you continue to call it “marriage”, however, expect the religious argument to continue to be the major source of resistance.
I understand your logic, but since “marriage” is the widely accepted term for this type of union, what you propose still winds up being a “separate but equal” thing in the eyes of many. I didn’t have a church wedding, or even a religious cermony, but consider myself “married.”
All these people saying the people voted and so everyone should just STFU does that mean if the people voted back in slavery lets say you would be ok with that?
Yes, I think some people would be okay with that…
In this fucked up country you’re probably right about that~ What was I thinking?
Both sides are fighting really hard about this. Should gays be allowed to marry? Sure, I listed why the ban may be logical, but it doesn’t affect me in any way if gay marriage is legalized.
This is for all the crazy christians making the rest of us look bad:
Matthew 22: 37-39 “Love the Lord your GOd, with all your heart, mind, soul, this is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is love your neighbor as yourself. ALl of the other Laws hang from these two”
So much hate in those words….
Actually, Matt, this is exactly why I left the church years ago. I read things like that in the bible, but the pentecostal church only wants to spend their sermons talking about how much they’re better than the sinners who aren’t in church with them. No love for their neighbors at all.
Major churches suck. I attend a small, redneck style church. We are few in numbers, but that is our pastors message. That verse right there.
Does this mean I need to jerk off him too? I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that.
Could be the start of a whole new world!
Matthew, for what it’s worth I’ll take up your cause of the possible legislative logic. I am a lesbian, but even so I can understand that this is what some people believe – if one type of marriage than all marriage. And I also understand through your posts that you are merely trying to explain a possible motivation, not endorsing it. I think you have made it clear that it is not your personal position.
I recently read a letter to the editor in the local LGBT newspaper that made me almost literally shout in agreement. A very level-headed gay man wrote in to say that although he has been a long-time supporter of the HRC (Human Rights Council), it is time for them to STFU. Here’s why: by focusing on the legalization of *marriage* for the LGBT community, we are seriously risking our other rights and progress. If the community and activists continues to rant and rave about this, and gnaw on it like a dog with a bone, eventually even our allies will “take up arms” as it were. What we need to focus on are the rights, not the label. Why is “civil union” so offensive? I strongly believe that separate but equal is inherently unequal, but we *must* start somewhere. Our footing right now is simply not strong enough yet to throw these tantrums and expect to get our way just because we should. We don’t make allies by being combative, we make allies by knowing when to compromise – even when it sucks – and by living lives that show others that we are just as human, and just as deserving, as they are.
*dons flame resistant suit*
With due respect, I’m not sure it would work. Looking at civil rights equality movements to date, Gandhi, MLK, nor the Suffragettes ‘compromised’ to any great degree…
They didn’t go for violent confrontation (well, The Suffragettes did to a degree, but they were usually on the pointed end of the baton charge) but in the end they won out.
They didn’t compromise on their goals, their self-respect, or their passion certainly. But there was also a degree of respect afforded to others, a fundamental belief in the goodness of most, or at least some, humans. They never instigated the violence, with your prior exception, and did not attack with hatred and divisiveness. (Obviously there are other groups who did. I’m not talking about those here). Perhaps that’s a better expression than saying “compromise” – and really means something entirely different I suppose. Ah well, not the firt time words have failed me.
I read another column recently that touched on this. MLK and the others acted out of a tremendous amount of faith in humanity. They trusted that average citizens, who might support the status quo, would not stand for people being beaten for wanting to cross a bridge. They trusted that even white men and women would not turn away from government-inflicted brutality. They didn’t start the fights, even encouraged members not to respond, but they did stand their ground firmly and with dignity. I’m not suggesting that we all go lay in the street and invite people to beat us – that’s happening anyway. I am saying that we don’t have to have such vitriol and negativity on our parts. Let’s piggyback on the successes of women’s rights, and the general civil rights movement, and know what to focus on in the moment.
Thank you. It seems a bit odd to me that those who are not really affected by said legislation are the quickest to jump at me. Your understanding is well appreciated.
I do believe gays should have the rights to be married. It isn’t my choice, it doesn’t affect me. My aunt is a lesbian, and she isn’t fighting hard for the right to call her girlfriend of several years her legal wife. She says she doesn’t need the states approval.
It wasn’t just Cali. In Arizona, the Constitution has been amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Personally, I think that marriage should not be a matter of the state, but rather a religious/personal matter. Why the government needs to have any say in marriage is beyond me. Lots more go into this, but that’s the basis of my belief on marriage (Note, this is not because I’m opposed to marriage. Hopefully, someday not to far off…)
I said that once already. Uncle Fester fried me for it on a different thread. He has so much hate to tell all of us “intolerent” people
Another fried me for saying athiests can marry too, so that argument was dead. Some enjoy being inflammatory just because they can
Quit whining… I’ve not got on your case yet.
um… rainbow fail? i think maybe these are the mexican flag colors.
The source says it’s the Italian Air Force, and since they still haven’t invented the color eagle, that’s two factors against that Mexican flag theory of yours.
-
Oh, and let me make this perfectly queer. I mean clear.
-
How DARE you associate the great Italian colors with something that symbolizes the filth of homosexuality! This is the ultimate insult against my great nation! And how DARE you gays take the color of the rainbow, the Promise of the First Armageddon! A Christian symbol! Epic originality fail!
You have disgraced my heritage, and I’ll never forgive you, jratv1 (the captioner).
my sarcasm meter is off. poe’s law?
He does have one smiley face, but I’m not sure it’s placed correctly…jury’s out on that one. I sincerely hope it’s sarcasm, though.
I thought I made it clear. Leviticus Shield, activate!
What about the gay Italians?
For the record, I am Italian, and support gay marriage.
Great way to show your love of Jesus there pal.
I sincerely hope he was being sarcastic
I laughed. Out loud.
At *lol* news & politics.
What an unexpected turn of events!
Why can’t the law just say:
Marriage is the union between two consenting adults.
Can’t we all agree that the law, stated like that, would be pretty fucking reasonable there? B /
NO BECAUSE THEN THE GAYS WOULD BE HAPPY AND THEY ARE SICK AND DISGUSTING WITH THEIR BEING DIFFERENT AND ALL THAT.
Sarcasm WIN!
We can’t just start giving rights to gays. Give them some rights, and then they’ll want to be recognized as and protected like normal human beings! And what about all those poor, poor religites whose faith demand they treat gays as subhuman? You can’t give gays rights /and/ protect freedom of religious practice, too! The world will explode! EXPLODE!
(The above is sarcasm. Unfortunately, I have to include such a disclaimer, because some people hold and espouse such beliefs.)
Frecce Tricolori. Fabulous, but not in magenta.
I’m a woman who is not gay. My girlfriend found this funny though. (to you lame straight people, that means I am in fact gay).
Since when has it been alright for the constitution to enter our bedrooms? prop 8 should never have been passed. To those who are protesting in California, THANKYOU, Keep doing what you’re doing!
Yes on Prop. 8.
Simple as that.
If this was done on a national level,
Prop. 8 would still have passed.
The majority wins. Yes on 8. (:
Tres chic!
Actually, in many US states one can get married at 16 or 17.