I’m so glad the Civil Rights Movement made it possible
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
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…
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.
Quite Fucking Ticklish could work too.
*offers everyone cookies*
*takes cookie* Thanks!
YAY!
*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.
The write you quote makes some excellent points.
.
Just dismissing them because you don’t like them doesn’t lessen their value.
.
Oh, and generation of domestic violence HAS lowered the value of marriage in people’s eyes. Indeed there are MANY many people who now support the “move in first ten decide to get married” idea. This is just totally wrong. Lets take the Divinge institution of marriage and use it as our downhill sled into moral bankruptcy…weee!
.
Its hard to discount that complaint Gays lose out on the protection afforded people by virtue of being married. I mean, if I was gay, and i thought I was right I would be upset by being jilted. I don’t see an easy answer to this because:
a) The religious right feels that marriage is a religious thing I’d we’d rather the Govt didn’t interfere anyway!
b) Marriage is already so damaged by adultery, porn, and other vices and addictions.
c) Those of us who have a personal Testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ and Truthfulness of his Gospel cannot accept Gay + Marriage. Square Peg and Round Hole.
d) Married people (like myself) take for granted the rights given to a spouse. It may not have even been part of the equation.
e) Religious people feel it as a loss of a right (another one in a long list of lost rights in the last few decades) to include a forbidden relationship plus Marriage in the same concept. Can I suggest getting a different Name? Perhaps you will not be trodding on our toes if you make it a different institution. The Alternative morals edition.
.
Being mean and calling names never solved anything. Just makes people get teir back up. So….try doing Right thing and keep the 5th grader name calling to a minimum.
.
They Crucified Jesus for being perfect. We expect to be called all sorts of wrong headed things. But if you want respect from us, try trying to see it from another angle, other than your own.
.
Marriage in this country is on rocks. Divorce is eveywhere. Its really sad. I’d say that the “benefits” afforded Married people might soon be lost to all forms of marriage. People these days want their seperate bank accounts, seperate secret emails and passwords, blah blah. These people don’t even practice “marriage” as it was originally intended to be. *cry*
.
Warning: Long
“The write you quote makes some excellent points.
Just dismissing them because you don’t like them doesn’t lessen their value.”
I don’t think I “just dismissed” very much, I took care to address most of the points Dan2025 made.
“Oh, and generation of domestic violence HAS lowered the value of marriage in people’s eyes. Indeed there are MANY many people who now support the “move in first ten decide to get married” idea. This is just totally wrong. Lets take the Divinge institution of marriage and use it as our downhill sled into moral bankruptcy…weee!”
Whatever damage you can imagine being caused by allowing homosexuality to be validated by marriage has surely already been caused by allowing marriage to validate the many sins husbands commit against their wives and parents against their children. There are few sins that gay couples commit that aren’t committed every day by happy hetero couples.
“Its hard to discount that complaint Gays lose out on the protection afforded people by virtue of being married. I mean, if I was gay, and i thought I was right I would be upset by being jilted. I don’t see an easy answer to this because:”
I’d say it’s pretty easy to discount this – you’re doing a pretty good job of it.
“a) The religious right feels that marriage is a religious thing I’d we’d rather the Govt didn’t interfere anyway!”
I don’t believe that for a second. The government “not interfering” would mean eliminating all legal marriage rights for hetero couples as well. Somehow, I don’t think the religious right would be enthusiastic – or even merely indifferent – about this idea. Heck, then equal rights *would* be taking something away from you – I can only imagine the intensity of the reaction then.
“b) Marriage is already so damaged by adultery, porn, and other vices and addictions.”
Okay, first off porn isn’t what’s destroying marriage, but that’s a whole other debate. Same with other “vices and addictions.”
Second, what else has damaged marriage isn’t really relevant to the ephemeral “harm” same-sex unions do to marriage. That harm hasn’t even been quantified except to say that the institution would be cheapened if the queers get their grubby hands all over it.
“c) Those of us who have a personal Testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ and Truthfulness of his Gospel cannot accept Gay + Marriage. Square Peg and Round Hole.”
Not sure what you mean here. I’m Christian. I accept gay marriage. My close friend and coworker just recently married his partner of several years, in a church – it was a beautiful service. Are you referring to a specific denomination or movement?
“d) Married people (like myself) take for granted the rights given to a spouse. It may not have even been part of the equation.”
It is part of the equation, even if you choose to ignore it. You take marriage off the lawbooks entirely, and this debate might just go away.
“e) Religious people feel it as a loss of a right (another one in a long list of lost rights in the last few decades) to include a forbidden relationship plus Marriage in the same concept. Can I suggest getting a different Name? Perhaps you will not be trodding on our toes if you make it a different institution. The Alternative morals edition.”
Without getting into the tired “Separate but equal isn’t equal” debate, you’re just plain wrong. Explain to me: what right would they be losing? How are they *losing* anything?
As far as I’m concerned, you have NO right to someone else’s lack of a marriage. You don’t have a right to prevent second marriages of the divorced or widowed (for the “you marry only once” morality). You don’t have a right to prevent interracial marriage (for the few who still consider that somehow immoral). And as far as I’m concerned you don’t have the right (even if currently you have the power) to prevent gay marriages.
You have a right to *your* marriage, or lack thereof. All the gay folks are asking for is that same right.
Suggesting a separate name is missing the point. Anything going by a separate name will not carry the same rights as marriage – a legal ruling protecting the rights of a spouse or step-parent won’t necessarily protect partners joined under this “Alternative morality” institution. A separate institution might not be recognized between states (not that gay marriages currently are, anyway) or between nations.
“Being mean and calling names never solved anything. Just makes people get teir back up. So….try doing Right thing and keep the 5th grader name calling to a minimum.”
While we’re calling people out on name-calling… exactly what part of my response did you find to be “5th grade” in tone? And at what point was I particularly mean, or actually call anyone anything? Despite the length and possibly harsh attitude of my post, I thought I was careful to address the points and ideas of the post, rather than the person.
Granted, I did end with a sort of “If the shoe fits” comment, but I honestly saw nothing in Dan2025’s post that would effectively refute an accusation of bigotry or homophobia, rather than reinforce it.
“They Crucified Jesus for being perfect. We expect to be called all sorts of wrong headed things. But if you want respect from us, try trying to see it from another angle, other than your own.”
I’m quite capable of seeing things from another angle. That doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with that angle, dissect its ideas any more gently, or treat that angle with any greater respect than I think it deserves.
I’m not even sure what the line about crucifying Jesus even refers to here, nor why you get to call me “wrong-headed” but if I call you “bigoted” I’m behaving like a 5th-grader. One of the perks of being perfect, I guess.
…okay, NOW I’m behaving like a 5th-grader.
“Marriage in this country is on rocks. Divorce is eveywhere. Its really sad. I’d say that the “benefits” afforded Married people might soon be lost to all forms of marriage. People these days want their seperate bank accounts, seperate secret emails and passwords, blah blah. These people don’t even practice “marriage” as it was originally intended to be. *cry*”
Separate emails and bank accounts are hardly the dissolution of marriage benefits. You still get joint tax returns, custody rights, spousal privilege, kinship rights, citizenship rights, the ability to share insurance, the ability to adopt children in the state of Arkansas, alimony… These might not be the legal benefits of marriage you find most vital, but some of us think they’re important.
Also, the current (apparently pitiful) state of marriage isn’t relevant, since the primary harm presented in this debate seems to be that the married hetero couples will “feel lessened.”
That’s not damage to an institution – that’s just injured pride.
“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.
Care to name what exactly the religious right is being forced to do? Cuz nobody is forcing them to get married to a member of their same gender. Nobody is forcing them to watch, take part in, or even cater a gay wedding. What is on the table is simply allowing one group to marry the people they want just as heterosexuals are allowed to marry who they want.
Not asking for animals, kids, inanimate objects, or anything of the sort outside of consent laws. Just simply asking that two consenting adults who wish to be married be given the same protections and rights that another pair of consenting adults are allowed.
It is duty as citizens to vote for just laws not their own bigotry. It is the duty of the courts and governments to make sure that just laws are made and put into practice.
To clarify my sentence on civic duty, I will give this example. Gay men invoke my ick response. I find nothing appealing or attractive about men getting down. As a matter of fact, I find it a tad on the revolting side. Just my personal quirk. It does nothing for me. Is that reason to deny them rights if they are desiring what I desire? Should I inhibit their choices, especially choices that do not affect me? Does their desire for buggery mean they are less than I am or deserve less than I am allowed? Does it mean we can’t be friends?
The answer is no. They are tax paying citizens, my spiritual brothers, and people to be judged by their actions the same as me. They can be good neighbors, friends, parents, and I am sure they can be just as good of a spouse as I can be. It is not about my faith. It is not about an ick factor when I see them kiss. It is not about my morals. It is about ethics and fairness.
Let them get married. We have bigger fish to fry and they are in the same damn sinking ship as we are.
Disclaimer: It is not against my morals for gays to be together, have kids, or get married. Gay men and women have just as much right to an orgasm as I do. Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. Nature has gay animals so the natural law argument is false. Separation of church and state dictates that your bible is not my law so that argument is out. We are not asking for the Religious Right to approve. We are asking them to make the laws fair across the board.
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.
“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.
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.
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…