Of course, it's only been between "a man and a woman" for 50 years or so. Before that it was between "a man and a woman of the same race."

TFA: This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being

Gee, I wonder why this guy's marriages didn't last.

Can we imagine Frank's family and friends warning him that "If Joe were serious, he would put a ring on your finger"? Do we ask Vera to stop stringing Sally along? Gay sexual practice is not sortable into these categories

Actually, if you weren't such a purposefully bigoted and misinformed asshole, you would realize that many gay relationships ARE like that. Of course, I'm sure it's pretty hard for this guy to imagine any gay relationships beyond his own delusions of illicit coke orgies.

So... um...

1. marriage is traditionally about controlling and protecting the bride's virginity.
2. marriage establishes rules against incest
3. gay sex fails to become magically acceptable after marriage (the way heterosexual sex does)
4. marriage sets up a system of social give-and-take with the members of the respective families represented

..and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry!

No, seriously, that's this guy's argument.

wyltoknow: Can we imagine Frank's family and friends warning him that "If Joe were serious, he would put a ring on your finger"? Do we ask Vera to stop stringing Sally along? Gay sexual practice is not sortable into these categories

Actually, if you weren't such a purposefully bigoted and misinformed asshole, you would realize that many gay relationships ARE like that. Of course, I'm sure it's pretty hard for this guy to imagine any gay relationships beyond his own delusions of illicit coke orgies.

Word. I know two happily married gay couples, one of which is raising a daughter. Gay people aren't strange, alien sex machines with no human emotions. They're people, and they love just like straight people.

Chariset: No, seriously, that's this guy's argument.

Don't forget his argument that gays obviously don't really want to marry because on the whole, they tend to get married later than their heterosexual peers. Of course, one could easily deduce that heterosexual idiots getting married right out of high school are part of the reason our divorce rates are so high, but I see that he oddly forgot to include that part. Surely he just forgot to include it.

wyltoknow: Can we imagine Frank's family and friends warning him that "If Joe were serious, he would put a ring on your finger"? Do we ask Vera to stop stringing Sally along? Gay sexual practice is not sortable into these categories

Good. That shiat is stupid and outdated, and people who nag their children and friends into getting married on a schedule that society deems appropriate deserve a good solid ignoring, MOM!

The fact of the matter is the greatest threat to traditional marriage is heterosexuals.

eqtworld: I wonder what it feels like to have a divorce then live the rest of your life as a Christian, knowing you will be sent to Hell forever when you die.

Probably the same as how they feel about that whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" and that "praying in public is for hypocrites and not true Christians" thing. That is, they feel that it doesn't really exist and that they can firmly ignore it. God sure must be a forgetful god, I guess...

BladBoy: The fact of the matter is the greatest threat to traditional marriage is heterosexuals.

Ahem. That's...opposite marriage

Whether intentional or not, his argument is actually a pretty compelling case for why governments shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning marriage.

Gay marriage is not so much wrong as unnecessary.

One can say the same thing about heterosexual marriage. You don't need to get married to have kids.

this whole 'gay marriage' debate is pointless. I don't want a party worrying about who gets married to whom. I want a party that's going to fix the economy, phase out social security, legalize cannabis, and repeal the patriot act.

Weaver95: I want a party that's going to fix the economy, phase out social security, legalize cannabis, and repeal the patriot act.

...and then you and I can ride my pet Unicorn to the moon.

We have to work with what we have.

Why can't these righteous crackpots just stick to their wars and naked prison torture, and just leave people alone?

exick: Whether intentional or not, his argument is actually a pretty compelling case for why governments shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning marriage.

Marriage status plays an important part in government; taxes, etc. It's nice to be able to say "governments should just butt out" but there's a point where they cross lines. Churches have already proven they are a bigoted, bunch of children. Who else is going to handle it?

"this whole 'gay marriage' debate is pointless."

I guess it might be from your perspective.

Some of us seem to be interested in equal rights, on top of what you just mentioned.

40yoVirgin: "this whole 'gay marriage' debate is pointless."

I guess it might be from your perspective.

Some of us seem to be interested in equal rights, on top of what you just mentioned.

It's not that the gay marriage debate is pointless--the gay marriage debate is over. Its opponents have lost, same-sex marriage is here, and it's now just a matter of time for it to become the norm across the country.

The article aptly explains how traditional marriage is based on much more than just romance and stimulating reproductive organs. It is the traditional way for society to channel sexual reproduction and procreation into a family structure.

ne2d: "It's not that the gay marriage debate is pointless--the gay marriage debate is over. Its opponents have lost, same-sex marriage is here, and it's now just a matter of time for it to become the norm across the country."

When I see the DOMA repealed then I'll have a lot more faith in my fellow Americans. Until then, the battle is still raging.

Oh good. SkinnyHead is here, with bullshiat invocations of "tradition" without reason. Watch as he continues to ignore all arguments that he can't address, such as the fact that marriage was traditionally between a man and a woman of the same race only 50 years ago. Marvel at his lack of comprehension about Constitutional protections and the judiciary's role in ensuring that majority rule does not mean that the minority loses its rights. Behold in amazement as he shames his GED in law yet again by completely ignoring the procedural issues in the California state constitution that caused Prop 8 to become a legal problem to begin with.

SkinnyHead: It is the traditional way for society to channel sexual reproduction and procreation into a family structure.

Waving bloody sheets out the window to a gathered crowd to "prove" the deflowering of your bride is also a tradition. Doesn't make it right, valid, or useful anymore.

weezbo: Waving bloody sheets out the window to a gathered crowd to "prove" the deflowering of your bride is also a tradition. Doesn't make it right, valid, or useful anymore.

What if, instead of waving it out the window, you wear it like a mask and fight crime?



/I am a bad person.

Bloody William: /I am a bad person.

...yes. yes you are.

And now that's a visual I can't ignore.

Bloody William: "Oh good. SkinnyHead is here, with bullshiat invocations of "tradition" without reason....California state constitution that caused Prop 8 to become a legal problem to begin with."

Comedy gold Jerry!

*farkies*

/sadly, too many people think like Skinnyhead

Why don't we just cut to the chase and say the author is a big, fat, bigoted ass.

Weaver95: this whole 'gay marriage' debate is pointless. I don't want a party worrying about who gets married to whom. I want a party that's going to fix the economy, phase out social security, legalize cannabis, and repeal the patriot act.

Me too!

Weaver - so sorry to hear about your dad. I will miss hearing about your political arguments.

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Bloody William: marriage was traditionally between a man and a woman of the same race only 50 years ago.

Race was not part of the traditional definition of marriage. It was a restriction placed on marriage. The restriction against interracial marriage that was overturned in Loving v. Virginia was the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which was enacted by Darwinists.

Constitutional protections and the judiciary's role in ensuring that majority rule does not mean that the minority loses its rights.

The federal judiciary does not recognized a federal constitutional right to a gay marriage.

procedural issues in the California state constitution that caused Prop 8 to become a legal problem to begin with

Prop 8 is a valid amendment to the state constitution. It is not a revision. You'll find out on Tuesday.

SkinnyHead: Race was not part of the traditional definition of marriage. It was a restriction placed on marriage. The restriction against interracial marriage that was overturned in Loving v. Virginia was the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which was enacted by Darwinists.

YES! I was hoping we'd get some anti-evolution bullshiat from you today, but I wasn't holding my breath because I didn't see any creationist threads in the queue.

No, Skinny, this isn't a "Darwinist" thing. In fact, despite the fact that both eugenics and evolution (Darwinist is a bullshiat word. Darwin is not a goddamn prophet, he was just a scientist who helped set the foundation of evolution, which has since been supported by a massive amount of evidence) accept inherited traits, they don't have any real connection. The slimmest connections between evolution and eugenics, especially in this context, is, at best, almost as valid as the connection between Christianity and the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution and extermination of Native Americans, or the Holocaust ("Gott mit uns," or "God is with us," was one of the Nazis' mottos).

In the country, the first explicit anti-miscegenation law was passed in 1705. Yes, Massachusetts had a tradition of not racially mixing that was older than the country itself (and reaffirmed in 1913).

Before it was overturned in Loving v. Virginia, anti-miscegenation laws' constitutionality were affirmed in Pace v. Alabama, in 1883. Alabama, incidentally, passed its explicit anti-miscegenation laws in 1922. The laws and "tradition" of not racially mixing has been part of this country longer than this country has been around, and Darwin has nothing to do with it.

SkinnyHead: The federal judiciary does not recognized a federal constitutional right to a gay marriage.

It will, just like Loving v. Virginia overturned Pace v. Alabama, and just like Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. Accept it. Gay people have been, are, and will get married, and they will only become more and more recognized and respected in society. And that won't change your life one whit, beyond your biatching about it.

...you guys do realize you're arguing with someone frothing at the mouth crazy enough to go by the name Skinhead, right?

Bek: ...you guys do realize you're arguing with someone frothing at the mouth crazy enough to go by the name Skinhead, right?

...who says he has a "GED in law" to boot.

Hender: ...who says he has a "GED in law" to boot.

OMG! Is he in the Marine Core too??

eqtworld: This is what we are really getting down to. The fact that God once told his children to kill people for having sex

Note, however, that it doesn't mention woman on woman action.

What's Reagan opinion? That's really all that should matter.

Bek: Hender: ...who says he has a "GED in law" to boot.

OMG! Is he in the Marine Core too??

No, you're thinking of the Unconvincing Savant.

40yoVirgin [TotalFark] 2009-05-24 11:44:43 AM

When I see the DOMA repealed then I'll have a lot more faith in my fellow Americans. Until then, the battle is still raging.

You people, always with the raging.

j/k, I totally agree.

Wow. This man's argument is so ridiculous and convoluted that it has to be true!

Wow, that was one of the most sexist diatribes I have ever read.

No wonder he's been married 3 times.

What a jackass.

I can't wait for the boomers to die off

Obligatorily reposted...


Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

40yoVirgin: ne2d: "It's not that the gay marriage debate is pointless--the gay marriage debate is over. Its opponents have lost, same-sex marriage is here, and it's now just a matter of time for it to become the norm across the country."

When I see the DOMA repealed then I'll have a lot more faith in my fellow Americans. Until then, the battle is still raging.

DoMA is a horrible piece of legislation that really needs to go. To be honest, I think it needs to be challenged, but that is to guarantee that enacting laws to discriminate go away.

Bek: Hender: ...who says he has a "GED in law" to boot.

OMG! Is he in the Marine Core too??

Yes he was a F-22 Raptor pilot in WWII

I particularly like the idea in the editorial that marriage is a sacrifice that straight men make--in order to "bond" society as a whole. Oh, the poor put upon straight men. If only you KNEW the sacrifices they make...

Big Dave: I can't wait for the boomers to die off

I can't believe that a generation that grew up smoking weed now fights tooth and claw to keep cannabis illegal.

Chariset:
So... um...

1. marriage is traditionally about controlling and protecting the bride's virginity.
2. marriage establishes rules against incest
3. gay sex fails to become magically acceptable after marriage (the way heterosexual sex does)
4. marriage sets up a system of social give-and-take with the members of the respective families represented

..and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry!

No, seriously, that's this guy's argument.

And he would be totally wrong too. Marriage traditionally is a land contract between a father and husband of who controls the property. That the deal is signed by the transfer of property from one party to another, which often saw the female traded as a sign to seal the deal in return for a dowry and a promise to look after the bride's family.

The having children part is relatively a new principle. It dates back to the Middle Ages and only there due the rules of royalty. It got even stranger in say Colonial time when the vast majority of women were married off because they got pregnant and the father was forced into the marriage.

Before then concubines were common. The vast majority of people didn't marry because it wasn't considered important as they had no land of any worth, nor purity and religious roles in society that put restrictions on them. Applying these rules to modern marriage doesn't work one little bit, but it always some idiot who doesn't know about their subject, that destroyed the sanctity of marriage multiple times, that feel the need to give their little lectures.

This has more to do with a history of rulers using homosexuality as an excuse to explain famines, diseases, and deaths in the late Roman and early dark ages that took ahold. Such views waned later on in Medieval times and we saw the brother ceremonies in countries such as France and Albania, before coming back with avengence when the next ruler wanted someone to blame and it not fashionable to blame all the country's ills on the Jews all the time, which was also common too.

People just need to get over the fact that modern marriage in the west has virtually nothing to do with traditional forms of marriage at all, mostly due to the removal of powers of the monarchy and the fact women are no longer usually viewed as property by I would say at least a majority of people.

eqtworld: eqtworld: /I think king David had 100 wives or some crazy number like that

My bad, Looks like King David only had 8 (+ an additional unknown number of "concubines")

It was King Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

/So, having 700 wives and 300 mistresses = ok, touching a man in a sexual way = death
//makes perfect sense

So if gay 'marriage' becomes legal, should polygamy be illegal?

If so, why?

Or, what about that right-wing bogeyman: the dude who wants to marry a goat. Or a blow-up doll.

Should those be illegal?

If so, why?

/yeah, I used air quotes

BladBoy 2009-05-24 10:55:43 AM
The fact of the matter is the greatest threat to traditional marriage is heterosexuals.
Actually I'd say that the graph represents the change in cultural views towards divorce. Notice how it's really low until the 1960s, then takes off until it levels out in the 1980s, at about double its original level? (aren't statistics fun? If that chart was drawn on a 1-100 scale instead of a 1-25 scale, it wouldn't be nearly so impressive.)

What happened in the 1960s?

The civil rights movement, women's lib, and all the other fun things we call it today.

Before that, the social mores kinda went like this:

As a woman, you are your husband's property. Pee-ree-farking-od.
As a woman, you may not initiate divorce proceedings. Shut up and get back in the kitchen, or you'll get another black eye. If the man initiates divorce proceedings, well guess what. He might get hooked up again, but she's damaged goods and can look forward to being rejected by both families and dying a penniless old crone.

During the 1960s, we changed all of that. How shocking, we made men and women equals! Worse yet, we gave women some serious incentive to turn to divorce, since they not only walk away with social status, but with half of the man's property!
Well gee. Now that both sides can initiate divorce proceedings, it should be no surprise that the divorce rate doubles.

The worst thing about gay marriage is that there is still a "debate" going on about it. Marry...don't marry...who gives a good god damn? If you're not gay, don't worry about it.

Weaver95: Big Dave: I can't wait for the boomers to die off

I can't believe that a generation that grew up smoking weed now fights tooth and claw to keep cannabis illegal.


It's not hard to understand at all.

But don't try to get you yourself elected.
If you do you had better cut your hair.

-- Crosby Stills Nash And Young Lyrics



Government is the enemy. Ergo, Reagan is elected and 30 years of ineffectual and ignorant governance results.

That article used a lot of words to make an incredibly weak point.


And this part: "All agree that any and all opposition to gay marriage is explained either by biblical literalism or anti-homosexual bigotry." ...and he then goes on to say that all of the anti-gay marriage crowd has been unfairly painted with this brush?

Hey, Sam - I was on the front lines of the anti-Prop 8 movement here in California. I was on the street corners, carrying signs, toe-to-toe with the people pushing Prop 8 to ban gay marriage in Clifornia. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was exactly what you described in that sentence. They were bigots with weak arguments hiding behind their twisted religious beliefs. A lot of them weren't even aware that their "Yes on 8" signs were bought and paid for by the LDS church. They just hated gays (or loved them in the sense that they want to "cure them") and anything that gives gays more equality absolutely drives them to insanity.

I have a million thoughts flowing through my head about this issue, but I'll narrow it down to this: Once you acknowledge the TRUTH that homosexuality is born into someone, and isn't a choice, then the next logical step is to agree that they deserve to be treated equally. And a gay kid has just as much of a right to dream about marrying the mate of their dreams as any of us straights do. Period.

I'll also add that regardless of what happens with Prop 8 in California this year, the anti-gay crowd here has already lost the war. The younger generations are even more open minded and accepting, and we're just a few years away, maybe less, from putting this bigotry-made-into-law bullshiat to bed. As a single straight guy, I've taken a lot of flack and raised eyebrows for speaking out for gay rights -- no doubt it has caused people to raise questions about my own sexuality. But I absolutely believe that this, and the ridiculous prohibition on "soft" drugs, are the great civil rights battles of my generation. And we are going to win both of them.