AWWWW...the rainbows didn't get their unicorns.

I think it will blow up in their face again.

I think the strategy should be "Wait 20 years for the ignorant old people to die off and then try it again."

The Icelander: I think the strategy should be "Wait 20 years for the ignorant old people to die off and then try it again."

Goddamn I hope its shorter than that.

BillCo: Hopefully, the homos will have bred themselves out of existence by then.

You do realize that straight couples have gay children I hope.

BillCo: Hopefully, the homos will have bred themselves out of existence by then.

No, thanks to advances in medical science people are living and voting their antiquated, bigoted opinions longer than ever!

BillCo: Hopefully, the homos will have bred themselves out of existence by then.

I guess you don't realize what how absolutely moronic you look making that statement?

Maybe if they attack those who voted against them *more* it will change everybody's minds.

That strategy always works on Fark, right?

DarthBrooks: Maybe if they attack those who voted against them *more* it will change everybody's minds.

Actually, I think they should just abandon their attempts at destroying marriage and unite with all God-fearing Americans who want to defend the ultimate union between man and wife. Gay people should drop their petty grievances and work together to codify into law rules that will help protect heterosexual couples from having their marriages ruined. They should push for constitutional amendments outlawing divorce in any circumstance and making any sort of adultery a crime equivalent to murder. Abortion should be made completely illegal. Children who become pregnant out of wedlock should have a choice: get married, or go to jail. Pre-nuptial arrangements should be banned, since they imply that a marriage can be ended. We need to make marriage safer, and it's time for gay people, who've been so traditionally self-centered, egotistical, and flippant in their refusal to accept the sacrosanct importance of marriage in our society, to start doing some legwork in rebuilding what they came so close to tearing down.

While the Maine defeat may seem like a barrier, I feel they need to reach around it to vigorously grasp the future.

ZAZ: I think it will blow up in their face again.

What a sad money shot. :-(

Pocket Ninja: DarthBrooks: Maybe if they attack those who voted against them *more* it will change everybody's minds.

... Children who become pregnant out of wedlock should have a choice: get married, or go to jail. ...

You forgot the suicide option.

BillCo: How is that possible if homosexuality is genetic?

Sexually antagonistic selection is one theory

I'd like to see someone set up a challenge similar to James Randi's challenge for proof of the paranormal: A million dollars, say, to anyone who can come up with a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Show me just one negative consequence. Because so far all the anti-gay forces have is, "Derrr, the dictionary defines it as between one man and one woman," which I guess implies we'd have to buy new dictionaries. At least, those of who need to look up "marriage" in the dictionary would have to buy new ones. Not really seeing the problem here.

A million dollars, say, to anyone who can come up with a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

I'm still waiting for a reason why it should be. So far it's "we're jealous" and I don't find that convincing.

ZAZ: I'm still waiting for a reason why it should be. So far it's "we're jealous" and I don't find that convincing.

Let's just rewind the clock back to a time in this country when most states forbade interracial marriages, and ask the same question.

I'm still waiting for a reason why interracial marriage should be legal. So far it's "we're jealous" and I don't find that convincing.

Now do you get it?

ZAZ:
I'm still waiting for a reason why it should be. So far it's "we're jealous" and I don't find that convincing.

So you support civil unions instead?

Prank Call of Cthulhu: I'd like to see someone set up a challenge similar to James Randi's challenge for proof of the paranormal: A million dollars, say, to anyone who can come up with a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Show me just one negative consequence.

Preferences aren't falsifiable and potential consequences, negative or otherwise, can be open-ended. It's an idea, but a non-starter.

Prank Call of Cthulhu

Of course I get it. Everybody who doesn't support the gay agenda is a racist. I think I have to support genocide too, since there is no difference between "denying" the "right" to marriage and wanting to kill somebody. A few years ago the selectmen in Truro barely prevented a man from burning all the gays in town to death. This guy volunteered to be on a fire advisory board. Just in time a selectman checked the registry and found he was listed as holding the wrong position on gay marriage. Obviously nobody on the wrong side could have any motive other than murder.

shivashakti

What's a "civil union"? If it's renamed marriage, no. If you want a short form for a contract that only affects the parties involved, fine. I don't think anybody is advocating for that. That would mean, for example, government benefits and taxes are blind to the existence of the contract, third parties are not affected by spousal immunity, and so on.

ZAZ: What's a "civil union"? If it's renamed marriage, no. If you want a short form for a contract that only affects the parties involved, fine. I don't think anybody is advocating for that. That would mean, for example, government benefits and taxes are blind to the existence of the contract, third parties are not affected by spousal immunity, and so on.


The term "civil union" would mean having the same rights as marriage but with a different name because some people seem to think that the term 'marriage' should only be between a male and a female.

Pocket Ninja: DarthBrooks: Maybe if they attack those who voted against them *more* it will change everybody's minds.

Actually, I think they should just abandon their attempts at destroying marriage and unite with all God-fearing Americans who want to defend the ultimate union between man and wife. Gay people should drop their petty grievances and work together to codify into law rules that will help protect heterosexual couples from having their marriages ruined. They should push for constitutional amendments outlawing divorce in any circumstance and making any sort of adultery a crime equivalent to murder. Abortion should be made completely illegal. Children who become pregnant out of wedlock should have a choice: get married, or go to jail. Pre-nuptial arrangements should be banned, since they imply that a marriage can be ended. We need to make marriage safer, and it's time for gay people, who've been so traditionally self-centered, egotistical, and flippant in their refusal to accept the sacrosanct importance of marriage in our society, to start doing some legwork in rebuilding what they came so close to tearing down.

/Get over it, old people
//Link is hot

ZAZ: Of course I get it. Everybody who doesn't support the gay agenda is a racist. I think I have to support genocide too, since there is no difference between "denying" the "right" to marriage and wanting to kill somebody.

You homophobic assholes just can't catch a break, can you? Where is your parade?

ZAZ: Of course I get it. Everybody who doesn't support the gay agenda is a racist.

That's not at all what I'm implying. I'm trying to point out the similarity in the issues of interracial and gay marriage. For a long time, both were legally forbidden. Eventually a demand signal for both developed. In neither case does society suffer any ill effects. And in both cases, as far as I can tell, the reason to allow it is "it will make the people involved with it happy." I'm a pretty big fan of happiness. Why would we deny someone their happiness if it has no negative effects whatsoever on the rest of us? Eventually interracial marriage was allowed and society didn't collapse. Why would gay marriage be any different?

A few years ago the selectmen in Truro barely prevented a man from burning all the gays in town to death. This guy volunteered to be on a fire advisory board. Just in time a selectman checked the registry and found he was listed as holding the wrong position on gay marriage. Obviously nobody on the wrong side could have any motive other than murder.

Although I know what each of those words, apart from "Truro" and "selectmen," both of which I had to look up, mean individually, it took me a while to puzzle out what that particular arrangement of words was supposed to mean. Eventually I found this, which indicates that some guy in a town somewhere was not re-elected to a board position because multiple selectmen took issue with his inability to follow appropriate chain of command, and one selectman took issue with the fact that the position-seeker signed an anti-gay marriage petition. I have no idea what this has to do with the issue at hand.

I think we can all agree that ZAZ is the real victim here.

As a comparison, when Loving-v-Virginia was decided (1967), only 20% of the US populace supported interracial marriage.



Once again, conservative bigots are on the wrong side of history.

/get the fark over it... it doesn't affect your marriage in any way, shape, or form
//link is gallup supplied and hot

So, the same group of people that listens to commentators that talk about taking to the streets because healthcare reform is coming and engage in protests designed to show the evils of government spending feel that a group of people that are having basic human privileges restricted based on sexual orientation should sit down and shut up about it?

Really?

Last One Left: Preferences aren't falsifiable and potential consequences, negative or otherwise, can be open-ended. It's an idea, but a non-starter.

Oh, I completely understand that it wouldn't be a rigorous challenge. The thing is, I haven't heard any negative consequences articulated, open-ended or otherwise, that hold up under scrutiny.

1 "It's always been that way."
2 "It makes me feel icky."
3 "It'll destroy traditional marriage."
4 "Jebus said no."
5 "But they can't have kids!"
6 "But then churches will be forced to marry them!"

1, 2, 4, and 5 are completely irrelevant. 3 and 6 (and even 5, really) are just plain wrong.

Lots of other debates in this country, there's two sides to them. One may be stronger than the other, but there's at least some meat to the weaker side. This is an issue where the anti-gay marriage side has absolutely no argument whatsoever. None. Zero. Not that I've heard.

Folks are putting in an awful lot of time and effort and money and resources in trying to prevent gay marriage, and I'd really, really love to hear an actual argument against it other than, "But it makes me feel icky." Banjo players, Kyra Sedgwick, Brussels sprouts, BET, midgets, the Dutch, nose-pickers, NASCAR fans, wine snots, Scientologists, my asthmatic next door neighbor, the writings of Grace Paley, people who say "price point" instead of "price," and snorers on public transportation all make me feel icky, but with the possible exception of Kyra Sedgwick (the worst actress in all history) I wouldn't presume to keep any of them from their pursuit of happiness, when such pursuits "neither break my arm nor pick my pocket" as Thomas Jefferson once succinctly put it.

Until the Maine based Gay and Lesbian groups can mount a charge without the help of groups "From Away" this has no prayer of passing.

Tom_Slick: Until the Maine based Gay and Lesbian groups can mount a charge without the help of groups "From Away" this has no prayer of passing.

Unlike the Catholic church and NOM which are both based in Maine.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Folks are putting in an awful lot of time and effort and money and resources in trying to prevent gay marriage, and I'd really, really love to hear an actual argument against it other than, "But it makes me feel icky."

Good luck.

BillCo: The Icelander: BillCo: Hopefully, the homos will have bred themselves out of existence by then.

You do realize that straight couples have gay children I hope.

How is that possible if homosexuality is genetic?

Prank Call of Cthulhu: I'd like to see someone set up a challenge similar to James Randi's challenge for proof of the paranormal: A million dollars, say, to anyone who can come up with a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Show me just one negative consequence. Because so far all the anti-gay forces have is, "Derrr, the dictionary defines it as between one man and one woman," which I guess implies we'd have to buy new dictionaries. At least, those of who need to look up "marriage" in the dictionary would have to buy new ones. Not really seeing the problem here.

The traditional definition of marriage is more than just a dictionary definition. It is our custom and heritage to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There is no tradition for same sex "marriage."

A majority of the people do not want to abandon the traditional definition of marriage to pretend that a same sex couple is married under the traditional understanding of that term.

I've said this before but how many straight men and even some straight women don't love this....



So, as horrifying as the concept of dudes getting it on might be, it's hypocritical for most of us to condemn homosexuality in general.

Let the pillow biters and rug munchers marry. It has no effect on you whatsoever.

Tom_Slick: Until the Maine based Gay and Lesbian groups can mount a charge without the help of groups "From Away" this has no prayer of passing.

Yep. Just like the damn "outside agitators" in the Civil Rights movement in the Deep South, right? People should just mind their own business and allow the minority group to get trampled upon, right?

This is such a stupid, stupid waste of everyone's time. Just let any two consenting, non-related adults marry. The polygamy / familial strawmen questions can come later. The end result is absolutely inevitable, just like the Civil Rights era / repealing of anti-miscegenation laws, Women's Rights / suffrage, etc. The arguments against same sex marriage are weak, and inherently bigoted. The ban serves no useful purpose, whatsoever.

SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage is more than just a dictionary definition. It is our custom and heritage to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There is no tradition for same sex "marriage."

A majority of the people do not want to abandon the traditional definition of marriage to pretend that a same sex couple is married under the traditional understanding of that term.

Please look at my graph above concerning interracial marriage. Then kindly go fark yourself. Why are you even trolling anymore with that name? Everyone knows you're an alt.

SkinnyHead: The traditional definition of marriage is more than just a dictionary definition. It is our custom and heritage to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. There is no tradition for same sex "marriage."

A majority of the people do not want to abandon the traditional definition of marriage to pretend that a same sex couple is married under the traditional understanding of that term.

I'll bet that way back in the early 1800s, there was some guy who said:

The traditional definition of voting is more than just a dictionary definition. It is our custom and heritage to define voting as something white male property owners do. There is no tradition for blacks or women "voting."

A majority of the people do not want to abandon the traditional definition of voting to pretend that blacks or women vote under the traditional understanding of that term.

How is "but it's always been this way" a legitimate argument??? Things are allowed to change, you know. See the interracial marriage argument above.

Barbigazi: Unlike the Catholic church and NOM which are both based in Maine.

The perception is the catholic church is local. NOM is okay because they were brought in to combat the people "From Away." All I am saying is the effort has to be perceived as a local grassroots effort to pass by referendum or it has to be seen by the people as necessary to avoid appearing backwards. The mindset of a Mainer is very isolationist, and bigoted towards anybody from Boston, NYC or any other big city.

SkinnyHead: A majority of the people do not want to abandon the traditional definition of marriage to pretend that a same sex couple is married under the traditional understanding of that term.

Why? Explain to me how this would affect you in any way.

/I seem to be defending gay marriage more than most gay guys. I guess it just pisses me off too much

alywa: Yep. Just like the damn "outside agitators" in the Civil Rights movement in the Deep South, right? People should just mind their own business and allow the minority group to get trampled upon, right?

Pretty much "outside agitators" are root of all evils is the mindset of the state.

What a modern Republican protest may look like:


/hot

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Folks are putting in an awful lot of time and effort and money and resources in trying to prevent gay marriage, and I'd really, really love to hear an actual argument against it other than, "But it makes me feel icky."

OK, smart guy. Here's a little scenario I like to call "the end of human existence." See, gay people can't have kids. Right? I mean, they can adopt them, sure, but they can't actually have them. So, what happens if you start letting gay people get married, and it catches on, and more and more people start becoming gay? Huh? What happens when our entire country decides to become gay and get married, and there's no more kids? Sometime in the future, a few generations down the road, we won't be able to replenish our society. We'll have to start artifically inseminating gay people with frozen sperm, and we've already been down that road with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito and I don't think we need to go there again.

Remember when you were a kid, and you liked to throw rocks into the pond, and your mom told you not to do that, and you asked why, and she asked you what would happen if everyone came along and threw rocks into the pond? And you thought about it but couldn't figure out what the problem would be. I mean, who freakin' cares if you throw rocks in a pond? And then your mom smacked the back of your head and called you a dumbass and said that if everybody threw rocks in the pond, there wouldn't be a pond anymore. And you asked her, well, if everybody threw enough rocks in the pond to fill up the pond, wouldn't there be a new pond in the hole that existed where they got all the rocks? And she just smacked the back of your head again and told you to stop be stupid.

It's like that. Gay people are the rocks that are filling up our pond. Or, hold on. They're the people who are throwing the rocks who are filling up our pond. No, wait. They're the pond, and they're being filled up by our rocks. Or are they the hole? Goddamnit, you know what I mean. I hope this makes it clear.

Tom_Slick: Barbigazi: Unlike the Catholic church and NOM which are both based in Maine.

The perception is the catholic church is local. NOM is okay because they were brought in to combat the people "From Away." All I am saying is the effort has to be perceived as a local grassroots effort to pass by referendum or it has to be seen by the people as necessary to avoid appearing backwards. The mindset of a Mainer is very isolationist, and bigoted towards anybody from Boston, NYC or any other big city.

Families in Maine convinced the legislature and governor of Maine to pass a law allowing gay marriage. NOM and the AFA joined with the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and the same California add agencies that were responsible for Prop 8 came in to bolster a small anti-gay group that already existed. Outside money paid for that petition. Outside money paid for the same adds that ran in California to run in Maine.

Outside agitators created and sold this to you poor isolationists, and you didn't even notice.

Barbigazi: Outside agitators created and sold this to you poor isolationists, and you didn't even notice.

Hey there is a reason I moved away from there and did not return. I am just stating the farked up mindset of that state. Their economy is almost as bad as Michigan's.

Pocket Ninja: OK, smart guy. Here's a little scenario I like to call "the end of human existence."

Damn. I guess I owe Pocket Ninja a million dollars for coming up with an unassailable argument against gay marriage. He's absolutely correct, and I hereby change my stance. No way am I letting those filthy homos bring about the end of the world. Screw you gays, you can get married over my dead body! You had me at "Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito."

There's another good argument against gay marriage....We'll all agree that the whole "wedding-industrial complex" is just out of control. Too many couples blow an obscene amount of money on weddings. (Personally, I hate weddings, as they tend to combine two of my least favorite things: ceremonies and religion.) Now, if there's one thing gays are known for, it's their fabulous taste and style. If we allow these "people" to marry, they're just going to have fabulously stylish weddings that serve only to put more money into the pockets of people who don't deserve it: florists, photographers, wedding planners, caterers, cake decorators, DJs, etc. What greater reason do you need to be against gay marriage than that? Srsly.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Lots of other debates in this country, there's two sides to them. One may be stronger than the other, but there's at least some meat to the weaker side. This is an issue where the anti-gay marriage side has absolutely no argument whatsoever. None. Zero. Not that I've heard.

To me, 4 isn't a non-factor. As long as religion helps guide morals for some people, it will determine, for better or worse, some of the policies of a country.

Challenging preferences based on religion, or ignoring them because they don't (or shouldn't) apply to government, won't convince the other side. It'll just antagonize them even more and they are able to vote.

Pocket Ninja: OK, smart guy. Here's a little scenario I like to call "the end of human existence.

As if it doesn't get said enough, I really appreciate your work. That's why you show up in bright green on my screen.

Last One Left: To me, 4 isn't a non-factor.

Does that mean we have to codify into law all the other ridiculous bullshiat in the bible? Stoning adulterers and forbidding people from wearing clothes of mixed fibers and whatnot? The bible says a lot of stuff after all, and some of it even contradicts itself. It's not exactly like we scrupulously follow the ten commandments, even. You can worship as many gods as you like, you can covet all you want (in fact, our entire economy is built on coveting), you can make graven images (we've even got copyright law to protect those images), you don't have to honor the Sabbath, etc.

Prank Call of Cthulhu: How is "but it's always been this way" a legitimate argument??? Things are allowed to change, you know. See the interracial marriage argument above.

Because people value tradition and want to hold on to their traditions. If gay rights activists have no regard for tradition, why do they want to partake in the tradition of marriage?

I would now like to interrupt this thread to point out:

http://www.steakhouseorgaybar.com/ (new window)

I only got 2 of 10 right, which suggests I need to be very, very careful when going out to eat.