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.