Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Charlize Theron vows to not marry until all gay couples are allowed wed, that sound you hear is gay people everywhere slapping their foreheads in frustration   ( news.bbc.co.uk) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

10661 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2006 at 11:08 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



265 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-04-10 02:22:52 AM  
smoovement: A 70% illigitmacy rate among African Americans doesn't stop anyone from caring if whether or not they grow up in safe households does it? Then again, you guys can't depend on them for this issue so you'll be swearing them off soon enough.

I have no idea what that post means.
 
2006-04-10 02:23:32 AM  
Since so many people have asked for it (and no one can seem to come up with a single solid reason that same-sex marriages shouldn't be legal):

netmode.vietnamnet.vn

You're welcome! :)
 
2006-04-10 02:24:20 AM  
smoovement

Marriage rates have been decreasing in Holland for much longer than gay marriage has been legal. Since there are no health care benefits to marrying eg you marry so you can get on your partner's insurance, and other things of that nature, there's little pushing people to get married. And a lack of marriage does not equate to a lack of long term lasting relationships. Just because people don't marry doesn't mean they won't stay together for life. Anyone who thinks the only way people will stay together is if they marry, doesn't understand relationships let alone marriage.
 
2006-04-10 02:24:27 AM  
Man, same-sex marriage threads are great. Most difficult issues have good arguments on both sides, but this is one where the conservatives get totally owned and resort to blabbering stuff that makes them sound like Hank Hill.
 
2006-04-10 02:25:24 AM  
fatassbastard

I'm already married, but I kind of got this impression that if only we spent time together secluded love would materialize. Then again that could be me falling for religious propoganda.
 
2006-04-10 02:25:28 AM  
Did I just accidentally post some nipple. I'm in trouble!!
 
2006-04-10 02:26:58 AM  
Mugato

You tried to insult marriage based on divorce rates and pre-nub's and I wondered if you would discount other segments of the population for their bad decisions.
 
2006-04-10 02:29:59 AM  
fatassbastard


"carridin1

...a formal arrangement that exists primarily to create a stable structure for the production and rearing of children?"

That MAY have been the ORIGINAL reason for marriage, but it is now accepted to be something two people do because they love each other. The children are not a given, more and more people every year don't have children who could.

Talk about strawmen...


1. Go look up "straw man". My comment was nothing of the sort.

2. Whether or not "children are a given", children are almost always the result of heterosexual marriage. Those who elect to remain childless are an exception in heterosexual marriage, whereas homosexual couples who elect to acquire and raise children are likewise the exception to that kind of union.

3. I've noticed how you and everyone else who has pounced on my Boobies have completely avoided responding to one point that I made: the fact that creating and rearing children is an enormous and expensive undertaking, and it is an undeniable benefit to society. In return for this, society awards couples who perform this service a special status. Why should people who cannot create children and who usually have no intention of rearing children be awarded this status, just because they want it? (Yes, yes, you can point out the odd sterile couple and whatnot, but as I said, these are uncommon.)
 
2006-04-10 02:30:08 AM  
WhyteRaven74

Marriage happened before health insurance so I don't see how that is an answer either. Especially considering its still happening in Cuba, China, and happened a lot in the former Soviet Union.
 
2006-04-10 02:31:03 AM  
smoovement

I've actually overhead a conversation of some women at a coffee shop once and they were talking about how they wish they knew who the homosexuals at their church were so they could let them know they were accepted, I had to laugh out loud. Its like Ellen and Oprah personally took them behind the wood shed.

This is another one that doesn't make sense, smoovey. Why did you laugh about women wanting to let the gays in their church know they were accepted?

There are gay themed restaurants, cruises, night clubs, churches, TV, and magazines. Call me silly but don't you guys make fun of Christians for this?

Awww...does it bother you when people make fun of Christians? Grow a spine, dude, people like yourself are all over the airwaves saying gays (and liberals) are the worst scum of the earth, the worst sin against God, (and idiots and traitors when it comes to liberals). We can and do survive through all the barbs, are you saying we're tougher than you?

My wife rented Brokeback Mountain and I watched it up until the spontigayity occurred. I basically got the impression that they were implying that homosexuality is spontaneous - that it only takes the right people to spend enough time together and then they'll have their moment - as if thats the natural course of things. That kind of defies what we've all been told about it and I don't know how homosexuals aren't offended by that portrayal.

Well, that's your impression, and you're certainly welcome to it. I'm pretty sure people are allowed to say whatever they want in a movie. It's that pesky First Amendment thingy again.
 
2006-04-10 02:33:25 AM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto: Why. Is Gay Marriage. Such. A Freakin'. Big. Deal.

It's God's fault. Despite the fact that there are exactly zero reasons to expect legal gay marriages to harm one person in existence anywhere now or in the future, God wants us to make it a big deal so he can laugh his balls off while we waste time and resources addressing what should be a non-issue.

People a hundred years from now will be looking back on the gay marriage issue the way we look back on women's suffrage. And the encyclopedia entry for opponents of both will probably feature this picture:


homepages.ucalgary.ca

"Darrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!..."
 
2006-04-10 02:33:49 AM  
carridin1

If you ask me this is the reason you see a lot of "pro-choice" lesbians. I think there has to be some kind of envy, that probably materializes into hatred, for those couples that have to depend on science and technology to conceive.
 
2006-04-10 02:33:49 AM  
Why does everyone focus on stupid stuff like religion, gay marriage, freedom etc when this thread should be about how hot Charlize Theron is?
 
2006-04-10 02:34:53 AM  
Yankees Team Gynecologist

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping to get a good debate going on the child rearing issue. Especially after frizzle65's link two posts after my request to cite any legal rights. The only thing it mentions specifically, though, is that the partner of the biological parent has to go through adoption proceedings to be a legal parent of the child rather than gaining that status automatically by being married to the biological parent. That one is pretty weak though because when a man marries a woman with children, he still has to adopt the children to become their legal parent. Who is the legal parent of a child born to an extra-marrital heterosexual couple? Doesn't really seem like that one is at all related to the fact that the couple is homosexual.
 
2006-04-10 02:35:49 AM  
smoovement: You tried to insult marriage based on divorce rates and pre-nub's

---

No, that's not what happened.

fatassbastard asked what was wrong with gay marriage.

Someone suggested that it might lead to a decline in marriage rates.

fatassbastard illustrated that gays aren't making a mockery of marriage any more than straight people are, so the "decline in marriage rates" thing is a non-argument.

So if anything, the opposite happened. Your black kid comment would've been more appropriate in response to the person who responded to fatassbastard.
 
2006-04-10 02:42:15 AM  
smoovement

Dutch culture is quite different from American cutlure, and from Chinese, Cuban and whatever else culture. And it has been for a while. That's why people more commonly choose to just live together without marrying. Marriage just isn't that big of a deal to them. And with no incentives to marriage, well it comes down to wanting to marry. If two people plan on staying together for life, really why go get married if they're content as they are?
 
2006-04-10 02:42:47 AM  
fatassbastard

This is another one that doesn't make sense, smoovey. Why did you laugh about women wanting to let the gays in their church know they were accepted?

Well for one, I'm not anti-gay. I think that its a private issue that has its place and thats in the bedroom between consenting adults. Why bring up some persons behavior or activity in any situation not in that context? How does it matter in any instance except in the context of that person and their partner/partners? I don't announce my presence in church as a Farker and I don't understand it - I'm completely lost on the idea that someone has to let it be known what kind of sex they practice.

Well, that's your impression, and you're certainly welcome to it. I'm pretty sure people are allowed to say whatever they want in a movie. It's that pesky First Amendment thingy again.

I've never once said they shouldn't be able to. People can choose to see or not to see.
 
2006-04-10 02:44:32 AM  
i adore the fact that a portion of the fark contingent assumes that because she works in film and they don't, they instantly have a more real and valid opinion that reflects the average U.S. citizen, instantly invalidating any opinion she has (or, for that matter, that may be implied by some sillyass blurb repeated by the beeb).

carry on, official mouthpieces of mainstream american culture. let us know how we really think.
 
2006-04-10 02:44:45 AM  
carridin1

Roughly 10 percent of women can't concieve children. About that many men are infertile as well. Which means that at least 10 percent of marriages between heterosexuals involve couples that can't have children. That's one in every ten marriages producing no children. So before you even get into couples who choose not to have children, there's plenty who can't.
 
2006-04-10 02:45:57 AM  
ccmods:
thanks!

smoovement:
I can assure you that most of us have no desire to "threaten, insult, and ridicule everyone that disagrees with gay marriage into submission." Some of us just want the ability to live quiet, hard working, law abiding lives with the same rights and priveleges that straights have.

As for the gay themed restaurants, cruises, night clubs, churches, TV, and magazines, I think for some, the appeal is, those are safe places where you can hold your partner's hand without stares, without the chance that you might offend someone, or make a child ask questions a parent isn't yet ready to answer. They are surrounded by people who understand and it makes them feel normal. I pity the people who make the gay community their whole life though. I'd hate to be known only for my sexuality, and I'd hate to only associate with people that are just like me. That is a boring existence.
 
2006-04-10 02:48:03 AM  
carridin1

1. Go look up "straw man". My comment was nothing of the sort.

You're right, after looking it up via Wikipedia, I was incorrect in calling your argument a strawman. How about "incorrect assumption"?

2. Whether or not "children are a given", children are almost always the result of heterosexual marriage.

Hogwash. One in three children is born to unmarried parents. Also here. ("In 2004, 68 percent of children ages 0-17 lived with two married parents") Maybe almost always the result of heterosexual relationships, but not marriage.

Those who elect to remain childless are an exception in heterosexual marriage, whereas homosexual couples who elect to acquire and raise children are likewise the exception to that kind of union.

So, minorities should be denied rights?

3. I've noticed how you and everyone else who has pounced on my Boobies


You wish, sailor. ;)

...have completely avoided responding to one point that I made: the fact that creating and rearing children is an enormous and expensive undertaking, and it is an undeniable benefit to society. In return for this, society awards couples who perform this service a special status. Why should people who cannot create children and who usually have no intention of rearing children be awarded this status, just because they want it? (Yes, yes, you can point out the odd sterile couple and whatnot, but as I said, these are uncommon.)


I'm stunned that you cannot see the logical disconnect. You're saying that because heterosexual marriages usually result in children, we should allow all heterosexual marriages, and that since same-sex marriages usually don't result in children, we should allow none of them. It makes no sense.

We should allow it because currently, some folks are denied rights afforded to others. That is, quite simply, un-American.
 
2006-04-10 02:48:30 AM  
ryant123

No, it will be looked at as a fad brought about by pop culture.

I think that argument is about as stupid as the comparison to African American struggles with obtaining equality in society. In fact, this movement is force fed by the media. The population of homosexuals in this country is so small that if it weren't that homosexuals have presence and power in media it wouldn't be an issue on the public agenda. Especially when there are perhaps more pressing concerns among the public in general.
 
2006-04-10 02:48:49 AM  
carridin1

Also several states, including my own, Illinois, allow gay couples to adopt already. This on top of the other options available to such couples, means there are quite a few already raising children. After all a trip to the sperm bank and a lesbian can be pregnant. For gay men it's more involved but they can have biological children too. Believe it or not gay people have the same desires as straight people when it comes to life, love and all that. Just that it's harder for them to persue with any security. To wit many just don't bother. It's not that they don't want to, it's that it either isn't really an option at all eg their state doesn't allow them to adopt or because of time and expense involved on top of other issues, not a practical option.
 
2006-04-10 02:52:04 AM  
carridin1: 3. I've noticed how you and everyone else who has pounced on my Boobies have completely avoided responding to one point that I made: the fact that creating and rearing children is an enormous and expensive undertaking, and it is an undeniable benefit to society. In return for this, society awards couples who perform this service a special status. Why should people who cannot create children and who usually have no intention of rearing children be awarded this status, just because they want it?

I think no one has responded to your point because it's a silly point. Part of the argument used by those against gay marriage is that they just MIGHT rear children. And if that truely were the point of marriage it wouldn't operate in a binary fashion. What you're saying is that an opposite sexed couple with no intention of procreating gets all the benefits of a couple that DOES procreate because they have the ability to procreate. If the function of marriage were to encourage procriation, than only those that do have children would receive the benefits. Indeed, those that have more children would receive more benefit.

And as to the infertile, you dodge the question because you don't like the answer. While there exists wedded couples that are infertile, they still have the same rights as fertile couples. If marriage is a benefit only those that produce children deserve, than they should be denied the benefit. Yet somehow in your mind this class of people should be allowed to recieve a special status that they don't earn because they are proportionally small in number?
How is that just?
 
2006-04-10 02:52:42 AM  
carradin1

Glad to see you're still here.

Whether or not "children are a given", children are almost always the result of heterosexual marriage

As a personal anecdote, of the 8 children who have been born to people in my social circle only 3 were born to a married hetero-sexual couple.

I've noticed how you and everyone else who has pounced on my Boobies have completely avoided responding to one point that I made: the fact that creating and rearing children is an enormous and expensive undertaking, and it is an undeniable benefit to society. In return for this, society awards couples who perform this service a special status. Why should people who cannot create children and who usually have no intention of rearing children be awarded this status, just because they want it? (Yes, yes, you can point out the odd sterile couple and whatnot, but as I said, these are uncommon.)

The point you made was that "Marriage is the basis for the family structure, an arrangement that exists primarily for the creation and rearing of children." Both fatassbastard and myself have stated that we believe this is not the case today and presented arguments for why we believe so.

In regards to your dismissal that infertile couples being permitted to marry proves legal marriage does not exist for procreation since it's uncommon, I think you would be very surprised to find out how many infertile couples there are. I can think of at least three in my social circle (my wife and I included in that), and at least one of the doctors we've seen as a result of our infertility.

I would still like to know what status the state is affording married heterosexual couples for their parental status. You don't need to be married to one legal parent of the child to be the other legal parent of the child.
 
2006-04-10 02:54:28 AM  
lesliebian

I have to compliment you on being a non-militant homosexual and I sincerely hope that some type of arrangement can be made so that you can have some sort of legitimate benefit for you and your partner that also allows for a symbolic commitment to each other.
 
2006-04-10 02:56:01 AM  
2006-04-10 02:42:47 AM smoovement

That is the most rational post I have ever read from you.

The only response I will make is to say that being gay isn't just about sex any more than being straight is just about sex. And gay people would be far, far less vocal about it if anti-gay voices in this country were far, far less vocal about what a terrible scourge homosexuality is on our society.
 
2006-04-10 02:57:40 AM  
And just for the hell of it, Illinois also allows single people to adopt. That is people with no current partner, opposite or same sex, at all. The state does not consider single parenting itself an impediment to the proper raising of a child. On rare occasions a government and its agencies get it right. This is one of those occasions.
 
2006-04-10 02:59:28 AM  
I was always under the impression that gay marriage was illegal because the government didn't want to give financial benefits to (theoretically) childless couples. The whole point is to keep the heteros popping out new people to feed the economy. That or my tinfoil hat is on too tight.
Either way, there is absolutely no reason same-sex marriage shoud be illegal. The weak arguments in this thread prove that.
Oh, and smoovement? If you had finished "Brokeback Mountain" you would have watched a real and sincere love story between the two men that spans decades. Just because their passion erups "spontaneously" doesn't mean it's invalid. Are you implying that heterosexuals never have spontaneous intimate encounters?
And lesliebian is my new hero for being so well-spoken. Go, girl.
 
2006-04-10 03:00:09 AM  
smoovement

I have to compliment you on being a non-militant homosexual and I sincerely hope that some type of arrangement can be made so that you can have some sort of legitimate benefit for you and your partner that also allows for a symbolic commitment to each other.


Just as long as they don't use the 'M' word, right smoovey?
 
2006-04-10 03:05:51 AM  
smoovement: No, it will be looked at as a fad brought about by pop culture.

I think that argument is about as stupid as the comparison to African American struggles with obtaining equality in society.


Well it wasn't really an argument at all. I just wanted to get in some of that ridicule you predicted above, in order to speed along the glorious coming of gay bondage leatherfreaks to our elementary schools.

In fact, this movement is force fed by the media. The population of homosexuals in this country is so small that if it weren't that homosexuals have presence and power in media it wouldn't be an issue on the public agenda. Especially when there are perhaps more pressing concerns among the public in general.

Well we can at least be glad that someone has finally wrested media control away from the Jews. Sigh.
 
2006-04-10 03:08:06 AM  
who_took_the_bomp: thank you!

smoovement: thank you!

Good night all, it's been fun!
 
2006-04-10 03:12:38 AM  
lesliebian

Good night all, it's been fun!


Good night to you, too! I'll be thinking of you! (nudge, wink)

/sorry...
 
2006-04-10 03:23:38 AM  
I've long thought that Charlize Theron was a misandronist idiot. Her refusal to participate in the institution of marriage only strengthens said institution.
 
2006-04-10 03:38:17 AM  
NewHere: Charlize Theron is my favorite attractive and successful African-American.

Hehe.

One of my drinking buddies is an african-american, and whiter than me.
 
2006-04-10 03:43:15 AM  
The most interesting argument I have read against homosexuals getting married is that they would adopt more kids and that would leave less kids for all the hetero couples.

Really it is silly to argue against it, we did this years ago with interracial marriage why are we doing the same thing now? There is no proof gay people can not be equal to any hetero couple and that gay people being married would hurt any one. It only hurts your sensibilities.

/I do not know any gay people.
//I am not gay myself.
//Remember polygamy is traditional and most practiced form of marriage.
 
2006-04-10 03:58:09 AM  
img156.imageshack.us

One of the few times I wish I was Keanu Reeves.
 
2006-04-10 04:02:07 AM  
fatassbastard:I applaud you, sir.
 
2006-04-10 04:15:43 AM  
fatassbastard nothing...

nothing will happen to the country. America will continue, some people will be happy, others will not, some gay marriages will work, and have children who grow up strong, healthy, happy and probably even heterosexual, and others may not. But basically nothing will happen.

As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, a moral sin, but America is a pluralistic society, and my beliefs are based on a religious ideology that should be practiced by choice and free will, not by federal legal standards. I firmly and absolutley believe 100 percent in the concept of seperation of Church and State. There is no argument against gay marriage outside of a religious belief. So there should be no law against it.

I have many friends who are gay, I love them dearly, I disagree with their choices, but I do not judge. It is not my job. If I was going to judge anyone, I would say this:

Charlize Theron is a twit, no one cares about her marriage postponement.

/"Whole school would probably shut down if 'queenie' didn't show up!"
 
2006-04-10 04:29:38 AM  
Burp
Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."

Nobody's forcing every religion to openly impose their beliefs on others, are they?. If every religion reserves the right to disagree but leaves others the fark alone, there's no reason why they should be labeled as anything, is there?

So far as the lawsuits, constitutionally speaking, the govt may not impose or favor one religion over another. But there's nothing preventing a religion from choosing who will belong to their organization according to their principles. Even the neo-nazis have a protected right to restrict their membership.

This logic is quite comical, but scary at the same time. Once again, religious fundamentalists in this country are trying to somehow paint themselves as the persecuted, as if they're trying to win a war they're somehow losing.

I the words of Jon Stewart (paraphrase). "Wouldn't it be great if someday, a Christian man became president of the United States? Wouldn't it be great if we had, say, FORTY THREE OF THEM IN A ROW???

/not buying it.
 
2006-04-10 04:34:23 AM  
1. Even larger increase in divorces and all the legal bullshiat that goes with it, which is a huge burden on society as it is.

2. Even higher costs of health insurance for large companies(that extend benefits to spouses). Especially since health care is already the largest single cost for many companies in benefits.


Are you kidding me? Please, I need stats and facts and numbers to back this up. Because I don't see how 5-10% of the population suddenly being allowed to marry will somehow bankrupt the economy and overthrow the healthcare system.

Besides, married couples are more financially stable. There's no reason to believe that wouldn't be the case in same-sex marriages.
 
2006-04-10 04:48:51 AM  
The "spontaneity" of the sex in Brokeback wasn't because "it can happen to anyone at the right moment." It was set in 1960s Wyoming. They were unaware of the feelings they were experiencing, scared of them, and acted roughly and quickly to experience them because they weren't sure what they even were. The idea wasn't AT ALL that they were somehow straight. They were gay and acting on their sexuality for the first time.
 
2006-04-10 04:54:31 AM  
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people are tying opposition to same-sex marriage to Christianity. While it may be true that a lot of the opposition in the US comes from those quarters, it's hardly true in a general, global sense. In fact, just about every country that has same sex marriage is Western, and with a historically Christian history. The Hindu, Buddhist/Confucianist, animist, and especially Muslim countries of the world don't seem to be at all eager to legalize same sex marriage. In Canada, most of the protests against same sex marriage came from Asian religious and philosophical groups.

Historically, I'm not aware of any society that had same sex marriage. Even among the many ancient Greek city-states where some sort of male-male romantic relationship was normative for citizens, there wasn't same sex marriage. The closest thing I'm aware of were that some tribes in Africa and pre-Columbian America would allow some people to be considered honorary members of the opposite sex and could take members of the same biological sex in marriage, but the practice was pretty rare, still was considered a type of opposite sex marriage via reconstruction of gender identity, and has fallen by the wayside anyway.
 
2006-04-10 05:59:46 AM  
This old argument huh. Well all it does is bring the homophobes out in the open.
 
2006-04-10 06:06:54 AM  
Societies used to have Same Sex marital rights and rituals

but they were viewed as legally inferior to mixed sex couplings

so what the gay rights movement is asking for is historically unprecidented
 
2006-04-10 06:20:06 AM  
grotto_man

If she really were the man hater you make her out to be, there would be more proof.
Therefore, you blow bubbles of bs out of yer nethers and call it fact.
That makes you a dumbass.
 
2006-04-10 06:21:11 AM  
Straight men are allowed to marry women.

It would be totally unfair and discriminatory to not allow a gay man to marry a woman too. Lets allow gay men to marry adults of the opposite sex because that would be equal rights, not special rights.
 
2006-04-10 06:22:36 AM  
In fact, just about every country that has same sex marriage is Western, and with a historically Christian history.

All five of them. However, every country in the world has a religious history, so that doesn't have to mean anything. There's more to a country's history than religion. For example, the west had an Age of Enlightenment, which may have something to do with the freedoms we enjoy nowadays. Same-sex marriage is one of them.

/Only if you live in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, or Massachusetts, though
 
2006-04-10 06:27:43 AM  
Straight men are allowed to marry women the one they love (if that person is female).

It would be totally unfair and discriminatory to not allow a gay man to marry a woman
person he loves too.
 
2006-04-10 06:35:32 AM  
Straight men are allowed to marry the one they love (if that person is female).

Oh no. You are so wrong.

They can't marry daughters, wives, married people, people of the opposite sex, people who can't think for themselves, rocks, cattle, sheep, etc, etc, etc...

And neither can gay men.

SEE. It's equal.

/So go away hippie.
 
Displayed 50 of 265 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report