FARK.com: (4410823) Just like President Obama, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage

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.

		Just like President Obama, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage (gallup.com)		1841
		More: Interesting

• • •

20721 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 May 2009 at 11:52 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/4410823

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

1841 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last

neilbradley		2009-05-27 01:25:35 PM

HulkHands: DamnYankees: 40% of people want gay sex to be illegal??

Yeah. It's in the bible or whatever.

Well, no, it's not. Talks about a man laying with another man, not women with women or homosexuality in general. The Levitical note also talks about not wearing clothes of mixed threads, etc... in the same section. Although the fundies in recent years have changed the passage to say "Homosexuality", at least in the NIV bible, to push their agenda. You'd think that any reasonably minded person would realize that if it were such a big issue that it would be mentioned in the bible in more than one place, but fundies tend not to think rationally.

ursomniac		2009-05-27 01:25:45 PM

barneyfifesbullet: One advantage to having Obama in the WH is that, unlike Bush, when public opinion swings to favor gay marriage Obama's opinion will swing with it.

It won't be swinging anytime soon. Not while Obama is around. Much of his base hates gay people, anyway. Yes, they do. Most people always look the other way on how blacks feel about gays, but it is still there. Gays comparing their situation to blacks doesn't help much, either.

Go ahead and put gay marriage on a ballot next year. Do it in 2012. It loses. Americans generally don't appreciate having GAY shoved into their face and demands being made by people with the attitude showed by many around here.

Best solution is civil unions. Most people will probably support that now. If that's not good enough for you, you are just looking for forced approval from society. Rights and family don't really matter to you. You just want everyone to be forced to nod their head and applaud.

Had a CU. It wasn't good for anything legally. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Completely and absolutely ignored by every agency that I had to work with.

What does that do to your theory?

The ONLY solution is equality. I don't give a fark who has a problem with that. We are either equal or we're not. Which is it?

If you want to put something on the 2012 ballot - let's start with that...

"Are non-heterosexuals equal citizens?"

When THAT crashes and burns, you'll understand the depth of the problem. Maybe then you'll work on a solution to the problem you've caused instead of a band-aid that does more to comfort your intolerance than actually promote civic morals and values.

Donald_McRonald		2009-05-27 01:25:47 PM

ryarger: It's been pointed out repeatedly that adult-child or child-child marriages are not possible because children cannot hold contract.

What about that woman who was on Maury? She was married to a 14-year-old boy.

"I love my wife, she buys me Pokeman cards"

Antimatter		2009-05-27 01:25:49 PM

Krikkitbot: JinxofSpades: Whenever I read something like this, I am struck by one simple thought:
"So?"

I have yet to hear a single reason why a group of people who are completely unaffected get to make a decision on how two others get to live their lives"

AAAAAAActually, it does affect everyone's lives. The biggest issue is that whereas private employers may chose to extend or deny benefits to same sex partners, making it into a law would force those who don't want to extend benefits to do so. Also, the government would have to extend benefits to same sex partners. Care to gander a guess as to where the money for those benefits comes from?

So yeah, it does affect me and everyone else.

\go ahead tell me how I'm mean and cold hearted.
\\don't I care about people without health care?
\\\not on my dime, I don't.

If its all about saving costs, why not end all federal marriage benefits entirely? We'd save billions.

gshepnyc		2009-05-27 01:25:53 PM

Farklee: As long as this whale is their spokes-thing, don't even waste the Gallup polls time.

Her opinions don't matter because she's fat, a celebrity or because she is very vocal? Please clue me in. If civil rights were accorded based on how pleasant people are how many rights would someone calling other people "thing" have?

Yes, you are an asshole.

EsteeFlwrPot		2009-05-27 01:25:56 PM

perpetual_lotion: e of those are written in Genesis. The guy who quoted the Talmud is right.

Yeah but they were mentioned in Genesis.

EsteeFlwrPot: hailin: A baby cow is a calf (or just plain veal...mmmm), but a baby goat is a kid. Since goats were used primarily as food and for sacrifices back then I would think they were referring to a goat.

You can't just assume like that. If the Torah says calf it's talking about a calf. If the Torah would have said sheep then it would have been talking about sheep. The reason we can't eat meat with dairy at all is because the Torah also says to make a fence around it, meaning to make it harder to break the biblical commandments so to prevent people from making that mistake they made a rabbinical prohibition prohibiting any type of meat from being mixed with any type of dairy or their derivatives.

/ghey marriage

Dammit I just rechecked myself and it says kid. I swore it sald calf. I Fail again. :/

CrankMyBlueSax		2009-05-27 01:25:59 PM

Nutsac_Jim: HeathenHealer: I guess i'm not sure why all the fuss about gay marriage. Wasn't this country founded on freedoms for everyone (especially religious freedom) yet now we want to pick and choose who we extend those freedoms to? The one thing we have going for us in the US is a history of correcting social injustice (slavery, womens suffrage, civil rights) it just takes time.
I understand some people have a hard time with the fact that two dudes/chicks can be in love and have a long lasting relationship, but really, how does it change your life if they get married?

/like I said yesterday, apparently some animals are more equal than others

It doesn't change my life if someone walks up and shoots them either. Does that make it ok?

21.media.tumblr.com

superoogie		2009-05-27 01:26:02 PM

BubbaWilkins:
Now do you see why your argument is wrong?

Clever, but no. Because even while Black/White couples struggled, other inter-racial couples had no problems. And even then, the base definition wasn't changed.

So because some interracial couples weren't discriminated against, it was okay that some were? So since gay marriage is legal in some places, it is okay that they are discriminated against in others?

The real traditional definition of marriage was the wife as property of the husband. It changed. Up until 100 years ago, the traditional definition of marriage was a wife as a completely legal dependent of the husband. It changed. Up until just fifty years ago, marriage was legally defined as the union of a man and a woman of the same race. It changed. Just because you'd like to think it didn't doesn't make it so. It will change again. And I hope it bothers you that you can't stop it.

/Go see Stopheles 12:08:36 PM upthread.
//You're that screaming woman, whether you admit it or not.

Funk Brothers		2009-05-27 01:26:02 PM

SeismicJizzer: meh, gay marriage is coming and there is nothing the fundies can do about it. We as a society may be a little more prudish then our western counterparts but you guys are losing the battle.

Get over it

Thank you. As a Republican, we will be changing a lot in the coming years and it will be difficult. Somehow something great will happen once we reach it.

boobsrgood		2009-05-27 01:26:07 PM

The same guidos who jack off to the gay scenes in Girls Gone Wild, I'll bet.

/wide stance

Peter_B_Risen		2009-05-27 01:26:20 PM

Anti_illuminati: Peter_B_Risen: And quit comparing gay marriage rights to the black civil rights movement. It's insulting.

It is? How so?

/i'd leave out religion if i were you.

First off, I am not very religious.

Second, gays have the same rights as any other individual except for the issue of marriage. Compare that to the rights of southern blacks pre-1960's.

Daffydil		2009-05-27 01:26:29 PM

Hate thread is hateful...

JasonThomasX		2009-05-27 01:26:36 PM

andrewskdr: poot_rootbeer: andrewskdr: But in all seriousness, who cares if the gays get married?

Gays, for one, and people who give a damn whether our government is living up to the standards of fairness and justice, for two.

WTF gays already have their own parades. You don't see heterosexuals complaining that we don't have the same thing. I want my straight-sex parades damn it!

Actually I don't know if there are already such things. If there are, that's awesome.

What the hell do you think Mardi Gras is?

Arnold T Pants		2009-05-27 01:26:37 PM

friendinpa: One advantage to having Obama in the WH is that, unlike Bush, when public opinion swings to favor gay marriage Obama's opinion will swing with it.

Foretelling the future as a defense of Obama! Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a dumber defense of a politician. Good job, sheep!

/"but he will change his view in the future!!!" LOL

Tatsuhiko		2009-05-27 01:26:50 PM

elchip: perpetual_lotion: false. try again.

I'm sorry, I should clarify my earlier post.

Exodus 20: God dictates to Moses what we normally associate with the Ten Commandments. Although there's more than 10 of them, and God never calls them the Ten Commandments here.

Exodus 21-23: God gives Moses some more laws.

Exodus 24: God tells Moses to bring other people up the mountain. He tells Moses he'll give him tablets with the laws (although he gave him plenty more laws than the so-called Ten Commandments).

Exodus 25-30: God gives Moses laws about building the Ark, the Tabernacle, tells him about the Priests, etc.

Exodus 31: God gives Moses two tablets with the "testimony" -- no specific mention to the rules from Exodus 20.

Exodus 32: Moses comes down from the mountain, sees the golden calf, and smashes the tablets. He goes back up to talk to God.

Exodus 33: The Israelites see God manifested as a pillar of smoke, and worship. Meanwhile, Moses gets a glimpse of God's butt.

Exodus 34: God gives Moses 10 laws, the "weird" ones about boiling a calf in its mother's milk. He tells Moses to write these down on two tablets, calling them "the Ten Commandments." After 40 days, he comes down with the two tablets "of testimony," which I assume could mean either these new 10 Commandments, or all of the laws he was given.

Exodus 35-39: Moses talks to the Israelites, and they build some stuff.

Exodus 40: Moses puts "the testimony" in the Ark.

Later, in Deuteronomy 5, Moses lists the 10 commandments that we know and love, and says that they're in the Ark.

So, it's a contradiction.

Makes you wonder if any of the people that wrote the "Bible" collaborated together or if they just created different stories from a word-of-mouth passed down story they once heard and then religious philosphers and scholars just pieced them together in an order they thought made sense.

/Doesn't help that most of Jesus' early life is pretty much omitted as well.

JohnnyC		2009-05-27 01:27:03 PM

Buffalo77: Point is ~~mute~~ moot because

Sorry... pet peeve.

The_Six_Fingered_Man		2009-05-27 01:27:04 PM

NuclearWinter: Gamer Grrrl: nuclear_asshat: It's cool to blame the Mormons, blame the courts, blame anyone and everyone, but not Obama. Oh no, not him. It's okay when he says it because we secretly think he lied to be elected and will roll over when the tide turns.

Right, because Obama voted FOR Prop 8 and donated a ton of money to help get it to pass.

We're taking baby steps. Right now, I think Obama has other things he needs to be focusing on other than gay marriage. America isn't quite ready to allow gay marriage, but it WILL happen. it doesn't matter what Obama thinks, because it's NOT going to happen while he's in office. There's just not enough support for it yet.

Sadly I think it'll take longer than it needs to because the current make up of the supreme court is probably a poor indicator for success in a federal lawsuit to force the US Gov't to recognize the current marriages. But I think the major keystone in this fight will be having DOMA declared unconstitutional.

The problem is that DOMA isn't unconstitutional. Congress gets the power to decide how the Full Faith and Credit Clause is applied. Congress has decided that same-sex marriages don't fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

All Federal courts are bound by the Supreme Court decision in Baker v Nelson. The sooner that people realize that this fight won't be won in the courts, but instead should be fought in Congress, the quicker we'll all get to live in equality land.

Oh, and Paragraph, welcome to the club. We are a small one, but getting louder. Just start writing to your Congressman and Senator. That's the only way to fix this all the right way so that it never comes up again.

sparrow794		2009-05-27 01:27:05 PM

JinxofSpades:
If you are against gay marriage, don't have one. STFU and leave people alone who have nothing to do with you, your life, or your family.

Not
Your
Decision
To
Make.

That's fine, and you're absolutely right - just remember this sentiment when a gun thread hits.

eddiesocket		2009-05-27 01:27:06 PM

Giltric: eddiesocket: meatsack_01: The majority of Americans have spoken. Don't like it? Move to Canada.

Actually we'll stick around, thank you. Time is on our side, the under 30 crowd overwhelmingly supports marriage equality. Wait for the California re-vote in 2010, and this time, businesses who rely on gay income will think twice about supporting bigotry.

Would that be the distributors of Judy Garland albums and other show tune compilations?

Wow, hilarious. BTW, 1985 called, it wants its lame gay stereotypes back. No, I'm talking about Leatherby's in Sacramento, The Hyatt Manchester in San Diego, and El Coyote in LA, all of whom have suffered economic consequences because of their bigotry. Feel free to google. Or you, know, you can continue to flaunt your ignorance and horrible sense of humor.

Your call.

Anti_illuminati		2009-05-27 01:27:24 PM

ssssmashing: This is clearly a case of winning the battle but losing the war. Voters have stemmed the tide of gay marriage, but your children are being brainwashed at schools, on TV and radio. 30 years ago you'd sodomites were relegated to hollywood squares, now you can't watch a show without having the gay agenda forced on you.

8/10

Good form.

qsblues		2009-05-27 01:27:52 PM

WHOA! SLOW DOWN PEOPLE!

I'se jes' tryin to get some tit-tay on basic cable. Can we get that knocked out first before we start this whole ghey marriage stuff?

crab66		2009-05-27 01:27:58 PM

fireclown		2009-05-27 01:28:04 PM

IlGreven: STOP EQUATING HOMOSEXUALITY WITH PEDOPHILIA. They're two different farking things.

His argument is that society may be losing the ability to distinguish and enforce right and wrong. From his arguement it is clear that he regards pedophilia as abhorrent.

I do agree with you that the two things are very different, and to me it comes down to consent. The gay/pedo arguement is needlessly inflammatory and designed to evoke an emotional response.

stvdallas		2009-05-27 01:28:05 PM

I'll say what I always say when this topic comes up.

I'm for civil unions. There is a big difference as far as our goverment is concerned when it comes to man/woman marraige vs. gay marraige.

Tax breaks.

There is a reason for filing jointly as married, and couples that cannot produce children should not be allowed those tax breaks. Those tax breaks are to promote and help raising a family.

I don't mind creating a category for gay couples where they can file jointly in a category for civil union. Any children they have adopted can be used as write offs, but gay couples should not ever receive tax breaks given to married couples. EVER.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox		2009-05-27 01:28:18 PM

To sum up the last 24 hours of my experience on Fark:

Me: I support X, Y, and Z libertarian views.
Self-identifying "liberal" person: Well you are in the minority there, so why don't you STFU.
Me: You know, gay marriage is a minority view in America also.
Self-identifying "liberal" person: Well, what you do expect, most people are stupid bigots.

patrick767		2009-05-27 01:28:18 PM

elchip
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Of course there's nothing whatsoever in the Bible against a woman who lieth with a woman. This is because even the ancient Israelites thought lesbians were hot.

LOCNAR69		2009-05-27 01:28:26 PM

JohnnyC: friendinpa: One advantage to having Obama in the WH is that, unlike Bush, when public opinion swings to favor gay marriage Obama's opinion will swing with it.

Doubtful. Obama is for civil unions (same legal crap as a marriage without all the religious connotation).

However, you are correct in a sense... Obama definitely serves the people of the United States. Bush never did... he served a small sect of the population (mostly big business, oil companies, and really rich folks).

and Obama serves the illegals, the illiterate, the welfare cheats and the rich and beautiful--which do you prefer?

eddiesocket		2009-05-27 01:28:34 PM

Rusty Bumpers: eddiesocket: meatsack_01: The majority of Americans have spoken. Don't like it? Move to Canada.

Actually we'll stick around, thank you. Time is on our side, the under 30 crowd overwhelmingly supports marriage equality. Wait for the California re-vote in 2010, and this time, businesses who rely on gay income will think twice about supporting bigotry.

The under 30 crowd that rarely votes and doesn't give a crap will soon have families and become the over 40 and 50 crowd that votes and has a firmer opinion as to what and who makes a marriage.

Oh yeah, once they hit 35 a whole generation is going to suddenly stab their gay friends and family members in the back. Keep telling yourself that.

TheNewJesus		2009-05-27 01:28:36 PM

The majority is wrong

JinxofSpades		2009-05-27 01:28:43 PM

sparrow794: JinxofSpades:
If you are against gay marriage, don't have one. STFU and leave people alone who have nothing to do with you, your life, or your family.

Not
Your
Decision
To
Make.

That's fine, and you're absolutely right - just remember this sentiment when a gun thread hits.

They're trying to stop gay people from owning guns, too?!?!
IT NEVER ENDS!

friendinpa		2009-05-27 01:28:44 PM

toonz
friendinpa: hailin
If people were REALLY serious about protecting marriage, then they would make divorce illegal. Divorce ruins marriage more than a same sex marriage ever will.

Poor argument.

Murder is illegal and that doesn't stop people from using it to get out of a bad marriage. You make Divorce illegal, you had best build some more prisons for all the newly single folks.

but how long will they STAY single? :D

Maybe we need co-ed prisons for just such a crime?

Cybernetic		2009-05-27 01:28:56 PM

LeafyGreens: See, asshole, it's not just "my wishes." It's an issue of creating a separate class of citizens in a country where everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law, and when that doesn't happen people should be able to voice their dissent.

The problem with your argument is that federal law creates separate classes of citizens all the time. Go read any law having to do with employment in federal contracts, or any kind of affirmative-action legislation. Preferential treatment of certain classes is not only encouraged, in some cases it is mandated.

Since you're all about "a country where everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law," can we assume that you object to these as well?

nephlim		2009-05-27 01:29:00 PM

I'm not sure if I believe them.

I read something a few months ago about a poll for or against the war in Iraq. The people conducting the poll put the "unsure" and "no opinion" votes in the pro war category.

More of the story is that polls can misrepresent the truth.

Peter_B_Risen		2009-05-27 01:29:02 PM

Peter_B_Risen: Anti_illuminati: Peter_B_Risen: And quit comparing gay marriage rights to the black civil rights movement. It's insulting.

It is? How so?

/i'd leave out religion if i were you.

First off, I am not very religious.

Second, gays have the same rights as any other individual except for the issue of marriage. Compare that to the rights of southern blacks pre-1960's.

Should have read "gays could have......"

ursomniac		2009-05-27 01:29:32 PM

Bruce Campbell vs Army of Farkness: Gay Americans are not discriminated against. They have the same marital right as straight Americans . . . a gay man can marry a woman of his choice, same as a straight man.

So the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument that started this whole issue was a complete lie then?

After all if you're suggesting a loophole whereupon non-heterosexuals "can" "just" enter into sham marriages for the sake of getting married, then you honestly don't REALLY care about marriage as an institution - only that you get to keep the institutionalized bigotry in place.

Otherwise - in order to REALLY protect the sanctity of marriage from non-heterosexuals, you'd bolster the current marriage laws to prevent non-heterosexuals from entering into ANY marriage, since any that they would enter (legally) would be based upon a lie. To do THAT you'd have to create some sort of system that would register non-heterosexuals in the community, probably require that they be identifiable somehow so as to eliminate the possibility that one could sneak in and get a marriage license...

Or - perhaps it's just that I care more about marriage than you do, since I do NOT want to enter into a sham marriage - I want the real thing with the right person.

perpetual_lotion		2009-05-27 01:29:50 PM

EsteeFlwrPot: perpetual_lotion: e of those are written in Genesis. The guy who quoted the Talmud is right.

Yeah but they were mentioned in Genesis.

false.

mongbiohazard		2009-05-27 01:29:50 PM

helix400: Right now, #1 through #12 exist in some form or another within US states' laws.

Wait, really? I have a super-hot cousin (used to be an NFL cheerleader) who is - no lie - attracted to out of shape, 30-something, nerdy white guys. If I had only known about #12!

No, you can't have her number. She's getting married to another pasty pale nerd later this year.

sparrow794		2009-05-27 01:29:52 PM

physt		2009-05-27 01:29:58 PM

elchip: perpetual_lotion: false. try again.

I'm sorry, I should clarify my earlier post.

Exodus 20: God dictates to Moses what we normally associate with the Ten Commandments. Although there's more than 10 of them, and God never calls them the Ten Commandments here.

Exodus 21-23: God gives Moses some more laws.

Exodus 24: God tells Moses to bring other people up the mountain. He tells Moses he'll give him tablets with the laws (although he gave him plenty more laws than the so-called Ten Commandments).

Exodus 25-30: God gives Moses laws about building the Ark, the Tabernacle, tells him about the Priests, etc.

Exodus 31: God gives Moses two tablets with the "testimony" -- no specific mention to the rules from Exodus 20.

Exodus 32: Moses comes down from the mountain, sees the golden calf, and smashes the tablets. He goes back up to talk to God.

Exodus 33: The Israelites see God manifested as a pillar of smoke, and worship. Meanwhile, Moses gets a glimpse of God's butt.

Exodus 34: God gives Moses 10 laws, the "weird" ones about boiling a calf in its mother's milk. He tells Moses to write these down on two tablets, calling them "the Ten Commandments." After 40 days, he comes down with the two tablets "of testimony," which I assume could mean either these new 10 Commandments, or all of the laws he was given.

Exodus 35-39: Moses talks to the Israelites, and they build some stuff.

Exodus 40: Moses puts "the testimony" in the Ark.

Later, in Deuteronomy 5, Moses lists the 10 commandments that we know and love, and says that they're in the Ark.

So, it's a contradiction.

Wait... a contradiction... in a book written by the invisible sky wizard... no....

You may as well be arguing if Superman is stronger than Hulk.

/of course he is
//you know what I mean
///Jebus

radioman_		2009-05-27 01:30:05 PM

God: Will you take my commandments?
Moses: How much are they?
God: Ah, they're free.
Moses: I'll take ten!

/Could care less if gays can or can't marry. It's not my fight, but I'd never vote to oppose it. I'd probably sit out any vote on the matter.

Carth		2009-05-27 01:30:05 PM

stvdallas: I'll say what I always say when this topic comes up.

I'm for civil unions. There is a big difference as far as our goverment is concerned when it comes to man/woman marraige vs. gay marraige.

Tax breaks.

There is a reason for filing jointly as married, and couples that cannot produce children should not be allowed those tax breaks. Those tax breaks are to promote and help raising a family.

Where do married couples that decide not to have kids fit into your plan? Are we going to have a government approved doctor test for ability to reproduce before they are allowed tax breaks?

Joe Blowme		2009-05-27 01:30:08 PM

Peter_B_Risen: Joe Blowme: why not just have civil unions with all the rights as married folk. Put that on a ballot and it would pass. Why insist on calling it marrage? Outflank them and get it done unless that is not the real reason, if you just want the same rights then this is a no brainer.

Because they lack the ability to compromise. It has to be all or nothing.

I agree with this. Gay acceptance has come a long way in the last 20 years. Why not try to get something that is actually obtainable at this time and wait a few more years on the marriage thing.

And quit comparing gay marriage rights to the black civil rights movement. It's insulting.i>

Where did i compare the 2? I did not even mention black civil rights.

NuclearWinter		2009-05-27 01:30:15 PM

ursomniac: Civil unions are very pretty in their frame. Aside from that they're ink on a page. They have absolutely no worth whatsoever legally. ONLY MARRIAGE LICENSES ESTABLISH LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS.

It's worse than that though. Even with a marriage, the federal government is PROHIBITED from recognizing your marriage. States are also given permission to side-step the Full Faith and Credit clause. All because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Like I said, that garbage has to go for any progress to be truly made.

Tatsuhiko		2009-05-27 01:30:19 PM

sparrow794: That's fine, and you're absolutely right - just remember this sentiment when a gun thread hits.

I'd let that slide only if gays busted loads on people on the street.

/You know what I mean.

eddiesocket		2009-05-27 01:30:21 PM

Funk Brothers: eddiesocket: Actually we'll stick around, thank you. Time is on our side, the under 30 crowd overwhelmingly supports marriage equality. Wait for the California re-vote in 2010, and this time, businesses who rely on gay income will think twice about supporting bigotry.

Plus the Obama factor will not be around. Even though a majority of African Americans are liberal and voted for Obama, they voted for the definition of marriage between a man and a woman which is conservative.

Also true. If the African American vote hadn't been so high, Prop 8 would likely have failed.

FloydA		2009-05-27 01:30:28 PM

Nutsac_Jim:
It doesn't change my life if someone walks up and shoots them either. Does that make it ok?

Did you really just compare homosexuality to murder?

Funk Brothers		2009-05-27 01:30:36 PM

stvdallas: I'll say what I always say when this topic comes up.

I'm for civil unions. There is a big difference as far as our goverment is concerned when it comes to man/woman marraige vs. gay marraige.

Tax breaks.

There is a reason for filing jointly as married, and couples that cannot produce children should not be allowed those tax breaks. Those tax breaks are to promote and help raising a family.

I don't mind creating a category for gay couples where they can file jointly in a category for civil union. Any children they have adopted can be used as write offs, but gay couples should not ever receive tax breaks given to married couples. EVER.

Jesus associated with tax collectors from what I read in the Bible. I still support gay rights even though I am a Republican.

Frayed Knot		2009-05-27 01:30:49 PM

This soooo reminds me of 2004. Come on America - catch up already!

/Canadian.

fireclown		2009-05-27 01:31:18 PM

miscreant: Yes, but that's only because they were easy targets for other dinosaurs with their hot pink leather.

That's how darwinism works, hoss. That, and their low rate of reproduction ;)

Contents of a Space Wasp's stomach		2009-05-27 01:31:24 PM

I just got done reading this entire thread up to this point.

The amount of stupid, illogical, hate filled bigots on Fark amazes me.

If stupid was fuel, this thread could run my car.

Displayed 50 of 1841 comments