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.

(News.com.au)   Males less supportive of gay marriage. Way to stick it to the man   (news.com.au) divider line 268
    More: Obvious, draft law, highest point, same-sex couples, lobby group  
•       •       •

3086 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2012 at 8:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-06 08:40:24 PM
I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.
 
2012-08-06 08:40:55 PM
Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.
 
2012-08-06 08:41:08 PM
Males less supportive of gay marriage
 
2012-08-06 08:41:48 PM
Last time I checked, I've got nards, like women in latex, and completely support gay marriage.

The 21st century was supposed to be about awesome and a new age of reason. Fark all this hatred, religious assery and bigotry.
 
2012-08-06 08:41:55 PM
www.myfacewhen.net
 
2012-08-06 08:42:03 PM
what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?

seriously.
 
2012-08-06 08:42:15 PM
I've found this to be the opposite in my experience
 
2012-08-06 08:42:51 PM

you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.


No you don't.

-3/10
 
2012-08-06 08:43:00 PM

Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.


You aren't for reading comprehension skills, obviously.
 
2012-08-06 08:43:18 PM

Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.


*specifically for the TAX benefits*
 
2012-08-06 08:43:35 PM
Awesome headline is awesome.
 
2012-08-06 08:43:53 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?

seriously.


After gay marriage you still get blowjobs.
 
2012-08-06 08:43:54 PM

gtfan92: Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

You aren't for reading comprehension skills, obviously.


/DNRTFA
 
2012-08-06 08:44:28 PM
The whole marriage thing is complete bullshiat anyway.
 
2012-08-06 08:44:37 PM

Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

You aren't for reading comprehension skills, obviously.

/DNRTFA


//I'm a headline man, actually, you?
 
2012-08-06 08:44:38 PM

Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

You aren't for reading comprehension skills, obviously.

/DNRTFA


But you read the Fark headline, yes?
 
2012-08-06 08:46:08 PM
But if two men marry, how will the courts completely screw one over in the name of "gender equality".
 
2012-08-06 08:46:16 PM
I was relatively sure it was 'straight males don't care about marriage. Period."?
 
2012-08-06 08:46:33 PM

diaphoresis: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

No you don't.

-3/10


-7/10
 
2012-08-06 08:47:02 PM
i291.photobucket.com

I'm still up twenty-five grand the last time I stick it in you!

/gud jorb subby
 
2012-08-06 08:47:03 PM

you are a puppet: diaphoresis: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

No you don't.

-3/10

-7/10


Lowered your own score.. nice...
 
2012-08-06 08:47:22 PM

URAPNIS: The whole marriage thing is complete bullshiat anyway.


Just because you are divorced, working in a dead end job, and paying two thirds of your salary in child support doesn't mean the rest of us will fark it up.
 
2012-08-06 08:47:30 PM

gtfan92: Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

You aren't for reading comprehension skills, obviously.

/DNRTFA

But you read the Fark headline, yes?


Yeah,

Where's the disconnect, asshole?

You?
 
2012-08-06 08:47:36 PM

you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.


in this the 18th year of a loveless shell of matrimonial suffering, i can only agree. while i slowly save my pennies for the day i can afford Divorce Lawyer. as i look forward to once again being in the company of women who still have sex. some day.

/bitter, married to a coont
//does it show?
 
2012-08-06 08:47:40 PM
I am not surprised. There are only two types of men in this world. Gays and homophobes. I just don't get the gay lifestyle. How can you look at another man's hairy a$$ and find love? Stay in the closet!
 
2012-08-06 08:48:08 PM

Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 480x360]

I'm still up twenty-five grand the last time I stick it in you!

/gud jorb subby


vant a cooookie?
 
2012-08-06 08:48:18 PM
Not surprising since it is womenfolk's fault that people are gay.
 
2012-08-06 08:48:28 PM
I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.

Then again, I'm anti government involvement in most things. Gub'mint just tends to fark things up.
 
2012-08-06 08:48:47 PM

you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.


Soon enough, it will only be between a group of men, a group of women, a bengal tiger, two dogs, a VHS tape and a turtle.
 
2012-08-06 08:48:47 PM

darkedgefan: I am not surprised. There are only two types of men in this world. Gays and homophobes. I just don't get the gay lifestyle. How can you look at another man's hairy a$$ and find love? Stay in the closet!


Half of all gays are born that way.. the other half get sucked into it.
 
2012-08-06 08:48:55 PM

Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

You aren't for reading comprehension skills, obviously.

/DNRTFA

But you read the Fark headline, yes?

Yeah,

Where's the disconnect, asshole?

You?


Please elucidate.
 
2012-08-06 08:49:11 PM

Znuh: The 21st century was supposed to be about awesome and a new age of reason. Fark all this hatred, religious assery and bigotry.


This was an Australian poll, so I'm going to assume that it's less about religious bigotry (we don't have nearly as many crazy-ass fundamentalists here) and more about sexual insecurity. God knows they're threatened enough by me, and I even don't have a dick to be threatened by.
 
2012-08-06 08:49:19 PM

KrispyKritter: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

in this the 18th year of a loveless shell of matrimonial suffering, i can only agree. while i slowly save my pennies for the day i can afford Divorce Lawyer. as i look forward to once again being in the company of women who still have sex. some day.

/bitter, married to a coont
//does it show?


Get pure ethanol, mix it in her morning juice or coffee.

Problem will solve itself on the way to work.
 
2012-08-06 08:49:55 PM

darkedgefan: I am not surprised. There are only two types of men in this world. Gays and homophobes. I just don't get the gay lifestyle. How can you look at another man's hairy a$$ and find love? Stay in the closet!


I think the same thing every time I've got another casual pick-up back at my toolshed. It disgusts me every time I'm thrusting up against one. Just the thought of it makes me sick!
 
2012-08-06 08:50:32 PM
I'm for whatever makes consenting adults happy. I'm also for less universal things but allowing consenting adults to do as they please is enough.
 
2012-08-06 08:50:51 PM

darkedgefan: I am not surprised. There are only two types of men in this world. Gays and homophobes. I just don't get the gay lifestyle. How can you look at another man's hairy a$$ and find love? Stay in the closet!


0/10
 
2012-08-06 08:51:11 PM
Indubuitably:

Headline: "Obvious Males less supportive of gay marriage. Way to stick it to the man"

Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.


I wasn't aware you were representative of all males. Being pedantic probably, but whatever.
 
2012-08-06 08:51:27 PM

radarlove: I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.


So atheists who get married by a judge aren't married? A couple married by a ship captain aren't married? Or a notary public? Or a star fleet admiral in Vegas?

/marriage isn't a religious ceremony
 
2012-08-06 08:51:30 PM
this is probably more true of "macho" men as well

so eye-talians, hispaneeks, and the negroes dont approve of gay marriages moreso than say asians
 
2012-08-06 08:51:55 PM

gingerjet: URAPNIS: The whole marriage thing is complete bullshiat anyway.

Just because you are divorced, working in a dead end job, and paying two thirds of your salary in child support doesn't mean the rest of us will fark it up.


Statistically, in the US, isn't more than half of normal folks fark it up?
 
2012-08-06 08:52:29 PM

darkedgefan: I am not surprised. There are only two types of men in this world. Gays and homophobes. I just don't get the gay lifestyle. How can you look at another man's hairy a$$ and find love? Stay in the closet!


gays in the pre-life were brainwashed by Satan in rape/pedo chambers in the 5th CIRCLE OF HELL. all because they forgot to wash their hands before cooking their beef.
 
2012-08-06 08:52:39 PM

TravelingFreakshow: Awesome headline is awesome.

 
2012-08-06 08:53:08 PM

gingerjet: radarlove: I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.

So atheists who get married by a judge aren't married? A couple married by a ship captain aren't married? Or a notary public? Or a star fleet admiral in Vegas?

/marriage isn't a religious ceremony


Atheism is a religion.
 
2012-08-06 08:53:10 PM
Are "top" and "bottom" reversed in Australia?
 
2012-08-06 08:53:37 PM
It's a failure of marketing for pro-gay rights groups. They've let gay be primarily associated with sweaty man on man action. Women might be kinda okay with that but straight dudes aren't. If the first thing people thought of when they thought "gay" was two or three hot lesbians making out it would be a totally different story.
 
2012-08-06 08:53:49 PM
I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

Either way, I'm going to a Buddhist monastery.
 
2012-08-06 08:53:52 PM
And?

You are going to see this with the Conservative male.

You do realize that if Gay Marriage becomes legal everywhere their boyfriend will then want them to divorce their wives to marry them!
 
2012-08-06 08:54:16 PM

you are a puppet: diaphoresis: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

No you don't.

-3/10

-7/10


.386/-10
 
2012-08-06 08:54:16 PM
This has got be a headline of the legendary 40below. Just has his style.
 
2012-08-06 08:54:38 PM

radarlove: gingerjet: radarlove: I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.

So atheists who get married by a judge aren't married? A couple married by a ship captain aren't married? Or a notary public? Or a star fleet admiral in Vegas?

/marriage isn't a religious ceremony

Atheism is a religion.


-1/10

/not really trying are you?
 
2012-08-06 08:54:43 PM

KrispyKritter: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

in this the 18th year of a loveless shell of matrimonial suffering, i can only agree. while i slowly save my pennies for the day i can afford Divorce Lawyer. as i look forward to once again being in the company of women who still have sex. some day.

/bitter, married to a coont
//does it show?


Every year you are just getting older. Get out while you still have a life left to live.
 
2012-08-06 08:54:51 PM

Capo Del Bandito: gingerjet: URAPNIS: The whole marriage thing is complete bullshiat anyway.

Just because you are divorced, working in a dead end job, and paying two thirds of your salary in child support doesn't mean the rest of us will fark it up.

Statistically, in the US, isn't more than half of normal folks fark it up?


No, because divorced people can keeping getting divorced. A married couple stays a married couple for life.

For example, eight couples have to stay together for life to equal one Liz Taylor.
 
2012-08-06 08:55:50 PM

gingerjet: radarlove: gingerjet: radarlove: I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.

So atheists who get married by a judge aren't married? A couple married by a ship captain aren't married? Or a notary public? Or a star fleet admiral in Vegas?

/marriage isn't a religious ceremony

Atheism is a religion.

-1/10

/not really trying are you?


Not that time, no, but give it a few minutes, i'm pretty sure it'll get at least a bite or two.
 
2012-08-06 08:56:41 PM
fark marriage.

All of it.
 
2012-08-06 08:56:41 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: darkedgefan: I am not surprised. There are only two types of men in this world. Gays and homophobes. I just don't get the gay lifestyle. How can you look at another man's hairy a$$ and find love? Stay in the closet!

gays in the pre-life were brainwashed by Satan in rape/pedo chambers in the 5th CIRCLE OF HELL. all because they forgot to wash their hands before cooking their beef.


No, I think you're wrong on that. Gays know a great deal about proper meat handling procedures.
 
2012-08-06 08:56:58 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: you are a puppet: diaphoresis: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

No you don't.

-3/10

-7/10

.386/-10


Showoff :-p
 
2012-08-06 08:57:04 PM

Korzine: Capo Del Bandito: gingerjet: URAPNIS: The whole marriage thing is complete bullshiat anyway.

Just because you are divorced, working in a dead end job, and paying two thirds of your salary in child support doesn't mean the rest of us will fark it up.

Statistically, in the US, isn't more than half of normal folks fark it up?

No, because divorced people can keeping getting divorced. A married couple stays a married couple for life.

For example, eight couples have to stay together for life to equal one Liz Taylor.


I haven't had that much to drink yet, but your post is making my head wonk a bit.

Wut?
 
2012-08-06 08:58:01 PM
Males less supportive of gay marriage.

FTFY
 
2012-08-06 08:58:26 PM
Why should I complain, ust leaves more rampant totty for us real men, eh?

/like it firm and fruity
 
2012-08-06 08:58:39 PM

KrispyKritter: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

in this the 18th year of a loveless shell of matrimonial suffering, i can only agree. while i slowly save my pennies for the day i can afford Divorce Lawyer. as i look forward to once again being in the company of women who still have sex. some day.

/bitter, married to a coont
//does it show?


I'm a divorce lawyer (well, it's 10% of my practice) and you could easily afford my services. You just might not be able to afford the payout to your wife (and 18 years is a big payout)

/But if you live in CO or GA I can make it happen
 
RnR
2012-08-06 08:59:14 PM
As a straight male I support gay marriage 100%. I'm also in support of gay couples being allowed to have children via adoption or surrogate.

I also support being randomly sent baked goods. Preferably Banana Nut or Blueberry muffins. I support BIE too. Dolphin juggling, flapjack throwing competitions, edible underwear on women covered in raspberry jam and brownie birthday cakes covered in marshmallow icing.

No one gives a damn about a woman's right to cover herself in raspberry jam and send a random stranger pictures of said act along with a basket of fresh baked muffins but as soon as someone mentions gay marriage everyone gets all up in arms and takes a side.

If ANYONE wants to get married whether for love or for tax reasons let them. At this point in history it shouldn't even be close to a big deal.

As a people we need to move on to more important issues like somehow getting RnR pictures of hot 18+ females covered in raspberry jam and wearing candy undies. (I'll also settle for that muffin basket). Everything else is just old men yelling at the clouds.
 
2012-08-06 08:59:27 PM
Droppin' my j's over this.
 
2012-08-06 08:59:45 PM

Capo Del Bandito: Statistically, in the US, isn't more than half of normal folks fark it up?


No. half of all marriages. That means that many many people fark it up and then go for another marriage ... then another ...

It's about 20% of people who do 50% of the divorcin'
 
2012-08-06 08:59:52 PM

LarryDan43: Males less supportive of gay marriage


Came here to say this, pleased to find it top 3.

Indubitably: Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

You aren't for reading comprehension skills, obviously.

/DNRTFA

But you read the Fark headline, yes?

Yeah,

Where's the disconnect, asshole?

You?

Please elucidate.


I don't get why you keep quoting & replying to your own posts.

Anyway, I think the idea here is that the headline says "Males" less supportive of gay marriage.

You said you supported it, and said "wrong," as if the headline was invalidated by your support.

But the article says "Males," not "All Males."

Therefore your support has no effect on the veracity of the headline, or the article backing it, so long as 2 or more males are "less supportive" of gay marriage (than women, I assume, DNRTFA).

To be slightly less nitpicky, I think the headline means that statistically, fewer men are supportive of gay marriage than women, and/or are less strongly supportive. Neither of which are markedly impacted by your personal stance, ergo why stating "wrong" was incorrect and you were called on your reading comprehension.
 
2012-08-06 09:00:26 PM
It's not bigotry, it's being a good bro and trying to save other guys from making the same mistakes we did.
 
2012-08-06 09:00:37 PM

TravelingFreakshow: Awesome headline is awesome.


I think you mean "fabulous".
 
2012-08-06 09:00:58 PM

gingerjet: radarlove: gingerjet: radarlove: I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.

So atheists who get married by a judge aren't married? A couple married by a ship captain aren't married? Or a notary public? Or a star fleet admiral in Vegas?

/marriage isn't a religious ceremony

Atheism is a religion.

-1/10

/not really trying are you?


Atheism is a form of religion
 
2012-08-06 09:01:22 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?

seriously.


This pretty much sums it up. (SFW-ish)

by sfw-ish I mean in terms of visually, contains salty language.
 
2012-08-06 09:01:31 PM

rubi_con_man: Capo Del Bandito: Statistically, in the US, isn't more than half of normal folks fark it up?

No. half of all marriages. That means that many many people fark it up and then go for another marriage ... then another ...

It's about 20% of people who do 50% of the divorcin'


I was told there would be no math here.

I dunno. I imagine lotta folks get jaded after that marriage and prefer not to do it again.
 
2012-08-06 09:01:58 PM
Where are the Priscilla Queen of the Desert photos?
 
2012-08-06 09:02:16 PM

BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.


I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P
 
2012-08-06 09:03:41 PM
That's what he said!
 
2012-08-06 09:03:49 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P


Probably depends on the sitchy-aytion. My mom got fark-all from divorcing my dad, and he got primary custody.

Second go round, step-dad was the one what did the running, so she got money from him for a long while, and bennies.
 
2012-08-06 09:04:34 PM

Capo Del Bandito: gingerjet: URAPNIS: The whole marriage thing is complete bullshiat anyway.

Just because you are divorced, working in a dead end job, and paying two thirds of your salary in child support doesn't mean the rest of us will fark it up.

Statistically, in the US, isn't more than half of normal folks fark it up?


filmfaced.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-06 09:06:30 PM
Those that are "less supportive" probably don't want other men to treat them the way the treat women.

/not my line, not sure where it came from
 
2012-08-06 09:08:08 PM
I will believe that when there is a group called One Million Dads. The few people I know that are against gay marriage, at least admit it, are women. One of which is black and married to a white man. I love pointing out that it wasn't so long ago she would not have been allowed to marry her husband she is too dense to get it though. I live in the gayest town in Gaystonia though I only have 4 straight neighbors within 100 yards of me so YMMV.
 
2012-08-06 09:08:14 PM

clevernamehere: LarryDan43: Males less supportive of gay marriage

Came here to say this, pleased to find it top 3.Indubitably: Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

You aren't for reading comprehension skills, obviously.

/DNRTFA

But you read the Fark headline, yes?

Yeah,

Where's the disconnect, asshole?

You?

Please elucidate.

I don't get why you keep quoting & replying to your own posts.

Anyway, I think the idea here is that the headline says "Males" less supportive of gay marriage.

You said you supported it, and said "wrong," as if the headline was invalidated by your support.

But the article says "Males," not "All Males."

Therefore your support has no effect on the veracity of the headline, or the article backing it, so long as 2 or more males are "less supportive" of gay marriage (than women, I assume, DNRTFA).

To be slightly less nitpicky, I think the headline means that statistically, fewer men are supportive of gay marriage than women, and/or are less strongly supportive. Neither of which are markedly impacted by your personal stance, ergo why stating "wrong" was incorrect and you were called on your reading comprehension.


Punctuation much?

AND, thanks for the play-by-play, by the way, I find your deconstruction lacking on many levels, mostly assumed, but what else is new, no? You 'overly-primed' are obvious, really. And sort of *too hard?* You might might want to DeViagra as you DeHate, man. Your mates will thank you later...?
 
2012-08-06 09:08:59 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 480x360]

I'm still up twenty-five grand the last time I stick it in you!

/gud jorb subby

vant a cooookie?


i291.photobucket.com

I'm gonna let you keep munching away on those......
 
2012-08-06 09:09:19 PM

MurphyMurphy: filmfaced.files.wordpress.com


Well played...
 
2012-08-06 09:09:27 PM

Capo Del Bandito: gingerjet: URAPNIS: The whole marriage thing is complete bullshiat anyway.

Just because you are divorced, working in a dead end job, and paying two thirds of your salary in child support doesn't mean the rest of us will fark it up.

Statistically, in the US, isn't more than half of normal folks fark it up?


About 50% of all marriages end in divorce, but, when the stat was adjusted for first marriages, supposedly, about 41% end in divorce, according to some sites.
 
2012-08-06 09:09:42 PM

clevernamehere: Anyway, I think the idea here is that the headline says "Males" less supportive of gay marriage.

You said you supported it, and said "wrong," as if the headline was invalidated by your support.

But the article says "Males," not "All Males."

Therefore your support has no effect on the veracity of the headline, or the article backing it, so long as 2 or more males are "less supportive" of gay marriage (than women, I assume, DNRTFA).

To be slightly less nitpicky, I think the headline means that statistically, fewer men are supportive of gay marriage than women, and/or are less strongly supportive. Neither of which are markedly impacted by your personal stance, ergo why stating "wrong" was incorrect and you were called on your reading comprehension.


Perhaps his problem is the tag. Maybe he just disagrees that it's "obvious" that men would be less supportive of gay marriage. Or he's an idiot, I dunno.
 
2012-08-06 09:10:14 PM

gtfan92: Indubuitably:

Headline: "Obvious Males less supportive of gay marriage. Way to stick it to the man"

Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

I wasn't aware you were representative of all males. Being pedantic probably, but whatever.


I know you aren't new here, so what's up, buttercup?

Me represent everyperson?

Never.
 
2012-08-06 09:10:18 PM

Arkanaut: Those that are "less supportive" probably don't want other men to treat them the way the treat women.

/not my line, not sure where it came from


That line isn't making sense.
 
2012-08-06 09:11:14 PM

Znuh: Fark all this hatred, religious assery and bigotry.


And yes you separate the religious out for special hatred.
Prejudice begins with thinking that all of a group are the same.
 
2012-08-06 09:11:40 PM

KrispyKritter: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

in this the 18th year of a loveless shell of matrimonial suffering, i can only agree. while i slowly save my pennies for the day i can afford Divorce Lawyer. as i look forward to once again being in the company of women who still have sex. some day.

/bitter, married to a coont
//does it show?


"Wife is a wonderful, intelligent woman"

Me thinks it's either time you update your profile or turn in your He-man Woman Haters Club membership card.

Remember the oath:

Stymie: Everyone raise your right hand . . (rolls eyes and sighs) No, your
other right hand. . . I, Stymie (all repeat)...Member in good standing of the
He-man Woman Haters Club (all repeat)...do solemnly swear to be a heman
and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I have
to. And especially: never fall in love. And if I do, may I die slowly and
painfully and suffer for hours or until I scream bloody murder. (all try to
repeat)
 
2012-08-06 09:12:31 PM

Indubitably: gtfan92: Indubuitably:

Headline: "Obvious Males less supportive of gay marriage. Way to stick it to the man"

Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

I wasn't aware you were representative of all males. Being pedantic probably, but whatever.

I know you aren't new here, so what's up, buttercup?

Me represent everyperson?

Never.


"I'm a man, baby!"
 
2012-08-06 09:12:49 PM
People may claim they are doing this out of a level of respect for the sanctity of marriage, but in the end it's a money issue. Equality under the law means homosexuals get the same tax breaks and insurance benefits as straight couples. Companies that have to worry about dependents are fighting gay marriage on these issues alone.
 
2012-08-06 09:13:59 PM

Kurmudgeon: Znuh: Fark all this hatred, religious assery and bigotry.

And yes you separate the religious out for special hatred.
Prejudice begins with thinking that all of a group are the same.


I believe I singled out three items:

*Hatred

*Religious Assery

*Bigotry

However, if you're happy to let your tiny brain generalize, as you just did, it's your problem. And your ignorance.
 
2012-08-06 09:14:14 PM
cdn.themetapicture.com
 
2012-08-06 09:14:46 PM

URAPNIS: The whole marriage thing is complete bullshiat anyway.


I like it.

Doesn't mean it's for everyone. It may not even be for me in the future. But it has a purpose, which can be positive and productive.

Marriage... Is like... a gun. Limited number of useful reasons to use one, and most idiots end up shooting themselves (or someone else).
 
2012-08-06 09:15:29 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Arkanaut: Those that are "less supportive" probably don't want other men to treat them the way they treat women.

/not my line, not sure where it came from

That line isn't making sense.


Blech.
 
2012-08-06 09:16:20 PM
I look forward to the day when we don't have to talk about this stupid issue anymore. Having said that, I don't see why anyone would even want to get married today. My friend just got married, and all I see is the cost of one single day.
 
2012-08-06 09:16:20 PM
www.fuckfrance.com

/Can't believe I'm first with this
 
2012-08-06 09:18:53 PM

thisisyourbrainonFark: [cdn.themetapicture.com image 482x557]


fark gay marriage i wanna marry drugz like crack cocaine
 
2012-08-06 09:20:22 PM
Men should be for marriage equality if only for the chance that with gay marriage fully recognized, there will be no way to discriminate based on sex for alimony.
And if non applicable for homosexual marriage the practice would hopefully be finally stopped for all marriages.
 
2012-08-06 09:20:23 PM
I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.
 
2012-08-06 09:20:29 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P


I'm guessing he either had nothing, or for the sake of expediancy, you expected nothing. Sometimes it's just better that way.

Unless there were kids involved. In that case: what the hell were you thinking? It would be within your legal rights to fire bomb your lawyer's house if he agreed to this.
 
2012-08-06 09:22:42 PM
i877.photobucket.com

It's not really hard to understand. Men just don't see the beauty in things the way women do.
It's genetics or something.
 
2012-08-06 09:24:28 PM

CujoQuarrel: I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.


So you can only marry if your religious then?
Congratulations. You've failed to solve the problem.
You've just changed those you're discriminating against from homosexuals to atheists and agnostics.
Theists don't have a monopoly on marriage.
 
2012-08-06 09:24:53 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P


It happens. Sometimes it's just cleaner that way. Unless you desperately need the money (kids, shared debts), it's tainted with whatever stupidity your ex got on it.

An old co-worker did the "nice" thing in the divorce, and she got slapped with their shared debts when he fled the state. And then another 10 years of nail-biting as he'd play head-games with their son (which I recognize is typically the opposite case...).
 
2012-08-06 09:26:51 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: thisisyourbrainonFark: [cdn.themetapicture.com image 482x557]

fark gay marriage i wanna marry drugz like crack cocaine


Then you can take bath salts together!
 
2012-08-06 09:28:06 PM

Zizzowop: I look forward to the day when we don't have to talk about this stupid issue anymore. Having said that, I don't see why anyone would even want to get married today. My friend just got married, and all I see is the cost of one single day.


I can see where you're coming from in regards to the big spectacles that go for $26,000 (actually, I think that's the average now, jeebus), but, if you do it right, it doesn't need to be anything more than a big party with family, friends, good food and booze, and it won't run any more than a few grand. My husband and I did it that way, and it was a great time. My sister-in-law wanted the fairy-tale wedding, which didn't get quite as spectacular as she (read: my brother's MIL) wanted, but still, it was an enormous production that I was glad never to have to do. My brother and SIL made it through alright and enjoyed themselves, so, meh, to each his/her own.

That being said, yes, I hope we'll look back on this and think "wow, how stupid was that debate."
 
2012-08-06 09:30:40 PM

CujoQuarrel: I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.


Japan does it this way. You apply for a marriage license (like applying for a driver's license), pay the taxes and application fees. Three bangs of a rubber stamp later and you're married. NEXT! It takes about twenty minutes or so to sink before you realize what you have just done. Marriage ceremonies are optional but not required. I'm sure finding a religious leader willing to preside would not be to difficult at this point as the marriage would already have been recognized by the government anyways.
 
2012-08-06 09:31:36 PM
In fairness, males are more likely to know how to use a dictionary.
 
2012-08-06 09:32:05 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P


Nope, my mum was left with a broken fridge, two bean bag chairs, and her Volkswagen Rabbit in the divorce from her first hubby and a mortgage that he "forgot" to tell her he hadn't paid in three months. Granted this was 1980...and she did just want to get the hell out.
 
2012-08-06 09:32:07 PM

Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.


You're a bit out of character today.
 
2012-08-06 09:36:01 PM
Serious question:

If two men can get married, why on Earth couldn't a man marry his own brother?

You can't tell me that their offspring are going to be at seriously increased risk of birth defects, which is why a man can't marry his own sister.

So how about it? Enlighten me with your progressive tolerant wisdom. Hop to it!
 
2012-08-06 09:37:06 PM

Pantubo: In fairness, males are more likely to know how to use a dictionary.


ass sex
 
2012-08-06 09:37:18 PM

Korzine: But if two men marry, how will the courts completely screw one over in the name of "gender equality".


Face it, if you're lonely and broke from paying child support, it's your fault. The secret to a happy marriage is to compliment her at every opportunity, buy her flowers, and do what she tells you to do. That's easy even for a completely narcissistic lazy person. Your stupid ideas aren't going to make you happy; they're just going to make you lonely and broke from paying child support.
 
2012-08-06 09:37:55 PM

blueviking: Zizzowop: I look forward to the day when we don't have to talk about this stupid issue anymore. Having said that, I don't see why anyone would even want to get married today. My friend just got married, and all I see is the cost of one single day.

I can see where you're coming from in regards to the big spectacles that go for $26,000 (actually, I think that's the average now, jeebus), but, if you do it right, it doesn't need to be anything more than a big party with family, friends, good food and booze, and it won't run any more than a few grand. My husband and I did it that way, and it was a great time. My sister-in-law wanted the fairy-tale wedding, which didn't get quite as spectacular as she (read: my brother's MIL) wanted, but still, it was an enormous production that I was glad never to have to do. My brother and SIL made it through alright and enjoyed themselves, so, meh, to each his/her own.

That being said, yes, I hope we'll look back on this and think "wow, how stupid was that debate."


Yeah, I don't know how or when weddings got out of control on costs, it's just so crazy to me, I don't blame people for running off to Vegas to get married, I have no issues with that, it's more of the commercial aspect of it. I hope it gets better.
 
2012-08-06 09:39:59 PM

2 Replies: CujoQuarrel: I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.

So you can only marry if your religious then?
Congratulations. You've failed to solve the problem.
You've just changed those you're discriminating against from homosexuals to atheists and agnostics.
Theists don't have a monopoly on marriage.


Make up your own religion. Or have an civil ceremony. Who cares. Just don't get the government involved.
 
2012-08-06 09:40:26 PM

Pantubo: Serious question:

If two men can get married, why on Earth couldn't a man marry his own brother?

You can't tell me that their offspring are going to be at seriously increased risk of birth defects, which is why a man can't marry his own sister.

So how about it? Enlighten me with your progressive tolerant wisdom. Hop to it!


Jesies! You can have gay marriage and you're complaining already? We don't play favorites here. If I can't marry my sister- you can't marry your brother.
 
2012-08-06 09:41:31 PM

Antagonism: Indubitably: Wrong.

This straight male is FOR marriage for all, plebs.

You're a bit out of character today.


*hmmph*
 
2012-08-06 09:41:37 PM

Pantubo: Serious question:

If two men can get married, why on Earth couldn't a man marry his own brother?

You can't tell me that their offspring are going to be at seriously increased risk of birth defects, which is why a man can't marry his own sister.

So how about it? Enlighten me with your progressive tolerant wisdom. Hop to it!


You really have to wonder about people who bring up shiat like this.

Reminds me of the Baptist minister who said to his Unitarian-Universalist minister friend: "Since you don't believe in divine retribution, you could commit murder or rape without worrying about its effect on your immortal soul." The Unitarian replied, "Yes, but the idea of doing something like that would never occur to me."
 
2012-08-06 09:42:25 PM
"We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!
 
2012-08-06 09:43:20 PM

Pantubo: Serious question:

If two men can get married, why on Earth couldn't a man marry his own brother?

You can't tell me that their offspring
are going to be at seriously increased risk of birth defects, which is why a man can't marry his own sister.

So how about it? Enlighten me with your progressive tolerant wisdom. Hop to it!


Huh?
2 guys are going to procreate, all by themselves?
 
2012-08-06 09:44:15 PM

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!


Vaginal excretions are more "noble"?
 
2012-08-06 09:44:33 PM
what about rape marriages

it's what the bible offers. all you have to do is pick up the book and pray
praise Jesus.

/and rape
 
2012-08-06 09:44:42 PM

RnR: No one gives a damn about a woman's right to cover herself in raspberry jam and send a random stranger pictures of said act along with a basket of fresh baked muffin


[zip] Go on ....
 
2012-08-06 09:45:36 PM

Indubitably: Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!

Vaginal excretions are more "noble"?


Mind you, I've had these on my face many times, and I'm troubling to find how they were "noble," man...
 
2012-08-06 09:46:24 PM

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!


HELLO? gay marriage isn't real. it's a hoax created by hollywood. like Tom Cruise.
 
2012-08-06 09:48:06 PM

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!


You do realize you don't have to be left out of the action as women also have rectums too. One can only hope that you are a considerate lover and wash your peener once in a while before hopping in the sack with your lover.
 
2012-08-06 09:49:48 PM
instead of going to Christian Church gays can go to

images.businessweek.com
 
2012-08-06 09:53:16 PM

Pantubo: Serious question:

If two men can get married, why on Earth couldn't a man marry his own brother?

You can't tell me that their offspring are going to be at seriously increased risk of birth defects, which is why a man can't marry his own sister.

So how about it? Enlighten me with your progressive tolerant wisdom. Hop to it!


How did you figure out how to use a computer? Did someone help you type that?
 
2012-08-06 09:57:44 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: instead of going to Christian Church gays can go to

[images.businessweek.com image 600x350]


"A" for effort, but "D" for follow-through. So it averages to a C+, so I guess you still pass.
 
2012-08-06 10:00:16 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?

seriously.


Silly goose. Everyone knows that gay marriages are FAR more fabulous than normal marriages...
 
2012-08-06 10:01:46 PM

diaphoresis: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

No you don't.

-3/10


Now that I'm divorced, I'm completely in favor of our government banning marriage for straight people.
 
2012-08-06 10:01:50 PM

digitalrain: Jon iz teh kewl: what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?

seriously.

Silly goose. Everyone knows that gay marriages are FAR more fabulous than normal marriages...


so fabulous you don't even need a normal family tree
 
2012-08-06 10:06:19 PM

CujoQuarrel: 2 Replies: CujoQuarrel: I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.

So you can only marry if your religious then?
Congratulations. You've failed to solve the problem.
You've just changed those you're discriminating against from homosexuals to atheists and agnostics.
Theists don't have a monopoly on marriage.

Make up your own religion. Or have an civil ceremony. Who cares. Just don't get the government involved.


That's already the case. Marriage is already a purely civil matter in America. The only intersection between religion and marriage is that the state allows officials of government recognized religions to sign on as a witness on a marriage license. It could just as easily be a judge or notary. We're already out of religious marriage.
 
2012-08-06 10:12:55 PM

Thanks for the Meme-ries: I'm still up twenty-five grand the last time I stick it in you!

/gud jorb subby


Man that was a bad accent, hated that role for him made me cringe.

And most males don't give a shiat, if you're straight that just means more women are free, personally I don't care and its not a big issue for me at all.

Sick of idiots making it a political issue since it only affects about 10-15% of the population. But then its one of the topics they use to inflame the masses to keep the people fighting amongst themselves so they don't really pay attention to what they are doing.
 
2012-08-06 10:12:59 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P


Other than my kid (he was the only thing I wanted), I asked for (and got) nothing. Courts ordered
my ex to pay a measly $56 / week in child support, which I haven't seen in over 11 years. I would
have taken him to court over it, except that my son has enough emotional issues without being told
that his mom sent his dad to jail (and that is exactly how my ex would spin it).

You won't believe the screaming matches I had with my *mother* over why I wasn't taking him to
the cleaners during the divorce. She just didn't get that all I wanted was to be away and safe and
to not have the threat of him taking my son away from me used as a way to keep me in line.
 
2012-08-06 10:14:29 PM

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement.


cdn0.hark.com

Wants to party with you.
 
2012-08-06 10:15:18 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Znuh: The 21st century was supposed to be about awesome and a new age of reason. Fark all this hatred, religious assery and bigotry.

This was an Australian poll, so I'm going to assume that it's less about religious bigotry (we don't have nearly as many crazy-ass fundamentalists here) and more about sexual insecurity. God knows they're threatened enough by me, and I even don't have a dick to be threatened by.


Yep. This poll reflects the percentages of either gender in Australia who regularly or occasionally viewed episodes of Will and Grace. Nothing more, nothing less. Biden was on the money. Aussie blokes are generally macho (and have the associated insecurities) but the more intelligent half of that group recognise that allowing gay marriage and making it compulsory for all are not the same thing.
 
2012-08-06 10:15:20 PM

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!


Plenty of straights do anal and plenty of gays don't. Try again.
 
2012-08-06 10:20:02 PM

Indubitably: clevernamehere:
I don't get why you keep quoting & replying to your own posts.

Anyway, I think the idea here is that the headline says "Males" less supportive of gay marriage.

You said you supported it, and said "wrong," as if the headline was invalidated by your support.

But the article says "Males," not "All Males."

Therefore your support has no effect on the veracity of the headline, or the article backing it, so long as 2 or more males are "less supportive" of gay marriage (than women, I assume, DNRTFA).

To be slightly less nitpicky, I think the headline means that statistically, fewer men are supportive of gay marriage than women, and/or are less strongly supportive. Neither of which are markedly impacted by your personal stance, ergo why stating "wrong" was incorrect and you were called on your reading comprehension.

Punctuation much?


Sure, I like punctuation. And I guess there is "much" of it when I use multiple sentences. Unless you mean I did something wrong? in which case, try using more words so I know that's what you mean. Also, perhaps you might point out specifically what the problem is?

AND, thanks for the play-by-play, by the way, I find your deconstruction lacking on many levels, mostly assumed, but what else is new, no? You 'overly-primed' are obvious, really. And sort of *too hard?* You might might want to DeViagra as you DeHate, man. Your mates will thank you later...?

Is... is that English?

Is "overly-primed" a plural noun? Or an adjective with no subject? What the hell does it mean anyway?

BTW, nice use of apostrophes AND asterisks in place of quotations in the same sentence.

"Too hard" and "DeViagra?"

...are you talking about my boner? Some kind of... Hate-Boner?

/I need an adult
 
2012-08-06 10:20:07 PM

12349876: Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!

Plenty of straights do anal and plenty of gays don't. Try again.


hurp e durp durp
the only reason we're on here is because certain drugs are illegal
 
2012-08-06 10:23:45 PM
I have just never looked at a guys hairy ass and thought, "man, I gotta have some of that." But then what about the lesbians? Let them get married, we weren't getting any of that any way.
 
2012-08-06 10:24:36 PM

clevernamehere: Indubitably: clevernamehere:
I don't get why you keep quoting & replying to your own posts.

Anyway, I think the idea here is that the headline says "Males" less supportive of gay marriage.

You said you supported it, and said "wrong," as if the headline was invalidated by your support.

But the article says "Males," not "All Males."

Therefore your support has no effect on the veracity of the headline, or the article backing it, so long as 2 or more males are "less supportive" of gay marriage (than women, I assume, DNRTFA).

To be slightly less nitpicky, I think the headline means that statistically, fewer men are supportive of gay marriage than women, and/or are less strongly supportive. Neither of which are markedly impacted by your personal stance, ergo why stating "wrong" was incorrect and you were called on your reading comprehension.

Punctuation much?

Sure, I like punctuation. And I guess there is "much" of it when I use multiple sentences. Unless you mean I did something wrong? in which case, try using more words so I know that's what you mean. Also, perhaps you might point out specifically what the problem is?

AND, thanks for the play-by-play, by the way, I find your deconstruction lacking on many levels, mostly assumed, but what else is new, no? You 'overly-primed' are obvious, really. And sort of *too hard?* You might might want to DeViagra as you DeHate, man. Your mates will thank you later...?

Is... is that English?

Is "overly-primed" a plural noun? Or an adjective with no subject? What the hell does it mean anyway?

BTW, nice use of apostrophes AND asterisks in place of quotations in the same sentence.

"Too hard" and "DeViagra?"

...are you talking about my boner? Some kind of... Hate-Boner?

/I need an adult


"It's going to be okay, sir, you are just experiencing what we call disillusionment via schooling; please just sit down, breathe, and find a happy place."
 
2012-08-06 10:25:07 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P


No, no you're not :(
If you're like me and went backwards then that's not uncommon. I lost a lot of money but gained freedom.
 
2012-08-06 10:27:50 PM

Znuh: However, if you're happy to let your tiny brain generalize, as you just did, it's your problem. And your ignorance.


Just don't put on any orange wigs anytime soon, Ok Znuh?
 
2012-08-06 10:28:50 PM

Indubitably:

"It's going to be okay, sir, you are just experiencing what we call disillusionment via schooling; please just sit down, breathe, and find a happy place."


Who are you quoting? And why don't you answer the questions asked of you? And why do you reply to your own posts so much?

/why DeHate when I can DeLorean?
 
2012-08-06 10:28:54 PM
I'm OK with ANY marriage, provided the government is not involved.

Wanna marry your toaster? Do it.
 
2012-08-06 10:30:11 PM

diaphoresis: Atheism is a form of religion


Wow, that made my brain hurt. I blame the Buddhists.

/I always blame the Buddhists
//but this time it's for reals
 
2012-08-06 10:35:35 PM

odinsposse: It's a failure of marketing for pro-gay rights groups. They've let gay be primarily associated with sweaty man on man action. Women might be kinda okay with that but straight dudes aren't. If the first thing people thought of when they thought "gay" was two or three hot lesbians making out it would be a totally different story.


Fun fact: Lesbianism was never illegal in New Zealand, only male-male homosexuality (because buggery, that's why). It's probably the same pretty much everywhere.

Everyone's obsessed with guys sticking things up each other's butts (never mind plenty of heteros do it too). Presumably men think that given the right circumstances it could accidentally happen to them. Whoops, how did that get up there and why does it feel good?

A hetero coming back from Vegas gay married after a wasted weekend would be pretty damn funny though, buggery or no.
 
2012-08-06 10:37:07 PM
Stinkyy

"We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement.

Most guys know how to take care of themselves, but if that ever happens, you STOP and throw his skanky ass in the shower. Yikes.

And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

I don't think I've ever once heard a gay man complain that the sex was bad. On the contrary. In fact, when you get into religious issues such as Intelligent Design, you have to wonder *why* an all-knowing God would create Man in His Own Image, with the ability to boink each other and have so much fun doing it that the worst thing that happens to them is that they eventually notice that the sky is getting lighter and they've run out of night....again. God didn't have to build us that way, but he did. What gives? We think God is pretty cool.

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!

Mutual love is The Best Thing in life. I hope you get to experience it someday.
 
2012-08-06 10:40:00 PM

diaphoresis:
....
Atheism is a form of religion


Well linked/cited, but I don't accept the court's decision on pretty basic philosophical grounds (legalities be farked) and as someone living on the opposite side of the Pacific to that courtroom, it has no jurisdiction over me in any case.

Which is just as well because I'd consider emigrating from a country which judged atheism to be a religion.
 
2012-08-06 10:40:09 PM

Lando Lincoln: diaphoresis: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

No you don't.

-3/10

Now that I'm divorced, I'm completely in favor of our government banning marriage for straight people.


ROFLMAO
 
2012-08-06 10:45:05 PM

studebaker hoch: Mutual love is The Best Thing in life.


Disagrees:
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-08-06 10:46:21 PM

studebaker hoch: In fact, when you get into religious issues such as Intelligent Design, you have to wonder *why* an all-knowing God would create Man in His Own Image, with the ability to boink each other and have so much fun doing it that the worst thing that happens to them is that they eventually notice that the sky is getting lighter and they've run out of night....again.


And that AIDS thing has to be a bummer.
 
2012-08-06 10:47:49 PM

trappedspirit: studebaker hoch: In fact, when you get into religious issues such as Intelligent Design, you have to wonder *why* an all-knowing God would create Man in His Own Image, with the ability to boink each other and have so much fun doing it that the worst thing that happens to them is that they eventually notice that the sky is getting lighter and they've run out of night....again.

And that AIDS thing has to be a bummer.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-06 10:47:49 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P


I'm a woman, and I got less than nothing from my divorce; I ended up with tens of thousands of dollars of his debt.

\he refused to get a job because he wanted the time to focus on his "music career," jam with his band, and drink beer
\\good riddance
 
2012-08-06 10:51:56 PM

Ball Zitch: Pantubo: Serious question:

If two men can get married, why on Earth couldn't a man marry his own brother?

You can't tell me that their offspring are going to be at seriously increased risk of birth defects, which is why a man can't marry his own sister.

So how about it? Enlighten me with your progressive tolerant wisdom. Hop to it!

Huh?
2 guys are going to procreate, all by themselves?


If they have anal sex they might. Where do you think lawyers come from?
 
2012-08-06 10:52:36 PM

mbillips: Face it, if you're lonely and broke from paying child support, it's your fault. The secret to a happy marriage is to compliment her at every opportunity, buy her flowers, and do what she tells you to do. That's easy even for a completely narcissistic lazy person. Your stupid ideas aren't going to make you happy; they're just going to make you lonely and broke from paying child support.


Because everybody is exactly 100% the same, and nobody ever changes nor hides things from there significant other, evar.
 
bow
2012-08-06 10:59:03 PM
fark men.

Wait a minute...
 
2012-08-06 10:59:17 PM

CujoQuarrel: I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.


I've been saying this exact same thing for years.
 
2012-08-06 11:04:15 PM
Not surprising that it's Tasmania that may be the first Australian state to legalize same-sex marriage. The Greens have a lot of support there. Tasmanians are also open supporters of the Devil:
www.tasmaniandevils.net.au

/meanwhile,here in Western Australia there is no registry for LGBT couples
//even Queensland, the Florida of Australia, has a registry
 
2012-08-06 11:05:08 PM

clevernamehere: Indubitably:

"It's going to be okay, sir, you are just experiencing what we call disillusionment via schooling; please just sit down, breathe, and find a happy place."

Who are you quoting? And why don't you answer the questions asked of you? And why do you reply to your own posts so much?

/why DeHate when I can DeLorean?


Your questions have answers that are self-evident.

That is all.
 
2012-08-06 11:08:39 PM

CujoQuarrel: I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.


And your lawyers. Don't forget the extra business you'll be sending lawyers to have to get involved at each marriage drawing up contracts to decide what this union actually means and who gets benefits (if any) from the other at death and how property is to be distributed etc. People are going to want those levels of legal benefits. Some of which come along automatically with a marriage license. State law millage may vary. Unless I am misinterpreting what you mean by "government recognized marriage". If you are saying the government no longer regulate what a marriage means and it's all up to churches or whatever, then you are obviously wanting more lawyers in the world.
 
2012-08-06 11:09:39 PM

Korzine: But if two men marry, how will the courts completely screw one over in the name of "gender equality".


Easy. They take 100% of the assets and split them up between two divorcing lesbians. Then each divorced gay dude gets assigned one of the lesbians to support until she decides to find another lover.
 
2012-08-06 11:12:21 PM

Korzine: But if two men marry, how will the courts completely screw one over in the name of "gender equality".!


this is America not some third world "hick" town. like britain
 
2012-08-06 11:13:02 PM

radarlove: gingerjet: radarlove: I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.

So atheists who get married by a judge aren't married? A couple married by a ship captain aren't married? Or a notary public? Or a star fleet admiral in Vegas?

/marriage isn't a religious ceremony

Atheism is a religion.


Conveniently, marriage isn't atheist either. Well, atheist in the sense of the actual meaning of the word, but not in the way it's generally used on FARK.
 
2012-08-06 11:14:09 PM

Kurmudgeon: Znuh: However, if you're happy to let your tiny brain generalize, as you just did, it's your problem. And your ignorance.

Just don't put on any orange wigs anytime soon, Ok Znuh?


Classy. Buddy, for you, I'll wear anything you want.
 
2012-08-06 11:15:12 PM
trappedspirit

And that AIDS thing has to be a bummer.

Wrap that rascal, and you're good. Good practice even if it weren't for HIV - there are lots of STDs out there.

/where have you been for the past 20 years?
 
2012-08-06 11:17:15 PM
Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality. I really ought to just start pasting in a standard response. But I guess I'll type something out by hand again for now: Notice how, once again, it's the straight men who obsess over anal sex. Gay men actually don't talk about it nearly as much as the straights do.

You guys really, really, really like thinking about people's rectums (or maybe your own rectums). NTTAWWT, but honestly, I wish you'd go find yourself a nice rentboy and satisfy that curiosity or craving or whatever it is once and for all, so you'd shut up about it.
 
2012-08-06 11:20:44 PM
The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.

Such beliefs are not strictly a Christian or religious ideal. Homosexual relationships have existed forever. But they are not the equivalent of marriage. They are not the foundation for a family or a society. Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.

It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system. Legal marriage is the recognition of the natural order. That is why heterosexual marriage has existed for all of human history. Homosexual marriage is outside of the natural order. That is why it has never been legally endorsed. Not until our generation, which has the prideful, arrogant audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

Still, go ahead. Get "married". Seek all those other rights you feel you don't have today.
But shut up already with insisting homosexual relationships are equally valid.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.
 
2012-08-06 11:22:14 PM

Paris1127: Not surprising that it's Tasmania that may be the first Australian state to legalize same-sex marriage. The Greens have a lot of support there. Tasmanians are also open supporters of the Devil:


www.tasmaniandevils.net.au

The Tasmanian Community frowns on your shenanigans.
 
RnR
2012-08-06 11:23:00 PM

OgreMagi: RnR


I would continue but I'm patiently waiting by my mail box for a muffin basket.
 
2012-08-06 11:25:00 PM
Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.
 
2012-08-06 11:25:55 PM

studebaker hoch: trappedspirit

And that AIDS thing has to be a bummer.

Wrap that rascal, and you're good. Good practice even if it weren't for HIV - there are lots of STDs out there.

/where have you been for the past 20 years?


Living in an AIDS free world.
 
2012-08-06 11:28:09 PM

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.


Yep. You figured out our top-secret gay agenda.
dropbox.am0.co.uk
Listen, and understand. The gay community is out there. We can't be bargained with. We can't be reasoned with. We don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And we absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are fabulous!
 
2012-08-06 11:28:32 PM

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.

Such beliefs are not strictly a Christian or religious ideal. Homosexual relationships have existed forever. But they are not the equivalent of marriage. They are not the foundation for a family or a society. Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.

It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system. Legal marriage is the recognition of the natural order. That is why heterosexual marriage has existed for all of human history. Homosexual marriage is outside of the natural order. That is why it has never been legally endorsed. Not until our generation, which has the prideful, arrogant audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

Still, go ahead. Get "married". Seek all those other rights you feel you don't have today.
But shut up already with insisting homosexual relationships are equally valid.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.


It's like Bevets, but with longer sentences!

/i'd argue you, but I know willful ignorance when I see it
//When the world ends due to gays having sex, then I'll probably be looking to the Lexus lot, rather than to the sky for atonement
 
2012-08-06 11:31:48 PM

Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.


Agreed. Two dudes kissing is a total turn-off. I really wish they'd stop putting it in all the porn I watch.

No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.
 
2012-08-06 11:33:03 PM
I never understood why straight men would have any problem with gay men. Every gay man in the world is one less you have to compete with for females.
 
2012-08-06 11:34:41 PM

FizixJunkee: Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P

I'm a woman, and I got less than nothing from my divorce; I ended up with tens of thousands of dollars of his debt.

\he refused to get a job because he wanted the time to focus on his "music career," jam with his band, and drink beer
\\good riddance


I left with the crap I could fit in my car, his debts, and shiatty credit from when he didn't make a single mortgage payment. He got the house but didn't have a job. He was a very sick alcoholic, had totaled his car, refused to get a job that he considered beneath him, etc. My credit is finally repaired. I still think I got off easier than his current wife. He hasn't had a job in 6 years and at one point was driving on a suspended license and sent some kids to the ICU. She doesn't believe in divorce and for some god-awful reason keeps trying (and failing) to have kids with him.
 
2012-08-06 11:34:54 PM

reillan: Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

Agreed. Two dudes kissing is a total turn-off. I really wish they'd stop putting it in all the porn I watch.

No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.


Hm... I'm not sure. Some of the gay dudes I know are the "manliest" guys I know as well. They work on cars, watch sports, etc. They do things that are masculine.
 
2012-08-06 11:37:30 PM

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.

Such beliefs are not strictly a Christian or religious ideal. Homosexual relationships have existed forever. But they are not the equivalent of marriage. They are not the foundation for a family or a society. Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.

It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system. Legal marriage is the recognition of the natural order. That is why heterosexual marriage has existed for all of human history. Homosexual marriage is outside of the natural order. That is why it has never been legally endorsed. Not until our generation, which has the prideful, arrogant audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

Still, go ahead. Get "married". Seek all those other rights you feel you don't have today.
But shut up already with insisting homosexual relationships are equally valid.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.


"Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion." Something like that, right?


Cause that came from 19th century Virginia, relating to interracial marriage...
 
2012-08-06 11:37:41 PM
ciberido

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality


It should come up more in threads about heterosexuality. What did Jim Morrison say? "The men don't know what the little girls understand?" uh-huh. There are so many variations on this theme I don't know where to start.

And what about oral sex? Makes NO sense whatsoever, does not result in procreation, and has the potential to be nasty if the recipient is not maintaining western hygiene standards. Yet it's universal, gay or straight. Nobody cares. FUN! Even just kissing...two mouths? You have the potential to wish you were dead if this goes wrong.

These same trolls post this stuff, and it's always wrong. Most of the kinky sex is straight people, most sex offenders are straight people, blah blah blah.

They just need something to use to attack gays, so they choose the same old lines, or resort to a faith-based argument. There is nowhere in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything bad about homosexuality. If it mattered, don't you think one of them would have mentioned it at some point?

I would think that if anyone, Christians would be the first to welcome gays. I thought that was their whole thing - they use the stone the builders rejected? If society for some reason was against gays, The Church, IMO, should be in there on angel wings protecting His flock.

I don't get it.

God created Man in His Own Image.
 
2012-08-06 11:44:34 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?

seriously.


Flunked bio101
 
2012-08-06 11:45:16 PM

Marine1: reillan: Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

Agreed. Two dudes kissing is a total turn-off. I really wish they'd stop putting it in all the porn I watch.

No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.

Hm... I'm not sure. Some of the gay dudes I know are the "manliest" guys I know as well. They work on cars, watch sports, etc. They do things that are masculine.


The challenge comes from the convergence point between what is expected and what is experienced. We expect a relationship to have a clear male role and a clear female role. We most often expect to see those roles easily enforced by the genders associated with them, but it's understood when the roles are flipped, as there is still a clear male and clear female role. We joke about the guys whose women "wear the pants in the family," etc. In a male|male relationship, we assume those roles must still be enforced (one guy is the "biatch"), but it becomes more difficult to ascertain. The easily-visible dichotomy is challenged, and we're left in a situation where we have to question our own sense of what is masculine. Because such questioning is, itself, hyper-unmasculine, we find ourselves struggling to ignore the questions at the same time as we're faced with them, and the discomfort level grows.

Either that, or you could just be homophobic. :D
 
2012-08-06 11:46:26 PM
This isn't surprising at all.
It's the religion and culture in this country fueling it, and men throughout history have shown a strong desire to alienate and even harm or kill the enemies of their god.

My guess would be a woman's motherly instinct can win over religious decrees.
 
2012-08-06 11:47:19 PM

studebaker hoch: ciberido

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality

It should come up more in threads about heterosexuality. What did Jim Morrison say? "The men don't know what the little girls understand?" uh-huh. There are so many variations on this theme I don't know where to start.

And what about oral sex? Makes NO sense whatsoever, does not result in procreation, and has the potential to be nasty if the recipient is not maintaining western hygiene standards. Yet it's universal, gay or straight. Nobody cares. FUN! Even just kissing...two mouths? You have the potential to wish you were dead if this goes wrong.

These same trolls post this stuff, and it's always wrong. Most of the kinky sex is straight people, most sex offenders are straight people, blah blah blah.

They just need something to use to attack gays, so they choose the same old lines, or resort to a faith-based argument. There is nowhere in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything bad about homosexuality. If it mattered, don't you think one of them would have mentioned it at some point?

I would think that if anyone, Christians would be the first to welcome gays. I thought that was their whole thing - they use the stone the builders rejected? If society for some reason was against gays, The Church, IMO, should be in there on angel wings protecting His flock.

I don't get it.

God created Man in His Own Image.


Well hello there, turd-lover.
 
2012-08-06 11:47:50 PM

studebaker hoch: ciberido

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality

It should come up more in threads about heterosexuality. What did Jim Morrison say? "The men don't know what the little girls understand?" uh-huh. There are so many variations on this theme I don't know where to start.

And what about oral sex? Makes NO sense whatsoever, does not result in procreation, and has the potential to be nasty if the recipient is not maintaining western hygiene standards. Yet it's universal, gay or straight. Nobody cares. FUN! Even just kissing...two mouths? You have the potential to wish you were dead if this goes wrong.

These same trolls post this stuff, and it's always wrong. Most of the kinky sex is straight people, most sex offenders are straight people, blah blah blah.

They just need something to use to attack gays, so they choose the same old lines, or resort to a faith-based argument. There is nowhere in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything bad about homosexuality. If it mattered, don't you think one of them would have mentioned it at some point?

I would think that if anyone, Christians would be the first to welcome gays. I thought that was their whole thing - they use the stone the builders rejected? If society for some reason was against gays, The Church, IMO, should be in there on angel wings protecting His flock.

I don't get it.

God created Man in His Own Image.


I can't believe I'm doing this, defending a position I disagree with....

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane points you may have made.

/100% equal rights
//Not Christian, but raised Southern Baptist Convention
///People really don't like to "witness" to me, as I turn their scripture back on them
 
2012-08-06 11:48:50 PM

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.

Such beliefs are not strictly a Christian or religious ideal. Homosexual relationships have existed forever. But they are not the equivalent of marriage. They are not the foundation for a family or a society. Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.

It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system. Legal marriage is the recognition of the natural order. That is why heterosexual marriage has existed for all of human history. Homosexual marriage is outside of the natural order. That is why it has never been legally endorsed. Not until our generation, which has the prideful, arrogant audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

Still, go ahead. Get "married". Seek all those other rights you feel you don't have today.
But shut up already with insisting homosexual relationships are equally valid.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.


coolhandcameo.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-06 11:50:42 PM

Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.


Yes, but straight men such as myself do see god awful ugly or old people kiss sometimes. That's a big boner killer right there.
 
2012-08-06 11:59:06 PM

What_do_you_want_now: studebaker hoch: ciberido



I can't believe I'm doing this, defending a position I disagree with....

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...


About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

/not Christian
//of course, pretty much everything is a sin after you've read Leviticus, or anything that "Paul" wrote
///sorry, but I enjoy being able to wear blended clothing, drink, eat shellfish and tell my male colleagues to fark off when they're being douches
 
2012-08-07 12:02:14 AM
trappedspirit

And that AIDS thing has to be a bummer.

Wrap that rascal, and you're good. Good practice even if it weren't for HIV - there are lots of STDs out there.

/where have you been for the past 20 years?

Living in an AIDS free world.


That kind of ignorance is how we got into that mess to begin with.
 
2012-08-07 12:02:48 AM

Lemmon714: It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system.


Yes it is. Shut up, bigot.
 
2012-08-07 12:03:28 AM

Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.


I'm straight. Have never experimented with guys, never kissed a guy, never wanted to. And I believe I couldn't get aroused by a guy (I'm pretty visual when it comes to sex and dudes just don't have the right equipment). I have farked my missus up the back passage, and I'm not really into that either (although she wishes I was more into it). Also don't like anyone playing with my chocolate starfish during sex or at any other time. And when I was younger, I think I also experienced that switch you refer to.

What's different for me these days is I have met and grown to like many gay people. I've worked with them, hung out with them, shared advice with them. And they're totally normal. They're no different to anyone else, except for their taste in sexual partner, which if you think about it is again not unusual (I've had female friends who date guys, so why is having a male friend who dates guys unusual? Similarly, I've commented on hot chicks with my lesbian friends just the same as with my straight male friends). They don't threaten me, they don't cause any problems for me. So it's been easy to move beyond any prejudices I may once have held.

I've also learned from my step-kids, who have a gay grandfather. They have never found their grandfather's long-term same-sex relationship unusual. Kids find other people's relationships normal if they're not hurting anyone. My kids are far more confused by the anti-gay-marriage crowd than their grandfather.
 
2012-08-07 12:03:36 AM

Znuh: Classy. Buddy, for you, I'll wear anything you want.


Just stay out of movie theatres and don't invest large in weaponry, other than that I could care less what you do.
 
2012-08-07 12:04:31 AM

ciberido: Paris1127: Not surprising that it's Tasmania that may be the first Australian state to legalize same-sex marriage. The Greens have a lot of support there. Tasmanians are also open supporters of the Devil:

[www.tasmaniandevils.net.au image 400x250]

The Tasmanian Community frowns on your shenanigans.


animal.discovery.com
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!

/I went with the cuddly pic for a reason.
 
2012-08-07 12:08:39 AM

reillan: No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.


There's this attitude that I've been observing for years now but have never had a good name for. It's a sort of bigotry like misogyny or homophobia, and it seems to be associated with both, but it isn't exactly either. I've been calling it "machismo" but I know that really isn't the right word for it. It sounds a little bit like hegemonic masculinity to me.

Essentially it's the belief that there are (and should be) rigid gender roles which people should follow, and it amounts to a long list of actions that are considered masculine (and thus men should do and women shouldn't) or feminine (and thus men shouldn't do). I couldn't put down an exhaustive list without writing a book, but it includes such obvious things as "Boys don't cry" and "Men don't wear lipstick" to rules governing every aspect of life. One example that really stuck in my mind came from a fark thread in which someone decreed "Hot tea is better left to the chicks." There are rules, even, listing which foods and beverages are masculine (beer) and which are feminine (hot tea, salads, "fru-fru" mixed drinks). There was even a book once titled "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche."

Is this attitude, this perception that most actions an adult can take are either masculine or feminine, part of hegemonic masculinity, or is there another term for it? It frustrates me that I don't have a good word for it.
 
2012-08-07 12:10:03 AM
blueviking

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...

About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


Leviticus was a man. I don't worship men. OK, I'm going to start over.

Leviticus is not a God. Nor is he the Son of God. I don't worship Leviticus. He has no superpowers, did not create the Universe or Men - gay or otherwise, and really I don't even know why people keep referrencing him. He (supposedly) said one sentence, in a Bible thick as a phone book, and we're supposed to think THAT is what the entire book teaches us? Really?
 
2012-08-07 12:14:00 AM

studebaker hoch: blueviking

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...

About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus was a man. I don't worship men. OK, I'm going to start over.

Leviticus is not a God. Nor is he the Son of God. I don't worship Leviticus. He has no superpowers, did not create the Universe or Men - gay or otherwise, and really I don't even know why people keep referrencing him. He (supposedly) said one sentence, in a Bible thick as a phone book, and we're supposed to think THAT is what the entire book teaches us? Really?


TROLL! TROOOLLLLLLL!

/burn it
 
2012-08-07 12:15:37 AM

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.



This is exactly what they mean by homophobia. Seriously, read those comments again...it's downright pathological and would probably require psychiatric visits and medication to cure. I'm a straight guy, I cannot watch men kissing, the idea of touching another guy beyond a handshake makes my skin crawl. But I don't in any way fear gay encroachment on my life, work, or social circle. Even if I get called a bigot for some reason, who cares. There's a difference between being squeamish about gay sex and homophobia and this is it right here.
 
2012-08-07 12:16:44 AM

Marine1: Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked.


African-Americans make up about 12% of the population of the U.S. Perhaps it's okay to discriminate against them, too?


I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

That switch doesn't get thrown for me.

Maybe it's because we live in Los Angeles where things are a tad more liberal than in flyover country. Our daughter has four friends with same-sex parents. She's never commented or asked questions about them. Our daughter knows that some kids have a mom+dad. Other kids might have mom+mom, or dad+dad, or they might be adopted, or raised by aunts/uncles or grandparents. She also knows that some families have one kid (like ours) or many kids. There's no one-size-fits-all family; one kind of family is no inherently better than any other.
 
2012-08-07 12:17:37 AM

Paris1127: /meanwhile,here in Western Australia there is no registry for LGBT couples
//even Queensland, the Florida of Australia, has a registry


If it's the Land of Queens, surely they'd be rather supportive of teh ghey?
 
2012-08-07 12:17:52 AM

blueviking: About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


This comes up in a lot of these threads, I don't want to do the whole spiel, but briefly: The Bible is nowhere near as clear on most topics as many people (both Christian and non-) think it is. Keeping in mind that the Bible was not written in English, unless one reads it in the original language one has to understand that translation errors are at least a possibility. In the case of the particular verse you cite (Leviticus 18:22), it may be a mistranslation of a command for two men not to have sex in the BED of a woman.

"But that's silly" you might say, "Why would God be ok with homosexuality in general, but not ok with with homosexual acts that take place in a woman's bed?" Keep in mind that separation of things was an essential part of religious purity for the people of the time. That's why there are rules in Leviticus about mixing different kinds of fibers or mixing meat and dairy. "It's ok to have sex in THIS bed but not ok to have sex in THAT bed" fits the theme of separation-as-religious-purity that informs all of Leviticus.
 
2012-08-07 12:21:48 AM

Lemmon714: Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.


Lemmonparty714: I must have missed that day in Biology 101. What, again, is "natural law"? A law of physics? Is it a written law? If so, who wrote it? Along those same lines, what is "natural order"?


The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.


Who is this "Nature's God" of which you speak? Can you provide me with his email address or phone number so that I can contact him?
 
2012-08-07 12:22:03 AM
">Link">Link

Rapmaster2000: darkedgefan: I am not surprised. There are only two types of men in this world. Gays and homophobes. I just don't get the gay lifestyle. How can you look at another man's hairy a$$ and find love? Stay in the closet!

I think the same thing every time I've got another casual pick-up back at my toolshed. It disgusts me every time I'm thrusting up against one. Just the thought of it makes me sick!


made me think of this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-su c king-my-cock,11150/
 
2012-08-07 12:22:44 AM

ciberido: blueviking: About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This comes up in a lot of these threads, I don't want to do the whole spiel, but briefly: The Bible is nowhere near as clear on most topics as many people (both Christian and non-) think it is. Keeping in mind that the Bible was not written in English, unless one reads it in the original language one has to understand that translation errors are at least a possibility. In the case of the particular verse you cite (Leviticus 18:22), it may be a mistranslation of a command for two men not to have sex in the BED of a woman.

"But that's silly" you might say, "Why would God be ok with homosexuality in general, but not ok with with homosexual acts that take place in a woman's bed?" Keep in mind that separation of things was an essential part of religious purity for the people of the time. That's why there are rules in Leviticus about mixing different kinds of fibers or mixing meat and dairy. "It's ok to have sex in THIS bed but not ok to have sex in THAT bed" fits the theme of separation-as-religious-purity that informs all of Leviticus.


That's a bit of a stretch, because (if memory serves) in the Hebrew translations it is pretty explicit, and all the Jews I've met inform me that it is correct.

/not a biblical scholar, religion interests me in general
//all religion
 
2012-08-07 12:22:52 AM

rkallister: People may claim they are doing this out of a level of respect for the sanctity of marriage, but in the end it's a money issue. Equality under the law means homosexuals get the same tax breaks and insurance benefits as straight couples. Companies that have to worry about dependents are fighting gay marriage on these issues alone.


That isn't really an issue in Australia as those issues are pretty much independent of employment/employer.
 
2012-08-07 12:23:51 AM

What_do_you_want_now:

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much


Okay, I've wondered this many times, so I'll pose it to you: Why is the Bible regarded as having some sort of authority over modern American? Why is it relevant?
 
2012-08-07 12:24:30 AM

CujoQuarrel: 2 Replies: CujoQuarrel: I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.

So you can only marry if your religious then?
Congratulations. You've failed to solve the problem.
You've just changed those you're discriminating against from homosexuals to atheists and agnostics.
Theists don't have a monopoly on marriage.

Make up your own religion. Or have an civil ceremony. Who cares. Just don't get the government involved.


I get it but I dont think anyone else will, basically it would have nothing to do with the government any longer and only be a legal ceremony that holds up to a court process, ingenious.

And if you want a religious ceremony then fine, you can have that too but it means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

That seems preferable since most churches wouldnt accept gays or atheists getting married at their church.
 
2012-08-07 12:27:34 AM

FizixJunkee: What_do_you_want_now:

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much

Okay, I've wondered this many times, so I'll pose it to you: Why is the Bible regarded as having some sort of authority over modern American? Why is it relevant?


It doesn't, but I expect people to know the premise they argue from. As I said earlier, I'm not a supporter of that standpoint, but I just dislike ignorance.
 
2012-08-07 12:27:52 AM

Kurmudgeon: Znuh: Classy. Buddy, for you, I'll wear anything you want.

Just stay out of movie theatres and don't invest large in weaponry, other than that I could care less what you do.


jerkcity.com
 
2012-08-07 12:28:29 AM
Stinkyy

studebaker hoch: ciberido

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality

It should come up more in threads about heterosexuality. What did Jim Morrison say? "The men don't know what the little girls understand?" uh-huh. There are so many variations on this theme I don't know where to start.

And what about oral sex? Makes NO sense whatsoever, does not result in procreation, and has the potential to be nasty if the recipient is not maintaining western hygiene standards. Yet it's universal, gay or straight. Nobody cares. FUN! Even just kissing...two mouths? You have the potential to wish you were dead if this goes wrong.

These same trolls post this stuff, and it's always wrong. Most of the kinky sex is straight people, most sex offenders are straight people, blah blah blah.

They just need something to use to attack gays, so they choose the same old lines, or resort to a faith-based argument. There is nowhere in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything bad about homosexuality. If it mattered, don't you think one of them would have mentioned it at some point?

I would think that if anyone, Christians would be the first to welcome gays. I thought that was their whole thing - they use the stone the builders rejected? If society for some reason was against gays, The Church, IMO, should be in there on angel wings protecting His flock.

I don't get it.

God created Man in His Own Image.

Well hello there, turd-lover.


I'm going to give you that turn over again.

Say something that shows us you can think.
 
2012-08-07 12:29:32 AM

What_do_you_want_now:

That's a bit of a stretch, because (if memory serves) in the Hebrew translations it is pretty explicit, and all the Jews I've met inform me that it is correct.

/not a biblical scholar, religion interests me in general
//all religion


Jew here. Granted, I'm more of a Reform Jew than an Orthodox Jew, but many Jews--certainly most Reform Jews in the United States--have no issue with homosexuality. In fact, our rabbi has married several homosexual couples. His primary concern is whether or not their children will be raised Jewish; that the couples are homosexual is unimportant.
 
2012-08-07 12:30:30 AM

studebaker hoch: blueviking

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...

About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus was a man. I don't worship men. OK, I'm going to start over.

Leviticus is not a God. Nor is he the Son of God. I don't worship Leviticus. He has no superpowers, did not create the Universe or Men - gay or otherwise, and really I don't even know why people keep referrencing him. He (supposedly) said one sentence, in a Bible thick as a phone book, and we're supposed to think THAT is what the entire book teaches us? Really?


"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47.)

Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

It's fine if you want to cherry-pick, it's your religion, I don't give a fark but, if you're stating that, because they are not the direct words of Jesus or "God" as written, then you might as well trash about 80% of the book and declare the whole thing null and void. Leviticus is taken, traditionally, to be the word of Moses, which Jesus himself clearly states must be believed for his own teachings to have any validity.
 
2012-08-07 12:31:20 AM

FizixJunkee: What_do_you_want_now:

That's a bit of a stretch, because (if memory serves) in the Hebrew translations it is pretty explicit, and all the Jews I've met inform me that it is correct.

/not a biblical scholar, religion interests me in general
//all religion

Jew here. Granted, I'm more of a Reform Jew than an Orthodox Jew, but many Jews--certainly most Reform Jews in the United States--have no issue with homosexuality. In fact, our rabbi has married several homosexual couples. His primary concern is whether or not their children will be raised Jewish; that the couples are homosexual is unimportant.


Thanks for sharing, but is my memory correct about the Hebrew to English translation of Leviticus 18:22?

BTW, since we've gone to sharing, Wiccan here.

/BURN THE WITCH!
//......poke the witch with blunted sticks?
 
2012-08-07 12:36:00 AM

FizixJunkee: African-Americans make up about 12% of the population of the U.S. Perhaps it's okay to discriminate against them, too?


Who is being discriminated against? Every man has the right to marry an woman they choose, I have the same rights so it cant be discriminatory.

The only solution is to get the government out of it, just admit it and you will be fine.
 
2012-08-07 12:36:06 AM

blueviking: studebaker hoch: blueviking
....

It's fine if you want to cherry-pick, it's your religion, I don't give a fark but, if you're stating that, because they are not the direct words of Jesus or "God" as written, then you might as well trash about 80% of the book and declare the whole thing null and void. Leviticus is taken, traditionally, to be the word of Moses, which Jesus himself clearly states must be believed for his own teachings to have any validity.


EXACTLY. And as Blueviking correctly infers, if you eat shellfish, don't send your women out of town when they're on their rags, wear polyester/cotton blend clothes or think slavery is wrong, YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.

/Blueviking's inference, not mine. Please address your hate-posts correctly.
 
2012-08-07 12:38:56 AM

What_do_you_want_now: ciberido: blueviking: About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This comes up in a lot of these threads, I don't want to do the whole spiel, but briefly: The Bible is nowhere near as clear on most topics as many people (both Christian and non-) think it is. Keeping in mind that the Bible was not written in English, unless one reads it in the original language one has to understand that translation errors are at least a possibility. In the case of the particular verse you cite (Leviticus 18:22), it may be a mistranslation of a command for two men not to have sex in the BED of a woman.

"But that's silly" you might say, "Why would God be ok with homosexuality in general, but not ok with with homosexual acts that take place in a woman's bed?" Keep in mind that separation of things was an essential part of religious purity for the people of the time. That's why there are rules in Leviticus about mixing different kinds of fibers or mixing meat and dairy. "It's ok to have sex in THIS bed but not ok to have sex in THAT bed" fits the theme of separation-as-religious-purity that informs all of Leviticus.

That's a bit of a stretch, because (if memory serves) in the Hebrew translations it is pretty explicit, and all the Jews I've met inform me that it is correct.

/not a biblical scholar, religion interests me in general
//all religion


Hey, not saying that it isn't possible in the original translation, since there are some pretty silly things going on...but, unless we've got a scholar on hand, there's not a true way to refute that. Paul also makes some mention in Romans and Corinthians, to my knowledge, and is pretty explicit as well. But, as much as we're going with the possibility in a FUBAR in transalation, I would love to be able to giggle at my uber-con, vocal in-laws and say, "really, your god prohibits homosexuality? Well, let's look into that...."

/I say "Yule" at Christmas just for yucks
 
2012-08-07 12:40:32 AM

What_do_you_want_now: Leviticus 18:22


Here's a nice discussion, written by a rabbi, on this particular Torah verse.
 
2012-08-07 12:42:22 AM

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!


It's just like when you do the exact same thing with a girl, but nobody whines about women being farked in the ass! Apparently only man shiat matters!

/let's not even bring up the people obsessed with dickgirls
 
2012-08-07 12:43:45 AM

blueviking: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47.)

Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

It's fine if you want to cherry-pick, it's your religion, I don't give a fark but, if you're stating that, because they are not the direct words of Jesus or "God" as written, then you might as well trash about 80% of the book and declare the whole thing null and void. Leviticus is taken, traditionally, to be the word of Moses, which Jesus himself clearly states must be believed for his own teachings to have any validity.


Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace."

As with so much else in the Bible, there are contradictions, or things that seem to contradict, or are at least unclear.

Whether or not Christians are bound to obey the Old Testament is something that has been argued for hundreds if not thousands of years. You're not going to settle the issue by quoting a single verse.
 
2012-08-07 12:45:12 AM
I'm just glad that homophobes are dying off significantly faster than they are being replaced.
 
2012-08-07 12:45:45 AM

FizixJunkee: What_do_you_want_now: Leviticus 18:22

Here's a nice discussion, written by a rabbi, on this particular Torah verse.


Thank you very much!



blueviking: Hey, not saying that it isn't possible in the original translation, since there are some pretty silly things going on...but, unless we've got a scholar on hand, there's not a true way to refute that. Paul also makes some mention in Romans and Corinthians, to my knowledge, and is pretty explicit as well. But, as much as we're going with the possibility in a FUBAR in transalation, I would love to be able to giggle at my uber-con, vocal in-laws and say, "really, your god prohibits homosexuality? Well, let's look into that...."

/I say "Yule" at Christmas just for yucks


I usually say something like "Following pagan holidays again? Careful."

Then again, me and THAT branch of the family don't get along. Ever. Forever. Until the end of time. Eternal.

Or at least until they pry themselves from their apocalyptic point of view, read a science book, and admit that THE EARTH WAS NOT MADE IN 6 DAYS!!!

/to be mortal and assume you know the will of Divinity is pride at it's highest
//somethingsomethingsomething "Vanity, my favorite sin." ~ John Milton, as played by Al Pacino
 
2012-08-07 12:46:03 AM

studebaker hoch: blueviking

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...

About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus was a man. I don't worship men. OK, I'm going to start over.

Leviticus is not a God. Nor is he the Son of God. I don't worship Leviticus. He has no superpowers, did not create the Universe or Men - gay or otherwise, and really I don't even know why people keep referrencing him. He (supposedly) said one sentence, in a Bible thick as a phone book, and we're supposed to think THAT is what the entire book teaches us? Really?


Is that a joke. or a troll? I know fundagelicals are insanely ignorant about the Bible they profess to believe is the literal word of God, but Jesus H. Christ. That's the dumbest thing ever written on Fark.
 
2012-08-07 12:46:20 AM

steamingpile: FizixJunkee: African-Americans make up about 12% of the population of the U.S. Perhaps it's okay to discriminate against them, too?

The only solution is to get the government out of it, just admit it and you will be fine.


Yes, I agree that the government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage should be a private, civil (and possibly religious) matter. However, I support government-recognized civil unions for all [consenting, adult, etc.] couples, regardless if the couples are male-male, male-female, or female-female. There should be no difference between a male-male or female-female civil union and a male-female civil union. Equal eyes under the law (and tax code, etc.).

Who is being discriminated against? Every man has the right to marry an woman they choose, I have the same rights so it cant be discriminatory.

:: eyeroll ::
 
2012-08-07 12:48:17 AM

Aussie_As: blueviking: studebaker hoch: blueviking
....

It's fine if you want to cherry-pick, it's your religion, I don't give a fark but, if you're stating that, because they are not the direct words of Jesus or "God" as written, then you might as well trash about 80% of the book and declare the whole thing null and void. Leviticus is taken, traditionally, to be the word of Moses, which Jesus himself clearly states must be believed for his own teachings to have any validity.

EXACTLY. And as Blueviking correctly infers, if you eat shellfish, don't send your women out of town when they're on their rags, wear polyester/cotton blend clothes or think slavery is wrong, YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.

/Blueviking's inference, not mine. Please address your hate-posts correctly.


Wow, not really what I was implying, but thanks. studebaker hoch advised that "I don't worship Leviticus, etc." and basically disregarded any other statements that were not "God" or Jesus. If you think that the only words of the book are those only directly labeled as God or Jesus, why would anything else in the book be valid? Most of the Bible is written by prophets, so, are their words not valid? Are Moses' words invalidated because they were not "God's" direct statements?

I'm not talking about what qualifies one as a Christian in my or anyone else's eyes. I am merely asking, if you don't believe 80% of the book what do those other teachings have in terms of validity when one of the supposed teachers clearly states that, without the previous prophets, his words have no meaning?
 
2012-08-07 12:48:53 AM

blueviking: Paul also makes some mention in Romans and Corinthians, to my knowledge, and is pretty explicit as well.


Oh, God, not Paul again. I just did all this crap about Paul in like two different Chik-Fil-A threads. Do me a favor and just Google "arsenokoitai", then get back to me about Paul after you've read all that, if you care to argue about what Paul did or didn't say about homosexuality.
 
2012-08-07 12:54:28 AM

What_do_you_want_now:

I usually say something like "Following pagan holidays again? Careful."


That's quite good. If ever relations with me and the MIL and co. deteriorate to a point of unsalvageable, I might just try that.
 
2012-08-07 12:55:49 AM

FizixJunkee: What_do_you_want_now: Leviticus 18:22

Here's a nice discussion, written by a rabbi, on this particular Torah verse.


Excellent link. Far too intelligent for the bigots and homophobes to grasp, but you get many points for trying anyway.

The Christian equivalent was said to me by a friend I lost touch with years ago, who was a newly ordained female Anglican (ie Episcopalian/CofE) priest. She said the only way to look at the Bible is as a collection of people's experiences with Judeao/Christian religion. None of it is the word of God as such. It is all scribed through the lenses of human eyes, with all of the baggage that we as humans carry. It's hard to make sense of, not easy, just as life is hard and not easy.

"The bible says this therefore that's exactly where I'm at and you're all wrong" is the dumbest sermon you'd ever hear.

I lost my faith in any supreme being twenty years ago, but I still like Jesus' view of the world. We should help each other, avoid offending each other, celebrate each other and hate no one. But that's just my interpretation of him, and it's clearly shared by far too few Christians for my liking.
 
2012-08-07 12:59:35 AM

steamingpile: FizixJunkee: African-Americans make up about 12% of the population of the U.S. Perhaps it's okay to discriminate against them, too?

Who is being discriminated against? Every man has the right to marry an woman they choose, I have the same rights so it cant be discriminatory.

The only solution is to get the government out of it, just admit it and you will be fine.


"You're free to marry whoever you want, as long as they are the same skin color as you / have natural red hair / are over six feet tall / have feet that are exactly 9.45 inches in length / are afflicted with sleeping sickness / have lost their left arm / moo in their sleep. What's that, you're in love with someone beyond those parameters? Get the fark out and die, you filthy abomination against God and nature."

Sounds silly, doesn't it?
 
2012-08-07 01:01:40 AM

blueviking: Aussie_As: blueviking: studebaker hoch: blueviking
....

Wow, not really what I was implying, but thanks. studebaker hoch advised that "I don't worship Leviticus, etc." and basically disregarded any other statements that were not "God" or Jesus. If you think that the only words of the book are those only directly labeled as God or Jesus, why would anything else in the book be valid? Most of the Bible is written by prophets, so, are their words not valid? Are Moses' words invalidated because they were not "God's" direct statements?

I'm not talking about what qualifies one as a Christian in my or anyone else's eyes. I am merely asking, if you don't believe 80% of the book what do those other teachings have in terms of validity when one of the supposed teachers clearly states that, without the previous prophets, his words have no meaning?


See my next post, a few below yours, and presumably one or two above this post. It explains my position as thoroughly as I possibly can. I'll add this though - in all of the years I attended a Christian church, I don't remember anyone claiming that Leviticus had anything to do with modern life.

/in fact, how does anyone stilll regard Leviticus as relevant? Didn't the Dr Laura "Why can't I enslave Canadians" meme solve this years ago?
 
2012-08-07 01:02:43 AM

ciberido: blueviking: Paul also makes some mention in Romans and Corinthians, to my knowledge, and is pretty explicit as well.

Oh, God, not Paul again. I just did all this crap about Paul in like two different Chik-Fil-A threads. Do me a favor and just Google "arsenokoitai", then get back to me about Paul after you've read all that, if you care to argue about what Paul did or didn't say about homosexuality.


Thanks for the insight, certainly not the stuff that they tell you about when you're amongst the fundies.
 
2012-08-07 01:11:43 AM
God says "love your neighbor as thyself", and his followers ignore that and obsess over one line in Leviticus that had no comparable words so they stuck "homosexials" into it, and the writings of Paul the Prude who was squeamish about sexuality of all kinds, and turn them into weapons to oppress others with.

Yes, I know not all Christians do it. But many who don't also don't seem concerned about the assholes and loonies in your ranks racing your bus straight off a cliff.

/can't get behind a god who his followers say is all about love yet randomly annihilated cities whenever he felt pissy and almost ended creation because a few humans made him sad
 
2012-08-07 01:21:55 AM

Aussie_As: blueviking: Aussie_As: blueviking: studebaker hoch: blueviking
....

Wow, not really what I was implying, but thanks. studebaker hoch advised that "I don't worship Leviticus, etc." and basically disregarded any other statements that were not "God" or Jesus. If you think that the only words of the book are those only directly labeled as God or Jesus, why would anything else in the book be valid? Most of the Bible is written by prophets, so, are their words not valid? Are Moses' words invalidated because they were not "God's" direct statements?

I'm not talking about what qualifies one as a Christian in my or anyone else's eyes. I am merely asking, if you don't believe 80% of the book what do those other teachings have in terms of validity when one of the supposed teachers clearly states that, without the previous prophets, his words have no meaning?

See my next post, a few below yours, and presumably one or two above this post. It explains my position as thoroughly as I possibly can. I'll add this though - in all of the years I attended a Christian church, I don't remember anyone claiming that Leviticus had anything to do with modern life.

/in fact, how does anyone stilll regard Leviticus as relevant? Didn't the Dr Laura "Why can't I enslave Canadians" meme solve this years ago?


And maybe it's because of the different environs we exist in, but I, when I was a member of the fundies, heard plenty of the Commandments, things in Leviticus, and Paul's teachings, emphasized, all taken to extremes, but of course, they did their own cherry picking. Personally, I don't care if someone calls themselves a Christian or not and sees relevance in certain aspects of the book or not. The "shellfish" thing was hyperbole following the supposed troll's statement, meaning that I was hardly one of these rabid defenders of the faith that claims they're "only following the Bible".
 
2012-08-07 01:33:15 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Znuh: The 21st century was supposed to be about awesome and a new age of reason. Fark all this hatred, religious assery and bigotry.

This was an Australian poll, so I'm going to assume that it's less about religious bigotry (we don't have nearly as many crazy-ass fundamentalists here) and more about sexual insecurity. God knows they're threatened enough by me, and I even don't have a dick to be threatened by.


Threaten, yep. Actually my thought was that approximately 40% of Australian men are insecure about their sexuality.
We have lots of crazy-ass fundamentalists, would you like a ship load?
 
2012-08-07 01:51:15 AM
Gay marriage can't be legalized; it would prevent divorce courts from screwing over men.
 
2012-08-07 01:55:54 AM

Lando Lincoln: I'm just glad that homophobes are dying off significantly faster than they are being replaced.


This is entirely true. Gen Y's acceptance of gay marriage is much, much greater than that of their grandparents. The conclusion you arrive at is that the day will come when the anti-gay-marriage crowd are going to be considered equivalent to the 'folks of different colour must not marry' crowd of 50 years ago. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states of the US in the days when Barrack Obama was born. But as an Australian, it's much worse in my country. Check this out:

The official policies of the early 1960's ensured that non-white immigrants had to pass a language test. Of itself, that's not unusual. But the language test in question was in any language the government officials required. So if that language test requirement for an African-American happened to be, say, Swedish (despite 0.001 percent of Australian born white folk speaking this language at that time) then so be it. Australian aborigines were not counted in the census (ie they were not identified as human beings) until 1967, when a referendum vote was required to allow this to overcome their specific exclusion under our constitution. Although things improved through the 1970's and 1980's, our government suspended the Racial Discrimination Act (which made racial discrimination unlawful) in its application to aborigines in the 2000's to impose a bunch of new laws regarding welfare, alcohol and pornography on aboriginal communities which had no impact on white welfare recipients, but applied to black folks.

Yep, apartheid exists in Australia today. Gay marriage may well become federal law before racial discrimination ends.

For what it's worth, the 1967 referendum was supported by over 90 per cent of the populace (who, by definition at that time, were effectively all white). Sadly, that figure would probably be lower today.

I love my country and I wouldn't live anywhere else but we are farked sometimes.
 
2012-08-07 02:40:29 AM
The dick isn't in my ass. I can care less. Leave people alone and mind your own business.
 
2012-08-07 03:24:04 AM
Seems pretty gay to me:

"If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them."

Luke 6:29
 
2012-08-07 04:00:20 AM

Pantubo: Serious question:

If two men can get married, why on Earth couldn't a man marry his own brother?

You can't tell me that their offspring are going to be at seriously increased risk of birth defects, which is why a man can't marry his own sister.

So how about it? Enlighten me with your progressive tolerant wisdom. Hop to it!


I wonder the same thing, actually. Most people are opposed to incest because ZOMG RETARDED BABIES*, but when there's absolutely no threat of that ever happening, what justification do people use then?

______
* then again, this argument presupposes that a marriage is judged on the basis of procreation; haven't we been arguing against such a notion for quite some time? Conservatives like to assert this feature of "traditional marriage" vis-à-vis gay marriage, for instance, and most people soundly reject this assertion--and rightfully so.
 
2012-08-07 05:04:30 AM

Lando Lincoln: I'm just glad that homophobes are dying off significantly faster than they are being replaced.


same deal with arachnophobes

theinfosphere.org
 
2012-08-07 05:40:24 AM

Aussie_As: This is entirely true. Gen Y's acceptance of gay marriage is much, much greater than that of their grandparents. The conclusion you arrive at is that the day will come when the anti-gay-marriage crowd are going to be considered equivalent to the 'folks of different colour must not marry' crowd of 50 years ago. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states of the US in the days when Barrack Obama was born. But as an Australian, it's much worse in my country. Check this out:


This is the most compelling argument for a politician supporting gay marriage: if you're against it, in 20 years time, your opponents will dig up pictures of you supporting a policy that by then will look totally retarded because of the demographic shift.
 
2012-08-07 07:30:17 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?


If you marry a dude he won't stop giving you hummers after the wedding.
 
2012-08-07 07:36:46 AM

clyph: Jon iz teh kewl: what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?

If you marry a dude he won't stop giving you hummers after the wedding.


what if i don't like hummers. i prefer complaining about Chinese Food
 
2012-08-07 07:51:18 AM

Lemmon714: They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.


If your deeply held beliefs are bigoted, you're a bigot, plain and simple. Sorry if you can't handle the truth.

The Bible clearly endorses slavery, and there's at least one religious denomination (the Southern Baptist church) that was founded to explicitly support that belief. The fact that the people who founded the Southern Baptist church sincerely believed that God said it was A-OK for them to own other human beings on the basis of skin color, doesn't make that belief any less bigoted.
 
2012-08-07 07:53:27 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P




I got out with my life, got to keep my house due to homestead exemption in bankruptcy law.
My friends and family still berate me for not getting any money from him, since he had taken all of mine - he went through maybe $100 grand from my bank account, lots of money in 1987.
He thought a woman with money must be getting it from a trust fund - no way I had earned it. Funny thing, isn't it, I've always maintained that if it were socially acceptable he would have come out of the closet before I met him and none ot this would have happened.

"Why is divorce so expensive?"
"Because it's worth it."

Who'd thought there'd be a support group for non-spousal supported women in this thread?
 
2012-08-07 08:06:02 AM
ref="http://www.fark.com/comments/7253967/78549164#c78549164" target="_blank">ciberido: hegemonic masculinity

Gender-Studies like typing detected.

Pro-tip: if you want to be taken seriously, dial back on the angry feminist pseudo-scientific technobabble.

ciberido: There was even a book once titled "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche."


You do realize that book was a joke, right?
 
2012-08-07 08:18:51 AM

clyph: If your deeply held beliefs are bigoted, you're a bigot, plain and simple.


I agree.
 
2012-08-07 08:20:19 AM

NephilimNexus: I never understood why straight men would have any problem with gay men. Every gay man in the world is one less you have to compete with for females


THIS

The answer is, of course, that they can't admit their own homoerotic desires, even to themselves. They want to get rid of the gays because in their minds that will eliminate the temptation to go have the hot sweaty mansex they secretly crave.
 
2012-08-07 08:22:04 AM

Lemmon714: clyph: If your deeply held beliefs are bigoted, you're a bigot, plain and simple.

I agree.


Good, admitting you have a problem is the first step to solving it.
 
2012-08-07 08:36:31 AM

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!


Once again proving my point that the people that object to gay marriage are more obsessed with anal sex then any gay person ever would be.

If you find yourself thinking about it too much....
 
2012-08-07 08:37:37 AM

Aussie_As: "The bible says this therefore that's exactly where I'm at and you're all wrong" is the dumbest sermon you'd ever hear.


That's all you'll EVER hear at any Evangelical / literalist church. Your quote is pretty much a capsule summary of Biblical Literalist theology.
 
2012-08-07 08:39:08 AM

clyph: Good, admitting you have a problem is the first step to solving it.


lol, when did I admit that? It is the people with the disorder that have the problem.
Recognizing that is no more bigoted than recognizing any other disorder.
 
2012-08-07 08:39:31 AM

clyph: NephilimNexus: I never understood why straight men would have any problem with gay men. Every gay man in the world is one less you have to compete with for females

THIS

The answer is, of course, that they can't admit their own homoerotic desires, even to themselves. They want to get rid of the gays because in their minds that will eliminate the temptation to go have the hot sweaty mansex they secretly crave.


it's because gays will eventually go straight if given enough time. and by that time they'll have teh AIDS vaccine and DESTROY everyone with their dick.
 
2012-08-07 08:43:25 AM

blueviking: About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


How is that about homosexuality? It prohibits a specific sexual act. It leaves out more then half of the homosexual population.

That's like saying the Levitican proscription against having sex with your wife during her uncleanliness means heterosexuality is a sin.
 
2012-08-07 08:43:26 AM

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

But it's sooooo noble! They're in luuuuuv! Hey normal men everywhere! Isn't this so beautiful!


Good grief... just find a girl to give you a good pegging so you can stop obsessing about it.
 
2012-08-07 09:19:14 AM

NephilimNexus: I never understood why straight men would have any problem with gay men. Every gay man in the world is one less you have to compete with for females.


Came here to say this.
 
2012-08-07 09:45:02 AM

ciberido: reillan: No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.

There's this attitude that I've been observing for years now but have never had a good name for. It's a sort of bigotry like misogyny or homophobia, and it seems to be associated with both, but it isn't exactly either. I've been calling it "machismo" but I know that really isn't the right word for it. It sounds a little bit like hegemonic masculinity to me.

Essentially it's the belief that there are (and should be) rigid gender roles which people should follow, and it amounts to a long list of actions that are considered masculine (and thus men should do and women shouldn't) or feminine (and thus men shouldn't do). I couldn't put down an exhaustive list without writing a book, but it includes such obvious things as "Boys don't cry" and "Men don't wear lipstick" to rules governing every aspect of life. One example that really stuck in my mind came from a fark thread in which someone decreed "Hot tea is better left to the chicks." There are rules, even, listing which foods and beverages are masculine (beer) and which are feminine (hot tea, salads, "fru-fru" mixed drinks). There was even a book once titled "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche."

Is this attitude, this perception that most actions an adult can take are either masculine or feminine, part of hegemonic masculinity, or is there another term for it? It frustrates me that I don't have a good word for it.


It definitely sounds like part of it. Because the male role is the dominant and preferred role, it's totally acceptable for women to adopt that role (as it's considered natural for a lesser being to strive to achieve the same things as a greater). However, it's not fine for men to take on feminine traits, as the feminine role is the submissive role.
 
2012-08-07 09:54:24 AM

radarlove: gingerjet: radarlove: I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.

So atheists who get married by a judge aren't married? A couple married by a ship captain aren't married? Or a notary public? Or a star fleet admiral in Vegas?

/marriage isn't a religious ceremony

Atheism is a religion.


Oh boy...here we go again
 
2012-08-07 09:56:47 AM

you are a puppet: KrispyKritter: you are a puppet: I wish marriage was ONLY for gays.

in this the 18th year of a loveless shell of matrimonial suffering, i can only agree. while i slowly save my pennies for the day i can afford Divorce Lawyer. as i look forward to once again being in the company of women who still have sex. some day.

/bitter, married to a coont
//does it show?

I'm a divorce lawyer (well, it's 10% of my practice) and you could easily afford my services. You just might not be able to afford the payout to your wife (and 18 years is a big payout)

/But if you live in CO or GA I can make it happen


Actually, I want to ask you a GA divorce question
 
2012-08-07 10:14:56 AM

snarfyboy: blueviking: About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

How is that about homosexuality? It prohibits a specific sexual act. It leaves out more then half of the homosexual population.

That's like saying the Levitican proscription against having sex with your wife during her uncleanliness means heterosexuality is a sin.


But yet there are several other verses encouraging heterosexual sex throughout the Bible, and not just the prohibition against "laying with" one's wife during menses, whereas the specific act of intercourse between two men has nothing but prohibitions tied to it. And the only mentions of oral sex are between male and female that I've seen, and that only spoken of in metaphor. But, half the homosexual population exclusively engaging in oral sex? Love to see the statistic.
 
2012-08-07 10:28:40 AM

blueviking: But yet there are several other verses encouraging heterosexual sex throughout the Bible, and not just the prohibition against "laying with" one's wife during menses, whereas the specific act of intercourse between two men has nothing but prohibitions tied to it. And the only mentions of oral sex are between male and female that I've seen, and that only spoken of in metaphor. But, half the homosexual population exclusively engaging in oral sex? Love to see the statistic.


You are aware that lesbians are homosexuals too, aren't you? They make up half the homosexual population, and there are plenty of gay men that don't do anal either.

The Bible actually says very little about homosexual acts, and nothing that directly addresses homosexuality as we understand it today. People always think that the Bible was written with their modern sensibilities. They are wrong. Marriage was nothing more then the exchange of property between men, for example. Homosexual acts were also commonly performs by what we consider straight males.

Taking the Bible at face value is why the people that follow it usually barely understand their own religion.
 
2012-08-07 10:29:51 AM

snarfyboy: blueviking: But yet there are several other verses encouraging heterosexual sex throughout the Bible, and not just the prohibition against "laying with" one's wife during menses, whereas the specific act of intercourse between two men has nothing but prohibitions tied to it. And the only mentions of oral sex are between male and female that I've seen, and that only spoken of in metaphor. But, half the homosexual population exclusively engaging in oral sex? Love to see the statistic.

You are aware that lesbians are homosexuals too, aren't you? They make up half the homosexual population, and there are plenty of gay men that don't do anal either.

The Bible actually says very little about homosexual acts, and nothing that directly addresses homosexuality as we understand it today. People always think that the Bible was written with their modern sensibilities. They are wrong. Marriage was nothing more then the exchange of property between men, for example. Homosexual acts were also commonly performs by what we consider straight males.

Taking the Bible at face value is why the people that follow it usually barely understand their own religion.


Truth bombs deployed
 
2012-08-07 10:30:32 AM
blueviking

studebaker hoch: blueviking

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...

About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus was a man. I don't worship men. OK, I'm going to start over.

Leviticus is not a God. Nor is he the Son of God. I don't worship Leviticus. He has no superpowers, did not create the Universe or Men - gay or otherwise, and really I don't even know why people keep referrencing him. He (supposedly) said one sentence, in a Bible thick as a phone book, and we're supposed to think THAT is what the entire book teaches us? Really?

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47.)

Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."


Men, claiming to speak for God or His Son again. I can go into any city today and find men who claim to speak for God. They might have something worthwhile to hear, but I don't base my life around their words or worship these people.

It's fine if you want to cherry-pick, it's your religion, I don't give a fark but, if you're stating that, because they are not the direct words of Jesus or "God" as written, then you might as well trash about 80% of the book and declare the whole thing null and void.

That's it exactly. After Jesus was driven from Earth, you've got men falling over one another trying to grab the mic. "I spoke with God, listen to me!".

Leviticus is taken, traditionally, to be the word of Moses, which Jesus himself clearly states must be believed for his own teachings to have any validity.

Appealing to tradition is a mistake in any discussion. Did we refuse to develop jet aircraft because traditionally aircraft used propellers? No, we evolved. Airplanes without propellers must have seemed ridiculous at the time.

We're not trying to decide whether to allow gays to exist. They're already here, all around you, all the time. You mistake a lot of them for straight. These are stand-up men and women, good to have around. All we're doing is deciding whether to allow them the same civil rights that other Americans enjoy.

If Mark Bingham were alive today, would you tell him that he's unfit to marry his boyfriend? That God was against it? Really? If so, explain.
 
2012-08-07 01:00:11 PM

snarfyboy: blueviking: But yet there are several other verses encouraging heterosexual sex throughout the Bible, and not just the prohibition against "laying with" one's wife during menses, whereas the specific act of intercourse between two men has nothing but prohibitions tied to it. And the only mentions of oral sex are between male and female that I've seen, and that only spoken of in metaphor. But, half the homosexual population exclusively engaging in oral sex? Love to see the statistic.

You are aware that lesbians are homosexuals too, aren't you? They make up half the homosexual population, and there are plenty of gay men that don't do anal either.

The Bible actually says very little about homosexual acts, and nothing that directly addresses homosexuality as we understand it today. People always think that the Bible was written with their modern sensibilities. They are wrong. Marriage was nothing more then the exchange of property between men, for example. Homosexual acts were also commonly performs by what we consider straight males.

Taking the Bible at face value is why the people that follow it usually barely understand their own religion.


It was implied that "God" said "nothing" against homosexuality, certain acts or otherwise.

Part of the reason why I don't follow it, because there are certain aspects that many pastors and those of the flock like, especially in the evangelical circles, mainly following their translations of Paul's admonitions to the church, Peter's urging of women to submit (which a few of them take to mean even in times of abuse) but, then, when it comes to "Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow", or showing compassion for "sinners" and the disadvantaged, those instructions are often conveniently forgotten. Which is why I left the church a decade ago.

And my bad on the lesbian front, mea culpa.

studebaker hoch: blueviking

studebaker hoch: blueviking

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...

About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus was a man. I don't worship men. OK, I'm going to start over.

Leviticus is not a God. Nor is he the Son of God. I don't worship Leviticus. He has no superpowers, did not create the Universe or Men - gay or otherwise, and really I don't even know why people keep referrencing him. He (supposedly) said one sentence, in a Bible thick as a phone book, and we're supposed to think THAT is what the entire book teaches us? Really?

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47.)

Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Men, claiming to speak for God or His Son again. I can go into any city today and find men who claim to speak for God. They might have something worthwhile to hear, but I don't base my life around their words or worship these people.

It's fine if you want to cherry-pick, it's your religion, I don't give a fark but, if you're stating that, because they are not the direct words of Jesus or "God" as written, then you might as well trash about 80% of the book and declare the whole thing null and void.

That's it exactly. After Jesus was driven from Earth, you've got men falling over one another trying to grab the mic. "I spoke with God, listen to me!".

Leviticus is taken, traditionally, to be the word of Moses, which Jesus himself clearly states must be believed for his own teachings to have any validity ...


Seems that you think I'm against gay marriage, which is hardly the case, and if the Divine even exists, I doubt that a truly caring deity would ever condemn genuine love between two people. I won't tell anyone what "God" wants, is, or what they can or should do with their lives. If doesn't affect me, why do I care who decides to marry? If you were asking certain evangelicals, they would most likely tell you, yes, he is unfit, because of Leviticus, Romans, etc. and is written in the scriptures. To me, it's just an interesting myth with some valuable life lessons.
 
2012-08-07 01:18:07 PM

Jaicu: Who'd thought there'd be a support group for non-spousal supported women in this thread?


If it makes you feel any better, it made my day to hear all of your stories. Equality is a beautiful thing. It will be a great day when the pendulum finally swings all the way to the other side to "make up for past injustices". It's about farking time that one of these cultural shifts worked in our favor.
 
2012-08-07 02:44:51 PM
I'm not married so I'm against anyone getting any benefits at all for being married that I don't get.
 
2012-08-07 05:45:48 PM
I'm male. The dating pool is pretty slim for men anyways, women getting together just makes it worse. Can't tell you how many times the girl I've liked has turned out to be a lesbian....and not the butch dyke kind. The feminine kind that gets with the butch kind. Not everyone has a "right" to love and be loved, they should keep that shiat to themselves.

/is eating Chick-fil-a right now
 
2012-08-07 07:45:06 PM
ciberido: hegemonic masculinity

clyph: Gender-Studies like typing detected.

Pro-tip: if you want to be taken seriously, dial back on the angry feminist pseudo-scientific technobabble.


Considering the crap you've said about women and feminism in previous threads, I'll take criticism from you as an endorsement. So thanks. Now all I need is Rush Limbaugh to call me a Feminazi, and I'll be the next Anita Sarkeesian.

But your concern is duly noted.


ciberido: There was even a book once titled "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche."

clyph: You do realize that book was a joke, right?


You do realize that, in order for a joke about X to be made, the concept of X must first exist, right? There can be no joke about real men not eating quiche until after the idea that real men do not eat quiche has gained a certain traction.

This is particularly true for a joke book that was on the New York Times Best Seller list for 55 weeks, and sold over 1.6 million copies.
 
2012-08-07 07:49:17 PM

MacWizard: NephilimNexus: I never understood why straight men would have any problem with gay men. Every gay man in the world is one less you have to compete with for females.

Came here to say this.


It's actually one better than this. In many cases, it's one less well-dressed, neatly groomed, sensitive man to compete with.

/happily married fat slob
 
2012-08-07 08:16:41 PM
If God really wanted us to follow his bible, you'd think he would have made it easier to translate and understand throughout the ages...
 
2012-08-07 10:33:52 PM

Moonfisher: If God really wanted us to follow his bible, you'd think he would have made it easier to translate and understand throughout the ages...


If Giod wanted us to be liek he wanted, he wouldn't have put the tree right smack in the middle of the garden, or had tighter security. Also, he's omnipotent, why doesn't he wiggle his fingers and make us all perfect again?
 
2012-08-07 11:16:05 PM
blueviking

Seems that you think I'm against gay marriage, which is hardly the case, and if the Divine even exists, I doubt that a truly caring deity would ever condemn genuine love between two people.

If not for love, life is just "live and die". Plants can do that. God didn't work as hard as he did creating us just so we could live and then die.

God created us so we could fall in love.

I won't tell anyone what "God" wants, is, or what they can or should do with their lives.

Cool

If doesn't affect me, why do I care who decides to marry?

That's it exactly. It won't affect anyone in the slightest, except the same-sex couples who finally are allowed in out of the rain to stand with everyone else. It will make them feel a lot better.

If you were asking certain evangelicals, they would most likely tell you, yes, he is unfit, because of Leviticus, Romans, etc. and is written in the scriptures.

I'd love to have a discussion with those guys about American family values sometime. Bingham's mother left him a message on his cell phone saying to take the airplane back. Mark was too busy taking the airplane back to answer his phone. It didn't matter. She'd raised her son well enough he didn't need to be told to do the right thing. This is how you're supposed to raise kids.

To me, it's just an interesting myth with some valuable life lessons.

Christianity has some beautiful lessons. Most Christians stay true to these.

A few don't. I wonder sometimes if it's just because they don't know us very well.
 
2012-08-08 07:10:28 PM

studebaker hoch: blueviking

Seems that you think I'm against gay marriage, which is hardly the case, and if the Divine even exists, I doubt that a truly caring deity would ever condemn genuine love between two people.

If not for love, life is just "live and die". Plants can do that. God didn't work as hard as he did creating us just so we could live and then die.

God created us so we could fall in love.

I won't tell anyone what "God" wants, is, or what they can or should do with their lives.

Cool

If doesn't affect me, why do I care who decides to marry?

That's it exactly. It won't affect anyone in the slightest, except the same-sex couples who finally are allowed in out of the rain to stand with everyone else. It will make them feel a lot better.

If you were asking certain evangelicals, they would most likely tell you, yes, he is unfit, because of Leviticus, Romans, etc. and is written in the scriptures.

I'd love to have a discussion with those guys about American family values sometime. Bingham's mother left him a message on his cell phone saying to take the airplane back. Mark was too busy taking the airplane back to answer his phone. It didn't matter. She'd raised her son well enough he didn't need to be told to do the right thing. This is how you're supposed to raise kids.

To me, it's just an interesting myth with some valuable life lessons.

Christianity has some beautiful lessons. Most Christians stay true to these.

A few don't. I wonder sometimes if it's just because they don't know us very well.


Seriously?

All religions have beautiful lessons, man.

Embrace all or none, quit terrorizing some, friend.

However,

Religion and politics are dangerous allies.

Human welfare needs no politicization.

Read.
 
Displayed 268 of 268 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report