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.

(Mother Jones)   All you need to know about the seven cases the Supreme Court has on its menu for gay-marriage day   (motherjones.com) divider line 325
    More: Interesting, California Supreme Court, personnel management, Lambda Legal, domestic partners, Office of Personnel Management, US House of Representatives, California Constitution, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

10829 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-30 04:46:22 PM  

crzybtch: Jim_Callahan: crzybtch: Which reminds me, despite being married in the church and taking that "holy vow" I knew a guy who was married for 30 years and had 5 kids but was able to get an annulment so that he could marry the woman he was cheating with.

You clearly know some obscenely rich people. Even getting the pope to notice your annulment request is expensive as all hell.

Also, once you have kids, an annulment doesn't actually help you, sin-wise. Because all those kids are now bastards, and having children out of wedlock is one of those can't-really-repent-effectively ones. You're actually better off sin-wise to keep cheating and hope to live long enough that your libido fails before you die, and confess at least once between the two occurrences.

Actually he wasn't that rich, but I also suspect maybe he had mob connections. And the only reason he even wanted an annulment was because wife #2 wanted to be married in the church!


Newt Gingrich?

// isn't Callista a Roman Catholic?
// I know it's not Newt, because he wasn't Catholic when he was getting his willy wet
 
2012-11-30 04:46:29 PM  

lennavan: Pumpkinbutter, this is more like I said "the alphabet extends from A to Z" and he replied "I already agreed the alphabet contains the letter A."


Sweetcheeks, it's a hell of lot more like "These are two extremes of a range" and you said, "Why are you fixating on the low end?"

Stubbornness, you're soaking in it.
 
2012-11-30 04:55:48 PM  

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Ah, you're one of those people who think that if we repealed the Fourteenth Amendment black people wouldn't have rights anymore.
 
2012-11-30 04:59:25 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BarkingUnicorn: It may have meant that to Marx, but it cogently summarizes your position too.

Wow. If you are really this freaked out about my suggestion of removing one tax deduction, you really shouldn't look a few threads up at the hundreds of people who want to raise taxes by 100%. Your head will explode, if you think I'm marxist. :)

BarkingUnicorn: Just going to ignore my argument that wealthier people deserve dependent tax breaks more than poor people because the former do more social good than the latter? I'm rather proud of that one. :-)

I guess I can just say, I disagree with regressive taxation in general. Which would include the one you suggest.


I'm not freaked out about anything. This debate is simply entertaining. :-)

So you want to eliminate just one dependent tax break. Which one? There's the dependent exemption worth $X per dependent; the Earned Income Credit; the Child & Dependent Care Credit. That's just off the top of my head; I have no dependents now.

I don't like your idea of eliminating dependent tax breaks based on some arbitrary "need" test. Of course, wealthier people do save more tax dollars per dependent deduction than poor people do, because we have a progressive tax rate structure. But again, the wealthier people tend to return more social good in exchange.

I favor leaving things just the way they are.
 
2012-11-30 04:59:59 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: If you would like to have a sincere conversation in which we respond in detail to each other's points


hi, i'm IDW i don't believe we've met

Martian_Astronomer: without changing the subject, you're welcome to start one.


hi, i'm IDW i don't believe we've met, what is "the subject"?

Martian_Astronomer: Things that happen during fetal development may not be genetic, but can't be said to be a willful choice on the part of the fetus either.


1. Environmental factors are not genetic nor predetermined.
2. I NEVER said that their Free Will was the ONLY factor in this equation.

Martian_Astronomer: Similarly, many things that a child has zero control over affect the brain development producing permanent biological results.


correct

Martian_Astronomer: You can argue for genetic vs. not genetic, or "not a choice" vs. "choice," but genetic and "not a choice" are not equivalent.


i'd rather not argue them unless someone is having trouble discerning such things or understanding what bearing they have on the subject

is the subject, "are gays to blame for their gayness? if so how much?" OR "should gays be allowed to marry? (AKA should society have to change the definition of marriage to accommodate a certain group of lifestyle choices?)

/because teh gays aren't the only ones making a lifestyle choice
//i've already listed others, if/when you're ready to actually defend an argument
///ready when you are lad
//we'll just wait patiently here
 
2012-11-30 05:04:04 PM  

Deucednuisance: lennavan: Pumpkinbutter, this is more like I said "the alphabet extends from A to Z" and he replied "I already agreed the alphabet contains the letter A."

Sweetcheeks, it's a hell of lot more like "These are two extremes of a range" and you said, "Why are you fixating on the low end?"

Stubbornness, you're soaking in it.


Pookiebottom, I was talking about the people in the middle. The only reason you didn't know that cuddlebear, is that you think the only people who are struggling to get by are below the poverty line.

Silver utensils, your mouth is full of them.
 
2012-11-30 05:05:47 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: MrEricSir: It's 2012. The fact that we're still having this conversation makes me embarrassed to be an American.

Yeah, it's almost like a very diverse nation of 300+ million people from cultures all over the world, takes just a few years longer to come to a consensus than homogenous nations of 30 million. Heh. Relax and stop being so embarrassed of yourself. You'd be just as (wrongly) embarrassed to be in one of the many EU nations currently working on the same inevitable decision.


Maybe equal rights and freedoms for everyone, like what the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights say America was created for and founded on, shouldn't be at the mercy of the whims of the general public.

Male, female, white, black, Mexican, Asian, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, we're all humans, all American citizens, and all equal.

Sound good?
 
2012-11-30 05:10:43 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Male, female, white, black, Mexican, Asian, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, we're all humans, all American citizens, and all equal.


And not one of them should be embarrassed about their nationality. You are preaching to the choir my friend.
 
2012-11-30 05:16:28 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Be my guest. They even give you a side-by-side translation.


thats fine and dandy but where are the ORIGINAL greek texts?

you know when the greek authors wrote the old testament, show me that link

lennavan: I said I agree with you and then just reiterated what you said -- if let orphaned kids call themselves a family, then parents will abandon their kids more often.


IF (we) let orphaned kids call themselves a family,
THEN parents will abandon their kids more often

???

IDW said this?? feel free to use the quote button

wtf is this? i don't even

are you just dumping dictionaries into a blender and posting what comes out the other side?

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Major derp, dude.


you aint just whistlin' dixie
 
2012-11-30 05:16:38 PM  

I drunk what: is the subject, "are gays to blame for their gayness? if so how much?" OR "should gays be allowed to marry? (AKA should society have to change the definition of marriage to accommodate a certain group of lifestyle choices?)


The problem with the "Are gays to blame for their gayness?" question is that it automatically assumes that gay is an aberration that needs to be fixed. If the problem is genetics, then just genetically engineer the gay out. If the problem is the environment, then jail the parents or put X laws in to prevent the kid from being grown gay.

How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be gay. Same percentage of the population that left-handed people are, yet there's no one asking if we should be blaming left-handed people for their left-handedness.

As far as the "Should gays marry?" That was decided with equal protection under the law. Again, get over it.
 
2012-11-30 05:20:15 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Male, murderer, female, liar, white, thief, black, pedophile, Mexican, incest, Asian, bestial, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, we're all humans, all American citizens, and all equal.

Sound good?


i'm ok you're ok

let's change some marriage laws! who is with me?!

/we'll just sort out all that "family" stuff later
//it'll probably just work itself out anyway
///meh, don't care
 
2012-11-30 05:21:21 PM  

MrEricSir: "Coming to a consensus" has NOTHING to do with civil rights. If we had to have a consensus on these issues, we'd still have slavery.


I'll go ahead disagree with you on that one. In any human endeavor it's better to try to come to a consensus though reason and discussion. Which is what we are doing, and we are getting there on gay rights. Forcing your ideal of civil rights on other through force should be a last resort, after reason and discussion. I'm just saying that reason and discussion takes longer among a population of 300 million than 30 million.
 
2012-11-30 05:21:36 PM  

I drunk what: IF (we) let orphaned kids call themselves a family, THEN parents will abandon their kids more often


Makes sense.

I drunk what: IDW said this?? feel free to use the quote button


Will do.

I drunk what: BarkingUnicorn: I almost forgot about orphaned siblings. Are they not entitled to call themselves a family?

children raising children is part of the problem we are trying to fix, not support


Exactly. Let's not support parents abandoning kids by letting orphans call themselves a family.
 
2012-11-30 05:30:05 PM  

Peki: The problem with the "Are gays to blame for their gayness?" question is that it automatically assumes that gay is an aberration that needs to be fixed.


is the subject "are gays to blame for gayness?" OR "is gay an aberration that needs to be fixed?"

you guys gotta quit changing the subject all the time you're driving Martian_Astronomer nuts!

IDW on the other hand, is game, just pick one at a time, for those having trouble keeping up at home

Peki: If the problem is genetics, then just genetically engineer the gay out


that's part of the problem

Peki: If the problem is the environment, then jail the parents or put X laws in to prevent the kid from being grown gay.


that's part of the problem, would you like to know more?

Peki: How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be [fill in your lifestyle choice here].


any guesses why this little plan might backfire on you?

Peki: As far as the "Should gays marry?" That was decided with equal protection under the law. Again, get over it.


and yet it's illegal to in so many places, hmmm.... darn that reality. Again, deal with it.
 
2012-11-30 05:31:56 PM  

lennavan: Pookiebottom, I was talking about the people in the middle. The only reason you didn't know that cuddlebear, is that you think the only people who are struggling to get by are below the poverty line.


Honeybun, your lack of reading comprehension is showing.

Neither of us said anything of the sort.

You have somehow convinced yourself that we did, but we didn't.

That's that whole point of this. That's what we're trying to tell you. So could you please stop wagging your pretty little head and let an idea other than the ones you're making up have a place in there, ok?

It's 5:30 here in Our Nation's Capital and Mr. Nuisance has to got to get to his second job.

So he can "get by". (It's "uniquely American" to do so, I'm told.) Don't wait up!

Now, come give us a kiss and then it's off to bed with you!
 
2012-11-30 05:37:01 PM  

lennavan: Makes sense.


*huffs paint* true dat, respek knuckles

welcometofark.jpg

lennavan: Exactly. Let's not support parents abandoning kids by letting orphans call themselves a family.


Precisely. Parents letting orphans not let's themselves abandoning call a support family by kids.

/cupcake
 
2012-11-30 05:43:25 PM  

I drunk what:
Peki: How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be [fill in your lifestyle choice here].

1) any guesses why this little plan might backfire on you?

Peki: As far as the "Should gays marry?" That was decided with equal protection under the law. Again, get over it.

2) and yet it's illegal to in so many places, hmmm.... darn that reality. Again, deal with it.


1) No. Love to hear your ideas, especially as I'm both left-handed and bisexual.

2) Laws can be changed and/or declared unconstitutional. My orientation cannot be changed (in spite of me every once in a while going "Peki, you're straight, just admit it". . . and then Fark has another cosplay thread and so much for that thought).
 
2012-11-30 05:50:07 PM  

I drunk what: ///meh, don't care


You seem to care enough about this issue to post a bunch of nonsense about it on fark.
 
2012-11-30 06:12:34 PM  

I drunk what: i'd rather not argue them unless someone is having trouble discerning such things or understanding what bearing they have on the subject


That's good, but you were the one who tried to go down that road in the first place....

I drunk what: until then perhaps you can enlighten us with the scientific fact that people are born gay, beginning with the genetic sequence that indicates such (which i'm sure this guy is just dying to hear about):


My point was that it might be possible to be "born gay" without there being a genetic cause, and furthermore that lack of a genetic cause does not imply conscious choice.

Regardless, you are right, the subject is whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. Moreover, since this is the United States we're talking about, the more specific question is whether or not you can find a compelling, secular reason (which does not violate the 14th amendment) to deny homosexuals a legal status that is already not predicated on fertility or "normative" gender rolls.
 
kth
2012-11-30 06:18:05 PM  
Cert was granted today in a case my brother-in-law is arguing, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/not a gay marriage case
 
2012-11-30 06:18:44 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: My point was that it might be possible to be "born gay" without there being a genetic cause, and furthermore that lack of a genetic cause does not imply conscious choice.


My personal belief is that my orientation is caused by the confluence of exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb and being raised primarily by my father during the ages of 7-11. I'm pretty sure genetics has nothing to do with it (no other known family members of alternate gender expression or sexual orientation), but I'm willing to allow for more than even just those two factors.
 
2012-11-30 06:20:06 PM  

BigBooper: Great.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.


Nobody is this stupid. Nobody.
 
2012-11-30 06:27:08 PM  

Peki: My personal belief is that my orientation is caused by the confluence of exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb and being raised primarily by my father during the ages of 7-11. I'm pretty sure genetics has nothing to do with it (no other known family members of alternate gender expression or sexual orientation), but I'm willing to allow for more than even just those two factors.


Well, for starters, lennavan's link did mention that there was some genetic correlation (though I'm not sure how they're separating out genetics and prenatal development in that study,) so being "pretty sure" that genetics is not relevant may not be warranted. As for the rest, I'm going to have to go with [citation needed]. (I mean that in a sincere sense, not an antagonistic one.)
 
2012-11-30 06:35:16 PM  

gingerjet: I drunk what: ///meh, don't care

You seem to care enough about this issue to post a bunch of nonsense about it on fark.


Because he's a professional troll. His method of operation is to go into a thread, make a half-hearted half-true statement, then descend into an orgy of constantly changing the definitions, answering your questions with questions about you or that have nothing to do with the subject, ignoring most of what you say, and eventually he starts insulting and attacking you.

Hell, all you have to do is look at his profile. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Peki: Martian_Astronomer: My point was that it might be possible to be "born gay" without there being a genetic cause, and furthermore that lack of a genetic cause does not imply conscious choice.

My personal belief is that my orientation is caused by the confluence of exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb and being raised primarily by my father during the ages of 7-11. I'm pretty sure genetics has nothing to do with it (no other known family members of alternate gender expression or sexual orientation), but I'm willing to allow for more than even just those two factors.


If genetics has nothing to do with it, why do straight people make gay children? Many gays are raised in an everyday straight household. And why is homosexuality found throughout the animal kingdom, from humans to fruit flies?

Like everything else in the universe, it's much more complex than "This is the only reason it happens", no matter how much humans want the answer to be simple.
 
2012-11-30 06:39:58 PM  
Ooh, apparently I got misread there.

I didn't mean genetics has nothing to do with it, period. I meant, I don't think genetics has anything to do with it in my case. It was meant as an anecdotal story to support Martian's position that there are more factors than just genetics.

I DO believe genetics has SOMETHING to do with. Just not sure if that arguments works in my case.
 
2012-11-30 06:44:50 PM  

gingerjet: I drunk what: ///meh, don't care

You seem to care enough about this issue to post a bunch of nonsense about it on fark.


sometimes people are sarcastic on the internet

however this happens to be one of those cases where i assume the role of my opponents to illustrate how absolutely ridiculous their statements are, and then watch as they hurl insults at me tell me how stupid i am, then i remind them that i just directly quoted them

meh

i do care
 
2012-11-30 06:55:00 PM  

I drunk what: I drunk Peki: How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be [fill in your lifestyle choice here]. {----- read this carefully

any guesses why this little plan might backfire on you?


Peki: No.


i've bolded a hint for you

another hint: homosexuality isn't the only lifestyle choice...

am i right Keizer?

I drunk what: I drunk Keizer_Ghidorah: Male, murderer, female, liar, white, thief, black, pedophile, Mexican, incest, Asian, bestial, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, we're all humans, all American citizens, and all equal.


right on brah, i'm ok you're ok
 
2012-11-30 07:10:29 PM  

I drunk what: I drunk what: I drunk Peki: How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be [fill in your lifestyle choice here]. {----- read this carefully

any guesses why this little plan might backfire on you?

Peki: No.

i've bolded a hint for you

another hint: homosexuality isn't the only lifestyle choice...


If it's a "lifestyle choice", perhaps you could prove it by choosing to be homosexual for a month, including acting, thinking, and behaving like one.
 
2012-11-30 07:16:12 PM  

Peki: My orientation cannot be changed


i disagree

Peki: My personal belief is that my orientation is caused by the confluence of exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb and being raised primarily by my father during the ages of 7-11. I'm pretty sure genetics has nothing to do with it (no other known family members of alternate gender expression or sexual orientation), but I'm willing to allow for more than even just those two factors.


what? no Free Will?

i think we can all agree that genetics and environment play a role in the equation, but i'm not seeing anything about choice in this thread, any reason why?

i can guess
 
2012-11-30 07:19:50 PM  

Peki: Ooh, apparently I got misread there.

I didn't mean genetics has nothing to do with it, period. I meant, I don't think genetics has anything to do with it in my case. It was meant as an anecdotal story to support Martian's position that there are more factors than just genetics.

I DO believe genetics has SOMETHING to do with. Just not sure if that arguments works in my case.


Your genes contain everything about you and your ancestors, including behaviors. You can't say that one thing works only on one person and brush off it applying to yourself. HOW MUCH of an impact is the debatable part, but it's still there.

I was born into a typical straight Christian household with two loving parents, an older brother, and a typical life. Not exposed to large amounts of sexual material until late teenhood, never lived anywhere that was heavily gay, nothing from either parent telling me what I should be attracted to, in fact I only got The Talk when I was either 13 or 14 and it was a minimalistic version. My brother was and is straight as an arrow. I found I was attracted to both males and females when I started getting the urges and feelings, and to this day I'm as bi as bi can be.

So, if I had to explain how my sexual preferences turned out, it would have to be a heavy genetic influence, because my environment and upbringing certainly didn't influence me. This just goes to show that there are a lot of complexities.
 
2012-11-30 07:20:03 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: If it's a "lifestyle choice", perhaps you could prove it by choosing to be homosexual for a month, including acting, thinking, and behaving like one.


can i have some preparation time to condition myself first?

or do i have to just go in cold turkey?

/bite the pillow

IF it isn't a choice how do you explain the cases where people DID change their sexual orientation...?

were they simply figments of our collective imagination?

kinda like when jesus was a myth?
 
2012-11-30 07:30:09 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: This just goes to show that there are a lot of complexities.


I concur.

and i am willing to propose that some people struggle harder than others, that in certain cases their genetics + environment can almost guarantee that they will become predisposed to those desires

unfortunately this does not excuse nor justify the results

the EXACT same argument can be made for a great number of other lifestyles choices

because in the END no matter how many odds-complexities you have working against you, the final decision is 100% up to you

hence, darn that Free Will

that's Life, i never said it was going to be easy...
 
2012-11-30 07:35:51 PM  

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: If it's a "lifestyle choice", perhaps you could prove it by choosing to be homosexual for a month, including acting, thinking, and behaving like one.

can i have some preparation time to condition myself first?

or do i have to just go in cold turkey?

/bite the pillow

IF it isn't a choice how do you explain the cases where people DID change their sexual orientation...?

were they simply figments of our collective imagination?

kinda like when jesus was a myth?


Jesus may have been a real person. It doesn't mean he was a piece of God's existence in human form who went around performing amazing miracles that were only recorded in a book written long after his time of existence. You think something of that magnitude would have been written about by everyone in that area (or around the world, but God apparently didn't care about the rest of humanity, only the small number in the Middle East). Anyway, you can stop trying to deflect the issue.

I recall most of those cases were because they were in hiding out of fear for their lives or to be accepted, and they didn't change at all, only hid their homosexuality. And I'm certain that you're perfectly aware that the "gay lifestyle" is just like the "straight lifestyle" except that those involved happen to like people of their own gender.
 
2012-11-30 07:36:44 PM  

I drunk what: i think we can all agree that genetics and environment play a role in the equation, but i'm not seeing anything about choice in this thread, any reason why?

i can guess


No, you can't. Never in a million years. So I'll just tell you:

It's because you're blind.

The whole thread is about choice: to marry or not marry. You don't believe that should be a choice available to gays, because you are blinded by your religion's arrogance.
 
2012-11-30 07:38:58 PM  

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: This just goes to show that there are a lot of complexities.

I concur.

and i am willing to propose that some people struggle harder than others, that in certain cases their genetics + environment can almost guarantee that they will become predisposed to those desires

unfortunately this does not excuse nor justify the results

the EXACT same argument can be made for a great number of other lifestyles choices

because in the END no matter how many odds-complexities you have working against you, the final decision is 100% up to you

hence, darn that Free Will

that's Life, i never said it was going to be easy...


So why do you have such a problem with those who "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex? It can be perfectly easy if people like you would stop acting like loving someone who has the same gonads should be treated like a horrible evil thing.
 
2012-11-30 07:45:45 PM  

I drunk what:

IF it isn't a choice how do you explain the cases where people DID change their sexual orientation...?


You may be able to cite examples of people who changed their sexual behavior, but you cannot show any objective evidence of anyone's sexual orientation. We can only take people's word for the latter. And we know how that often turns out.
 
2012-11-30 07:49:06 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: I drunk what:

IF it isn't a choice how do you explain the cases where people DID change their sexual orientation...?

You may be able to cite examples of people who changed their sexual behavior, but you cannot show any objective evidence of anyone's sexual orientation. We can only take people's word for the latter. And we know how that often turns out.


But they changed, that's all the evidence he needs. Since IDW changes the definitions of things constantly to fit his views, it works fine.
 
2012-11-30 08:08:19 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: So why do you have such a problem with those who "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex?


for the very same reason why i have such a problem with those who choose to be attracted to another Man's wife, goats, children, their mother, women they aren't married to, more than one woman, etc.. and so on

because we are bound to Morality whether we like it or not

we can't debate it, we can't rationalize it away, we can't vote against it, we can't pass laws to override it

you only have 2 choices

OBEY or DISOBEY

the choice is yours, irregardless of who-what is to blame for your predisposition

I can tell you what the Good Choice is, but i can't guarantee that you will like it
 
2012-11-30 08:16:47 PM  

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: So why do you have such a problem with those who "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex?

for the very same reason why i have such a problem with those who choose to be attracted to another Man's wife, goats, children, their mother, women they aren't married to, more than one woman, etc.. and so on

because we are bound to Morality whether we like it or not

we can't debate it, we can't rationalize it away, we can't vote against it, we can't pass laws to override it

you only have 2 choices

OBEY or DISOBEY

the choice is yours, irregardless of who-what is to blame for your predisposition

I can tell you what the Good Choice is, but i can't guarantee that you will like it


Sorry, dude. Your God and his views are very old-fashioned and rather evil. When the creation shows itself to be more kind, loving, compassionate, and moral than the creator, something is wrong.

You say God loves everything and gave us free will, but if we do anything that's not OBEY ME!, then we'll be brutally tortured for eternity. That's neither loving nor free will. It also sounds quite like many other deities from before God was created, from the Aztec gods demanding obedience and sacrifices to Zeus thunderbolting mortals who make him grumpy. Do you really want the image of God to be like that?

In your eyes, gays are evil because they love others. That's a sad, pitiable view of life.
 
2012-11-30 08:23:34 PM  
I don't care what your personal beliefs are on this subject. If you think that gay marriage is going to continue to be illegal and that gay couples are going to have fewer benefits than straight couples then you are not living in the real world.

You can be against it all you want. I'm not gay but I have been waiting for this day just hoping that it might help bigots shut up.
 
2012-11-30 08:46:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Your God and his views are very old-fashioned and rather evil.


yeah i know, all that thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, stuff is so barbaric

luckily we have progressed since then

obey yourself, be a free thinker

love = sex

and we should love our neighbors, therefore if it has a pulse we should fark it

i'm ok you're ok
 
2012-11-30 08:53:58 PM  

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: Your God and his views are very old-fashioned and rather evil.

yeah i know, all that thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, stuff is so barbaric

luckily we have progressed since then

obey yourself, be a free thinker

love = sex

and we should love our neighbors, therefore if it has a pulse we should fark it

i'm ok you're ok


Man created those, not God. Man created God. Man was around a loooonnnng time before God was, and survived just fine before those commandments were thought of. Normal people intuitively know that being a dick and farking everyone else over ruins their chances for a good life, they don't need a fairy tale to tell them. Hell, social animals know that to an extent.

And are we REALLY going to try the "letting two humans love each other and have equal rights = bestiality" "argument"? Really? Don't prove to me you're that stupid and inane.
 
2012-11-30 09:15:22 PM  

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: So why do you have such a problem with those who "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex?

for the very same reason why i have such a problem with those who choose to be attracted to another Man's wife, goats, children, their mother, women they aren't married to, more than one woman, etc.. and so on

because we are bound to Morality whether we like it or not

we can't debate it, we can't rationalize it away, we can't vote against it, we can't pass laws to override it

you only have 2 choices

OBEY or DISOBEY

the choice is yours, irregardless of who-what is to blame for your predisposition

I can tell you what the Good Choice is, but i can't guarantee that you will like it



I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: Your God and his views are very old-fashioned and rather evil.

yeah i know, all that thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, stuff is so barbaric

luckily we have progressed since then

obey yourself, be a free thinker

love = sex

and we should love our neighbors, therefore if it has a pulse we should fark it

i'm ok you're ok


Where does this "morality" you speak of come from? It surely is not the bible or god, or something of that nature. You speak of the good lessons of the bible, not lying, and killing and stealing, but the bible is full of tales of god not only allowing murder, rape and theft, but demanding them. And then you have the morality of the bible which claims a man should lie with his dead brother's wife to beget children, or that women should go out of the camp when they are on their period, or that we should stone to death those that work on the sabbath and stone disobedient children and force the raped to marry their rapists.

We reject those immoral parts of the bible, trying to justify it away, saying god didn't really mean to kill people working on Sunday, surely. And no one is supposed to really stone disobedient children, or make women move out to the edge of the city when they are on their period. And all that stuff about murder and rape and killing children, it was all for a good reason and not immoral at all, even if those same acts were done by anyone else.

So, if the bible, the source of you morality, has to be "interpreted" in this fashion, where does the moral sense come from that causes us to reject the immoral bible? If we already have a moral sense outside the bible, a superior sense that shows us clearly and without a doubt the immorality of the lessons of the bible, what need a bible? Our morality can be grounded on something other than magic sky-fathers and nomadic fairy tales. And without the fairy tales, the anti-gay sentiment found in the bible can be rejected as immoral as easily the sentiment that says we should stone people who work on Sunday, and that the raped should be forced to marry their rapist.

But what, exactly, is our modern morality grounded in? Not, as you seem to think, "If it feels good, do it." But, it does me no injury for my neighbor to marry a man or a women. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs. And that is that. Mind your own business, your morality is between you and your god. And, seeing how many gay folks are religious and feel their god finds their marriage moral, you are never going to win the argument.
 
2012-11-30 10:22:02 PM  
DubtodaIll: If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations.

Dwight_Yeast: Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.


Wikipedia has a list:
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States
1,138 is an interesting number.
 
2012-11-30 10:31:37 PM  

RyogaM: But what, exactly, is our modern morality grounded in? Not, as you (IDW) seem to think, "If it feels good, do it."


Actually, that is what all moral codes are grounded in. If you follow these rules, you will feel better; maybe not now, maybe not until after you die. But you will feel better if you follow these rules than you will feel if you don't.

You may experience stress when you resist the perfectly natural urge to choke the living shiat out of some asshole who desperately deserves it. But later, looking back, you will feel better than you would if you had succumbed to the urge.

You will feel good immediately if you support gay marriage, or if you oppose it. It depends on what moral code you follow. But you always follow that moral code because it makes you feel good.

People don't do things that they believe are going to make them feel worse in the long run. Even suicides believe that they're better off dead. A guy who drinks knowing that he'll get a hangover believes that the near-term good feeling outweighs tomorrow's agony.

The dominant secular view is that life and liberty exist for the purpose of pursuing happiness. The dominant religious view is that God gives us life and free will to give us a shot at Heaven, the perfect happiness. Just different ways of saying the same thing.

It's all about feeling good, baby!
 
2012-11-30 10:38:08 PM  

bullwinkl: I'm desperate for gay marriage to be approved, so I can realize my dream of sex with ducks.


You really like corkscrew penii, don't you?

Ballistic Penises and Corkscrew Vaginas is definitely going to be the name of my next band.
 
2012-11-30 10:57:07 PM  

ciberido: bullwinkl: I'm desperate for gay marriage to be approved, so I can realize my dream of sex with ducks.

You really like corkscrew penii, don't you?

Ballistic Penises and Corkscrew Vaginas is definitely going to be the name of my next band.


You always have the most interesting links : )
/Although I think I could have made it through life without knowing that.
 
2012-11-30 11:08:25 PM  

ManRay: Would it be possible for them to strike down all marriage laws when considering these cases? Cut a wide swath stance, so to speak.


FTFY
 
2012-11-30 11:17:23 PM  

eddiesocket: Serious Black: If you're as confident that he'll uphold as I am that he'll strike it down, would you like to make a friendly wager? Say, one month of TotalFark or an equivalent donation to a charity of the victor's choice?

I want in on that. Thomas hates teh gay. It's not even a question he'll uphold DOMA. Even the most optimistic SCOTUS watchers know this. You hear Kennedy maybe, Roberts sure, but no one ever says Thomas. The fact that he thinks sodomy are "uncommonly silly" is absolutely no indication of his feelings on gay marriage. Your mistake is in thinking he has integrity and actually gives a damn about state's rights to make laws he disapproves of.


I fully admit it's a bold prediction and that it could blow up in my face. But that's why I'm willing to put money to my prediction. Any jagoff can make bold predictions and just ignore that they made them later on (see Dick Morris, Joe Scarborough, Jennifer Rubin, Dean Chambers, Karl Rove, etc.). Putting money behind it makes it mean something more than breaking a reputation for a week or less.

I'm game if you are. Just reply in the affirmative here so we have public confirmation and send an e-mail to the address in my profile to iron out the last details.
 
2012-11-30 11:29:58 PM  
I just leave this here The Rainbow conection
lostboysconsulting.ca
 
Displayed 50 of 325 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report