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.

(Gallup)   In the latest attempt to overheat the Obvious tag into ionized plasma, Gallup releases a poll showing that the primary reason Americans give for opposing marriage equality is Religion   (gallup.com) divider line 213
    More: Obvious, Gallup, Americans, same-sex marriages, laws of nature, political lines, opinion polls, faiths  
•       •       •

1133 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 1:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 01:34:32 PM
The primary reason they give is religion.

The actual primary reason is that they are immoral bigoted scum with no place in a civilised society.
 
2012-12-06 01:36:30 PM

Blues_X: "These two or three pages in the Bible say it's wrong. Of course, the Bible says a lot of other things are wrong but I just ignore those parts."


Interestingly, this is one excuse that a lot of churches are giving for softening their stance on homosexuality, but it's not really surprising that the shift doesn't help their outreach too much. It's essentially moving from saying "Gheys are destroying America!!!" to saying "Hey, nobody's perfect, and we all have our sins that we struggle with. Mine is that I occasionally overeat and insult people when I get angry, yours is that your sexual identity is an abomination and every romantic relationship you've ever had has been an insult to God. Come to our church, and we'll work on our problems together!"

Amazingly, people still find fault with such magnanimity.
 
2012-12-06 01:36:39 PM

SovietCanuckistan: 404 page not found: Only out of respect for Mrs. 404 do I not blurt out, "But child rape and the cover-up and protection of child-rapists is still ok, right Father!?" 

GO YELL IT FROM THE MOUNTAIN TOP DUDE


That might be all the encouragement I need. Been working nights in the ER recently and haven't gone to mass in a couple of weeks or so, but the douche gets more and more political every time.
 
2012-12-06 01:36:45 PM

mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.


If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.
 
2012-12-06 01:37:38 PM

Tigger: The primary reason they give is religion.

The actual primary reason is that they are immoral bigoted scum with no place in a civilised society.


Well, you've got yourself an interesting chicken-and-egg argument there. Do they believe their religious bigotry because they are scum looking to justify their hatred, or are they so brainwashed by religion they turn into hate-filled mongrels? I think for lots of people it's different.
 
2012-12-06 01:37:40 PM

404 page not found: SovietCanuckistan: 404 page not found: Only out of respect for Mrs. 404 do I not blurt out, "But child rape and the cover-up and protection of child-rapists is still ok, right Father!?" 

GO YELL IT FROM THE MOUNTAIN TOP DUDE

That might be all the encouragement I need. Been working nights in the ER recently and haven't gone to mass in a couple of weeks or so, but the douche gets more and more political every time.


Think of it this way: Some part of every dollar that goes into that collection plate is used to protect child rapists.
 
2012-12-06 01:37:50 PM

Jim_Callahan: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.


Wait, you can be explicitly condemned if you're just curious? Damn.
 
2012-12-06 01:37:56 PM

abb3w: The number two and three answers look to boil down to "because".


Came to mention this. 36% of these idiots don't even have answers, they just restate the question. "I it's wrong because it's wrong. Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr."
 
2012-12-06 01:38:32 PM

urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?


Becuase seperate but equal is not equal and civil unions don't always carry the same benefits as marriage depending on what state you are in. The federal government also doesn't recognize civil unions.

If we were to make civil unions and marriage the same in every way except the name what is the point, why not just call it marriage and treat all families the same.
 
2012-12-06 01:39:03 PM

Koalaesq: My favorite thing about Judaism (except for the Latkes) is that it makes it quite clear that there is a law of man and a law of g-d.


There is a famous Talmudic story on this point (CTB):
Two rabbis were arguing over whether a type of oven could be made kosher under specific circumstances (the specifics aren't important to the story). Finally, exasperated, one said, "If I am right, may that river begin flowing backwards." And sure enough, it did.

The other responded: "Not good enough. The rivers don't use ovens, nor do they keep kosher."

So the first one points to a nearby wall and says: "If I am right, may that wall crumble!" And verily, it came to pass.

The other responded: "Wall, cease your falling (ya rly - I think there were people nearby or something, but the wall leaned so as not to "offend" the one who commanded it to fall. This is from the story). Oh, and that's also not good enough. Walls don't keep kosher."

So the first one says: "If I am right, let a heavenly voice ring out to say so!" And a voice rang out: "Rabbi So-and-so is correct!"

The second rabbi, after hearing a heavenly voice give assent to the first rabbi's opinion, responds: "It is not for the heavens to decide."

The argument was won by the second rabbi.
 
2012-12-06 01:39:10 PM

Tigger: 404 page not found: SovietCanuckistan: 404 page not found: Only out of respect for Mrs. 404 do I not blurt out, "But child rape and the cover-up and protection of child-rapists is still ok, right Father!?" 

GO YELL IT FROM THE MOUNTAIN TOP DUDE

That might be all the encouragement I need. Been working nights in the ER recently and haven't gone to mass in a couple of weeks or so, but the douche gets more and more political every time.

Think of it this way: Some part of every dollar that goes into that collection plate is used to protect child rapists.


Here's how much money we put in the collection plate:
 
2012-12-06 01:39:55 PM
The write in response was, "Because I think gay sex is icky."
 
2012-12-06 01:41:08 PM
Jeebus was a quar.
 
2012-12-06 01:41:49 PM

Dr Dreidel: Koalaesq: My favorite thing about Judaism (except for the Latkes) is that it makes it quite clear that there is a law of man and a law of g-d.

There is a famous Talmudic story on this point (CTB):
Two rabbis were arguing over whether a type of oven could be made kosher under specific circumstances (the specifics aren't important to the story). Finally, exasperated, one said, "If I am right, may that river begin flowing backwards." And sure enough, it did.

The other responded: "Not good enough. The rivers don't use ovens, nor do they keep kosher."

So the first one points to a nearby wall and says: "If I am right, may that wall crumble!" And verily, it came to pass.

The other responded: "Wall, cease your falling (ya rly - I think there were people nearby or something, but the wall leaned so as not to "offend" the one who commanded it to fall. This is from the story). Oh, and that's also not good enough. Walls don't keep kosher."

So the first one says: "If I am right, let a heavenly voice ring out to say so!" And a voice rang out: "Rabbi So-and-so is correct!"

The second rabbi, after hearing a heavenly voice give assent to the first rabbi's opinion, responds: "It is not for the heavens to decide."

The argument was won by the second rabbi.


Excellent. Bonus points for "CTB".
 
2012-12-06 01:42:45 PM

urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?


Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.
 
2012-12-06 01:42:48 PM
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-12-06 01:43:16 PM

Neeek: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

No, equal rights is what they are looking for. Having a spouse and being married is a societal construct that people generally understand means something. Civil unions are literally an attempt to say that a same sex relationship is somehow less than a straight one.


OK i get that. so from what everyone's saying it's both a matter of legalities and social legitimacy.
 
2012-12-06 01:43:29 PM
My excuse is gay people are icky. And, I hate happiness.

/Snark aside, I = Straight Ally
 
2012-12-06 01:44:52 PM

404 page not found: Wait, you can be explicitly condemned if you're just curious? Damn.


The bible: not a fan of cats.
 
2012-12-06 01:45:56 PM

urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?


Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If civil unions contained all the rights and privileges of marriage, then they would be redundant, as marriage already covers those things. Often, they are a much reduced set of rights, for no real reason.
 
2012-12-06 01:45:57 PM

mrshowrules: Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject.


That's not quite true. In Acts, Peter has a vision of a sheet full of various non-kosher animals being lowered from heaven, and a voice from heaven tells him to eat them. This is usually interpreted to mean Christians aren't bound by the Jewish dietary laws.

But, you know, call me a skeptic when it comes to taking dietary advice from ancient hallucinations, Old or New Testament.
 
2012-12-06 01:45:59 PM

urbangirl: Neeek: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

No, equal rights is what they are looking for. Having a spouse and being married is a societal construct that people generally understand means something. Civil unions are literally an attempt to say that a same sex relationship is somehow less than a straight one.

OK i get that. so from what everyone's saying it's both a matter of legalities and social legitimacy.


It's a matter of two consenting adults of the same sex being able to have the same options available to them as two consenting adults of the opposite sex.
 
2012-12-06 01:47:57 PM

Jim_Callahan: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.


Romans 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another

INFLAMED WITH LUST

Pretty much describes every man born on Earth, gay or straight.

/My DNA
//You need it
///You need it NOW
 
2012-12-06 01:48:41 PM

Jim_Callahan: If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.


Yeah, but that was Paul. Paul is like the Dr. Pulaski of Christianity. Showed up in season 2 with no explanation, and everyone's just supposed to ACCEPT that she's in charge of sickbay now? Who the fark are you?
 
2012-12-06 01:51:07 PM

Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.


But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?
 
2012-12-06 01:51:13 PM
The primary reason Americans give for opposing marriage equality is bigotry justified with the antithesis of a Religion

/FTFY
 
2012-12-06 01:51:32 PM
This is cute and all but we shouldn't be doing rights by popular opinion.

That said, I'd really like the follow-up question asking about whether or not we should ban divorce.
 
2012-12-06 01:51:59 PM

Jim_Callahan: 404 page not found: Wait, you can be explicitly condemned if you're just curious? Damn.

The bible: not a fan of cats.


www.inquisitr.com
 
2012-12-06 01:53:11 PM
I only accept the results of this poll since it comes on the heels of two states passing marriage equality in 2 more states a month ago, but otherwise, Gallop can EABOD.
 
2012-12-06 01:53:14 PM

lennavan: This is cute and all but we shouldn't be doing rights by popular opinion.


Equal rights, cute and all?
 
2012-12-06 01:53:17 PM

Jim_Callahan: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.


"Explicitly condemn" is a bit strong, particularly with the countless different translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
 
2012-12-06 01:53:32 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


Here is a page talking about the differences between civil unions and marriages.
 
2012-12-06 01:53:33 PM

PirateKing: Jim_Callahan: If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

Yeah, but that was Paul. Paul is like the Dr. Pulaski of Christianity. Showed up in season 2 with no explanation, and everyone's just supposed to ACCEPT that she's in charge of sickbay now? Who the fark are you?


My experience with Christians is that Paul is the ONLY thing in the entire Bible that thety seem to actually believe. Paul let them have shrimp on their plate, hate in their hearts and a few shekels in their pockets without all of that mushy Jesus stuff getting in the way.
 
2012-12-06 01:53:40 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


My answer is that mainly it's a legal thing. Right now, only some states have civil unions, though I think the majority of states don't, and of course the Federal Government doesn't recognize civil unions. There's a whole host of laws that are available to married couples that aren't available to those in civil unions (rights of inheritance, tax breaks, health benefits, etc). So call it whatever you want, but until civil unions are 100% the same as marriages, and carry the same LEGAL weight, there'll be injustice.
 
2012-12-06 01:54:57 PM

404 page not found: lennavan: This is cute and all but we shouldn't be doing rights by popular opinion.

Equal rights, cute and all?


The article is of course about a poll. The poll is cute and all. If 100% of people were for gay marriage it shouldn't mean a damn thing. If 100% of people were against it shouldn't either.

It's okay to be upset but you shouldn't be searching the thread for comments trying to find something to be upset about.
 
2012-12-06 01:56:47 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


No one is trying to force churches to perform same sex marriages, so you can safely forget about that strawman.

Every marriage in the US is a civil contract. Whether a straight person gets married through some sort of secular civil ceremony or through a religious wedding ceremony, they are still signing the same marriage license, which is a completely secular civil contract.

So that straight couple who gets married, they get a bunch of tax breaks from the Feds. The same sex couple who gets married in Washington doesn't get those tax breaks. This is just one of many examples of how civil unions are not the same as being married.
 
2012-12-06 01:58:03 PM

SovietCanuckistan: Romans 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another

INFLAMED WITH LUST

Pretty much describes every man born on Earth, gay or straight.

/My DNA
//You need it
///You need it NOW


PirateKing: Yeah, but that was Paul. Paul is like the Dr. Pulaski of Christianity. Showed up in season 2 with no explanation, and everyone's just supposed to ACCEPT that she's in charge of sickbay now? Who the fark are you?



I'm not saying that Christianity isn't stupid and inconsistent. It is. I'm just pointing out that the people that justify (incorrectly) self-identifying as Christian while simultaneously holding actual modern beliefs about personal liberties by saying "oh, that's just the old testament, it's been fulfilled" should not be throwing stones about being incredibly farking ignorant about your own religion, because they are if anything worse in that respect than the right-wingers they're being dismissive about.

//Well, to the extent that I had a point, mostly just making fun of dumb religious people in general.
 
2012-12-06 01:58:19 PM

urbangirl: Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs.


Honest question - where the did you get the idea anywhere that anything in this would lead us to force churches to do anything?

That thing that goes on in a church is called a wedding. It is fully possible to get married without having a wedding. Further, it is fully possible to be an atheist and get married. Church has nothing to do with marriage. Churches perform... weddings.
 
2012-12-06 01:58:34 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


Good luck getting any red state you might be traveling through to give your civil union (or gay marriage for that matter) the full faith and credit it deserves. So don't ever have to go to the hospital or expect any of the other hundred rights and privileges that are automatically granted to an opposite sex spouse.
 
2012-12-06 01:59:43 PM

Moopy Mac: Jim_Callahan: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

"Explicitly condemn" is a bit strong, particularly with the countless different translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.


But you are correct. Paul did not like gays. Jesus didn't seem to waste too much time on the subject.
 
2012-12-06 01:59:47 PM

St_Francis_P: mrshowrules: New Testament says nothing about it but preach's love and the Old Testament says kill them because they are abominations in the crazy chapter.

So, the compromise is don't recognize their marriage? Why not life imprisonment or castration if it so wrong?

Leviticus also says eating lobster is also an abomination and those people should be killed. New Testament once again quiet on the subject. Perhaps Government should not issue restaurant licenses to a place that sellslobsters. Or maybe cut off the hands off fish mongers who sell lobster? Unclear. Very complicated matter. We need to study it out and pray.

It is confusing, but I think we can all agree on the subject of gay lobsters.


nothing like some sweet gay lobster tail
 
2012-12-06 01:59:59 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


It has nothing to do with forcing churches to do anything. Having a secular ceremony isn't any less important than a religious one. It's the legal framework that differs. Each state has different laws and benefits when it comes to civil unions. In washington state we had everything but marriage civil unions. So gay couples got the same benefits as straight couples but we werent allow to call it marriage. Other states may have less rights associated with civil unions than marriage. I think you are confusing secular and religious marriage which are just different types of ceremonies with civil unions and marriage which are different legal entities.

Link
 
2012-12-06 02:00:14 PM

Apik0r0s: PirateKing: Jim_Callahan: If you're a Christian lecturing about people not really knowing what their religion says, then I guess you're case-in-point, because homosexuality (male/male) is explicitly condemned several times in the new testament.

The primary ones being 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1, if you're curious.

Yeah, but that was Paul. Paul is like the Dr. Pulaski of Christianity. Showed up in season 2 with no explanation, and everyone's just supposed to ACCEPT that she's in charge of sickbay now? Who the fark are you?

My experience with Christians is that Paul is the ONLY thing in the entire Bible that thety seem to actually believe. Paul let them have shrimp on their plate, hate in their hearts and a few shekels in their pockets without all of that mushy Jesus stuff getting in the way.


Twelve apostles to choose from, and Christians go with the guy who never actually met Christ.
 
2012-12-06 02:00:27 PM

Carth: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?

Here is a page talking about the differences between civil unions and marriages.


This is exactly what I was looking for -- thx!
 
2012-12-06 02:01:13 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


When an opposite sex goes to the courthouse to get married and not a church it's still marriage. And no one is talking about forcing churches to do anything. Although I have had several gay friends married in church but of course here the state and federal government don't recognize their marriages.
 
2012-12-06 02:04:42 PM

urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?


Separate but equal? Where have we heard that before?
 
2012-12-06 02:05:51 PM

urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't lega recognition what you/they are really looking for?

Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.

But HOW are they not equivalent? That's what no one has ever told me.
Again I remind you: serious questions. I really do want to know.

Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs. (Which is kind of surprising, even to me, coz I'm as atheist as they come.) I mean, lots of straight people get married through civil ceremonies by choice and don't seem to feel they're second-class citizens as a result. So why is that not a solution for gay couples?


First off, no one is "forcing" churches to do anything; that line of reasoning has no virtue as an argument. No church is forced to do anything, nor will they be in the future. You have to draw the distinction between the legal definition and benefits of marriage and the optional religious ceremony that carries no legal weight or responsibility. Choosing to skip the religious ceremony changes absolutely nothing about the legal definition.

They are not equivalent because they are distinct legal definitions. If you're just going to make them exactly equivalent, there's no need to have two separate categories. The only reason to have two distinct categories is so that the government can ensure the two are not legally equivalent.
 
2012-12-06 02:06:18 PM

urbangirl: Because the only part of all this I have a problem with is forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs.


Where do people get this idea. You couldn't force a church to perform a wedding before marriage equality, why would you be able to now? As a lapsed Protestant, now atheist, I can't demand a wedding from a synagogue or a Catholic church. Churches are free to stay as narrow-minded as they like. Meanwhile progressive religious institutions can marry same-sex couples.
 
2012-12-06 02:08:24 PM

Lionel Mandrake: abb3w: The number two and three answers look to boil down to "because".

Or specifically, "because religion"


Yeah, aren't the first three answers the same answer? Seems like "Religion", "morally wrong" and "marriage is between a man and a woman" are all restatements of the same thing.
 
2012-12-06 02:08:41 PM
"If people that are against gay marriage just said, 'I'm against gay marriage because thinking about two men having butt sex or two women having scissor sex kills my boner, dries up my vagina, I can't have sex, it ruins my life. That's why I'm against it.' That would be a valid argument! We'd have to actually debate you on that!

"But these lunatics always go, 'It says in the Bible...' Oh, OK, stop, hang on. I'm glad you like a book. I really am. At this point I'm glad anybody's reading anything. But just because you like something in a book doesn't mean you get to have the thing you like in the book happen in real life. That's what crazy people want! I can't go to the White House with a bunch of Green Lantern comics and go, 'I want a Green Lantern ring! I saw it in a book I like! Make the thing I want in the book I like be here now!'"


- Patton Oswalt
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report