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  
•       •       •

1134 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 1:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-06 11:56:03 AM  
Huh. And here I thought they just don't like pink.
 
2012-12-06 11:56:19 AM  
The number two and three answers look to boil down to "because".
 
2012-12-06 12:08:14 PM  
"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."
 
2012-12-06 12:13:22 PM  
If you can't point to anything other than the book you pretend to read once a week, you have no point and should immediately go home and feel bad.
 
2012-12-06 12:18:03 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: If you can't point to anything other than the book you pretend to read once a week, you have no point and should immediately go home and feel bad.


You're giving them way too much credit for reading anything. They get told what to think at church, and by their religious friends.
 
2012-12-06 12:19:30 PM  

St_Francis_P: The My Little Pony Killer: If you can't point to anything other than the book you pretend to read once a week, you have no point and should immediately go home and feel bad.

You're giving them way too much credit for reading anything. They get told what to think at church, and by their religious friends.


I didn't give them credit for reading it though. That's why I wrote "pretend to read."
 
2012-12-06 12:35:59 PM  
F*ck religion
 
2012-12-06 12:48:37 PM  

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


Or specifically, "because religion"
 
2012-12-06 12:51:26 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-06 01:10:17 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.

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.
 
2012-12-06 01:12:21 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.


I would certainly agree that eating at Red Lobster is an abomination unto The Lord.
 
2012-12-06 01:13:27 PM  
The word you are looking for is "excuse" subby not "reason."
 
2012-12-06 01:14:03 PM  

jake_lex: 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.

I would certainly agree that eating at Red Lobster is an abomination unto The Lord.


One man's abomination is another man's cheddar biscuits.

/amen
 
2012-12-06 01:15:10 PM  
I didn't realize the gays all practice the same religion.
 
2012-12-06 01:15:54 PM  
I love that the second most popular "explanation" (marriage should be between a man and a woman) is a position, and not a reason.
 
2012-12-06 01:16:01 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."


Stop oppressing us!!!!
 
2012-12-06 01:16:06 PM  
Really? I had my money on "I need at least one free weekend during Wedding season."
 
2012-12-06 01:18:34 PM  
The first 3 are rationalizations of "Because it's icky".
 
2012-12-06 01:19:27 PM  
That's funny. My religion, based on the same book you cherry-picked one verse from, told me to treat others with respect and dignity, for I was also once a minority living among those who denied me my basic farking humanity.

Says it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more times than "don't let men lay with men the way they lie with women" (which could also mean things like "don't let 2 men share a bed", "If two men fark, don't do it doggystyle", or even "you can fark like rabbits, but NO SLEEPING" depending on how pedantic you want to get).

// my book also says that I am to follow the laws of the country I live in
// and doesn't your book say something about the division between the secular and religious? Something something "unto Caesar what is his" something something?
 
2012-12-06 01:19:34 PM  
The Bible also says women should submit to men and that they're not allowed to speak in church. Maybe we shouldn't take that book at face value.
 
2012-12-06 01:19:57 PM  

St_Francis_P: Huh. And here I thought they just don't like pink rainbow.


ftfy
 
2012-12-06 01:20:02 PM  
This is my shocked face. :|
 
2012-12-06 01:20:23 PM  
Mass has been very entertaining the last few months. The priest has been undergoing a very public and very hilarious breakdown.

Before the elections, he told the congregation, "I urge everyone here to cast your vote in favor of traditional marriage." [Denial]

After the elections, he lamented, "My only consolation is that I can now legally smoke pot to ease my pain :(" [Depression]

Most recently, he begged, "Heavenly Father, we pray that our elected leaders understand that their power to rule is derived through you!" [Bargaining]

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!?"

/married into it
 
2012-12-06 01:22:27 PM  

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


I think every reason except for "civil unions are sufficient" and maybe "undermines traditional family structure" boil down to "because." And the second one is only if you really think that kids raised by any set of guardians other than a mother and a father will inevitably end up worse than kids raised by a mother and a father.
 
2012-12-06 01:23:48 PM  
The primary reason people give is religion. That actual reason is because they think it is icky.
 
2012-12-06 01:24:44 PM  
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?
 
2012-12-06 01:25:13 PM  
I guess they have to pick obvious poll subjects to rebuild their credibility after their spectacular failures during the election season.

Next up: "Majority of Americans believe water is wet."
 
2012-12-06 01:25:49 PM  
I would have thought it was "Potato"

Mind you, the thought of some homo holding hands with another disgusting, effeminate fop completely devalues my Thursday Night Anal-Only Wife-Swap.
 
2012-12-06 01:26:08 PM  
Religious people frown on divorce, but I don't think they would want divorce to be *illegal*.
 
2012-12-06 01:26:10 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?


Marriage carries legal rights and obligations that civil unions don't. It's more than just semantics.
 
2012-12-06 01:26:10 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?


Black people should be satisifed with separate but equal schools. - Plessy v. Ferguson.
 
2012-12-06 01:26:12 PM  
Old Testament:

i171.photobucket.com

New Testament:

i171.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-06 01:26:15 PM  
Because...ewwwwwwwwwww!

/unless they're lesbians
//lipstick lesbians, not those dykish butch ones
 
2012-12-06 01:26:28 PM  
I think a smaller proportion of people actually believe that gay marriage is wrong because the bible says it's wrong. There are a lot of people who think they can immunize themselves from criticism if they just hide behind the bible. When your friend asks you why you oppose his marriage, it's so much easier to say "it's not me, blame god" than it is to come right out and say "I think you're gross."
 
2012-12-06 01:26:43 PM  
And these same true believers don't say a damn thing when their Sabbath is regularly violated. Of course these pious phonies are ofter violating it themselves as often as not.
 
2012-12-06 01:27:21 PM  
www.dailyspark.com

"You got your religion in my sex life!"
 
2012-12-06 01:28:24 PM  
Well duh. I have yet to hear of an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't boil down to religion.
 
2012-12-06 01:28:54 PM  

Dr Dreidel: That's funny. My religion, based on the same book you cherry-picked one verse from, told me to treat others with respect and dignity, for I was also once a minority living among those who denied me my basic farking humanity.

Says it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more times than "don't let men lay with men the way they lie with women" (which could also mean things like "don't let 2 men share a bed", "If two men fark, don't do it doggystyle", or even "you can fark like rabbits, but NO SLEEPING" depending on how pedantic you want to get).

// my book also says that I am to follow the laws of the country I live in
// and doesn't your book say something about the division between the secular and religious? Something something "unto Caesar what is his" something something?


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. The second one is between you and your creator and involves no one else, whereas the first defines how you treat other people and their rights. It makes it rather clear you have no right to abridge the laws of man just because of your private belief in the law of g-d.

Hope that makes sense. Still haven't had coffee today.
 
2012-12-06 01:29:49 PM  

Carth: The primary reason people give is religion. That actual reason is because they think it is icky.


I think Miracle Whip is icky. Would I vote to ban it? Yes. But, I'd be wrong.
 
2012-12-06 01:29:54 PM  
We should all support gay marriage. We must equally share in our suffering.

25.media.tumblr.com

Bel Air. I got in one little fight.
 
2012-12-06 01:30:49 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."


Well, how else was Constantine going to break worship involving gay sex to promote fertality, military success, and promoting camaraderie between legionnaires following other religions if he didn't push these verses when he converted the Empire to Christianity?

It was a very serious issue for 5th century Roman politics.
 
2012-12-06 01:31:17 PM  

Nuuu: I think a smaller proportion of people actually believe that gay marriage is wrong because the bible says it's wrong. There are a lot of people who think they can immunize themselves from criticism if they just hide behind the bible. When your friend asks you why you oppose his marriage, it's so much easier to say "it's not me, blame god" than it is to come right out and say "I think you're gross."


This is also why I am against fat marriage.

Of course I don't think we shoudl legislate based on what I think is gross...
 
2012-12-06 01:31:19 PM  

404 page not found: Mass has been very entertaining the last few months. The priest has been undergoing a very public and very hilarious breakdown.

Before the elections, he told the congregation, "I urge everyone here to cast your vote in favor of traditional marriage." [Denial]

After the elections, he lamented, "My only consolation is that I can now legally smoke pot to ease my pain :(" [Depression]

Most recently, he begged, "Heavenly Father, we pray that our elected leaders understand that their power to rule is derived through you!" [Bargaining]

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!?"

/married into it


Just out of curiosity, does your priest think other religions should not get married? Does he think other religions or people with no religion don't exist? I'm completely baffled by people using their own religion as a reason when someone else, who may not practice that religion should somehow have to adhere to their rules.
 
2012-12-06 01:31:33 PM  

Diogenes: 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?

Marriage carries legal rights and obligations that civil unions don't. It's more than just semantics.


To be fair, we COULD modify all the laws about civil unions to mirror the rights granted in marriage, but I doubt that would ever happen. Then it would just be about the religious aspect of the union, which frankly I don't care about and belongs to each person privately. That's one of my big issues, that gay people in civil unions are cut off from lots of legal redress rights just because of who they marry. It's infuriating and unjust.
 
2012-12-06 01:32:02 PM  
Well, the good news for equality folks is that organized religion is a slowly dying institution amongst the youngest generations.
 
2012-12-06 01:32:48 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?


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.
 
2012-12-06 01:33:10 PM  

Carth: The primary reason people give is religion. That actual reason is because they think it is icky frustratingly attractive.


/Fixed for the cynical among us.
 
2012-12-06 01:33:49 PM  

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
 
2012-12-06 01:33:49 PM  

rtaylor92: 404 page not found: Mass has been very entertaining the last few months. The priest has been undergoing a very public and very hilarious breakdown.

Before the elections, he told the congregation, "I urge everyone here to cast your vote in favor of traditional marriage." [Denial]

After the elections, he lamented, "My only consolation is that I can now legally smoke pot to ease my pain :(" [Depression]

Most recently, he begged, "Heavenly Father, we pray that our elected leaders understand that their power to rule is derived through you!" [Bargaining]

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!?"

/married into it

Just out of curiosity, does your priest think other religions should not get married? Does he think other religions or people with no religion don't exist? I'm completely baffled by people using their own religion as a reason when someone else, who may not practice that religion should somehow have to adhere to their rules.


I have no idea what that moran thinks about any of that. But I can safely assume he's like Bill Kristol; whatever it is he thinks, the opposite is most likely true.
 
2012-12-06 01:34:22 PM  
Jesus looks pretty toned on the crucifix. I'd gay marry him.
 
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
 
2012-12-06 02:09:40 PM  

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


That's fair on Corinthians, but there's not really any other way to read Romans.
 
2012-12-06 02:10:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.


The only response that isn't directly based on religion is "Civil unions are sufficient", and you can even make a case for that one being religiously based.
 
2012-12-06 02:10:11 PM  
Gallup releases a poll showing that the primary reason Americans give for opposing marriage equality is Religion stupidity.

Now we're getting to the root of the problem.
 
2012-12-06 02:10:22 PM  

codergirl42: 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


Thx again.
Sorry for threadjacking, everyone.
 
2012-12-06 02:12:31 PM  
They have to say "religion." They can't give the actual reason, which is "I'm a bully," because it hurts their feelings when anyone calls them out on being a bully.
 
2012-12-06 02:12:37 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.

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.


Both boldened parts are wrong. Jesus pretty plainly states that his followers shouldn't worry so much about what they put into their mouths, but about what comes out. (Citation needed from someone less-lazy than me, but it's in one of the gospels.)

He said it in response to someone asking him about the Old Testament's rules about food, but it's no leap at all to apply the mentality to homosexual (and heterosexual, for that matter) behavior. How we treat others is much more important to Jesus than how we choose to satisfy our biological imperatives.
 
2012-12-06 02:13:19 PM  

lennavan: 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.


YOU, MOTHERFECKER, ARE GOING TO PAY. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS THE BALL LICKER. I'M GONNA FECK YOUR MOTHER WHILE YOU WATCH AND CRY LIKE A LITTLE WHINY BŒTCH. ONCE I GET TO HOLLYWOOD AND FIND THE FECK WHO MADE THIS POST I'M GOING TO MAKE HIM EAT MY SHET AND THEN SHET OUT MY SHET AND THEN MAKE HIM EAT HIS SHET THAT'S MADE UP OF MY SHET THAT I MADE HIM EAT.
 
2012-12-06 02:13:44 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?


A church isn't ever forced to marry anyone. A church can refuse to perform a marriage between two people for any reason as it is - you can't walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married if you haven't gone through whatever procedures are there. Two Christians don't automatically get a wedding at a synagogue either just because they want one.

Marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay/lesbian couples isn't adequate. Just like "separate but equal" was not equal at all.
 
2012-12-06 02:18:28 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: 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?

A church isn't ever forced to marry anyone. A church can refuse to perform a marriage between two people for any reason as it is - you can't walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married if you haven't gone through whatever procedures are there. Two Christians don't automatically get a wedding at a synagogue either just because they want one.

Marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay/lesbian couples isn't adequate. Just like "separate but equal" was not equal at all.

 

I agree. Call me stupid but I didn't know they weren't two terms for the same thing.
 
2012-12-06 02:20:24 PM  

buck1138: 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.


First time a US Attorney subpoenas a hospital for possible civil rights violations after Federal level recognition of same sex marraige, such problems will go away. When faced with "you will comply or you will be siezed and liquidated to someone who will comply" the hosiptal management's direction to the staff will be "You will comply if you wish to remain employed here".

This is a total non-issue, but will suck at the time for the people that have to trigger it. Afterward not so much, they'll have plenty of money from the settlement of the lawsuits.

Let's hope that we get such federal level recognition sooner rather than later.

/You clearly do not understand how corporations make decisions
 
2012-12-06 02:21:24 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?


Nobody is ever going to force a church to marry anyone - I wouldn't be cool with that either. As it happens, right now you can find churches that *will* marry gay couples. What's at issue is whether the state recognizes it. Why not to have civil unions is that they're not always equally protected under the laws of every state as marriage is. There ya have it.
 
2012-12-06 02:22:45 PM  
Aren't all plasmas ionized?
 
2012-12-06 02:22:53 PM  

404 page not found: YOU, MOTHERFECKER, ARE GOING TO PAY. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS THE BALL LICKER. I'M GONNA FECK YOUR MOTHER WHILE YOU WATCH AND CRY LIKE A LITTLE WHINY BŒTCH. ONCE I GET TO HOLLYWOOD AND FIND THE FECK WHO MADE THIS POST I'M GOING TO MAKE HIM EAT MY SHET AND THEN SHET OUT MY SHET AND THEN MAKE HIM EAT HIS SHET THAT'S MADE UP OF MY SHET THAT I MADE HIM EAT.



I think somebody needs a nap.
 
2012-12-06 02:22:55 PM  

urbangirl: rufus-t-firefly: 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?

A church isn't ever forced to marry anyone. A church can refuse to perform a marriage between two people for any reason as it is - you can't walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married if you haven't gone through whatever procedures are there. Two Christians don't automatically get a wedding at a synagogue either just because they want one.

Marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay/lesbian couples isn't adequate. Just like "separate but equal" was not equal at all. 

I agree. Call me stupid but I didn't know they weren't two terms for the same thing.


I can't blame you, as that's the argument anti-gay marriage people push. they say marriage means one thing, and civil unions are the same union named differently, but that's really not the case.

It's just liek the 'force us to marry them' argument, it really doesn't happen in reality.

What most religious folks hate about the government recognizing same sex marriage is this: It means the government is saying, to them, their religion is wrong. They absolutely, positively, hate when the government doesn't legislate according tot heir faith, or allow things their faith says is bad.
 
2012-12-06 02:23:08 PM  

St_Francis_P: The My Little Pony Killer: If you can't point to anything other than the book you pretend to read once a week, you have no point and should immediately go home and feel bad.

You're giving them way too much credit for reading anything. They get told what to think at church, and by their religious friends.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-06 02:23:20 PM  

urbangirl: forcing churches to act against their religious beliefs.


Who is forcing churches to act against their beliefs in this matter?
 
2012-12-06 02:25:25 PM  

urbangirl: 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.


They're different legal statuses. And even if they were identical in everything but name, we've been down the 'separate but equal' line before and established it's not acceptable. There is no reason to call out the gender matching parity of the consenting adult citizens in the legal status.

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?

All 'straight' folk get married in a civil ceremony, it's called signing the application for a marriage license and turning it in. The standing around and giving vows is unrelated to the legal aspect, whether you are doing it 'before god' or not.

In the eyes of the state I became married to my wife when our paperwork was completed and cleared. The fact that we stood around in fancy clothes in a winery? Irrelevant.

Likewise, in the eyes of the state her cousin became married to her husband when their paperwork was completed and cleared. The fact that they stood around in fancy clothes in a church? Irrelevant.
 
2012-12-06 02:26:38 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.


It's not entirely correct to say that the New Testament is silent on the subject of homosexuality. In Romans 1, Paul considers homosexuality a "shameful lust," which is a punishment for rejecting God.

The exact wording, as I understand it, makes allusions to pagan rituals, so some argue that the sin was actually idolatry or promiscuity. However, the best possible case you can make from the text is that Paul was not familiar with the idea of loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, not that he'd totally be okay with them if asked. 

/ I'd also take issue with "preach love" being the message of the New Testament. Probably something more like "preach love because it's a good way of making converts, and I'm coming back soon to kick the asses of anyone who isn't converted by then."
 
2012-12-06 02:27:15 PM  

brigid_fitch: [images.sodahead.com image 500x536]


If you are unwilling or unable to talk to your spawn about the world they live in then don't have children.
 
2012-12-06 02:29:31 PM  

urbangirl: 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?


Serious question: are you stupid?
 
2012-12-06 02:32:05 PM  

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

That's fair on Corinthians, but there's not really any other way to read Romans.


There are a ton of places in the bible where it explicitly says that it is bad to be with women too. Let's go back to Corinthians where it's pretty explicit:

7:1 It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

7:27 Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

Christ never spoke against homosexuality, only the body hating apostles who spoke against all sexual contact in negative terms.

All Levitican/Mosaic law was allegedly replaced by Christ, not just pick and choose and is often argued. There is no textual support for that.

Additionally, Christ himself had midnight baptismals with young men, and there were early sects that took this practice to imply that Christ sanctioned more than water baptismal ceremonies. There is the famous scene in Mark 14:51-52 where a young naked boy runs out when Jesus is arrested which remained from the early expunge of references to these practices.

So anyone who really wants to study scripture as the basis of their prejudices might be careful that it may not support what they already believe.
 
2012-12-06 02:32:49 PM  

kimwim: I think somebody needs a nap.


fc04.deviantart.net
 
2012-12-06 02:32:53 PM  

Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: 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?

Serious question: are you stupid?


You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.
 
2012-12-06 02:33:48 PM  

jigger: Aren't all plasmas ionized?


Not blood plasma.
 
2012-12-06 02:35:50 PM  

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


Who says gay people won't be getting married by Justices of the Peace?
 
2012-12-06 02:36:51 PM  

MadHatter500: buck1138: 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.

First time a US Attorney subpoenas a hospital for possible civil rights violations after Federal level recognition of same sex marraige, such problems will go away. When faced with "you will comply or you will be siezed and liquidated to someone who will comply" the hosiptal management's direction to the staff will be "You will comply if you wish to remain employed here".

This is a total non-issue, but will suck at the time for the people that have to trigger it. Afterward not so much, they'll have plenty of money from the settlement of the lawsuits.

Let's hope that we get such federal level recognition sooner rather than later.

/You clearly do not understand how corporations make decisions


Nice crystal ball you got there. Are these magnanimous bastards running your hypothetical hospital the same people that want to deny women employees health care that offers birth control? Yeah, corporations and business always make rational decisions. See Chick-Fil-A.
 
2012-12-06 02:37:56 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Who says gay people won't be getting married by Justices of the Peace?


Gay people will be getting married in the church I go to.
 
2012-12-06 02:38:05 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: 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.


If that's "magnanimity", I am a tomato.

Mew.
 
2012-12-06 02:38:12 PM  

urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: 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?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.


You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.
 
2012-12-06 02:39:47 PM  

Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: 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?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.


She's still asking questions and accepting answers with an open mind. Give some credit where credit is due.
 
2012-12-06 02:40:03 PM  

buck1138: MadHatter500: buck1138: 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.

First time a US Attorney subpoenas a hospital for possible civil rights violations after Federal level recognition of same sex marraige, such problems will go away. When faced with "you will comply or you will be siezed and liquidated to someone who will comply" the hosiptal management's direction to the staff will be "You will comply if you wish to remain employed here".

This is a total non-issue, but will suck at the time for the people that have to trigger it. Afterward not so much, they'll have plenty of money from the settlement of the lawsuits.

Let's hope that we get such federal level recognition sooner rather than later.

/You clearly do not understand how corporations make decisions

Nice crystal ball you got there. Are these magnanimous bastards running your hypothetical hospital the same people that want to deny women employees health care that offers birth con ...


They act predictably, especially with millions of dollars in potential lawsuits on the line.
 
2012-12-06 02:42:03 PM  

Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: 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?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.


So sorry to have caused such offense. How about we mutally IGNORE and then neither of us will have to be offended again.
 
2012-12-06 02:43:38 PM  

Pincy: 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.


I would have been fine with the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and granting civil unions to any consenting adult couple (I believe some European countries do it that way).

However, you know the Fundies would scream bloody murder that they were being persecuted because the government was taking away their marriage rights.
 
2012-12-06 02:45:47 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Well, the good news for equality folks is that organized religion is a slowly dying institution amongst the youngest generations.


I don't trust our generation at all to not turn right around, and head to church the moment they get pregnant. I see that sh*t all the time: spend the late teens and twenties partying, but in the thirties it's time for kids and "Making sure they have God in their lives."

Most of the "nones" aren't atheists. They're non-practicing theists.
 
2012-12-06 02:47:25 PM  

born_yesterday: 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.


There were twelve disciples. Four apostles. Or at least there would be if it wasn't a fantasy novel.
 
2012-12-06 02:48:06 PM  

urbangirl: 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?


Is this a serious question?

Just as a test: do you believe that a nonreligious couple who should be relegated to civil unions? That is, do you think marriage should be reserved only for those willing to join under the auspices of a church, synagogue, mosque, etc.?
 
2012-12-06 02:49:46 PM  

urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient?


If all of the many legal obligations and privileges of "marriage" are conferred by "civil union", then they are.

They're also exactly the same thing.

Why does there need to be another term for two identical things?

What's the difference?

(And if there is a "difference", then it's not "sufficient".)
 
2012-12-06 02:50:49 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: 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?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.

She's still asking questions and accepting answers with an open mind. Give some credit where credit is due.


Well said.
And Ed Grubermann
www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2012-12-06 02:51:43 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: Ed Grubermann: urbangirl: 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?

Serious question: are you stupid?

You know what? I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.

You, on the other hand, have contributed precisely nothing.
And hey, thanks for nothing.

You are educated about something you should have known about years ago. Your laziness is deserving of mockery.

She's still asking questions and accepting answers with an open mind. Give some credit where credit is due.


Just to be clear, I don't now and never have had a problem with gay marriage. This is a question I've asked gay friends from time to time and never gotten the answers I was looking for. When the topic came up here I thought I'd ask again.

Thx 4 the backup.
 
2012-12-06 02:53:18 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: I would have been fine with the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and granting civil unions to any consenting adult couple (I believe some European countries do it that way).


Ya, but seeing as "marriage" is really just a civil contract anyway, the government is already basically granting "civil unions", just not to same sex couples.
 
2012-12-06 02:55:48 PM  

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


But none of the Gospels, curiously enough.

So, who do you think the Disciple was, racing with Peter to see the Stone rolled away from the Tomb?

You know, "the one whom Jesus loved"? What's that all about, eh?
 
2012-12-06 02:56:26 PM  
Hey you two!! 404 and Apik0r0s!!

Do ya have any idea how happy I am to pull youse guys outta my killfile!?

www.robotdancemusic.com
 
2012-12-06 02:58:12 PM  

urbangirl: St_Francis_P: Huh. And here I thought they just don't like pink rainbow.




i.imgur.com

:(
 
2012-12-06 03:01:25 PM  

Kittypie070: Hey you two!! 404 and Apik0r0s!!

Do ya have any idea how happy I am to pull youse guys outta my killfile!?

[www.robotdancemusic.com image 343x424]


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-06 03:03:06 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.


Dude's like the notwithstanding clause of the New Testament.
 
2012-12-06 03:03:55 PM  

Pincy: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: I would have been fine with the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and granting civil unions to any consenting adult couple (I believe some European countries do it that way).

Ya, but seeing as "marriage" is really just a civil contract anyway, the government is already basically granting "civil unions", just not to same sex couples.


I was visualizing it as sort of a "grand compromise" that would get conservatives onboard. Marriage is such a loaded word that I thought replacing it with civil unions for all would garner more political support while not creating a separate but (un-)equal institution.

I was thinking it might have flown 5 or 10 years ago. Now that same-sex marriage has so much momentum it's probably and outdated idea.
 
2012-12-06 03:09:15 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.


From the NKJV:
1 Corinthians 6:

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,a nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:
1Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. 5Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Desire to Visit Rome 8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, 10making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you. 11For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established- 12that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. 13Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles. 14I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. 15So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also. The Just Live by Faith 16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,a for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."a God's Wrath on Unrighteousness 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,a wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,a unmerciful; 32who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Nelson, Thomas (2009-02-18). Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV) (pp. 1092-1093). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
 
2012-12-06 03:13:19 PM  
Dam and here I thought it was peanut butter and turtle farking.
 
2012-12-06 03:14:10 PM  
I wonder what would happen if you gave them the same list as reasons to oppose interracial marriage, and asked the same people to comment on which reason they like the most.
 
2012-12-06 03:22:05 PM  
Frankly, as a straight(ish) guy who got divorced earlier this year and am now much happier for it, I don't know why gays would want to get married. Marriage sucks (and your spouse doesn't in a straight marriage for some god damned reason).

/I understand that the package of rights that marriage entails and teh sheer number of laws is the real reason, just being facetious on fark)
 
2012-12-06 03:30:47 PM  

codergirl42: jigger: Aren't all plasmas ionized?

Not blood plasma.


touché
 
2012-12-06 03:30:50 PM  

urbangirl: Just to be clear, I don't now and never have had a problem with gay marriage. This is a question I've asked gay friends from time to time and never gotten the answers I was looking for. When the topic came up here I thought I'd ask again.

Thx 4 the backup.


I'm guessing the reason you "never got the answers you were looking for" is because no one understood your premises. Speaking as a bisexual man and a political activist, I find it sad and somewhat appalling that the right wing has been so successful at controlling the terms of debate of this particular issue.

I'm glad that people ITT were able to draw out your fundamental misunderstanding so that it could be corrected and you could get the information you wanted, but I hope that in turn you remember that those of us who have been and are fighting for equal rights have been answering these same questions over and over for years and decades. Please understand that it is frustrating and painful to have this discussion sometimes, because for many of us it feels like what you're saying is, "Convince me that you deserve equal rights. I don't care enough to find any information myself," even if that's not what you intended.
 
2012-12-06 03:30:53 PM  

LucklessWonder: Frankly, as a straight(ish) guy who got divorced earlier this year and am now much happier for it, I don't know why gays would want to get married. Marriage sucks (and your spouse doesn't in a straight marriage for some god damned reason).

/I understand that the package of rights that marriage entails and teh sheer number of laws is the real reason, just being facetious on fark)


Oh she sucks all right, just not your cock.
 
2012-12-06 03:35:17 PM  

LucklessWonder: Frankly, as a straight(ish) guy who got divorced earlier this year and am now much happier for it, I don't know why gays would want to get married. Marriage sucks (and your spouse doesn't in a straight marriage for some god damned reason).

/I understand that the package of rights that marriage entails and teh sheer number of laws is the real reason, just being facetious on fark)


I hate to sound like a douchebag but just because you couldn't manage to make a marriage work doesn't mean other people can't.
 
2012-12-06 03:56:29 PM  
Ionized plasma is redundant.
 
2012-12-06 03:56:44 PM  
using the word equality doesn't make it right.
 
2012-12-06 04:00:35 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?


The US already has civil unions, we just call them marriages. Religion is not required to marry in this country. That's why this whole argument is moot, and every single church is infringing on the first amendment by opposing marriage equality. Congress has essentially codified Christianity into law by limited marriage to one man and one woman.
 
2012-12-06 04:05:09 PM  

Saruman_W: Herpa derpa doo


So ban marriages between infertile people.
 
2012-12-06 04:07:12 PM  

Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.


Over population controls while still fulfilling the social phsycological requirements for a healthy individual that can contribute to society w/o risking additional burden on the shaky bridge that spans the problems inherit in an over populated biome?
 
2012-12-06 04:07:23 PM  

Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.


It may be "obvious" but it's no less stupid than the rest of them.

Unless you've got a citation of a marriage law applying to heterosexual couples that requires reproduction it is just as irrelevant as the religious positions.

/I realize you may be playing devils advocate
 
2012-12-06 04:07:48 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.


And yet the marriage inequality bunch conveniently ignores the rest of that passage, because it would affect their own lives.
 
2012-12-06 04:20:36 PM  
Farkers made fun of Gallup during the election and now you take them seriously?
 
2012-12-06 04:26:52 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Farkers made fun of Gallup during the election and now you take them seriously?


Seeing as how two more states have jumped on the marriage equality bandwagon, yes. And if anything, their poll leans more conservative than reality.
 
2012-12-06 04:29:17 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Farkers made fun of Gallup during the election and now you take them seriously?


alexwhalley.com
 
2012-12-06 04:29:40 PM  

Saruman_W: it is clearly a defect


Letrole, is that you?

If so, or then again, if not, get your vile oozing half-decayed carcass the fark out of here.
 
2012-12-06 04:31:03 PM  

NkThrasher: Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

It may be "obvious" but it's no less stupid than the rest of them.

Unless you've got a citation of a marriage law applying to heterosexual couples that requires reproduction it is just as irrelevant as the religious positions.

/I realize you may be playing devils advocateidiot

 
2012-12-06 04:31:33 PM  

Saruman_W: And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.


None of this is true.
 
2012-12-06 04:37:43 PM  

Pincy: /I realize you may be playing devils advocateidiot


The observation he makes is valid, that is an "obvious" reason that is not present on the survey. Presenting it as such is playing a devil's advocate, albeit with a bit of Poe's Law mixed in.
 
2012-12-06 04:40:50 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Farkers made fun of Gallup during the election and now you take them seriously?


Um, if Gallup came out with a poll saying that most Americans believe that contact with water is likely to make an object wet, I'd trust them.

This poll is equivalent to that.
 
2012-12-06 04:41:40 PM  

NkThrasher: Pincy: /I realize you may be playing devils advocateidiot

The observation he makes is valid, that is an "obvious" reason that is not present on the survey. Presenting it as such is playing a devil's advocate, albeit with a bit of Poe's Law mixed in.


The "unnatural and wrong" argument is just another religious argument.
 
2012-12-06 04:44:00 PM  

Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.


You know when you're out in public and you see a downs kid coming your way and he raises his hand because he wants to give you a high five because that's the only way he's been taught to interact with strangers so he doesn't loose his shiat and give bear hugs and grab crotches, so you go ahead and give him the high five, even though you hate germs and don't like touching people you don't know, because not giving him the high five would make you look like an ass and he's just trying to do the best he can with what he's been dealt so why not?

High Five, retard. High Five
 
2012-12-06 04:47:12 PM  

buck1138: Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.

You know when you're out in public and you see a downs kid coming your way and he raises his hand because he wants to give you a high five because that's the only way he's been taught to interact with strangers so he doesn't loose his shiat and give bear hugs and grab crotches, so you go ahead and give him the high five, even though you hate germs and don't like touching people you don't know, because not giving him the high five would make you look like an ass and he's just trying to do the best he can with what he's been dealt so why not?

High Five, retard. High Five


That was beautiful.
 
2012-12-06 04:51:07 PM  
[takes notes from buck1138's aesthetically pleasing post]
 
2012-12-06 04:52:16 PM  

Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.


Oh look, someone else who doesn't know that there are ways for a gene to be selected for other than just popping out babies.

/look up kin selection for a start
//I'd give my life for two brothers or four half-brothers
 
2012-12-06 05:22:51 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. The second one is between you and your creator and involves no one else, whereas the first defines how you treat other people and their rights. It makes it rather clear you have no right to abridge the laws of man just because of your private belief in the law of g-d.

Hope that makes sense. Still haven't had coffee today.


Everything I hear about Judaism makes me love it more.

/Except the lunatic fundies
 
2012-12-06 05:40:40 PM  
So technically, the bible just says that two guys shouldn't have sex with one another, not that they cant get married to each other.
 
2012-12-06 05:44:08 PM  

urbangirl: rufus-t-firefly: Marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay/lesbian couples isn't adequate. Just like "separate but equal" was not equal at all. 

I agree. Call me stupid but I didn't know they weren't two terms for the same thing.


Won't call you anything but curious and willing to learn.

Cheers!
 
2012-12-06 05:54:36 PM  

LucklessWonder: 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.

From the NKJV:
1 Corinthians 6:

Romans 1:


So Paul was the first to use Christ to condemn things that Jesus never saw as important enough to mention.

Not to mention hypocritical.

being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,a wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

THE UNMERCIFUL DESERVE TO DIE!

Might as well say "DEATH TO FANATICS!"

Also in the New Testament: James says that faith alone will not save you - you must show your faith through your works.

James 2:14-26

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Let me know when the Christian Fundamentalists embrace THAT rather than Paul's words.

Their rejection of those words (and their weasely way of working around them) did more to turn me off from Christianity than anything else.
 
2012-12-06 06:48:56 PM  
i1126.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-06 07:29:05 PM  
It doesn't matter what the Bible says about gay marriage or anything else for that matter. Even if Jesus were quoted saying, "Verily I say unto thee, don't let the queers get married," it still wouldn't mean anything in our secular society. And you Judaism fundamentalists sound just as goddamned kooky as Christian and Islam fundamentalists. Spelling "g_d" with an underscore is delusional imbecility.
 
2012-12-06 07:36:05 PM  

Saruman_W: The other obvious (at least should be) reason is that it's simply unnatural and wrong. People get married to reproduce and build families: *real* families. Therefore only men and women should be allowed to wed since homosexuals cannot properly reproduce as they have a defect in their brain that prevents them from engaging the opposite sex. And it is clearly a defect because there's no evolutionary function for such a counterproductive behavior. It doesn't help pass along genes nor provides any useful purpose.


This is why I'm glad fark has a funny tag.
 
2012-12-06 08:05:54 PM  
buck1138:pointmissed.jpg
If anyone here thinks Gallup is sympathetic to liberal causes, you should think again.
If a Neocon hands me a drink, best to check it out before gulping it down.
Don't be so gullible, THAT is the point.
You can go back to being offended needlessly now.
 
2012-12-07 12:36:51 AM  

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

I think every reason except for "civil unions are sufficient" and maybe "undermines traditional family structure" boil down to "because." And the second one is only if you really think that kids raised by any set of guardians other than a mother and a father will inevitably end up worse than kids raised by a mother and a father.


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

Marriage carries legal rights and obligations that civil unions don't. It's more than just semantics.

To be fair, we COULD modify all the laws about civil unions to mirror the rights granted in marriage, but I doubt that would ever happen. Then it would just be about the religious aspect of the union, which frankly I don't care about and belongs to each person privately. That's one of my big issues, that gay people in civil unions are cut off from lots of legal redress rights just because of who they marry. It's infuriating and unjust.


codergirl42: Because separate 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.


Pincy: Civil unions aren't the equivalent of civil marriage.


Antimatter: 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.


Pincy: urbangirl: Neeek: urbangirl: This is a serious question that I've never had answered: why are civil unions not sufficient? I mean, isn't legal 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.


Carth: urbangirl: Pincy: urbangirl: 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.


Pincy: 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.


buck1138: 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.


codergirl42: 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


Actually, several of you are confusing ‶marriage" with ‶wedding". ‶Marriage" ≠ ‶Wedding." The two terms are not synonyms. You don′t hear someone say, ‶I′m going to be the Best Man / Maid of Honor at my best friend′s marriage.", nor do you hear a betrayed spouse say to his/her partner while demanding a divorce, ‶Our wedding is over!" Those make no sense. It′s always the other way around.

A marriage is a legal partnership between two (or perhaps more) consenting adults, originally intended to legitimize heirs and forge alliances between families, clans, guilds, tribes, nations, etc. A wedding is an optional ceremony of some sort that participants in a marriage can, if they so choose, participate in to formally initiate the marriage partnership in the eyes of their religion and/or society, but not in the eyes of the law (signing the marriage license does that).

(The legitimizing heirs thing was vital, because they didn′t have Maury Povich and his DNA paternity tests in ancient times, so they needed some way for a man to be able to confidently point to a boy or young man and say, ‶That boy right there is my son and heir, and that other boy over there isn′t." Mothers didn′t have that problem, as they always knew who their children were, for obvious reasons. This is why adultery was considered such a very serious sin, since it yanked the foundation out from under the confidence that this provided to men.)

Anyway, churches do not perform marriages. They perform weddings. So do Justices of the Peace, captains of ships, etc. No one seriously intends to force churches to perform weddings that they feel would be against their doctrines, including same-sex, polygamous, etc.

The problem here is that certain forms of Christianity seek to impose their doctrines on others by force of law, not merely through preaching, proselytizing, persuasion, etc. This is part and parcel of that. They seek to own the very concept of marriage itself. Not just their weddings. Marriage itself!

Sorry, but marriage is a concept that long predates not only Christianity, but Judaism. Cultures far older than Abraham are known to have had partnerships similar or identical to what we call marriage. Christianity (and Judaism for that matter) did not invent marriage, and they do not own it, and thus they have no right to define it. Not. Theirs.

This is why civil unions do not suffice. Even if they were made somehow 100% equal to marriage, allowing this would be tacitly allowing Christianity to claim ownership of the concept of marriage, or at least of the word, and it′s Not. Theirs. At all. Period. This is non-negotiable.
 
2012-12-07 01:06:03 AM  

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?


It's that whole problem with "separate but equal".
Also, in practice they're not treated the same even when it's legally mandated... which, come to think of it, is the heart of that problem.

Diogenes: Marriage carries legal rights and obligations that civil unions don't. It's more than just semantics.


Also a point.

Nuuu: I think a smaller proportion of people actually believe that gay marriage is wrong because the bible says it's wrong.


Note the poll gives separate breakdowns for "why not" and "why yes" answers.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Well, the good news for equality folks is that organized religion is a slowly dying institution amongst the youngest generations.


Very slowly. This is happening more rapidly. The shift on Gay Marriage looks likely to allow it to be rammed down the throats of the 13 hold out states via Constitutional Amendment by 2035, while the unaffiliated won't even be a majority until 2050 or so.

Gyrfalcon: Yeah, aren't the first three answers the same answer?


Not quite. "Because" and "Because God" are pretty similar, but not quite the same.

jigger: Aren't all plasmas ionized?

codergirl42: Not blood plasma.


Bloody technicality.

urbangirl: I'm glad there are lots of other FARKERS who take serious questions seriously. Because I'm actually much more educated about it now than I was two hours ago.


Even taking silly questions seriously can sometimes be educational for onlookers.

verbaltoxin: Most of the "nones" aren't atheists. They're non-practicing theists.


Though even that majority is narrowing. Still, looks to be a decade or more until the non-practicing theist "Nothing in particular" NIPpers fall to plurality level within the Nones.

Kurmudgeon: Farkers made fun of Gallup during the election and now you take them seriously?


They're still likely to be biased; however, the gap is large enough that religion would still be #1, even otherwise.

NkThrasher: The observation he makes is valid, that is an "obvious" reason that is not present on the survey.


Actually, it kind of is; the 5th place response looks like the pigeonhole for that bird.
 
2012-12-07 01:09:45 AM  

COMALite J: Anyway, churches do not perform marriages. They perform weddings.


An interesting semantic distinction.
 
2012-12-07 08:21:04 AM  

LucklessWonder: 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.

From the NKJV:
1 Corinthians 6:

Romans 1:


I still haven't seen the part where it says it's our duty to create a government that, as closely as possible, emulates the values of God, and when in doubt, will put words into His mouth.

I saw all sorts of stuff in there about not passing judgment and loving others and whatnot.
 
2012-12-07 09:05:40 AM  

Dr Dreidel: "don't let men lay with men the way they lie with women" (which could also mean things like "don't let 2 men share a bed", "If two men fark, don't do it doggystyle", or even "you can fark like rabbits, but NO SLEEPING" depending on how pedantic you want to get).


If one wants to take that passage at face value, it also clearly says nothing about homosexual females. I guess God has no problem with women in same-sex relationships.
 
2012-12-07 09:22:49 AM  

abb3w: An interesting semantic distinction.


The distinction is most decidedly NOT "semantic"!

That's like saying "I have two 'children': one 'daughter' and one 'son'" is making a semantic distinction.

State Function without Church involvement = Marriage.

Church Function without State involvement = Not Marriage.

Let's see, who can we think of who performed church marriages without the benefit of the State's imprimatur, and what's he up to these days?

blog.wfmu.org
 
2012-12-07 09:48:48 AM  

urbangirl:
Just to be clear, I don't now and never have had a problem with gay marriage. This is a question I've asked gay friends from time to time and never gotten the answers I was looking for. When the topic came up here I thought I'd ask again.

Thx 4 the backup.


What do you mean when you say "never gotten the answers I was looking for"? Because - to me - that means you DID get answers, but because they didn't match your preconceived estimation of what the answers SHOULD have been, you ignored them.

It's interesting that you claim you asked your gay friends. You'd think - if you knew them well at all - that you'd've had ample opportunity to ferret out the core issues all by yourself simply from observation.
Instead - you're just coming off as intentionally clueless in the hopes that someone will validate your prejudices. I mean - really - NO one up to date has made it clear to you that - no - churches will NOT "be required" to wed any couple they choose not to (because that's how it has ALWAYS been)? Likewise - somehow you were completely shielded from ANY information about why civil unions are entirely inadequate compared to "real" civil marriage?

Let's put this to the test. What is logically wrong about the statement "non-heterosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else --- they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else"? I'm not asking about the moral side of the statement, just the basic rhetoric (hint: consider that the name of the federal law is the "Defense of Marriage Act" and the implications of the statement compared to the underlying assumption implicit in the law's name).

As for people being "opposed" to marriage equality because of "religion". Fine - don't have one. But to win the argument with religion (presuming that somehow Freedom of Religion Expression is tied to this
ability to influence civil laws) - you still need to FIRST sort out how your religion's beliefs trumps all of the religions that DO support same-sex marriage --- after all aren't THEIR freedoms equal to yours? If not - aren't you then implying that any notion of "equality" as a core value of being American is a sham?
 
2012-12-07 10:46:09 AM  

Deucednuisance: The distinction is most decidedly NOT "semantic"!


In so far as it's a distinction based on attaching precise meanings to words, yes, it would appear to be one.

Deucednuisance: That's like saying "I have two 'children': one 'daughter' and one 'son'" is making a semantic distinction.


Ayep. I'm fine with that.

Merely because a distinction is semantic, doesn't mean that it doesn't allow important implications, by more precisely delineating categories that might otherwise be lumped together sloppily.

Of course, sometimes it's just someone snarking off about blood plasma; but those tend not to be particularly interesting.

ursomniac: Let's put this to the test. What is logically wrong about the statement "non-heterosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else --- they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else"? I'm not asking about the moral side of the statement, just the basic rhetoric


Sameness is an equivalence relation, which implicitly depends on the choice of metric; examining a different metric may yield differences.

Also, rights implicitly involves an "ought" ordering, which in turn is dependent on one's is-ought bridge.

ursomniac: If not - aren't you then implying that any notion of "equality" as a core value of being American is a sham?


"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
 
2012-12-07 11:52:23 AM  

Deucednuisance: abb3w: An interesting semantic distinction.

The distinction is most decidedly NOT "semantic"!


Abb3w is correct: it is a semantic distinction, albeit a vitally important one; just as the distinction between ‶Rights" and ‶Powers" in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (especially the Tenth Amendment to the other nine, especially the Ninth) is a semantic distinction, albeit one upon which our entire nation and system of government are supposed to be based.

Just because a distinction is semantic doesn′t diminish its importance in any way. Semantics can be vitally important. Consider how much of modern demagoguery depends on the populace not understanding basic semantics of terms that get thrown around:

• There is not now, never was, and never was intended to be, any such thing as ‶States′ Rights." States don′t have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Not the Right to enact legislation, levy taxes, maintain a justice system or (in the case of the Feds) a national defense, etc., nor even the Right to exist! They are granted Powers to do all of those things, by the consent of the Governed People, who retain the Right to revoke those Powers at any time.

Only (Natural) Persons have, or can have, Rights in the sense described in the Declaration of Independence. Aggregate Persons (corporations, unions, trusts, etc.) can have limited pseudo-Rights for the sole purpose of allowing them to participate as equals with Natural Persons in contract and civil tort law (which is why it′s possible to sue a corporation, or for a corporation to own property). If the Supreme Court had had a proper understanding of this ‶semantic distinction," Citizens United may well have been decided differently.

• Full Single-Payer, let alone the Public Option (the realObamaCare" which did not pass), let alone what actually got passed and became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, often mis-called ‶ObamaCare") is not ‶socialized medicine." At most, those first two would qualify as mandatory and optional, respectively, ‶socialized medical insurance." True socialized medicine would mean that the Government fully owns and taxpayer-funds everything to do with healthcare, from pharmacies to hospitals, clinics, medical and dental schools, etc., as well as paying the salaries of all doctors, dentists, nurses, orderlies, hospital and clinic administrative and bookkeeping and even janitorial staff, medical school faculties and staff, etc. etc. etc.

These are just a few examples. ‶Marriage" vs. ‶Wedding" is yet another example of this.

tl:dr version: Words mean things.
 
2012-12-07 12:14:51 PM  

COMALite J: tl:dr version: Words mean things.


Fine, I'll accept your argument.

abb3w likes to play the part of dispassionate arbiter of fact around these parts. Coolly delivered sarcasm is a oft-knocked arrow in his quiver.

So, I ask: What did the string of words "An interesting semantic distinction." mean?

"Yes, they are quite different and people shouldn't conflate them, it's interesting that so many do."

or

"A quibble, mere semantics!"

I honestly can't get a read on the intended tone, and if I misread that, I'll accept a clarification.
 
2012-12-07 01:58:36 PM  

COMALite J: Just because a distinction is semantic doesn′t diminish its importance in any way. Semantics can be vitally important.


"The Beginning of Wisdom is the definition of terms." -- attributed to Socrates of Athens

Deucednuisance: abb3w likes to play the part of dispassionate arbiter of fact around these parts. Coolly delivered sarcasm is a oft-knocked arrow in his quiver.


I think a bit less often than obsessive attention to precise meanings and precise category distinctions -- though I've not actually bothered to do a statistical analysis.

Deucednuisance: So, I ask: What did the string of words "An interesting semantic distinction." mean?
"Yes, they are quite different and people shouldn't conflate them, it's interesting that so many do."
or
"A quibble, mere semantics!"
I honestly can't get a read on the intended tone, and if I misread that, I'll accept a clarification.


The latter would seem to be more the "uninteresting semantic distinction" category. The former is much closer, with additional connotations in this case of "potentially useful (for altering the manner in which people think about the questions)". Or at least, that's the particular angle piquing my interest.

I tend to take semantics pretty seriously (up until having to enter Humpty-Dumpty/"Master of all Masters" territory of which particular unique label gets attached to which unique category). A quick Google search of Fark suggests the closest I've come to using the phrase "mere semantics" on Fark would be here... which would be the sarcasm.
 
2012-12-07 02:01:48 PM  

COMALite J: tl:dr version: Words mean things.


Oh, by the way: Merry Brand-X-Mas.
 
2012-12-07 02:58:30 PM  

abb3w: The latter would seem to be more the "uninteresting semantic distinction" category. The former is much closer, with additional connotations in this case of "potentially useful (for altering the manner in which people think about the questions)". Or at least, that's the particular angle piquing my interest.


Thanks for the clarification.

Ya coulda said so in the first place.

abb3w: Oh, by the way: Merry Brand-X-Mas.


Well, they sound a bit dated today, but fairly influential in their time, I suppose that's worth celebrating...

cps-static.rovicorp.com
 
2012-12-07 05:16:40 PM  

abb3w: COMALite J: tl:dr version: Words mean things.

Oh, by the way: Merry Brand-X-Mas.


Thanks!!!

On the ‶Words mean things," I think it was Rush Limbaugh who popularized that phrase on his show. Ironic that he′s one of the main demogogues who, perhaps ignorantly but it sure seems to be deliberately, misuses words for political effect.
 
2012-12-07 05:26:41 PM  

abb3w: COMALite J: Anyway, churches do not perform marriages. They perform weddings.

An interesting semantic distinction.


It's not a "semantic distinction", as you so smugly sneered.

It's two different procedures dealing with the single concept of "how do humans bind themselves together to form families".
 
2012-12-07 05:42:54 PM  
Hey! Look at me stuff my foot in my mouth!

My apologies for the smug sneering junk, abb3w.

Next time I'll read the thread a little better.
 
2012-12-07 06:16:42 PM  

Deucednuisance: Ya coulda said so in the first place.


Yeah, but I get lazy sometimes.

Kittypie070: Hey! Look at me stuff my foot in my mouth!


i.chzbgr.com


Kittypie070: My apologies for the smug sneering junk, abb3w.


Sokay.
 
2012-12-07 10:51:43 PM  

Oh, yeah... and one more thing.

You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.

a.imageshack.us
carryabigsticker.com
a.imageshack.us


The Gallup data show that below age 30, support is now (conservatively) net +47. That's four points better than the (all ages) net national approval rating for God.

The question appears no longer about "whether", but simply "when".
 
2012-12-08 06:59:18 AM  

abb3w: Oh, yeah... and one more thing.

You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.

[a.imageshack.us image 600x400]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]
[a.imageshack.us image 464x438]


The Gallup data show that below age 30, support is now (conservatively) net +47. That's four points better than the (all ages) net national approval rating for God.

The question appears no longer about "whether", but simply "when".


Have they released the 2012 GSS responses to the question in your chart?
 
2012-12-08 11:32:42 AM  

Serious Black: Have they released the 2012 GSS responses to the question in your chart?


Not yet. The GSS-2010 went live at Berkeley in April 2011, though I think the raw dataset was available from NORC in March for SPSS.
 
2012-12-08 01:02:35 PM  

abb3w: Serious Black: Have they released the 2012 GSS responses to the question in your chart?

Not yet. The GSS-2010 went live at Berkeley in April 2011, though I think the raw dataset was available from NORC in March for SPSS.


I'll be looking forward to seeing it in a few months then. I'm guessing every single bar is going to have more red and blue in it, especially those for the three most recent cohorts.
 
2012-12-08 02:48:02 PM  

abb3w: Deucednuisance: Ya coulda said so in the first place.

Yeah, but I get lazy sometimes.

Kittypie070: Hey! Look at me stuff my foot in my mouth!

[i.chzbgr.com image 500x412]

Kittypie070: My apologies for the smug sneering junk, abb3w.

Sokay.


I didn't know that cats had politicians! ;-)


Hey, KittyPie070, did you get that Email I sent you that you asked for regarding the End Times Bible exegesis in another thread? At the time I didn′t have TotalFARK (thanks again, abb3w!), so you told me to send it to your handle at UltraFARK, so I did, but am not sure it got through.

TotalFARK has discussion threads, right? Maybe I should post the exegesis there? I think it could go a long way towards reducing ultra-fundie support of the modern GOP. What do you think?
 
2012-12-08 06:51:16 PM  

Serious Black: I'll be looking forward to seeing it in a few months then. I'm guessing every single bar is going to have more red and blue in it, especially those for the three most recent cohorts.


Pretty much, especially given the Gallup numbers. Though, since there's been a few things likely to have shifted attitudes over the year (like Biden's gaffe) and the Gallup numbers are from an end-of-year survey, they may not be quite that level.

Of course, Berkeley is having some funding issues with the server. Hopefully, some philanthropist will be willing to drop a little money on the project.

COMALite J: TotalFARK has discussion threads, right? Maybe I should post the exegesis there? I think it could go a long way towards reducing ultra-fundie support of the modern GOP. What do you think?


Almost anything goes in TotalFark Discussion, though the modmins would probably draw the line if someone posted any pics of Drew having sex with farm animals. (I guess he prefers people circulate blackmail photos of him in person rather than on-line.)

How much worse can it be than the thread on "what should I get as a tattoo"?
 
2012-12-08 10:38:07 PM  

COMALite J: abb3w: Deucednuisance: Ya coulda said so in the first place.

Yeah, but I get lazy sometimes.

Kittypie070: Hey! Look at me stuff my foot in my mouth!

[i.chzbgr.com image 500x412]

Kittypie070: My apologies for the smug sneering junk, abb3w.

Sokay.

I didn't know that cats had politicians! ;-)


Hey, KittyPie070, did you get that Email I sent you that you asked for regarding the End Times Bible exegesis in another thread? At the time I didn′t have TotalFARK (thanks again, abb3w!), so you told me to send it to your handle at UltraFARK, so I did, but am not sure it got through.

TotalFARK has discussion threads, right? Maybe I should post the exegesis there? I think it could go a long way towards reducing ultra-fundie support of the modern GOP. What do you think?


Hey I gotta check that!!

My TF has run out though.
 
2012-12-08 10:41:46 PM  
YAYY!! The exegesis infos arrived just fine!!

*happy kitty dances with COMALite J*
 
2012-12-08 10:47:17 PM  

Kittypie070: My TF has run out though.


Oh, what the hell. Merry brand-X-mas to you too.



/TFD richly deserves you
 
2012-12-08 10:51:56 PM  
Oh wait. Some kind person hath given kitty a refill.

[purrs loudly, rubs abb3w's ankles]

You aren't allergic to cats are ya?
 
2012-12-08 10:53:53 PM  
Hmm....there's gotta be some way to fiddle perma-TF for meself...like the everlasting cuppa coffee...
 
2012-12-08 11:02:56 PM  
i976.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-09 12:32:03 AM  

Kittypie070: You aren't allergic to cats are ya?


Enough not to live with one of my own; mildly enough that the occasional need to make friends with the cat at the door doesn't require more than a dye-free diphenhydramine, if that.
 
2012-12-09 07:24:53 PM  
Okay, KittyPie070, lemme know what you think of the exegesis. I′ll probably post it in TotalFARK Discussion soon.
 
Displayed 213 of 213 comments

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