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.

(Some Guy)   Study finds that men who say they look at porn frequently are more likely to support same-sex marriage, while those against same-sex marriage lie about how often they look at porn   (nomblog.com) divider line 16
    More: Obvious, marital status  
•       •       •

1292 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Dec 2012 at 12:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-23 04:42:37 AM
4 votes:

R.P.M.: you used the word "civil" a lot, so what is so wrong about "civil union"?


For one thing, it utterly fails the "separate but equal" test. For another, it's a completely unnecessary distinction to make when we have a perfectly good system in place already.

R.P.M.: it seems silly fighting over a word


Yes, exactly. If you're willing to allow gay people all of the benefits of marriage, why bother inventing a new word, when "married" works fine?

R.P.M.: i really am not starting a fight or trolling, but i was always flummoxed by people fighting over a word instead of the rights. partners of any relationship should get the same things (visitation rights, tax breaks, ect), but i like a separation of church and state. let the Pope care about marriages, and the government care about civil unions. at least i can vote out the latter.


But the Pope/(church) doesn't marry people. The government does. It's been that way for most of the time the US has existed, and for most of human history as well. Marriage isn't religious in nature. How does it make sense to hand over to the church something it has no more claim on than the rest of us? I'm an atheist, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone tell me that I'm not married to my wife just because our ceremony wasn't religious.

Seriously, I'm not against political compromise, but you don't compromise on civil rights. Not every argument deserves equal consideration. There is no argument against gay marriage that is worth compromising people's rights over. The Unitarian Church near my old apartment had a huge banner across the front that summed it up perfectly: "Civil marriage is a civil right." I agree with that statement no matter who it applies to. Any two people of legal age should be allowed to get married as far as I'm concerned. Period.
2012-12-23 01:11:57 AM
2 votes:
Love porn, love seeing people in love getting married. Glad to conform for once.
2012-12-23 12:43:10 AM
2 votes:
2012-12-23 12:13:19 AM
2 votes:
Wait, that is an incomplete punnet chart.  What about those of us who watch porn, but are against all marriage?
2012-12-23 12:12:23 AM
2 votes:

fusillade762: If they weren't farking with other people's rights I'd almost feel sorry for them.


I still feel sorry for them. Being indelibly a Golem lacking all empathy, logic, and joy must be tragic. They deserve pity; pity is beneath contempt.
2012-12-23 12:07:51 AM
2 votes:
Definitely lying about how much they look at gay porn.
2012-12-23 10:35:46 AM
1 votes:
I've still yet to hear one single argument from my so-called conservative brethren why I should give two shiats about what contract two consenting adults want to engage in that doesn't devolve into religious bullshiat. Farking children, all of them. No one under the age of 40 cares. This is a decided issue just waiting for enough dumbass evangelical crackers to die off to make it so. Won't be long.
2012-12-23 09:06:09 AM
1 votes:
So, men who do not repress their sexual urges are less likely to begrudge others who don't want to have to repress their sexual urges.

Shocking.
2012-12-23 05:05:27 AM
1 votes:

worlddan: Z-clipped: worlddan: I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether

Marriage (in its many historical forms) is one of the oldest civil contracts in existence.

That is an anachronism. Simply because a ceremony is public doesn't make it civil (in the legal sense of that term). Marriage as a civil, legal, matter to be enforced by the state is quite the recent vintage, historically speaking, at least within the Western tradition. Even 150 years ago it was uncommon for there to be any type of civil recognition given to marriage and to the extent such civil acknowledgement did exist (e.g., wills) it was entirely piggybacked upon what the religious sector of society did. Marriages in the religious sense are by no means contracts.


Marriage as a legal institution predates any religion that currently exists. It is mentioned in literally the oldest story that has survived to this day. Nothing you say is remotely true, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
2012-12-23 04:14:37 AM
1 votes:

Z-clipped: worlddan: Marriage as a civil, legal, matter to be enforced by the state is quite the recent vintage, historically speaking, at least within the Western tradition.

Marriage has been historically a civil exchange of property (which included the woman, generally) in every western society that was not a theocracy. Are you saying that, because the church became involved in marriage in Western Europe for a brief, 200 year period, that period alone defines marriage in our society today? That's nonsense.

Regardless of history, marriage is unarguably a solely civil contract in our current society. Religious institutions have absolutely no power to marry people. They (among others) are granted the power to officiate the ceremony by the State, but cannot issue a license, validate a marriage, or enforce the contract. It makes absolutely no sense to say that despite the fact that our culture is enormously more varied socially and religiously today (and much more secular as well), we should strive to return to some specific historical paradigm of your choosing, when there is a) plenty more history to choose from and b) nothing wrong with the system we have, except for religious objection to the civil rights of groups they deem distasteful.



you used the word "civil" a lot, so what is so wrong about "civil union"? i don't care who is happy with who, but it seems silly fighting over a word (as long as the people in "civil union"'s get the same benefits). to be pedantic, that is why there are different types of "sex". there is oral, straight, gay, lesbian, ect (the cow stuff is crazy!) =)

i really am not starting a fight or trolling, but i was always flummoxed by people fighting over a word instead of the rights. partners of any relationship should get the same things (visitation rights, tax breaks, ect), but i like a separation of church and state. let the Pope care about marriages, and the government care about civil unions. at least i can vote out the latter.
2012-12-23 02:31:49 AM
1 votes:

worlddan: Marriage as a civil, legal, matter to be enforced by the state is quite the recent vintage, historically speaking, at least within the Western tradition.


Marriage has been historically a civil exchange of property (which included the woman, generally) in every western society that was not a theocracy. Are you saying that, because the church became involved in marriage in Western Europe for a brief, 200 year period, that period alone defines marriage in our society today? That's nonsense.

Regardless of history, marriage is unarguably a solely civil contract in our current society. Religious institutions have absolutely no power to marry people. They (among others) are granted the power to officiate the ceremony by the State, but cannot issue a license, validate a marriage, or enforce the contract. It makes absolutely no sense to say that despite the fact that our culture is enormously more varied socially and religiously today (and much more secular as well), we should strive to return to some specific historical paradigm of your choosing, when there is a) plenty more history to choose from and b) nothing wrong with the system we have, except for religious objection to the civil rights of groups they deem distasteful.
2012-12-23 02:28:47 AM
1 votes:

worlddan: Marriages in the religious sense are by no means contracts.


The exchange of promises is the definition of a contract. Has been for a long long time.

I like that you are completely liberated from the tyranny of facts and history, though.
2012-12-23 02:26:56 AM
1 votes:

worlddan: That is an anachronism. Simply because a ceremony is public doesn't make it civil (in the legal sense of that term). Marriage as a civil, legal, matter to be enforced by the state is quite the recent vintage, historically speaking, at least within the Western tradition. Even 150 years ago it was uncommon for there to be any type of civil recognition given to marriage and to the extent such civil acknowledgement did exist (e.g., wills) it was entirely piggybacked upon what the religious sector of society did. Marriages in the religious sense are by no means contracts.


It always amazes me when something like marriage gets thrown out there that fark'rs like worlddan go out of their way to have to prove that "marriage" is just some whimsical blessing bestowed by some special sky wizard.  I can only assume that worlddan was married and was royally skewed over by the misses.  And now is spending his days in his mothers basement printing out Ron Paul posters.

The simple fact is this - marriage has always been a tool of the governing entity of the time - mainly to deal with property issues.  And it has been true that in some periods of history - the written laws around marriage were a bit sketchy (when this country was founded there were few marriage laws on the books - the puritans of the time fixed that when they realized a woman could simply walk off and declare herself divorced).  But today in the US (and in most parts of Western world) marriage is a civil contract and has nothing to do with religion.  And that civil contract bestows a large number of rights and privileges to that union.  The word in and of itself allows a couple to travel from one country to another and that country will recognize that union.  That country will not recognize "civil union" or "magic papers drawn up by attorney".  They will recognize "marriage".

So get over it.  Marriage is here to stay.  No longer how much straight people screw the institution over.
2012-12-23 01:28:04 AM
1 votes:

worlddan: HotWingAgenda: Wait, that is an incomplete punnet chart.  What about those of us who watch porn, but are against all marriage?

I'm one of the few liberals I know who is adamantly opposed to gay marriage. I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether so gay marriage to me is like rats jumping on to the sinking ship. I feel that there is something deeply underhanded and even abusive to homosexuals in the entire gay marriage agenda. Encouraging people to go fight for equal membership in a pointless, meaningless, and dying institution strikes me as plain mean.


That's an awful strange argument. Care to back up all those assertions? Why, in your opinion, is marriage pointless, meaningless, and dying?

Are you recently divorced or something? Old lady took everything and left you with the property taxes?
2012-12-23 12:55:04 AM
1 votes:
Some people are just too simple to overcome their primitive human nature to fear what they don't understand.
2012-12-22 11:55:33 PM
1 votes:
Being uptight about sex tends to spread to many areas of life. I'm betting the people who are against gay marriage and don't watch porn only have sex missionary-style with the lights out.  If they weren't farking with other people's rights I'd almost feel sorry for them.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report