Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Yahoo)   Just when you think the GOP can't any more Derp to the gay marriage bonfire: "Gay couples cannot become accidentally pregnant and thus do not need access to marriage"   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line 235
    More: Asinine, GOP, same-sex marriages, Loyola Law School, Paul Clement, friend of the courts, Oregon Ducks football, couples, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

2984 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2013 at 3:40 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-04 03:14:51 PM  
So the purpose of marriage is to be forced to spend a lifetime with someone just because you accidentally a whole babby?
 
2013-03-04 03:17:24 PM  
I'm sure that makes their children feel so good about themselves.
 
2013-03-04 03:18:47 PM  
My dad forward me a note similar to this.... it basically said that gay marriage does not make the country any better or help our society as it doesn't promote anything 'healthy'.
 
2013-03-04 03:23:07 PM  
I hope that lawyer is getting paid handsomely for his big bucket of I-got-nothin'.
 
2013-03-04 03:25:58 PM  
This is how stupid you sound when you attempt to defend the indefensible.
 
2013-03-04 03:27:32 PM  
WE GOT NUTHIN' !
 
2013-03-04 03:29:02 PM  
www.examiner.com

"No, but God knows we keep trying."
 
2013-03-04 03:29:54 PM  

Gulper Eel: I hope that lawyer is getting paid handsomely for his big bucket of I-got-nothin'.


Apparently he was citing a judge, who... Well, is as stupid as a brick.
 
2013-03-04 03:30:10 PM  
Sounds to me like he's arguing that straight couples need access to safe and affordable abortions.
 
2013-03-04 03:33:46 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Sounds to me like he's arguing that straight couples need access to safe and affordable abortions.


It sounds like he's saying divorce should be illegal for couples with children.
 
2013-03-04 03:34:23 PM  
Yes Yes Yes! Couples who are unable to have children, whether biologically or old should not be allowed to marry. They cannot form stable family units or naturally produce offspring.

"Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring,"

"...the state's interest in responsible procreation and childrearing.


Doesn't sound like very responsible procreation to me
 
2013-03-04 03:35:46 PM  
#9 is the WINNAR!!!

Well done, Eddie Adams... well done!
 
2013-03-04 03:42:11 PM  
Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage, but the accidental pregnancy is the one argument I can't disagree with in favor of marriage.
Science shows us that married couples do a better job of raising kids.  Probably a result of the fact that they don't want to put the kid through a divorce, so wait until he's out of the house.  So, giving people who have kids a financial incentive to get married is a good thing.

That said, there's no reason some dumbass who finds herself pregnant and unmarried couldn't decide to shotgun marry another woman as a means of attaining that stability.  Gets a little more convoluted for gay men, but could still feasibly happen.
 
2013-03-04 03:42:37 PM  
My reaction now almost every time a member of the GOP speaks:
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-04 03:42:58 PM  
Today's GOP, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give them a laurel and hardy handshake for being able to tie their own shoes.
 
2013-03-04 03:43:19 PM  
so marry your rapist!
 
2013-03-04 03:43:41 PM  
There is nothing wrong with being gay.  Get over it.
 
2013-03-04 03:43:55 PM  
Lesbian couples could become accidentally pregnant. Though it might have to be a pretty bizarre accident.
 
2013-03-04 03:44:28 PM  
"Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring,"

"And lo, man lay with women, knowing her, and they beget a child."

"beget"? Really?
 
2013-03-04 03:44:29 PM  
On a similar note, what can I do to get these idiots to pay me money, since neither intelligence nor experience in Law seems necessary.
 
2013-03-04 03:44:35 PM  
I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?
 
2013-03-04 03:44:53 PM  
My jaw literally dropped.

I shouldn't be surprised...but I was.

Assholes.
 
2013-03-04 03:45:01 PM  
Surprise preggered, the only reason a devout Christian Republican ever gets married.
 
2013-03-04 03:45:04 PM  
"A people should know when they're conquered." -Quintus

Seriously, you guys need to stop.  I almost feel bad for you.  But that hole you're digging, it cannot possibley get any bigger.
 
2013-03-04 03:45:31 PM  

Endive Wombat: My reaction now almost every time a member of the GOP speaks:
[img.photobucket.com image 220x157]


Seriously.  I'm not sure which is worse -- that there are people that thing up these sorts of things to say or that there are many many more people that will lap it up and vote straight ticket R next time around because they think attitudes like this are normal and should be encouraged.
 
2013-03-04 03:46:31 PM  

Wyalt Derp: Lesbian couples could become accidentally pregnant. Though it might have to be a pretty bizarre accident.


Splooge grenade!
 
2013-03-04 03:46:31 PM  
Clement added in his brief that the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing marriages between men and women because it encourages them to form stable family units.

Party of Small Government, folks!
 
2013-03-04 03:46:55 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Sounds to me like he's arguing that straight couples need access to safe and affordable abortions.


And that post-menopausal women can't marry, as well as any man for whom Viagra/Cialis/Levitra don't work (or they're already on BP/heart meds and so can't take them). And that infertile women (genetic or hysterectomied) and men can't get married.

Basically, it's like he's never critically thought about the position he's now arguing as a matter of law - most of us abandoned that position the first time someone asked "What about Grandma? Is she not allowed to find a new love in her 70s?"

// for me, that time was 1996, and I was 14 years old
 
2013-03-04 03:46:57 PM  
about as cogent as Scalia's broccoli logic
 
2013-03-04 03:47:14 PM  

serial_crusher: Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage,


But amazingly people like you only seem to bring this up when it's about gays marrying. What a surprise.

Hey I got an idea how about YOU not marry anyone and stop wanting to force everyone else to live by your rules?
 
2013-03-04 03:47:46 PM  
Uh, don't good little Christians not have sex before marriage? Accidental pregnancy that results in a couple having to get married shouldn't even be an issue.
 
2013-03-04 03:48:21 PM  

Endive Wombat: My reaction now almost every time a member of the GOP speaks:
[img.photobucket.com image 220x157]


You can also use that as the default reaction of GOPers when you make a point that destroys their argument.  So it goes both ways.
 
2013-03-04 03:48:34 PM  
Hey Republicans!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

We don't care that your God supposedly hates gays.
 
2013-03-04 03:48:52 PM  
Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?
 
2013-03-04 03:50:33 PM  
This again?

"So what about straight infertile couples?" is always the next question, to which the fundie will state that that is different, because they aren't gay.
 
2013-03-04 03:50:51 PM  

LarryDan43: Surprise preggered, the only reason a devout Christian Republican ever gets married.



F'in this. Worked for Levi and Bristol. Oh wait...
 
2013-03-04 03:50:57 PM  

Lord_Baull: On a similar note, what can I do to get these idiots to pay me money, since neither intelligence nor experience in Law seems necessary.


Write a book.

Some right-wing magazine/website will buy a few dozen pallets of copies of the book to give to new subscribers and you'll be on the New York Times best-sellers list for a week or two.
 
2013-03-04 03:50:57 PM  

serial_crusher: Science shows us that married couples do a better job of raising kids.


ok, can you show your work please?
 
2013-03-04 03:51:00 PM  
kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

I've known people, up here in Ontario, for whom the answer would be a reluctant yes, weighted by a occasional "well, God might provide a miracle, so I guess it's ok?"
 
2013-03-04 03:51:29 PM  
kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

It's because they just don't like gays, but they know they can't say they so they come up with a reason. Right if that was the actual reason they should also try to ban everyone who can't have kids from getting married but they don't care about others, just gays.
 
2013-03-04 03:51:36 PM  
Coupled with the FACT that fetuses are only people until corporate(i.e. religious institute) money is involved, and you have an airtight case.
 
2013-03-04 03:51:38 PM  
So let's mandate fertility tests once a year, and those who fail don't get to marry or if already married are forced to divorce if they don't have biological minor children.

/just taking this derp to its logical conclusion
 
2013-03-04 03:52:25 PM  
The remarks from the Yahoo! commentariat would have been totally different even 3-5 years ago. Amazing.
 
2013-03-04 03:52:51 PM  
We need new words beyond "herp" and "derp" to describe things like this.  This goes well beyond the normal, run of the mill derp we've grown to expect.  This sullies the good name of derp.
 
2013-03-04 03:53:28 PM  
Clement added in his brief to the Supreme Court arguing to uphold that law that the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing marriages between men and women because it encourages them to form stable family units.

Perhaps he should explain why recognizing marriages between same sex couples would DIScourge men and women from forming stable family units?
 
2013-03-04 03:53:29 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: This again?

"So what about straight infertile couples?" is always the next question, to which the fundie will state that that is different, because they aren't gay.


That would be and my wife.  Although we weren't necessarily "infertile", we just lost 2 babies around the 3 month mark. two separate times.   We gave up after that, very hard on the heart and mind.  We are both over 40 now and don't plan on trying again.  Guess we should nullify our marriage then.
 
2013-03-04 03:53:38 PM  
so people who cannot conceive should not be allowed to marry?

older couples beyond child bearing age should not be allowed to marry?

/I'll wait while the GOP study it out
 
2013-03-04 03:53:39 PM  
So because homosexuals can not have children w/o someone interfering with the way god has arranged things, it means that gays can't marry. That's just *so* smart and original. I bet no one has tried that line of argument before becuase otherwise we would have closed this debate by now...

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
-Leon Bazil, Judge (Loving v. Virigina)
 
2013-03-04 03:54:35 PM  

cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?




Because if we let gays enter into a social contract, it's like saying they are people.

Also it's a fantastic wedge issue to get the rubes all fired up!
 
2013-03-04 03:55:21 PM  

Rwa2play: Endive Wombat: My reaction now almost every time a member of the GOP speaks:
[img.photobucket.com image 220x157]

You can also use that as the default reaction of GOPers when you make a point that destroys their argument.  So it goes both ways.



Point of Order! GOPers don't admit their wrong.
 
2013-03-04 03:55:26 PM  
So, what about women who marry and then discover that they're infertile for whatever reason? Should the marriage be annulled?
 
2013-03-04 03:55:26 PM  

Lenny and Carl: We need new words beyond "herp" and "derp" to describe things like this.  This goes well beyond the normal, run of the mill derp we've grown to expect.  This sullies the good name of derp.


"Republicans"
 
2013-03-04 03:55:36 PM  
Cordy argued that providing the benefit of legally recognized marriage coaxes straight couples into forming stable family relationships when they have children, which helps society as a whole.

So when the First Lady encourages young children to exercise more and eat healthier, that's unreasonable nanny-state interference into parenting, but apparently it's completely reasonable to adopt laws denying rights to one group in order to coax another group to do the right thing.

The twisted logic of right wingers never ceases to amaze.
 
2013-03-04 03:55:42 PM  

Lenny and Carl: We need new words beyond "herp" and "derp" to describe things like this.  This goes well beyond the normal, run of the mill derp we've grown to expect.  This sullies the good name of derp.


This herp doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This herp isn't the bottom of the barrel. This herp isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This herp doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.
 
2013-03-04 03:56:04 PM  
*they're

/shiat
 
2013-03-04 03:56:29 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-04 03:56:51 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: The remarks from the Yahoo! commentariat would have been totally different even 3-5 years ago. Amazing.


Actually it's usually pretty terrible. This is a pleasant surprise that the first 5 top comments arent "DURR GAYS SUCK AND ARE GOING TO HELL!" I've had fun in Yahoo comments shooting down people's dumbass reasons for hating gays, and 99% of the time it devolves to "Hurr scottydoesntknow is gay because he's defending gays!" And I just laugh.
 
2013-03-04 03:56:55 PM  

Corvus: kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

It's because they just don't like gays, but they know they can't say they so they come up with a reason.


Exactly, they aren't confident enough to speak honestly on the subject because they know that will make them look bad.  Personally, I much rather prefer to deal with bigots who are honest about their feelings.  I'd much rather they just say "We don't like gay people and we don't want them to have the same rights as everyone else".  Because behind all this "protect the sanctity of marriage" bullshiat is pure dislike of gay people.  They've started being more honest about their hatred of women lately, so I'm hoping they'll come around on the gays too.
 
2013-03-04 03:56:56 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: HotWingConspiracy: This again?

"So what about straight infertile couples?" is always the next question, to which the fundie will state that that is different, because they aren't gay.

That would be and my wife.  Although we weren't necessarily "infertile", we just lost 2 babies around the 3 month mark. two separate times.   We gave up after that, very hard on the heart and mind.  We are both over 40 now and don't plan on trying again.  Guess we should nullify our marriage then.


Yeah, your love is an affront to god.

/sorry about all that, can't be easy
 
2013-03-04 03:57:05 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: This again?

"So what about straight infertile couples?" is always the next question, to which the fundie will state that that is different, because they aren't gay.


Any same-sex marriage opponent who relies upon an argument based upon the concept of child raising should advocate a civil marriage system that provides benefits only upon demonstration of pregnancy or application for adoption and that terminates a set time after a child is no longer a dependent of the parents. That absolutely none do suggests that such argumentation is not being presented honestly.
 
2013-03-04 03:57:06 PM  

kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?


The best part about people making these arguments is that there's usually a "We need more white babies" utterance just underneath the surface, lying in wait. Say the right key words and you'll get it.
 
2013-03-04 03:57:18 PM  

King Something: Lord_Baull: On a similar note, what can I do to get these idiots to pay me money, since neither intelligence nor experience in Law seems necessary.

Write a book.

Some right-wing magazine/website will buy a few dozen pallets of copies of the book to give to new subscribers and you'll be on the New York Times best-sellers list for a week or two.



I suppose you'll want some sort of finders fee...
 
2013-03-04 03:57:23 PM  
This explains a lot about the GOP, and also why they're so insistent on keeping shotguns legal.
 
2013-03-04 03:57:43 PM  

Lenny and Carl: We need new words beyond "herp" and "derp" to describe things like this.  This goes well beyond the normal, run of the mill derp we've grown to expect.  This sullies the good name of derp.


Double Plus Derp?
 
2013-03-04 03:59:47 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Cordy argued that providing the benefit of legally recognized marriage coaxes straight couples into forming stable family relationships when they have children, which helps society as a whole.


My editing shows what the conservative mantra should be: pro gay marriage to discourage promiscuity.  Assuming you're not letting a 2000 year old book get in your way.
 
2013-03-04 04:00:37 PM  
Once upon a time there was a group of people. A certain part of the group of people were arseholes. That part is now known as the GOP. The end.

/obviously
 
2013-03-04 04:00:39 PM  
Franken Tots, you're on to something there.  From now on republicanned is a past tense verb to describe the act of having derped to such an obscene degree that the word derp no longer covers it.
 
2013-03-04 04:01:20 PM  
Republicaned or republicanned?  Hard A or Soft A.  Maybe we should enable voting.
 
2013-03-04 04:01:48 PM  

ThreadSinger: kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

I've known people, up here in Ontario, for whom the answer would be a reluctant yes, weighted by a occasional "well, God might provide a miracle, so I guess it's ok?"


Upon which the proper response is: a miracle could make a man pregnant.  Why put limits on God?
 
2013-03-04 04:02:22 PM  

kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?


GOP: That's sad. Why do you hate straight people who are unable to bear children? She can still adopt.

/facepalm
 
2013-03-04 04:02:53 PM  

Corvus: serial_crusher: Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage,

But amazingly people like you only seem to bring this up when it's about gays marrying. What a surprise.


Well, we don't often have headlines about whether or not straight marriage should be legalized...
If one comes up and I miss it, please by all means EIP me.

/ I guess I could bring it up in the next bike thread or something, if you're just looking for any arbitrary variety....
 
2013-03-04 04:03:50 PM  

Zasteva: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 750x737]


that pic gives me a semi. First lil skully is all "YES!" and then it thinks about it and it's all "OK MAYBE!"
 
2013-03-04 04:04:23 PM  
If only I'd known that when I knocked up my baby-momma: I wouldn't be burdened with child support. I mean, marriage, it's like an abortion for straight people, right?
 
2013-03-04 04:04:41 PM  

GAT_00: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Sounds to me like he's arguing that straight couples need access to safe and affordable abortions.

It sounds like he's saying divorce should be illegal for couples with children.


Pretty sure some in the GOP have taken the "Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman" to its (il)logical extreme and want to ban divorce. Oh look here is the article... http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-bill-would-restrict-divorces/art i cle/3754596
 
2013-03-04 04:04:58 PM  
The great thing about this particular pile of dogshiat is that it's both homophobic and misogynistic ("Women exist only as breeding stock"). It's like a drunk driver trying to talk himself out of killing family of three by saying "But I had to drive twice the speed limit to get away from that liquor store I just robbed" - you're just making yourself look worse, asshole.
 
2013-03-04 04:05:04 PM  
So, by this "logic" the elderly, infertile, or those who just don't want to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry. Actually, scratch that last one because I'm sure they'd agree. Clearly, the solution is mandatory fertility tests as a prerequisite to marriage with periodic check ups. If no children are produced within the allotted time frame, the marriage will be annulled.

Sadly, there are people who would take what I just said to be a great idea rather than hyperbole.
 
2013-03-04 04:05:59 PM  
Fluorescent Testicle: ... out of killing a family of three ...

/FTFM.
 
2013-03-04 04:06:08 PM  
Rational basis review, otherwise known as post hoc grasping at straws.
 
2013-03-04 04:07:55 PM  
And as an aside, wth is with this being tagged Oregon Ducks Football?

i457.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-04 04:08:25 PM  

meat0918: GAT_00: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Sounds to me like he's arguing that straight couples need access to safe and affordable abortions.

It sounds like he's saying divorce should be illegal for couples with children.

Pretty sure some in the GOP have taken the "Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman" to its (il)logical extreme and want to ban divorce. Oh look here is the article... http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-bill-would-restrict-divorces/art i cle/3754596



It's not fascist when they do it.
 
2013-03-04 04:08:37 PM  

Raharu: cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?

Because if we let gays enter into a social contract, it's like saying they are people.

Also it's a fantasticfabulous wedge issue to get the rubes all fired up!


FTFY
 
2013-03-04 04:09:52 PM  

12349876: Close2TheEdge: Cordy argued that providing the benefit of legally recognized marriage coaxes straight couples into forming stable family relationships when they have children, which helps society as a whole.

My editing shows what the conservative mantra should be: pro gay marriage to discourage promiscuity.  Assuming you're not letting a 2000 year old book get in your way.


Assuming that you aren't beholden to a 2000-year old book, then the State has NO compelling interest in marriage whatsoever. If you truly want to be a conservative, then the Government has no business deciding what constitutes a marriage.  All committed relationships, gay and straight, should be defined as civil unions under the law.  Marriage is the religious institution that binds the union spiritually.  Go find the church of your choice and let them marry you.  And if the church of your choice doesn't approve, go find one that does.
 
2013-03-04 04:10:03 PM  
"Because same-sex relationships cannot naturally produce offspring, they do not implicate the State's interest in responsible procreation and childrearing in the same way that opposite-sex relationships do,"

Is this their argument?  Seriously?  No no, seriously?

For years, I've said this: religious people oppose it because "gays are icky, and they're perverting marriage," but companies oppose it because the couple would qualify for marriage benefits.  Spouses would get health care coverage from their husband/wife, they'd share retirement benefits, and anything else the company offers to couples.  This is as much a financial issue as it is a religious one.

So, if you think companies being selfish and denying those benefits to gay couples is fine, then go ahead and keep agreeing with the Christians.  The rest of us believe that all men (and women) are created equal.
 
2013-03-04 04:11:07 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: The great thing about this particular pile of dogshiat is that it's both homophobic and misogynistic ("Women exist only as breeding stock").


huh?
It's also racist ("black people are less intelligent than white people").
Hey, I like how that works.  Just put whatever ridiculous statement you want in parenthesis and quotes, and it's just like TFA actually said it!
 
2013-03-04 04:11:17 PM  

meat0918: And as an aside, wth is with this being tagged Oregon Ducks Football?


The reasoning is foul?
 
2013-03-04 04:12:43 PM  

kid_icarus: I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?


Of course. Also, I hope she isn't having sex now... Marriage is ONLY for procreation, and only married people can have sex.

Wow, when you put those two together, the GOP Party line REALLY turns into a douchebag salad, doesn't it?
 
2013-03-04 04:12:49 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: meat0918: And as an aside, wth is with this being tagged Oregon Ducks Football?

The reasoning is foul?


A canard of sorts then?
 
2013-03-04 04:13:21 PM  

netizencain: it basically said that gay marriage does not make the country any better or help our society as it doesn't promote anything 'healthy'.


I bet he was totally behind Bloomberg's Sodagate, right? Because it's not as though 128oz. of red-blooded, diabetus causing, 'Merican ingenuity does anything to help better or help our society, and allowing such consumption certainly doesn't promote anything health.
 
2013-03-04 04:13:34 PM  

Wyalt Derp: Lesbian couples could become accidentally pregnant. Though it might have to be a pretty bizarre accident.


I could be a couple of bisexual women that decide to being a man into it once in a while..... Sorry what was I saying?
 
2013-03-04 04:14:38 PM  

thatboyoverthere: I could be a couple of bisexual women


That's a hell of a super power.
 
2013-03-04 04:14:42 PM  
Gay woman raped and becomes pregnant?  Done, your argument is OVER!  DOMA loses...
 
2013-03-04 04:15:12 PM  

Close2TheEdge: 12349876: Close2TheEdge: Cordy argued that providing the benefit of legally recognized marriage coaxes straight couples into forming stable family relationships when they have children, which helps society as a whole.

My editing shows what the conservative mantra should be: pro gay marriage to discourage promiscuity.  Assuming you're not letting a 2000 year old book get in your way.

Assuming that you aren't beholden to a 2000-year old book, then the State has NO compelling interest in marriage whatsoever. If you truly want to be a conservative, then the Government has no business deciding what constitutes a marriage.  All committed relationships, gay and straight, should be defined as civil unions under the law.  Marriage is the religious institution that binds the union spiritually.  Go find the church of your choice and let them marry you.  And if the church of your choice doesn't approve, go find one that does.


that would be libertarian, not conservative.
 
2013-03-04 04:15:18 PM  

serial_crusher: Fluorescent Testicle: The great thing about this particular pile of dogshiat is that it's both homophobic and misogynistic ("Women exist only as breeding stock").

huh?
It's also racist ("black people are less intelligent than white people").
Hey, I like how that works.  Just put whatever ridiculous statement you want in parenthesis and quotes, and it's just like TFA actually said it!



If you study it out, you'll grasp the notion that a couple would/should only get married for procreation is what's being argued here.
 
2013-03-04 04:15:39 PM  
So, christians believe you only get married when you knock up your 13 year old cousin?

That explains a lot
 
2013-03-04 04:15:41 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: JusticeandIndependence: HotWingConspiracy: This again?

"So what about straight infertile couples?" is always the next question, to which the fundie will state that that is different, because they aren't gay.

That would be and my wife.  Although we weren't necessarily "infertile", we just lost 2 babies around the 3 month mark. two separate times.   We gave up after that, very hard on the heart and mind.  We are both over 40 now and don't plan on trying again.  Guess we should nullify our marriage then.

Yeah, your love is an affront to god.

/sorry about all that, can't be easy


Thanks.
 
2013-03-04 04:16:11 PM  

Lumpmoose: ThreadSinger: kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

I've known people, up here in Ontario, for whom the answer would be a reluctant yes, weighted by a occasional "well, God might provide a miracle, so I guess it's ok?"

Upon which the proper response is: a miracle could make a man pregnant.  Why put limits on God?


Right. Just need the Miracle Whip.
 
2013-03-04 04:17:09 PM  

unexplained bacon: so people who cannot conceive should not be allowed to marry?

older couples beyond child bearing age should not be allowed to marry?

/I'll wait while the GOP study it out


forced to be divorced and banned from living together ....
LOL
 
2013-03-04 04:17:28 PM  

serial_crusher: Corvus: serial_crusher: Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage,

But amazingly people like you only seem to bring this up when it's about gays marrying. What a surprise.

Well, we don't often have headlines about whether or not straight marriage should be legalized...
If one comes up and I miss it, please by all means EIP me.

/ I guess I could bring it up in the next bike thread or something, if you're just looking for any arbitrary variety....


So then you don't go to friends weddings? You tell them you are against them?

Well it's as arbitrary as this thread because they have NOTHING to do with making marriage illegal for everyone.
 
2013-03-04 04:20:30 PM  

12349876: Close2TheEdge: 12349876: Close2TheEdge: Cordy argued that providing the benefit of legally recognized marriage coaxes straight couples into forming stable family relationships when they have children, which helps society as a whole.

My editing shows what the conservative mantra should be: pro gay marriage to discourage promiscuity.  Assuming you're not letting a 2000 year old book get in your way.

Assuming that you aren't beholden to a 2000-year old book, then the State has NO compelling interest in marriage whatsoever. If you truly want to be a conservative, then the Government has no business deciding what constitutes a marriage.  All committed relationships, gay and straight, should be defined as civil unions under the law.  Marriage is the religious institution that binds the union spiritually.  Go find the church of your choice and let them marry you.  And if the church of your choice doesn't approve, go find one that does.

that would be libertarian, not conservative.


All except the social conservatives give lip service to the idea of limited government interference into people's personal lives.  They are, of course, incredibly hypocritical.  A point that I am trying to make.
 
2013-03-04 04:20:36 PM  

Corvus: serial_crusher: Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage,

But amazingly people like you only seem to bring this up when it's about gays marrying. What a surprise.

Hey I got an idea how about YOU not marry anyone and stop wanting to force everyone else to live by your rules?


Because by not being married, we are still being discriminated against.  Some of us, gay or straight, don't have a state approved sex partner, some have more than one partner, some are trying out different partners trying to find the right one...  And some of us, when we fill out our required government documents, do not want to check single, or married, but "none of your damn business".
 
2013-03-04 04:21:53 PM  

thatboyoverthere: Wyalt Derp: Lesbian couples could become accidentally pregnant. Though it might have to be a pretty bizarre accident.

I could be a couple of bisexual women that decide to being a man into it once in a while..... Sorry what was I saying?


Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
2013-03-04 04:22:01 PM  
That is really stupid, even for today's GOP.
 
2013-03-04 04:22:19 PM  
Been too long, he's been rehabbing hard for this moment

download.gamespotcdn.net
 
2013-03-04 04:22:39 PM  
Where are the GOP defenders? This thread sucks.
 
2013-03-04 04:22:45 PM  

cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?


That's not the point. The point is what marriage means to society: Marriage is the Great Legitimizer. Marriage turns that punk who's slipping it to your precious princess every night into your beloved son-in-law. Marriage is what turns that shameless whore who moved into your son's apartment into your lovely daughter-in-law. Marriage is what keeps your unplanned grandchildren from being bastards. Marriage is society saying that this relationship is valid and a good thing.

That is the point. That is what they are fighting against.
 
2013-03-04 04:22:50 PM  

Lord_Baull: serial_crusher: Fluorescent Testicle: The great thing about this particular pile of dogshiat is that it's both homophobic and misogynistic ("Women exist only as breeding stock").

huh?
It's also racist ("black people are less intelligent than white people").
Hey, I like how that works.  Just put whatever ridiculous statement you want in parenthesis and quotes, and it's just like TFA actually said it!


If you study it out, you'll grasp the notion that a couple would/should only get married for procreation is what's being argued here.


I'll agree to that statement, but you've still got a pretty big inferential leap between that and women as breeding stock.  Unless you're also concluding that men are nothing but sperm donors.

The claim is that there's no reason to get married other than to produce kids.  So, does that infer that being unmarried (and therefore not having children) is a problem?  Even if it does, where does that problem only apply to one gender and not both?
 
2013-03-04 04:23:23 PM  

Lord_Baull: *they're

/shiat


No, it kind of works, it's as if they are in possession of this wrongness, and that makes it 'theirs'

/And they won't give it up, nor admit to having it as to keep others from taking it from them
 
2013-03-04 04:24:35 PM  

Lumpmoose: ThreadSinger: kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

I've known people, up here in Ontario, for whom the answer would be a reluctant yes, weighted by a occasional "well, God might provide a miracle, so I guess it's ok?"

Upon which the proper response is: a miracle could make a man pregnant.  Why put limits on God?


Ha! Brilliant!
 
2013-03-04 04:24:40 PM  
Remember kids, when mommy and daddy yell at each other and break things, including each other or you, they're MUCH more loving and stable than any same-sex family could be!

And let's not forget all those kids who would be adopted by same-sex couples if they were allowed to adopt easily(or at all some places!) who are MUCH better off waiting for an opposite-sex couple to come along and take them in, right?
 
2013-03-04 04:25:53 PM  

serial_crusher: Lord_Baull: serial_crusher: Fluorescent Testicle: The great thing about this particular pile of dogshiat is that it's both homophobic and misogynistic ("Women exist only as breeding stock").

huh?
It's also racist ("black people are less intelligent than white people").
Hey, I like how that works.  Just put whatever ridiculous statement you want in parenthesis and quotes, and it's just like TFA actually said it!


If you study it out, you'll grasp the notion that a couple would/should only get married for procreation is what's being argued here.

I'll agree to that statement, but you've still got a pretty big inferential leap between that and women as breeding stock.  Unless you're also concluding that men are nothing but sperm donors.

The claim is that there's no reason to get married other than to produce kids.  So, does that infer that being unmarried (and therefore not having children) is a problem?  Even if it does, where does that problem only apply to one gender and not both?


Strictly speaking that would be true. But given the context (Republicans) I can see how he got there.
 
2013-03-04 04:26:20 PM  
Give it up, GOP.  History is being made, and you are on the wrong side of it.  You need to realize it before you become a footnote.
 
2013-03-04 04:26:42 PM  

coeyagi: "A people should know when they're conquered." -Quintus

Seriously, you guys need to stop.  I almost feel bad for you.  But that hole you're digging, it cannot possibley get any bigger.


Eh, maybe not.  But it's entertaining as all get-out to watch them try.

Keep digging an don't forget that chicken.
 
2013-03-04 04:29:05 PM  

Corvus: serial_crusher: Corvus: serial_crusher: Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage,

But amazingly people like you only seem to bring this up when it's about gays marrying. What a surprise.

Well, we don't often have headlines about whether or not straight marriage should be legalized...
If one comes up and I miss it, please by all means EIP me.

/ I guess I could bring it up in the next bike thread or something, if you're just looking for any arbitrary variety....

So then you don't go to friends weddings? You tell them you are against them?

Well it's as arbitrary as this thread because they have NOTHING to do with making marriage illegal for everyone.


Usually I just say I'm out of vacation days and/or already have plans that weekend....

But no, there's no reason not to be happy for my friends being in a committed relationship even if it also opens them up to tax and immigration benefits that are denied to me.  I'm not really the jealous type.
Expecting me to boycott weddings over that would be like... well, like expecting gay marriage supporters to boycott weddings in a show of solidarity; which you'd hopefully find ridiculous.
 
2013-03-04 04:31:33 PM  
 FTFA: The opponents to gay marriage also argue it's possible the public perception of marriage would change if gay couples were allowed to wed, discouraging straight people from marrying.

This is the REAL problem. There's no way men are going to marry those annoying women with their gross vaginas and weird boobs if they have the option of marrying another dude and getting the sweet, sweet man-on-man action! I mean, I'm not even a closet homosexual or anything, and it's completely obvious to me!
 
2013-03-04 04:31:35 PM  

Hack Patooey: Give it up, GOP.  History is being made, and you are on the wrong side of it.  You need to realize it before you become a footnote.


On the contrary, I think that this should be the cannon ball that they hold as they sink into the depths.

DO NOT LET GO, CONSERVATIVES. DO NOT LET GO.
 
2013-03-04 04:32:01 PM  

Skarekrough: Keep digging an don't forget that chicken.


i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-04 04:32:18 PM  

serial_crusher: I'm not really the jealous type.


Horseshiat. You bring it up in every one of these threads.
 
2013-03-04 04:35:08 PM  
Gay woman raped and becomes pregnant?  Done, your argument is OVER!  DOMA loses...
I'm not a biologist or theologian, but will it happen that way?  Can lesbians shut that whole thing down?

/Paging Doctor Akin...
 
2013-03-04 04:39:37 PM  

Hack Patooey: Give it up, GOP.  History is being made, and you are on the wrong side of it.   You need to realize it before you become a footnote.


Nonsense.  I say double down.

Common sense is for quitters.
 
2013-03-04 04:41:34 PM  
Reposted for relevance...

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
 
2013-03-04 04:41:55 PM  

cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?


You know that by getting said contract, which they can't in most states, they can get benefits that you can get?  It's almost like you think they're lesser people.

Why do you hate them, bigot?
 
2013-03-04 04:47:21 PM  
andremvale.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-04 04:50:28 PM  
Gays don't need access to marriage because no one needs it. Its a dumb bit of statist bloat lodged into a part of society where it isn't needed.

TheY should have access to it because straights do and everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law and moving the other(correct) direction by yanking the carpet out from under heteros is politically impractical.
 
2013-03-04 04:50:55 PM  
www.asianbite.com
 
2013-03-04 04:51:22 PM  

meat0918: And as an aside, wth is with this being tagged Oregon Ducks Football?

[i457.photobucket.com image 850x132]


Aren't their uniforms kinda gay?
 
2013-03-04 04:52:36 PM  
What quantity of drugs, over what period of time, would a man have to take before any of that makes any kind of sense?
 
2013-03-04 04:52:55 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Endive Wombat: My reaction now almost every time a member of the GOP speaks:
[img.photobucket.com image 220x157]

Seriously.  I'm not sure which is worse -- that there are people that thing up these sorts of things to say or that there are many many more people that will lap it up and vote straight ticket R next time around because they think attitudes like this are normal and should be encouraged.


And this is where I get cornfused, because I was always taught that good Christian Republican women would never have premarital sex and find themselves in the situation all those slutty librul women end up in (and since the good republican men are telling me this, I can only assume that they are also abstaining from nasty dirty sex, or at least hetero sex) .


O_o Where does babby come from?
 
2013-03-04 04:53:13 PM  

mod3072: FTFA: The opponents to gay marriage also argue it's possible the public perception of marriage would change if gay couples were allowed to wed, discouraging straight people from marrying.

This is the REAL problem. There's no way men are going to marry those annoying women with their gross vaginas and weird boobs if they have the option of marrying another dude and getting the sweet, sweet man-on-man action! I mean, I'm not even a closet homosexual or anything, and it's completely obvious to me!



You're probably more on to the reality of it for GOP men than you realize.
 
2013-03-04 04:54:08 PM  

coeyagi: You know that by getting said contract, which they can't in most states, they can get benefits that you can get?  It's almost like you think they're lesser people. Why do you hate them, bigot?


As much as I dislike that guy, he was directing his post to the GOP. The one and only good thing there is to say about him is that he's not a homophobe, even if that's only because it impacts his family.
 
2013-03-04 04:54:52 PM  

robsul82: [www.examiner.com image 300x385]

"No, but God knows we keep trying."


Came here for this.  Leaving satisfied.

/in more ways than one
 
2013-03-04 04:56:41 PM  
Well being gay is a genetic dead end. That said though there isn't any real reason to deny them same status as anyone else as they can still contribute as much or more than anyone else while they're around. The same reason we don't discriminate against cripples or any other birth defective people is that while some never contribute anything positive others can advance us considerably.
 
2013-03-04 04:57:53 PM  

Ilmarinen: Where are the GOP defenders? This thread sucks.


For a minute there I didn't even see any defenders on Yahoo.  Then I switched to "newest" comments instead of "most popular" and wept.
 
2013-03-04 04:58:06 PM  
In other news, SE Cupp has pulled out of cpac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/se-cupp-on-cpac-gay-right_n _2 806373.html  . So, not all of the gop are completely clueless
 
2013-03-04 04:59:53 PM  

xaldin: Well being gay is a genetic dead end. That said though there isn't any real reason to deny them same status as anyone else as they can still contribute as much or more than anyone else while they're around. The same reason we don't discriminate against cripples or any other birth defective people is that while some never contribute anything positive others can advance us considerably.


1.5/10

you have no idea how many gay folks are in straight marriages. with kids. try googling the term beard . No, not Commander Riker .
 
2013-03-04 05:00:53 PM  

coeyagi: cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?

You know that by getting said contract, which they can't in most states, they can get benefits that you can get?  It's almost like you think they're lesser people.

Why do you hate them, bigot?


Actually, I think when he's saying "your" church, he's pointing at the Righties... As in, if they don't want to allow gays to marry in their church, that's fine, let 'em keep their "sanctity of marriage", but when it comes to the part the government is actually involved in, why do the Righties care who enters into that contract?

Of course, I could be readin it wrong.
 
2013-03-04 05:01:34 PM  

alienated: In other news, SE Cupp has pulled out of cpac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/se-cupp-on-cpac-gay-right_n _2 806373.html  . So, not all of the gop are completely clueless


Please be because she's had some sapphic porn leaked, please be because she's had some sapphic porn leaked...
 
2013-03-04 05:01:59 PM  
As to the infertility problem, there are many segments of the Republican party that would be perfectly fine putting people to death if they fail to produce offspring.
 
2013-03-04 05:03:11 PM  

coeyagi: cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?

You know that by getting said contract, which they can't in most states, they can get benefits that you can get?  It's almost like you think they're lesser people.

Why do you hate them, bigot?


See, this is the cognitive dissonance I love in gay marriage threads.
Denying the marriage license based on sexual orientation makes you a bigot because of the perks associated with it, but denying the perks based on lack of a marriage certificate is acceptable.
Equality for me, fark everybody else.
 
2013-03-04 05:04:19 PM  
FTA: "Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring," wrote Paul Clement, a prominent attorney representing congressional Republicans in the DOMA case.

When I read stuff like this, it makes me want to re-listen to the Supreme Court recorded oral arguments of Loving v. Virginia, just to see if I can detect any chuckling from the justices as the attorrney for Virginia is speaking about the necessity of his state's miscegenation laws.
 
2013-03-04 05:06:57 PM  

Mikey1969: coeyagi: cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?

You know that by getting said contract, which they can't in most states, they can get benefits that you can get?  It's almost like you think they're lesser people.

Why do you hate them, bigot?

Actually, I think when he's saying "your" church, he's pointing at the Righties... As in, if they don't want to allow gays to marry in their church, that's fine, let 'em keep their "sanctity of marriage", but when it comes to the part the government is actually involved in, why do the Righties care who enters into that contract?

Of course, I could be readin it wrong.


No I misread it.  Mea culpa.  I guess that's what happens when a Farker supports the party of Rape, Homophobia, and Theofascism, I kinda got assume that it's a package deal since there is so much wrong in the GOP I can only assume that you support all of it because so many planks of their platform by themselves should be enough to drive sane people away.
 
2013-03-04 05:07:08 PM  
Given how strong the polling numbers are on this, especially for young voters -- including young GOP voters -- it's really mind-blowing that they just don't do a 180 on this to get ahead of it. A lot of the senior citizen primary voter's they're worried about are going to be dead in 4 and 6 years.
 
2013-03-04 05:10:33 PM  

coeyagi: No I misread it.  Mea culpa.  I guess that's what happens when a Farker supports the party of Rape, Homophobia, and Theofascism, I kinda got assume that it's a package deal since there is so much wrong in the GOP I can only assume that you support all of it because so many planks of their platform by themselves should be enough to drive sane people away.


He's mentioned before that the only reason why he's no longer a homophobe is because his sister came out. You know, "The only moral abortion is my abortion" syndrome. So, yeah, you're not exactly wrong. :P
 
2013-03-04 05:10:38 PM  
Because the only reason to get married is because you got a gal accidentally pregnant?

That says a damn lot about the folks who put this particular line of thought together...
 
2013-03-04 05:10:59 PM  

xaldin: Well being gay is a genetic dead end. That said though there isn't any real reason to deny them same status as anyone else as they can still contribute as much or more than anyone else while they're around. The same reason we don't discriminate against cripples or any other birth defective people is that while some never contribute anything positive others can advance us considerably.


Having a certain number of nonreproductive individuals in a croup can be an adaptive trait. Just look at bees. A tiny minority of bee species have a set of genetic mutations that, among other things, render almost all individuals sterile. Yet these apparently doomed species account for a huge majority of bee individuals that exist.
 
2013-03-04 05:11:10 PM  

kid_icarus: Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for anyone?


Ever hear of a "shotgun wedding"?

/Not that that makes this any less dumb.
 
2013-03-04 05:14:17 PM  
Keep diggin', guys. You've lost the majority for at least a generation already.
 
2013-03-04 05:15:28 PM  

alienated: In other news, SE Cupp has pulled out of cpac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/se-cupp-on-cpac-gay-right_n _2 806373.html  . So, not all of the gop are completely clueless


I want to pull out of S.E. Cupp.......... but not immediately.
 
2013-03-04 05:18:38 PM  
I would be fine with stripping back marriage privileges to only couples supporting dependent children, actually.

But yeah, so long as shiat like visitation rights, property sharing, tax bracketing, and so on are tied to the institution this argument doesn't really hold up.
 
2013-03-04 05:20:30 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I would be fine with stripping back marriage privileges to only couples supporting dependent children, actually.


Wut?
 
2013-03-04 05:29:37 PM  

netizencain: My dad forward me a note similar to this.... it basically said that gay marriage does not make the country any better or help our society as it doesn't promote anything 'healthy'.


Marriage isn't healthy? How did your mom respond to that?
 
2013-03-04 05:31:33 PM  

alienated: In other news, SE Cupp has pulled out of cpac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/se-cupp-on-cpac-gay-right_n _2 806373.html  . So, not all of the gop are completely clueless


The existence of gay Republicans never ceases to amaze me.

It's not bad enough that you're aligning yourself with a group that's been working for decades to deny you your civil rights, but the reason that most give "I'm a fiscal conservative" is completely removed from anything that even resembles Republican policy since Eisenhower.
 
2013-03-04 05:32:43 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I would be fine with stripping back marriage privileges to only couples supporting dependent children, actually.

But yeah, so long as shiat like visitation rights, property sharing, tax bracketing, and so on are tied to the institution this argument doesn't really hold up.


I understand, you want civil unions for everyone, and marriage can be religious. Said it upthread. As you noted, the real issues here are that evil people want to arbitrarily define family to be more like childhood cartoons, for the lol of it. That's about the level they're thinking at here, i dont think they even consider for a second what love is, if they've ever been in it. I'm straight, but i would damn sure never get in between two people no matter who they are. I was raised to understand you just dont do that. Its purely egomaniacal to think anyone should.
 
2013-03-04 05:42:19 PM  

Mikey1969: kid_icarus: I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

Of course. Also, I hope she isn't having sex now... Marriage is ONLY for procreation, and only married people can have sex.


If only married people can have sex, then there wouldn't be an accidentally pregnant unwed couple, would there?
 
2013-03-04 05:43:24 PM  
i258.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-04 05:46:37 PM  

abreucantina: Mikey1969: kid_icarus: I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

Of course. Also, I hope she isn't having sex now... Marriage is ONLY for procreation, and only married people can have sex.

If only married people can have sex, then there wouldn't be an accidentally pregnant unwed couple, would there?


You'd think, but the GOP is sure that because of the liberals, everyone's farking like bunnies 24/7...
 
2013-03-04 05:48:16 PM  
Haven't seen this weapons-grade stupid in a few days. The GOP seems to be taking longer between 'WTF' press releases on each topic--Rape, Climate Change, Abortion...I guess a few people are threatening to pull funding.
 
2013-03-04 05:50:07 PM  

coeyagi: No I misread it.  Mea culpa.  I guess that's what happens when a Farker supports the party of Rape, Homophobia, and Theofascism, I kinda got assume that it's a package deal since there is so much wrong in the GOP I can only assume that you support all of it because so many planks of their platform by themselves should be enough to drive sane people away.


Yeah, easy mistake to make, he's not exactly known as a rational farker...
 
2013-03-04 05:50:14 PM  

ThreadSinger: Lumpmoose: ThreadSinger: kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?

I've known people, up here in Ontario, for whom the answer would be a reluctant yes, weighted by a occasional "well, God might provide a miracle, so I guess it's ok?"

Upon which the proper response is: a miracle could make a man pregnant.  Why put limits on God?

Ha! Brilliant!


Seriously, they should make a movie with that plot.  For extra funny, maybe use a former action movie actor as the pregnant dude.

Cheers.
 
2013-03-04 05:50:56 PM  
Old story is old.
 
2013-03-04 05:52:35 PM  
Can someone please explain to me why the GOP gives a shiat about this?

The only difference I see between gay and straight marriage are:

1) the adjective describing the marriage
2) 2 penises/vaginas as opposed to 1 of each.

That's it. They work hard, they pay taxes, they are American citizens, they should be given equal protection under the law. Equal EVERYTHING, for that matter.

As far as any societal impact goes, nobody who has intelligence cares what gays do behind closed doors. It is none of your God damned business. Stop being an asshole.
 
2013-03-04 05:53:11 PM  

Rann Xerox: alienated: In other news, SE Cupp has pulled out of cpac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/se-cupp-on-cpac-gay-right_n _2 806373.html  . So, not all of the gop are completely clueless

I want to pull out of S.E. Cupp.......... but not immediately.


A little of the old pull in-out in-out.
 
2013-03-04 05:53:58 PM  
Does that mean that they can or cannot get legitimately raped?  People need answers.

/You need to be this tall to ride on the GOP's Mobius Strip of Brainlessness.
 
2013-03-04 05:56:34 PM  

violetvolume: Old story is old.


Yeah, ancient...

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court last week, the Obama administration slammed the unusual legal argument now key in the movement against gay marriage: that gay couples cannot become accidentally pregnant and thus do not need access to marriage.

Wonder when this piece of epic history was actually written...

By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Ticket - 12 hrs ago

Wow, 12 hours. I can't believe they greened such a bit of old news...
 
2013-03-04 06:02:12 PM  

alienated: In other news, SE Cupp has pulled out of cpac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/se-cupp-on-cpac-gay-right_n _2 806373.html  . So, not all of the gop are completely clueless


With all due respect, she still sounds pretty farking clueless in that interview.
 
2013-03-04 06:02:49 PM  

mainstreet62: Can someone please explain to me why the GOP gives a shiat about this?



For the same reasons they gave a shiat about interracial marriage in the 50's. They haven't matured yet.
 
2013-03-04 06:06:49 PM  

serial_crusher: coeyagi: cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?

You know that by getting said contract, which they can't in most states, they can get benefits that you can get?  It's almost like you think they're lesser people.

Why do you hate them, bigot?

See, this is the cognitive dissonance I love in gay marriage threads.
Denying the marriage license based on sexual orientation makes you a bigot because of the perks associated with it, but denying the perks based on lack of a marriage certificate is acceptable.
Equality for me, fark everybody else.


Let me guess, you're one of those people bitter that married people get perks that you, as a single person, don't get. Sorry, but your argument is fatally flawed for one specific reason - you aren't being legally prevented from entering into marriage. (Assuming you're straight.) It is an option for you, one that you can exercise at any time. If you choose not to exercise it, then that's also your choice. While you may not get the perks you get from marriage, you are also not on the hook for the responsibilities. I fail to see anything wrong with that.

Look at it this way. Right now I'm playing the Bioware Star Wars MMO. It's pretty good, and right now I'm a free-to-play player. There are a lot of perks that I just don't get. Now, I could whine and complain that I don't get the same perks as the players who subscribe and pay the monthly fee, but nothing is stopping me from doing that myself. If I was denied the ability to upgrade, I'd be upset. But if I choose not to pay the premium, I shouldn't expect to get all the cool perks. This isn't an unfair system, it's how it works.

So no, you don't get to feel all oppressed because you don't get married perks as a single person. If you want married perks, get married. They are for married people, and nothing is stopping you from being one of them.
 
2013-03-04 06:06:59 PM  

serial_crusher: Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage, but the accidental pregnancy is the one argument I can't disagree with in favor of marriage.
Science shows us that married couples do a better job of raising kids.  Probably a result of the fact that they don't want to put the kid through a divorce, so wait until he's out of the house.  So, giving people who have kids a financial incentive to get married is a good thing.

That said, there's no reason some dumbass who finds herself pregnant and unmarried couldn't decide to shotgun marry another woman as a means of attaining that stability.  Gets a little more convoluted for gay men, but could still feasibly happen.


Show me the research that says that shotgun marriages do a better job of raising kids (than single parents), because my hypothesis that such marriages are likely breeding grounds for domestic violence.
 
2013-03-04 06:09:15 PM  

Lord_Baull: mainstreet62: Can someone please explain to me why the GOP gives a shiat about this?


For the same reasons they gave a shiat about interracial marriage in the 50's. They haven't matured yet.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-04 06:09:52 PM  

Mikey1969: violetvolume: Old story is old.

Yeah, ancient...

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court last week, the Obama administration slammed the unusual legal argument now key in the movement against gay marriage: that gay couples cannot become accidentally pregnant and thus do not need access to marriage.

Wonder when this piece of epic history was actually written...

By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Ticket - 12 hrs ago

Wow, 12 hours. I can't believe they greened such a bit of old news...


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marry-court -2 0130127,0,6421506.story
 
2013-03-04 06:14:52 PM  

Raharu: cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?

Because if we let gays enter into a social contract, it's like saying they are people.

Also it's a fantastic wedge issue to get the rubes all fired up!


There must always be an underclass for the rubes to look down on.  If not, the rubes will start to realize that they are the underclass.
 
2013-03-04 06:42:08 PM  
"Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring,"

Folks, this is the only, single, semi coherent difference between gay and straight marriage that the GOP could distill their argument down to.
 
2013-03-04 06:45:16 PM  
There is no law preventing homosexuals from getting married. All a gay man has to do is find a woman to marry. Lesbians can do the same. David Crosby is ready and standing by with a 55 gallon drum of jerk sauce to help out any way he can.
 
2013-03-04 06:45:33 PM  
How does one accidentally become pregnant?  I thought that premarital sex was only for the agents of Satan.
 
2013-03-04 07:00:13 PM  

coeyagi: Mikey1969: coeyagi: serial_crusher: coeyagi: cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?

You know that by getting said contract, which they can't in most states, they can get benefits that you can get?  It's almost like you think they're lesser people.

Why do you hate them, bigot?

See, this is the cognitive dissonance I love in gay marriage threads.
Denying the marriage license based on sexual orientation makes you a bigot because of the perks associated with it, but denying the perks based on lack of a marriage certificate is acceptable.
Equality for me, fark everybody else.


You should have known better than that to believe that I am against gay marriage

cman: Its a friggin contract, guys. You dont have to have the wedding in your damn church. Why does it matter to you when two people wish to enter into a contract deal?

You know that by getting said contract, which they can't in most states, they can get benefits that you can get?  It's almost like you think they're lesser people.

Why do you hate them, bigot?

Actually, I think when he's saying "your" church, he's pointing at the Righties... As in, if they don't want to allow gays to marry in their church, that's fine, let 'em keep their "sanctity of marriage", but when it comes to the part the government is actually involved in, why do the Righties care who enters into that contract?

Of course, I could be readin it wrong.

No I misread it.  Mea culpa.  I guess that's what happens when a Farker supports the party of Rape, Homophobia, and Theofascism, I kinda got assume that it's a package deal since there is so much wrong in the GOP I can only assume that you support all of it because so many planks of their platform by themselves should be enough to drive sane people away.

Yes, because one can only be a Democrat or Republican. There is no other choice out there.
 
2013-03-04 07:11:04 PM  

shotglasss: There is no law preventing homosexuals from getting married. All a gay man has to do is find a woman to marry. Lesbians can do the same. David Crosby is ready and standing by with a 55 gallon drum of jerk sauce to help out any way he can.


I know right?  Marriage isn't about love.  It's about covering up an accidental pregnancy.
 
2013-03-04 07:12:08 PM  

shotglasss: 55 gallon drum of jerk sauce


Your wrong-side-of-history posts are all the jerk sauce anyone could ask for.
 
2013-03-04 07:13:31 PM  

kid_icarus: I'm always a little confused on how their arguments against gay marriage invoke the "children" angle so much. Since when has bearing children ever factored into legal marriage for  anyone?I have a female friend who lost her ability to bear children when she was very young. Should she similarly be banned from marrying?


The best derp I've heard in reply to this is that  someday medical technology might catch up to the point where she could bear a child, so this doesn't count!

She didn't seem to have a reply to someone responded by noting that parthenogenesis is theoretically possible, as well, with sufficiently advanced technology.
 
2013-03-04 07:14:48 PM  
I think I can solve this for our Republicans:

You were lied to when you were younger.  Sex is a good, natural, and fun thing to partake in.  It doesn't make you bad, and you don't even have to keep the baby.  In fact, you can have a multitude of partners and do a variety of things.  You won't go to hell for it, and in fact people who chant that nonsense are people who are afraid of themselves and use the lie known as religion to make you feel bad for it because they're jealous of you for being a natural human being.

So, sorry that your parents, your grandparents, and so for were gullible people who didn't challenge the pointlessly puritanical belief system that now complicates human nature for power and profit.  But it's never too late, so go out and have fun, and ignore those sad people who replace their sexual drive with trying to scare people into their sad, immature way of thinking.

There.  Now can we move onto more important things?
 
2013-03-04 07:29:36 PM  

shotglasss: There is no law preventing homosexuals from getting married. All a gay man has to do is find a woman to marry. Lesbians can do the same. David Crosby is ready and standing by with a 55 gallon drum of jerk sauce to help out any way he can.


Oh Man Shots, I don't know where I can squeeze this one into your collage... I may have to start a new one.
 
2013-03-04 07:30:25 PM  

shotglasss: There is no law preventing homosexuals from getting married. All a gay man has to do is find a woman to marry. Lesbians can do the same. David Crosby is ready and standing by with a 55 gallon drum of jerk sauce to help out any way he can.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-04 07:49:05 PM  

LookForTheArrow: I understand, you want civil unions for everyone, and marriage can be religious.


If marriage is religious, shouldn't government get out of it and let each religion decide who they will and won't marry for themselves?

/assuming it doesn't include/assume anything illegal already, like underage spouses or whatever
//true religious equality can only come after some religions are not more equal than others
 
2013-03-04 08:11:36 PM  
Lets kick this up a notch.  Since breeding is mandatory, no more child tax credits(and no more upping of welfare either).  Close that tax loophole and the entitlement.  We have a cut in spending and increase revenue.  Less debt!  Both parties are happy.  Its win/win.
 
2013-03-04 08:28:32 PM  

soporific: Let me guess, you're one of those people bitter that married people get perks that you, as a single person, don't get. Sorry, but your argument is fatally flawed for one specific reason - you aren't being legally prevented from entering into marriage. (Assuming you're straight.)


That's basically the equivalent to the "gay people are free to marry somebody of their opposite gender" argument, which most of us can agree is ridiculous.

soporific: While you may not get the perks you get from marriage, you are also not on the hook for the responsibilities. I fail to see anything wrong with that.


See, there's plenty of situations where you might be.  Maybe not "on the hook" per se, but you might have accepted the responsibility.
Consider the example from this article, about head of household status .  If an unmarried gay couple has a kid, and the biological parent doesn't work, it would be advantageous, er "a right", for the working parent to claim the same tax credits and deductions as a heterosexual stepparent in the same situation.

So, let's look at the same situation without a romantic relationship.  Maybe everybody in Full House loses their jobs except for Joey, so he files as head of household and all those kids are his dependents.  Are you going to look little Michelle in those cute little puppy dog eyes of hers and tell her that since Uncle Joey doesn't count as a qualified parent under section 152(c), that Uncle Joey is going to have to pay $4,543 more in taxes, and as a result they can't afford that pony she wanted?

I submit that our hypothetically financially responsible Uncle Joey is more qualified for the tax credits, as a reward for taking on all that additional responsibility.
 
2013-03-04 08:29:16 PM  

xria: If marriage is religious, shouldn't government get out of it and let each religion decide who they will and won't marry for themselves?


You are conflating the legal institution of marriage with the ceremony of a wedding. Religious groups already get to decide who they hold weddings for.
 
2013-03-04 08:52:45 PM  

LordJiro: shotglasss: There is no law preventing homosexuals from getting married. All a gay man has to do is find a woman to marry. Lesbians can do the same. David Crosby is ready and standing by with a 55 gallon drum of jerk sauce to help out any way he can.

[i.imgur.com image 600x427]


For the "gays and lesbians are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument, simply point out that the ORIGINAL argument to support DOMA is that marriage must be "protected".   Making the argument that gays and lesbians CAN enter into sham weddings completely negates the ideal that marriage must be protected.
 
2013-03-04 09:06:18 PM  
"Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring," wrote Paul Clement, a prominent attorney representing congressional Republicans in the DOMA case.
========================================================

I could understand a crazy far-right republican lunatic saying this.

But an attorney using this as an actual legal argument?!

WTF?
 
2013-03-04 09:13:29 PM  

serial_crusher: soporific: Let me guess, you're one of those people bitter that married people get perks that you, as a single person, don't get. Sorry, but your argument is fatally flawed for one specific reason - you aren't being legally prevented from entering into marriage. (Assuming you're straight.)

That's basically the equivalent to the "gay people are free to marry somebody of their opposite gender" argument, which most of us can agree is ridiculous.


It's absolutely not that and you know it.  Are you saying that you should enjoy the interpersonal benefits of a system while not actually having any interpersonal connections, being a single person?  That makes no sense.
 
2013-03-04 09:18:19 PM  
I suppose next the Republicans will come up with some stupid reason a dude can't marry his pet chinchilla if he so chooses?
 
2013-03-04 09:28:43 PM  

MrHappyRotter: I suppose next the Republicans will come up with some stupid reason a dude can't marry his pet chinchilla if he so chooses?


friend of mine had a pet chinchilla in college. Thing was LOTS of fun to play with when tripping. Trust me, if it were possible for a human to get a chinchilla pregnant, I think that one would've had some people babies.

/not really
//thing was really fluffy and soft though
 
2013-03-04 09:29:03 PM  

jake3988: "Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring," wrote Paul Clement, a prominent attorney representing congressional Republicans in the DOMA case.
========================================================

I could understand a crazy far-right republican lunatic saying this.

But an attorney using this as an actual legal argument?!

WTF?


Well, if he wants to get paid, he has to say something. He cant just file a brief saying "we got nothing" .
 
2013-03-04 10:11:00 PM  

austerity101: serial_crusher: soporific: Let me guess, you're one of those people bitter that married people get perks that you, as a single person, don't get. Sorry, but your argument is fatally flawed for one specific reason - you aren't being legally prevented from entering into marriage. (Assuming you're straight.)

That's basically the equivalent to the "gay people are free to marry somebody of their opposite gender" argument, which most of us can agree is ridiculous.

It's absolutely not that and you know it.  Are you saying that you should enjoy the interpersonal benefits of a system while not actually having any interpersonal connections, being a single person?  That makes no sense.


The interpersonal connections shouldn't need to be there.
Reference my earlier example about child tax credits. Those are about the relationship between the adult and child. Relationship with a 3rd person shouldn't factor into it.
Or inheritance taxes. Take these three scenarios.
1) straight couple is married, husband dies. Wife inherits everything tax free.
2) gay couple is "married" but not legally. Working spouse dies and the other gets screwed by having to pay inheritance tax.
3) man has two wives. Dies and wants to leave his estate to both wives to split evenly. One of them (to whom he's legally married) gets her half tax free. The other one has to pay taxes.
4) old man is unmarried, wants to leave his money to the nice young nurse who cared for him and is struggling to make her way through college while supporting 2 kids. She pays inheritance taxes.

How many of those inequities does legally endorsed gay marriage fix? Just one.
Repealing estate tax altogether would solve all of them.

I just don't get how you can argue that all these benefits need to be tied to something as esoteric and irrelevant as a sexual relationship, but at the same time act like its unjust to make an irrelevant distinction between certain types of sexual relationships.
 
2013-03-04 10:37:01 PM  

xaldin: Well being gay is a genetic dead end.


So are many runts in a litter.  So are the vast majority of the hundreds of sea turtles that don't make it to the ocean.  So are the males that get shut out by dominant males who reproduce with several females, like lions.  Evolution doesn't give a shiat about individuals.  A large group of non-reproducers assisting and protecting the few doing the reproducing works just fine, like honeybees.
 
2013-03-04 10:38:24 PM  
OK Great Protectors of All That is Holy:

Why aren't you doing MOAR of this?

lh5.googleusercontent.com

Shellfish. Pork. Mixing meat and dairy. Poly-blend fibers. You'd think that Red Lobster would be the target of Fred Phelps and the rest of great Moral Majority, but why haven't you joined this courageous young woman?
 
2013-03-04 10:56:45 PM  

serial_crusher: 3) man has two wives. Dies and wants to leave his estate to both wives to split evenly. One of them (to whom he's legally married) gets her half tax free. The other one has to pay taxes.


Ah yes, I was wondering when the "But what about polygamy!" red herring would show up.
 
2013-03-04 11:03:10 PM  
The funny thing is that this actually is the only reason why Republicans ever get married.
 
2013-03-05 12:11:47 AM  

serial_crusher: How many of those inequities does legally endorsed gay marriage fix? Just one.
Repealing estate tax altogether would solve all of them.


While creating the problem of lost revenue from estate taxes.
 
2013-03-05 12:13:42 AM  

serial_crusher: I just don't get how you can argue that all these benefits need to be tied to something as esoteric and irrelevant as a sexual relationship, but at the same time act like its unjust to make an irrelevant distinction between certain types of sexual relationships.


Sex is not necessary for marriage--you can get married and never have sex, ever.  It is a relationship, but the sexual side of it is incidental, not required.
 
2013-03-05 12:15:46 AM  
Well, this frames their argument.  Marriage is for making babies.
 
2013-03-05 12:25:15 AM  

theknuckler_33: Clement added in his brief to the Supreme Court arguing to uphold that law that the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing marriages between men and women because it encourages them to form stable family units.

Perhaps he should explain why recognizing marriages between same sex couples would DIScourge men and women from forming stable family units?


Because they know that most people are secretly gay, just like them.
 
2013-03-05 12:25:31 AM  

Biological Ali: serial_crusher: 3) man has two wives. Dies and wants to leave his estate to both wives to split evenly. One of them (to whom he's legally married) gets her half tax free. The other one has to pay taxes.

Ah yes, I was wondering when the "But what about polygamy!" red herring would show up.


What's the magic number where a minority stops being a red herring and starts having rights?
I'm having trouble finding an exact estimate of how many Americans are in polyamorous relationships.  But you seem to think that the 3.4% of Americans who identify as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender* are a large enough minority to be afforded special privileges, but the 44% of Americans who identify as single don't qualify.  So I'm having a hard time deciphering how many polygamists you think there should be before they'd qualify for the same equal rights you want homosexuals to have.
 
2013-03-05 12:25:54 AM  

serial_crusher: Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage, but the accidental pregnancy is the one argument I can't disagree with in favor of marriage.
Science shows us that married couples do a better job of raising kids.  Probably a result of the fact that they don't want to put the kid through a divorce, so wait until he's out of the house.  So, giving people who have kids a financial incentive to get married is a good thing.

That said, there's no reason some dumbass who finds herself pregnant and unmarried couldn't decide to shotgun marry another woman as a means of attaining that stability.  Gets a little more convoluted for gay men, but could still feasibly happen.


Right. Nothing creates a stable and happy home for a child than his parents being forced to get married for "the good of the baby" and staying together in a loveless and bitter union for appearance's sake while he's living in the household. Yep, that does wonders for his self-esteem and ability to form healthy relationships with others based on trust and emotional stability.

I assume you're trolling, but I've heard that excuse so many times I know there are fools who believe it. The idea that two people who hate being together is somehow better for a child than one parent because "two parents are better able to provide for him" seems to assume that the ONLY thing a kid needs is a male and female in the house + money. And if that were the case, inner-city households consisting of mom, current babydaddy and six kids by four other fathers should be the most stable homes in America.
 
2013-03-05 12:48:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: serial_crusher: Y'all know my position on this is that the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage, but the accidental pregnancy is the one argument I can't disagree with in favor of marriage.
Science shows us that married couples do a better job of raising kids.  Probably a result of the fact that they don't want to put the kid through a divorce, so wait until he's out of the house.  So, giving people who have kids a financial incentive to get married is a good thing.

That said, there's no reason some dumbass who finds herself pregnant and unmarried couldn't decide to shotgun marry another woman as a means of attaining that stability.  Gets a little more convoluted for gay men, but could still feasibly happen.

Right. Nothing creates a stable and happy home for a child than his parents being forced to get married for "the good of the baby" and staying together in a loveless and bitter union for appearance's sake while he's living in the household. Yep, that does wonders for his self-esteem and ability to form healthy relationships with others based on trust and emotional stability.

I assume you're trolling, but I've heard that excuse so many times I know there are fools who believe it. The idea that two people who hate being together is somehow better for a child than one parent because "two parents are better able to provide for him" seems to assume that the ONLY thing a kid needs is a male and female in the house + money. And if that were the case, inner-city households consisting of mom, current babydaddy and six kids by four other fathers should be the most stable homes in America.


Well, I never said having two parents who hate each other is an ideal situation.  But once you're in that situation,  the only options are to stay together for the kids' sake or split up immediately.  Sure, it would be great if we were all raised by Ward & June Cleaver, but that ain't gonna happen.  So would you rather live with two married parents who hate each other or two divorced parents who hate each other?  From my own personal experiences growing up, the ones whose parents stayed together worked out a lot better,
 
2013-03-05 12:56:45 AM  
So, the same party that harps on abstinence only is now trying to use some skank getting Bristol'd as the only reason to get married?

It's amazing how quickly the party of family values sells itself out.
 
2013-03-05 01:12:14 AM  
I sometimes wonder what people did with socially-sanctioned pair bonding in the times before we figured out that f*cking makes babies and its not some magic that comes exclusively out of your mom.

Would it have mattered as much to people if *nobody* knows who their daddy is? Would Ogg pass down his favorite pointy stick to his nephew?
 
2013-03-05 01:27:27 AM  

serial_crusher: Well, I never said having two parents who hate each other is an ideal situation. But once you're in that situation, the only options are to stay together for the kids' sake or split up immediately. Sure, it would be great if we were all raised by Ward & June Cleaver, but that ain't gonna happen. So would you rather live with two married parents who hate each other or two divorced parents who hate each other? From my own personal experiences growing up, the ones whose parents stayed together worked out a lot better,


Having had a set, I'd say two divorced parents who didn't hate each other was way a lot better than two married parents who did.
 
2013-03-05 01:35:55 AM  
At this point, I can only assume the Paul Clement is doing his level best to lose the case.
 
2013-03-05 01:59:18 AM  

serial_crusher: So I'm having a hard time deciphering how many polygamists you think there should be before they'd qualify for the same equal rights you want homosexuals to have.


I have not favorited!ed you, but really. Dark blue tag- dont bother reading because cannot think outside talking points tag in effect
 
2013-03-05 02:04:37 AM  

serial_crusher: What's the magic number where a minority stops being a red herring and starts having rights?


Look, I can understand if you're not the marrying type. There's absolutely nothing wrong it. I'm not married married, and I'm in no rush to get married either.

If you're going to make an argument about marriage, though - and in particular, something like "the government shouldn't recognize anybody's marriage" - it behooves you to at least understand what marriage is first. The tax breaks you seem so bothered about, for instance, are a trivial part of the rights and privileges that marriage represents.

You would also do well to follow your own logic a bit more closely, since the argument you've chosen to go with - that is, that marriage is bad because of superficial "inequities", completely ignoring things like the history and motivation of the law - applies to a lot more than just marriage.
 
2013-03-05 02:15:52 AM  

serial_crusher: Lord_Baull: serial_crusher: Fluorescent Testicle: The great thing about this particular pile of dogshiat is that it's both homophobic and misogynistic ("Women exist only as breeding stock").

huh?
It's also racist ("black people are less intelligent than white people").
Hey, I like how that works.  Just put whatever ridiculous statement you want in parenthesis and quotes, and it's just like TFA actually said it!


If you study it out, you'll grasp the notion that a couple would/should only get married for procreation is what's being argued here.

I'll agree to that statement, but you've still got a pretty big inferential leap between that and women as breeding stock.  Unless you're also concluding that men are nothing but sperm donors.

The claim is that there's no reason to get married other than to produce kids.  So, does that infer that being unmarried (and therefore not having children) is a problem?  Even if it does, where does that problem only apply to one gender and not both?


If that's what you were trying to say, you didn't choose a very good analogy to illustrate it.
 
2013-03-05 02:28:29 AM  
jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-05 02:33:26 AM  

sometalker: Gay woman raped and becomes pregnant?  Done, your argument is OVER!  DOMA loses...


Why? Just let the availability of marriage coax them into a stable family relationship for the child's sake.
 
2013-03-05 02:38:09 AM  

mod3072: FTFA: The opponents to gay marriage also argue it's possible the public perception of marriage would change if gay couples were allowed to wed, discouraging straight people from marrying.

This is the REAL problem. There's no way men are going to marry those annoying women with their gross vaginas and weird boobs if they have the option of marrying another dude and getting the sweet, sweet man-on-man action! I mean, I'm not even a closet homosexual or anything, and it's completely obvious to me!


I love gay marriage threads. It's hilarious to watch Farkers take idiocy and spin it into lunacy.
 
2013-03-05 02:41:21 AM  

Ned Stark: xaldin: Well being gay is a genetic dead end. That said though there isn't any real reason to deny them same status as anyone else as they can still contribute as much or more than anyone else while they're around. The same reason we don't discriminate against cripples or any other birth defective people is that while some never contribute anything positive others can advance us considerably.

Having a certain number of nonreproductive individuals in a croup can be an adaptive trait. Just look at bees. A tiny minority of bee species have a set of genetic mutations that, among other things, render almost all individuals sterile. Yet these apparently doomed species account for a huge majority of bee individuals that exist.


Hey, as long as gay couples want to work themselves to death to support the rest of us, I'm cool with them getting married.

/why did you pick bees?
 
2013-03-05 02:43:47 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: alienated: In other news, SE Cupp has pulled out of cpac

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/se-cupp-on-cpac-gay-right_n _2 806373.html  . So, not all of the gop are completely clueless

The existence of gay Republicans never ceases to amaze me.

It's not bad enough that you're aligning yourself with a group that's been working for decades to deny you your civil rights, but the reason that most give "I'm a fiscal conservative" is completely removed from anything that even resembles Republican policy since Eisenhower.


It's the same phenomenon that explains the girl you went home with at closing time:  nothing else left.
 
2013-03-05 02:46:31 AM  

Gyrfalcon: serial_crusher: Well, I never said having two parents who hate each other is an ideal situation. But once you're in that situation, the only options are to stay together for the kids' sake or split up immediately. Sure, it would be great if we were all raised by Ward & June Cleaver, but that ain't gonna happen. So would you rather live with two married parents who hate each other or two divorced parents who hate each other? From my own personal experiences growing up, the ones whose parents stayed together worked out a lot better,

Having had a set, I'd say two divorced parents who didn't hate each other was way a lot better than two married parents who did.


Yeah, if they stay together two people will find more  reasons to hate each other more.
 
2013-03-05 03:04:51 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Gyrfalcon: serial_crusher: Well, I never said having two parents who hate each other is an ideal situation. But once you're in that situation, the only options are to stay together for the kids' sake or split up immediately. Sure, it would be great if we were all raised by Ward & June Cleaver, but that ain't gonna happen. So would you rather live with two married parents who hate each other or two divorced parents who hate each other? From my own personal experiences growing up, the ones whose parents stayed together worked out a lot better,

Having had a set, I'd say two divorced parents who didn't hate each other was way a lot better than two married parents who did.

Yeah, if they stay together two people will find more  reasons to hate each other more.


reading fail, but you knew that.    two divorced parents who didn't hate each other was way a lot better than two married parents who did.
 
2013-03-05 04:50:46 AM  

Biological Ali: The tax breaks you seem so bothered about, for instance, are a trivial part of the rights and privileges that marriage represents.


If tax incentives are trivial when I want them, why are they one of the first things brought up by gay marriage supporters?  Which marriage perks would you consider nontrivial?
 
2013-03-05 06:14:20 AM  
My 13 year daughter goes to a Christian private school here in Wisconsin.  She wrote a letter to Tammy Baldwin because her class was assigned to write letters to local politicians.  She wrote to Tammy about gay marriage.  Before I read the letter, I was upset because the way she explained it to me sounded like the school was actively trying to change her mind about gay marriage.  In our household, we have made it clear that gay marriage is as acceptable as heterosexual marriage.  She gave me the letter that she wrote to Sen. Baldwin.  In the letter she discussed how she was the only Democrat in her class and that her friends were all Republicans. My daughter also expressed to Sen. Baldwin that it wasn't easy being the lone voice in the room in favor of gay marriage, but that she was proud to do it because she believes that it is the right thing to do.  I was so proud of my daughter.
 
2013-03-05 06:18:49 AM  
Like the Special Olympics kid of internet memehood, I was recently arguing in another forum--one populated with professional people who tend to be at least marginally competent, if not intelligent, but almost uniformly right-wing--about gay marriage. I pleaded with the folks there to give me one good reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, and specified that "good reason" does not include "but it's always been that way" (since concepts change over time--see slavery and interracial marriage, for example), "gays can't have kids" (many heterosexual marriages don't produce offspring), or "Jesus said not to" (First Amendment, y'all). The answers I got were:

- But it's always been that way
- Gays can't have kids
- Jesus said not to
- Because I (PCoC) am a retard
- The government has no interest involving itself in unions which can't produce offspring
- Why should taxpayers have to shoulder this burden?
- Same-sex marriage laws force others to tolerate behavior they find objectionable
- Same-sex marriage tramples the First Amendment
- The homosexual lobby wants to equate gay marriage with selfish childfree marriages and somehow encourage more abortion because of this
- Next up, polygamy!
- Next up, pedophilia. Seriously. Because "NAMBLA always marches in gay pride events," part of the agenda is legitimizing pedophilia.
- Drawing comparisons to racial bigotry isn't legitimate, because being black isn't a behavior but being gay is
- "The equipment doesn't fit that way."
- Because I (PCoC) am an elitist troll.
- Because Soddom and Gommorah
- Because I (PCoC) want everyone to bow down to the god of liberalism, and create hatred where there was none. It's the liberals creating the hate by forcing tolerance. If only gays would quit parading around asking for rights nobody would hate them.
- Because all the stuff in the Bible about unconventional marriage is Old Testament and can therefore be ignored. The New Testament is where all the man+woman=good, man+man=bad horse shiat is.
- Because I (PCoC) don't like facts.

From this, I think we can conclude that all objections against gay marriage boil down to:

"I don't like it because I think it's gross."

Also, I think we can conclude that Republicans are retards. But we knew that already.
 
2013-03-05 06:41:27 AM  

meat0918: GAT_00: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Sounds to me like he's arguing that straight couples need access to safe and affordable abortions.

It sounds like he's saying divorce should be illegal for couples with children.

Pretty sure some in the GOP have taken the "Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman" to its (il)logical extreme and want to ban divorce. Oh look here is the article... http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-bill-would-restrict-divorces/art i cle/3754596


Between this divorce law and banning birth control because its poison, I am glad the wife and I left that state.

/We moved to FL and now I think its a wash.
 
2013-03-05 06:52:33 AM  
Once upon a time, opponents of gay marriage argued that if we allow gays to marry, what's next? Bigamy, beastiality?

Now, the argument is that marriage is to provide contractual obligations for "accidental" pregnancies does this mean that this notion of "traditional" marriage suggests that a married man who knocks up somebody other than their current spouse should be able to marry that person too?

Mobius strip moral rationalization. Catch it on the flip side.
 
2013-03-05 08:21:21 AM  
my god, they're so out of touch. I mean, this is beyond words. they don't understand society outside of what they think is proper.
 
2013-03-05 08:54:44 AM  
Here's the thing, I kind of get it.  I am a single straight female, and over the course of my life I have had three proposals and rejected every single one.  Marriage is a tax penalty.  The only reason to get married to someone these days is for these two reasons:

1.  You are old, or have enough health concerns that you want someone to be able to make decisions for you in the event of you being unable to make them yourself.
2.  You have kids together.

Like, I'm all gays and lesbians getting married.  If they want to add to the divorce rate, great, let them.  But there is NO reason to get married in today's day and age unless one of the two above applies.  Otherwise you're just wastin money.
 
2013-03-05 08:55:40 AM  

skilbride: Like, I'm all gays and lesbians getting married.


That is supposed to say "all for" lol
 
2013-03-05 09:13:10 AM  
My mother can't become accidentally (or intentionally) pregnant.  So she must break up with my dad?
 
2013-03-05 10:24:22 AM  

theknuckler_33: thatboyoverthere: Wyalt Derp: Lesbian couples could become accidentally pregnant. Though it might have to be a pretty bizarre accident.

I could be a couple of bisexual women that decide to being a man into it once in a while..... Sorry what was I saying?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


See, the problem with that one is that I've seen it enough times that it makes sense now.  The answer to that question is:

At not that time but since when they haven't decided to use but have been able to want or don't look more like anyway.
 
2013-03-05 10:35:33 AM  

Jackpot777: [andremvale.files.wordpress.com image 459x344]


Aaaaand I'll be using that in every same-sex marriage thread from now on.
 
2013-03-05 03:17:40 PM  

meat0918: And as an aside, wth is with this being tagged Oregon Ducks Football?

[i457.photobucket.com image 850x132]


Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is an abomination unto God and cannot be gay married.
 
2013-03-05 03:28:07 PM  

serial_crusher: Biological Ali: The tax breaks you seem so bothered about, for instance, are a trivial part of the rights and privileges that marriage represents.

If tax incentives are trivial when I want them, why are they one of the first things brought up by gay marriage supporters?


Proponents of marriage equality have been arguing for all of the rights associated with marriage. If the tax aspect seems disproportionately prominent to you, it probably has more to do with the fact that you're going out of your way to look for it.

Which marriage perks would you consider nontrivial?

Immigration, hospital visitation and testifying in court, just to name a few.

But like I said, try to follow your own logic a little more closely. Are you also against tax breaks for homeowners because they discriminate against people who don't have their own homes? Are you against the Earned Income Tax Credit because it discriminates against people who aren't very poor? Are you against Medicare because it discriminates against people who aren't old? I should hope not, because that would be very silly indeed. But all of that would be the inevitable conclusion if your logic was applied consistently to everything the government does.
 
2013-03-05 03:44:26 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Ned Stark: xaldin: Well being gay is a genetic dead end. That said though there isn't any real reason to deny them same status as anyone else as they can still contribute as much or more than anyone else while they're around. The same reason we don't discriminate against cripples or any other birth defective people is that while some never contribute anything positive others can advance us considerably.

Having a certain number of nonreproductive individuals in a croup can be an adaptive trait. Just look at bees. A tiny minority of bee species have a set of genetic mutations that, among other things, render almost all individuals sterile. Yet these apparently doomed species account for a huge majority of bee individuals that exist.

Hey, as long as gay couples want to work themselves to death to support the rest of us, I'm cool with them getting married.

/why did you pick bees?


I like bees.
 
2013-03-05 04:56:02 PM  

Biological Ali: Immigration, hospital visitation and testifying in court

 

Immigrants should go through the same process regardless of their marital status.  Not fair to unmarried potential immigrants that they need to wait in line behind all the sham marriages.
I kind of support it from the standpoint that it keeps our citizens happy (by bringing in the people they want to bring in), but from that standpoint the logical conclusion would be to let any citizen "vouch" for an immigrant based on their own reasons, not just marital status.
Hospital visitation is already something you can do without a marriage certificate.  Yeah I know, you have anecdotal evidence of that one lesbian couple who had a valid medical power of attorney and some asshat still didn't let one of them in.  Think he would have if they had a valid gay marriage certificate?
Testifying in court, I don't think spouses should get immunity for that one.  It makes sense for your lawyer, but not your spouse.  If you don't want to testify against your spouse, don't marry a criminal.

Biological Ali: But like I said, try to follow your own logic a little more closely. Are you also against tax breaks for homeowners because they discriminate against people who don't have their own homes?


well, actually yeah.  General rule of thumb is that government shouldn't care what I'm spending my money on.  Buying a house, supporting a wife, twofer night at the strip club... none of their business.
*disclaimer: I take advantage of homeowner tax breaks despite opposing them.  Ain't looking a gift horse in the mouth.  If I was in a committed relationship that made marriage financially beneficial, I'd get married too.

Biological Ali: Are you against Medicare because it discriminates against people who aren't old?


In that case there's a relevance factor involved.  Old people legitimately have more medical expenses and need a way to offset them.  Being old isn't exactly a situation you choose to put yourself into either.
Ideally we'd get that single payer universal health care thing working right and we could abolish medicare and and insurance companies though.  That would be nice.
 
2013-03-05 05:28:40 PM  

serial_crusher: Testifying in court, I don't think spouses should get immunity for that one. It makes sense for your lawyer, but not your spouse. If you don't want to testify against your spouse, don't marry a criminal.


serial_crusher: Biological Ali: Immigration, hospital visitation and testifying in court

Immigrants should go through the same process regardless of their marital status. Not fair to unmarried potential immigrants that they need to wait in line behind all the sham marriages.
I kind of support it from the standpoint that it keeps our citizens happy (by bringing in the people they want to bring in), but from that standpoint the logical conclusion would be to let any citizen "vouch" for an immigrant based on their own reasons, not just marital status.


I think in many ways these two comments undermine your argument, and everyone else's, that it's just a contract.  People are not required to testify against their spouse because rational people understand that love is a powerful motivator.  Forcing a man or woman to testify against their spouse is very, very likely to result in perjury, something that benefits noone. So an exception to the normal criminal prosecution standards is made for this - in recognition that the bond of love, made public and visible through marriage, is enough to override our other principles like honesty.  Same thing for immigration - the bond of love is recognized to be so so strong that this exception is made.

These two arguments alone undercut and effectively neuter the arguments referencing child rearin, "t's just a contract", "gay men can marry any willing woman" and pretty much every other facile argument.  Marriage is the state's recognition of an extremely powerful force, and the accomodations the state makes to that force in pursuit of good order and discipline.

So, what is the state's prevailing interest in recognizing this force's effects on the behavior of heterosexuals but refusing to recognize  the effects on homosexuals?
 
2013-03-05 05:36:29 PM  

rwhamann: Marriage is the state's recognition of an extremely powerful force, and the accomodations the state makes to that force in pursuit of good order and discipline.


That's a reasonable argument.  I'm really only butthurt about the tax breaks.  Married couples can keep their legal immunity and immigration preferences for all I care.  I'd advocate gay marriage and polygamy if that was all they got out of it.
 
2013-03-05 06:15:54 PM  

serial_crusher: Testifying in court, I don't think spouses should get immunity for that one. It makes sense for your lawyer, but not your spouse. If you don't want to testify against your spouse, don't marry a criminal.


You had me going up until here. Well played; I actually thought you were serious for a while.

I give it 7/10.
 
2013-03-07 12:36:03 PM  

hubiestubert: Reposted for relevance...

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


I've seen this meme a few times and think it's great but...it just occurred to me that (10) is pretty ironic: We actually haven't adapted well to cars (sedentary lifestyle = chronic health problems, smog = massive increase in asthma), the service-sector economy (degradation of unions, lower real wages for the middle class, increase in wealth gap and middle class bankrupcy - see work by Elizabeth Warren et al.), or longer life spans (ballooning health costs, uncertain future of Medicare, etc.)

In comparison, adapting to gay marriage is a piece of cake! Us Canadians have been doing it for 10-ish years.
 
Displayed 235 of 235 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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