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  
•       •       •

2971 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2013 at 3:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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".
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report