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
    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 (3 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

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

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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