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  
•       •       •

2976 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
 
2013-03-05 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 plonked 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 35 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 »






Report