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.

(Washington Post)   Opposition to gay marriage so successful that now only 58% of Americans support equal rights for gay people   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 148
    More: Cool, Americans, same-sex marriages, loyal opposition  
•       •       •

1298 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Mar 2013 at 6:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-18 03:35:32 PM
Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.
 
2013-03-18 03:39:41 PM

maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.


I agree. My best friend is gay, and he faces ridicule and teasing all the time. He worries about his future, and whether he will ever be able to get married without having to move to specific states and places.
 
2013-03-18 03:41:47 PM

maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.


Exactly.  The only question the government should ask is "Is everyone above the age of consent?"  If yes then marry.
 
2013-03-18 04:14:40 PM
And the numbers increase every year.

And the same people opposing it hate Mexicans, blacks, women, and any religion that isn't Christian.
 
2013-03-18 04:17:30 PM
But gay marriage is going to ruin the sanctity of traditional marriage! Newt Gingrich told me so.
 
2013-03-18 04:21:44 PM
So we're about 3 years away from the right wing claiming they were the pioneers all along and blaming liberals for waiting so long to make it the law of the land.
 
2013-03-18 04:27:07 PM
Net favoring legal over illegal now +22; support disproportionate among Democrats, Liberals, Women, the young, the more heavily educated, the rich, the Northeast, and the religiously unaffiliated,

A more surprising finding is (technical) majority support in the South.
 
2013-03-18 04:43:44 PM
I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.
 
2013-03-18 04:45:18 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.


Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.
 
2013-03-18 04:50:09 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.


Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times
 
2013-03-18 04:59:41 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times


I wonder how many people who use that argument would approve of a gay man marrying their daughter.
 
2013-03-18 05:42:59 PM

BunkoSquad: So we're about 3 years away from the right wing claiming they were the pioneers all along and blaming liberals for waiting so long to make it the law of the land.


Basically.
 
2013-03-18 05:43:51 PM
Yeah, but it's still only just a bit over half the population, so let's not go start sucking each other's dicks just yet.
 
2013-03-18 05:46:46 PM

DamnYankees: BunkoSquad: So we're about 3 years away from the right wing claiming they were the pioneers all along and blaming liberals for waiting so long to make it the law of the land.

Basically.


And about 300 from the Catholics saying they never taught against it and it was only mistaken priests and misinterpretation of what the Church really taught that caused the trouble.

/came out during the Reagan years - never thought I'd see the day.
//gay-bashing was expected, at least I wasn't raped or killed
///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off
 
2013-03-18 05:51:31 PM
"We must destroy the myths, once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out. And, most importantly, most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends, if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all."
 
2013-03-18 06:09:21 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I wonder how many people who use that argument would approve of a gay man marrying their daughter.


I won't have my daughter bring a gay man into my house until after I've straightened up a bit! And color coordinated my living room...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-wont-have-my-daughter-bringing-a -bl ack-man-into,17246/
 
2013-03-18 06:09:57 PM
fark prejudice against gays.  That issue is so over with.

What makes me madder than hell is the unrelenting hatred and ignorance these liberal media outlets have for color blind people.

Why in 2013 would any major news publication release graphs that are impossible to distinguish due to using red/green hues?

Simple.  Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.

IT HAS TO STOP.  IT HAS TO STOP NOW.
 
2013-03-18 06:10:52 PM

maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.


Why do you hate marriages performed by justices of the peace?
 
2013-03-18 06:12:24 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times


The first time I heard the special rights argument, I assumed that I was being trolled. Now I realize that it's just that the people making the argument are, themselves, somewhat "special".
 
2013-03-18 06:12:38 PM
30% will never support it simply because Democrats do. Sadly they also control the House.
 
2013-03-18 06:12:43 PM

MrHappyRotter: Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.


Color blindness is a choice!

Pray the gray away!

Heathen
 
2013-03-18 06:13:21 PM

maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.


As long as you are legally capable of consenting to a contract (so no ducks or whatever that stupid argument is), yup.
 
2013-03-18 06:13:31 PM
"Marriage shall be defined as a civil contract between two consenting, human adults. Any state wishing to write something different shall be bombed." ~28th Amendment to the US Constitution
 
2013-03-18 06:13:41 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times

I wonder how many people who use that argument would approve of a gay man marrying their daughter.


I know who we can ask . . .

http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Bachmann/Parents-Grandparent s. php
 
2013-03-18 06:13:47 PM
Americans, or Real Americanstm?
 
2013-03-18 06:17:53 PM
64% now also believe that gay marriage should be a national, not a state-by-state issue. Interesting.

/Fark DOMA
 
2013-03-18 06:17:55 PM

MrHappyRotter: fark prejudice against gays.  That issue is so over with.

What makes me madder than hell is the unrelenting hatred and ignorance these liberal media outlets have for color blind people.

Why in 2013 would any major news publication release graphs that are impossible to distinguish due to using red/green hues?

Simple.  Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.

IT HAS TO STOP.  IT HAS TO STOP NOW.


dl.dropbox.com
 
2013-03-18 06:18:20 PM

abb3w: A more surprising finding is (technical) majority support in the South.


You know in the south we have in our cities (where a LOT of us live) young people, rich people, Democrats, liberals, the religiously unaffiliated, and well educated people (about half of which are also women).

Give us some time to outlive the previous generation and we can turn this place around.  Just stop pointing it out so they don't notice!
 
2013-03-18 06:18:52 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: DamnYankees: BunkoSquad: So we're about 3 years away from the right wing claiming they were the pioneers all along and blaming liberals for waiting so long to make it the law of the land.

Basically.

And about 300 from the Catholics saying they never taught against it and it was only mistaken priests and misinterpretation of what the Church really taught that caused the trouble.

/came out during the Reagan years - never thought I'd see the day.
//gay-bashing was expected, at least I wasn't raped or killed
///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off


What if we think you're  supernatural?
 
2013-03-18 06:19:41 PM
Why should heterosexuals be the only miserable people?
 
2013-03-18 06:19:43 PM
That's great, but so what? Only a truly sick society would let the majority decide what's right and wrong.
 
2013-03-18 06:21:58 PM

MrEricSir: That's great, but so what? Only a truly sick society would let the majority decide what's right and wrong.


Yes, everyone should have equal rights regardless. Unfortunately, things never work out that way.
 
2013-03-18 06:25:53 PM

MrHappyRotter: fark prejudice against gays.  That issue is so over with.

What makes me madder than hell is the unrelenting hatred and ignorance these liberal media outlets have for color blind people.

Why in 2013 would any major news publication release graphs that are impossible to distinguish due to using red/green hues?

Simple.  Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.

IT HAS TO STOP.  IT HAS TO STOP NOW.



You'll get over it.
 
2013-03-18 06:29:25 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.


Boils down to it: marriage equality is about freedom of religion and equal access under the law. Two principles that the Republican Party should be standing up for. This should be a Republican issue. It should have been a while ago. Save for the Religious Right getting their cash into greedy paws, and turning the party into a sham party of "values" that ignores to corruption, and the hypocrisy of their own members, but screams like 1st Graders going "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!" when someone else gets caught doing the SAME damn things that their own have been caught for. Stunningly silent on the sham marriages that some are in, stunningly silent about their own children, their own affairs, and pretending to care that someone that they know is gay, when it comes down to it, they don't. They don't care, because it's only an issue to the same folks who fret that Catholics and Jews might have better sex lives as well. Or pagans. Or Buddhists. Or atheists. Because all they care about is what OTHER people are doing. Rather than focusing on their own damn families.

My Grandma had a term for such folks, and a lot of scathing remarks as a good KC lady, "Nosey Nellies." She had little stomach for folks who decried what they saw from a keyhole. None of you gottverdammt business, unless folks are not consenting, or are getting hurt. You want to limit marriage within YOUR OWN church? Go ahead. Go to town with that. I support that 100%. Please, take care of your own flock. Don't like it? Don't eat it. Worked when you were five, it still works today. Of course the correlary is to never mind what other folks have on their own damn plates. Take care of your own family, and let other folks mind their own. Let Methodists deal with their own issues. Let Catholics do their thing. Let Muslims do their thing. Let Unitarians and Buddhists take care of their own damn business, and stop poking your nose where it isn't needed or wanted.

It's rude. And that is the one sin that Grandma could not abide. You can disagree, you can not recognize such marriages within your own church, but you let other churches and atheists and other faiths decide on their own as well. You don't know how to tell your kids that someone got married at a church you don't attend? That is none of my damn business. It's not really my concern.

Folks need to get over this desire to inject themselves in other folks' lives--especially if you want to cry "FREEEEEDOM" from the top of every tower. Let folks live their lives, and if you don't know how to tell your kids that two women got married, ponder on how you tell them that The Rock is half black, like the President. Get over yourselves you cupcakes. Stop looking for everyone else to massage your gottverdammt egos, and censor themselves because you can't join the conversation because it's "icky."

You know what's icky? Not being able to marry someone you love, someone you want to spend your life with, because some busybody who doesn't even attend your church has a problem with it. That's not "icky" that's against our freedom of religion, it's against equal access under the law, and for all the "Great Patriots" who scream about this, ponder on that. You nosy bastiches.
 
2013-03-18 06:30:18 PM

impaler: MrHappyRotter: fark prejudice against gays.  That issue is so over with.

What makes me madder than hell is the unrelenting hatred and ignorance these liberal media outlets have for color blind people.

Why in 2013 would any major news publication release graphs that are impossible to distinguish due to using red/green hues?

Simple.  Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.

IT HAS TO STOP.  IT HAS TO STOP NOW.

[dl.dropbox.com image 600x797]


I'm assuming its part of the joke that I can see the words in the heart too.

/colorblind
 
2013-03-18 06:32:33 PM
Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?
 
2013-03-18 06:32:47 PM

MrHappyRotter: fark prejudice against gays.  That issue is so over with.

What makes me madder than hell is the unrelenting hatred and ignorance these liberal media outlets have for color blind people.

Why in 2013 would any major news publication release graphs that are impossible to distinguish due to using red/green hues?

Simple.  Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.

IT HAS TO STOP.  IT HAS TO STOP NOW.


Agreed, I was surprised when I saw that republicans had a strong majority favoring gay marriage. Then I realized that can't be right and noticed the colors were not colors that work with my eyes.
 
2013-03-18 06:35:08 PM

Car_Ramrod: But gay marriage is going to ruin the sanctity of traditional marriage! Newt Gingrich told me so.


In fact, he tried to protect the sanctity of marriage three times!
 
2013-03-18 06:35:16 PM

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes


Why? Some of the most stable people I know weren't raised with both their biological parents.

Not that I think you're gonna respond.
 
2013-03-18 06:39:06 PM

HighOnCraic: maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

Why do you hate marriages performed by justices of the peace?


I think as a matter of love and companionship that the government needs to keep their collective noses to themselves. One more thing I can not think of very many things I hate other than like child molesters and such.
 
2013-03-18 06:39:45 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times

I wonder how many people who use that argument would approve of a gay man marrying their daughter.


It would make for a fabulous wedding.


...or the worst cat fight in history.
 
2013-03-18 06:40:15 PM

Snapper Carr: maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

As long as you are legally capable of consenting to a contract (so no ducks or whatever that stupid argument is), yup.


Try duck spelled with a f
 
2013-03-18 06:41:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Why? Some of the most stable people I know weren't raised with both their biological parents.

Not that I think you're gonna respond.


Don't you see? It's part of the Gay Agenda to take children away from their straight parents and give em to a gay commune in San Francisco.

Thanks, Homobama.
 
2013-03-18 06:42:04 PM

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


I'm not sure if I like this gimmick account, or if it's just annoying.
 
2013-03-18 06:43:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Why? Some of the most stable people I know weren't raised with both their biological parents.

Not that I think you're gonna respond.


That question has nothing at all to do with marriage anyway. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of marriage is raising children. It's not.
 
2013-03-18 06:43:33 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times


Hey, it's worked for the Bachmanns, hasn't it?
 
2013-03-18 06:45:16 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I wonder how many people who use that argument would approve of a gay man marrying their daughter.


Or their girlfriend:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8
 
2013-03-18 06:48:48 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

I'm not sure if I like this gimmick account, or if it's just annoying.


FARK doesn't have nearly enough trolling gimmick accounts.  I say let's give this kid a chance!
 
2013-03-18 06:50:15 PM

maxalt: HighOnCraic: maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

Why do you hate marriages performed by justices of the peace?

I think as a matter of love and companionship that the government needs to keep their collective noses to themselves. One more thing I can not think of very many things I hate other than like child molesters and such.


So what about people who don't want to get married in a church? Are they stuck with relying on ship captains?
 
2013-03-18 06:50:28 PM

BunkoSquad: So we're about 3 years away from the right wing claiming they were the pioneers all along and blaming liberals for waiting so long to make it the law of the land.


3 years? Nah. I bet they've already written up the narrative to pretend it was conservatives fighting for the rights of LBGTQ all along, in case DOMA is stuck down by the Supreme Court. Just like how the day hours after the election they decided to play the "party of inclusion" to Latinos, and how they fantasize that MLK was a conservative.

Conservatives: perpetually revising history to make themselves look good.
 
2013-03-18 06:56:08 PM
I have still yet to hear a single even hypothetical example of how I, or anyone else, would be negatively affected by two men getting married.
 
2013-03-18 06:57:21 PM

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.
 
2013-03-18 07:00:07 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times



The proper response the next time someone pulls that shiat on you:
"Gays don't want special rights all for themselves.  Sure, they want to sodomize each other within the bondage of holy matrimony - but they want YOU to be able to marry a butt-pirate TOO.  'Cause you kinda give off that vibe.  NTTAWWT."
 
2013-03-18 07:00:48 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off


You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.
 
2013-03-18 07:03:06 PM

Cletus C.: Why should heterosexuals be the only miserable people?


Because Jesus said so.  It's written in the GOP Jobs Plan.
 
2013-03-18 07:03:29 PM

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


I was unaware that every gay marriage came with a child stolen from it's biological parents.  Is that included in the standard benefits given to married couples or do they have to register at Belks for one?

Yes, I realize that it's either a troll and/or completely stupid, but some things deserve ridicule and scorn.
 
2013-03-18 07:05:05 PM

sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.



Anyone who believes that homosexuality is not normal has never owned a male dog.  I've had dogs whose nuts I've had taken off and they STILL try to hump each other.
 
2013-03-18 07:05:12 PM

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


Why do you assume these are mutually exclusive?
 
2013-03-18 07:08:36 PM

Karac: I have still yet to hear a single even hypothetical example of how I, or anyone else, would be negatively affected by two men getting married.


Hetero conservative women will be skeeved out by assless dresses at the bridal shop.
 
2013-03-18 07:09:07 PM

MrHappyRotter: fark prejudice against gays.  That issue is so over with.

What makes me madder than hell is the unrelenting hatred and ignorance these liberal media outlets have for color blind people.


Actually, these two issues are related.  There was an incident in Denver a while ago where a bakery refused to make a red and teal wedding cake for a gay couple.  One of the drawbacks of letting men marry each other is that you will now sometimes have weddings being planned by couples who are both color blind.
 
2013-03-18 07:10:21 PM

Karac: sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.


Anyone who believes that homosexuality is not normal has never owned a male dog.  I've had dogs whose nuts I've had taken off and they STILL try to hump each other.


I have a spayed dog who humps anything. She's pretty funny, actually.
 
2013-03-18 07:10:35 PM

coeyagi: Karac: I have still yet to hear a single even hypothetical example of how I, or anyone else, would be negatively affected by two men getting married.

Hetero conservative women will be skeeved out by assless dresses at the bridal shop.


You know, now that you've put that idea in my head - it doesn't sound all that bad.  I can think of a few women I'd like to see in an assless wedding dress, no gay marriage required.
 
2013-03-18 07:13:57 PM

Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.


I think it's intended as a ha-ha. You know, both biological parents always stay together and raise the kids. Gay marriage would be the first step away from that. True fact, that.
 
2013-03-18 07:17:26 PM
Hey, America, how's that "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" thing going for you?
 
2013-03-18 07:17:59 PM

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


For #2: So you're saying the best opportunity would be a stable household of a woman, and her rapist, if they have a child?  Biological parents right?
 
2013-03-18 07:23:12 PM
All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?
 
2013-03-18 07:25:01 PM

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


Why should the church get to co-opt the civil matter of marriage?
 
2013-03-18 07:25:38 PM

Karac: coeyagi: Karac: I have still yet to hear a single even hypothetical example of how I, or anyone else, would be negatively affected by two men getting married.

Hetero conservative women will be skeeved out by assless dresses at the bridal shop.

You know, now that you've put that idea in my head - it doesn't sound all that bad.  I can think of a few women I'd like to see in an assless wedding dress, no gay marriage required.


I can get behind that idea.

And, well, you know.
 
2013-03-18 07:26:34 PM

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


Not for those who still support the 20 state amendments that banned gay marriage AND civil unions.
 
2013-03-18 07:27:22 PM

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


A lot of straight folks will be angry if you tell them they can't get married, either, you know.
 
2013-03-18 07:28:08 PM

Cletus C.: Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.

I think it's intended as a ha-ha. You know, both biological parents always stay together and raise the kids. Gay marriage would be the first step away from that. True fact, that.


It's not funny. Because that's the primary argument against gay marriage. That a child should be raised in a stable home with a male father and a female mother and therefore ANYTHING ELSE is wrong and anti-child.

Oh, and btw, gay marriage isn't, in fact, the first step away from that. Allowing kids to stay with their widowed mothers was, and we took that step a long time ago.
 
2013-03-18 07:29:02 PM

HighOnCraic: maxalt: HighOnCraic: maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

Why do you hate marriages performed by justices of the peace?

I think as a matter of love and companionship that the government needs to keep their collective noses to themselves. One more thing I can not think of very many things I hate other than like child molesters and such.

So what about people who don't want to get married in a church? Are they stuck with relying on ship captains?


 How about a contract like Legal Zoom or some such, because in reality marriage is a social and legal contract. I just know every time the government gets involved in something it gets more costly, complicated and layered with nonsense. How about if two people got together with a couple of friends both said I will marry you, signed a paper to that effect and Viola they are mated. As long as they are both of age and no force is used they are a couple. Until one or the other becomes a vampire and their partner tries to drive a stake, oh wait forget that last sentence.
 
2013-03-18 07:38:10 PM

Gyrfalcon: Cletus C.: Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.

I think it's intended as a ha-ha. You know, both biological parents always stay together and raise the kids. Gay marriage would be the first step away from that. True fact, that.

It's not funny. Because that's the primary argument against gay marriage. That a child should be raised in a stable home with a male father and a female mother and therefore ANYTHING ELSE is wrong and anti-child.

Oh, and btw, gay marriage isn't, in fact, the first step away from that. Allowing kids to stay with their widowed mothers was, and we took that step a long time ago.


Yeah, sort of my point. Probably half or more kids these days are from "broken homes." And it's hardly new. The biological parents staying together is becoming more of the exception. The idea being sold is that gay marriage threatens something that doesn't exist all that much anymore. And that is laughable. Even if you don't laugh.
 
2013-03-18 07:39:33 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times


Same.
Some people are farking retarded.

No offense to the retarded, I just lump more people into that group.
 
2013-03-18 07:41:30 PM

Cletus C.: Yeah, sort of my point. Probably half or more kids these days are from "broken homes." And it's hardly new. The biological parents staying together is becoming more of the exception. The idea being sold is that gay marriage threatens something that doesn't exist all that much anymore. And that is laughable. Even if you don't laugh.


And not too long ago, the grim reaper played a prominent role in breaking up families, and still plays a small role in that regard.
 
2013-03-18 07:44:08 PM
I still contend changing lgbt to gblt would increase the favorability by at least three points.

People like BLTs and it would prime them so feel better to read it that way.

/bacon
 
2013-03-18 07:46:17 PM

I May Be Crazy But...: Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?

A lot of straight folks will be angry if you tell them they can't get married, either, you know.


They can call their Civil Union a marriage if they want, but it could upset the churches.
 
2013-03-18 07:46:40 PM

12349876: Cletus C.: Yeah, sort of my point. Probably half or more kids these days are from "broken homes." And it's hardly new. The biological parents staying together is becoming more of the exception. The idea being sold is that gay marriage threatens something that doesn't exist all that much anymore. And that is laughable. Even if you don't laugh.

And not too long ago, the grim reaper played a prominent role in breaking up families, and still plays a small role in that regard.


I'll bet the hot divorcée moving into the neighborhood did more damage than the grim reaper.
 
2013-03-18 07:47:43 PM

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


Not even close to problem solved. But you aren't new to fark so I assume you've seen the mountain of counterpoints to your concept that changing letters but not meaning won't unify the population..
 
2013-03-18 07:48:46 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?

Why should the church get to co-opt the civil matter of marriage?


Doesnt matter since church marriages mean nothing legally. You want tax benefits with the state? Go file for a civil union at the local court house.
 
2013-03-18 07:49:36 PM

Cletus C.: 12349876: Cletus C.: Yeah, sort of my point. Probably half or more kids these days are from "broken homes." And it's hardly new. The biological parents staying together is becoming more of the exception. The idea being sold is that gay marriage threatens something that doesn't exist all that much anymore. And that is laughable. Even if you don't laugh.

And not too long ago, the grim reaper played a prominent role in breaking up families, and still plays a small role in that regard.

I'll bet the hot divorcée moving into the neighborhood did more damage than the grim reaper.


In 2010 yes, in 1310 no
 
2013-03-18 07:51:41 PM

Gyrfalcon: Cletus C.: Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.

I think it's intended as a ha-ha. You know, both biological parents always stay together and raise the kids. Gay marriage would be the first step away from that. True fact, that.

It's not funny. Because that's the primary argument against gay marriage. That a child should be raised in a stable home with a male father and a female mother and therefore ANYTHING ELSE is wrong and anti-child.

Oh, and btw, gay marriage isn't, in fact, the first step away from that. Allowing kids to stay with their widowed mothers was, and we took that step a long time ago.


Or allowed children to be adopted by folks who weren't even related to them at all. I mean, what sort of monsters would look to place children into homes with folks who aren't related to them? Even the same nationality? What kind of monsters?
 
2013-03-18 08:06:37 PM
yay equal rights for gay couples.  boo equal rights for everybody else.
 
2013-03-18 08:11:57 PM

Raharu: Doesnt matter since church marriages mean nothing legally. You want tax benefits with the state? Go file for a civil union at the local court house.


Your marriage in a church or a court house means nothing legally.  It only becomes legal when you file the paperwork.

/still don't understand how some people think we should give in to a few extreme religious groups over the word 'marriage'
 
2013-03-18 08:18:44 PM

gingerjet: Raharu: Doesnt matter since church marriages mean nothing legally. You want tax benefits with the state? Go file for a civil union at the local court house.

Your marriage in a church or a court house means nothing legally.  It only becomes legal when you file the paperwork.

/still don't understand how some people think we should give in to a few extreme religious groups over the word 'marriage'


Or why their hatred of gays would go away with a name change.

Heck maybe they just want the word 'gay' back and if we call gays 'zurbs' they would have no more issues with male on male buttsex?

/doubts it
 
2013-03-18 08:25:42 PM

sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.


Indeed.

i28.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-18 08:32:51 PM
What I keep going back to is that as much as the right blusters about marriage equality and as hateful as some people are, it is now less controversial for me to date/marry a woman today than it would have been to date/marry a black guy when I was a teenager. It wasn't until the mid-90s when support for interracial marriage among white people crossed the 50% threshold, even though it was over 30 years since Loving. It's an exciting time to be alive as we're watching society change so rapidly in favor of equality.
 
2013-03-18 08:36:58 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times


I've accidentally trolled more than one thread by making that argument sarcastically and having people agree with me.
 
2013-03-18 08:37:09 PM

Raharu: I May Be Crazy But...: Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?

A lot of straight folks will be angry if you tell them they can't get married, either, you know.

They can call their Civil Union a marriage if they want, but it could upset the churches.


I don't want to get unioned, I want to get married. If it doesn't say "marriage license" at the top of the form, they can all shove it up their ass. If a church wants to also say "We call them married, also!", then they're free to do so, but the state will call me and my wife MARRIED.

The choice as I see it is between letting people in love express their commitment by getting married or not. If you start changing the name, you cheapen it for all of us.
 
2013-03-18 08:42:10 PM

serial_crusher: yay equal rights for gay couples.  boo equal rights for everybody else.


wut ?
 
2013-03-18 08:48:51 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: MrHappyRotter: Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.

Color blindness is a choice!

Pray the gray away!

Heathen


I just sprayed tea out my nose.

Welcome to my favorites list.
 
2013-03-18 09:15:44 PM

serial_crusher: boo equal rights for everybody else.


Please list the rights that you feel are being denied to everybody else..

I'll wait.
 
2013-03-18 09:23:07 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: serial_crusher: boo equal rights for everybody else.

Please list the rights that you feel are being denied to everybody else..

I'll wait.


various tax exemptions (i.e. estate tax) mainly
 
2013-03-18 09:34:18 PM

sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.


If any fundies show up, I can sum up their rebuttal, if they acknowledge you. *Ahem*.

"Well, animals also *horrific/gross act animals perform*, does that make it OK?!"
 
2013-03-18 09:36:00 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, but it's still only just a bit over half the population, so let's not go start sucking each other's dicks just yet.


58% is "just a bit over half"?? Say what? 58-42 would be a trouncing in sports. Start sucking.
 
2013-03-18 10:37:47 PM

serial_crusher: Doktor_Zhivago: serial_crusher: boo equal rights for everybody else.

Please list the rights that you feel are being denied to everybody else..

I'll wait.

various tax exemptions (i.e. estate tax) mainly


No one's stopping you from getting married.
 
2013-03-18 10:48:36 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, but it's still only just a bit over half the population, so let's not go start sucking each other's dicks just yet.


25.media.tumblr.com

As said, in sports this would be a trounce by any definition really. So, would you like some wine before we start?

I made it in the turlet.
 
2013-03-18 10:51:12 PM

hubiestubert: Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times

Hey, it's worked for the Bachmanns, hasn't it?


I'm not sure. Which one is the wife?
 
2013-03-18 10:56:31 PM

rynthetyn: Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times

I've accidentally trolled more than one thread by making that argument sarcastically and having people agree with me.


What's funny--or not so funny--is that's the same argument that was used to justify the law that went before the court in Loving v. Virginia: we're not just stopping blacks from marrying white people! We're stopping whites from marrying blacks, too! See, the law works both ways! It's equal! So how can you say we're discriminating? And it was true. But just because a law is equally discriminatory doesn't mean it's fair.
 
2013-03-18 11:04:02 PM

abb3w: Net favoring legal over illegal now +22; support disproportionate among Democrats, Liberals, Women, the young, the more heavily educated, the rich, the Northeast, and the religiously unaffiliated,

A more surprising finding is (technical) majority support in the South.


So support by democrats, liberals, and various groups of liberals democrats.
 
2013-03-18 11:19:45 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: "Marriage shall be defined as a civil contract between two consenting, human adults. Any state wishing to write something different shall be bombed." ~28th Amendment to the US Constitution


FTFY, bigot.

Marriage equality is marriage equality.
 
2013-03-18 11:25:18 PM

TopoGigo: FTFY, bigot.

Marriage equality is marriage equality.


0/10

Troll smarter, not harder.
 
2013-03-18 11:28:58 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off


Well, I think you're unnatural, but not because of your sexuality.

/farking right the fark off now.
 
2013-03-18 11:34:26 PM

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: FTFY, bigot.

Marriage equality is marriage equality.

0/10

Troll smarter, not harder.


Cute. Can you give me any reason for poly marriage not to be the next fight for marriage equality? "I don't understand multi-party contracts" is not an argument, nor is "some people use a tradition of polygamy to do things that are already illegal and immoral". I'm completely convinced that the only reason marriage equality proponents don't mention poly is they're scared not to mimic the bigotry of the opposition.
 
2013-03-18 11:48:49 PM

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


No. I was married by a judge. Neither my wife or I is particularly religious. But it's still a marriage. The title means something.
 
2013-03-18 11:51:45 PM

TopoGigo: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: FTFY, bigot.

Marriage equality is marriage equality.

0/10

Troll smarter, not harder.

Cute. Can you give me any reason for poly marriage not to be the next fight for marriage equality? "I don't understand multi-party contracts" is not an argument, nor is "some people use a tradition of polygamy to do things that are already illegal and immoral". I'm completely convinced that the only reason marriage equality proponents don't mention poly is they're scared not to mimic the bigotry of the opposition.


I favor legalizing polygamy. Just get the contract law well written and have at it.

Cousins, brothers, parents and children (of age of course) can all have at it.

No turtles until they achieve contract level intelligence though.
 
2013-03-18 11:59:11 PM

TopoGigo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: "Marriage shall be defined as a civil contract between two consenting, human adults. Any state wishing to write something different shall be bombed." ~28th Amendment to the US Constitution

FTFY, bigot.

Marriage equality is marriage equality.


Actually, 2 under the law is much easier. Insurance, taxes, visitation rights, child custody, powers of attorney and medical adviser are all geared around 2 party marriage.

The easiest solution is to not outlaw polygamy (Cue Old Man Waterfall), but to tell those interested in non-traditional marriage that the state will only recognize one union per any two individuals, but any additional spouses are not prohibited from family structure. Simply designate one spouse as the prime partner (or "Alpha Wife" if the title strikes your fancy) for legal and financial reasons. Problem solved.
 
2013-03-19 12:09:57 AM

Smackledorfer: TopoGigo: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: FTFY, bigot.

Marriage equality is marriage equality.

0/10

Troll smarter, not harder.

Cute. Can you give me any reason for poly marriage not to be the next fight for marriage equality? "I don't understand multi-party contracts" is not an argument, nor is "some people use a tradition of polygamy to do things that are already illegal and immoral". I'm completely convinced that the only reason marriage equality proponents don't mention poly is they're scared not to mimic the bigotry of the opposition.

I favor legalizing polygamy. Just get the contract law well written and have at it.

Cousins, brothers, parents and children (of age of course) can all have at it.

No turtles until they achieve contract level intelligence though.


I honestly don't know about "incest" relationships. It seems to me that society does have an interest in limiting inbreeding, but at what point does that interest outweigh the freedom to marry whomever you choose? One generation of sibling marriage isn't a big deal, genetically, nor is two generations of close cousin marriage, but multiple generations of inbreeding is definitely a big deal. Maybe we'll have cheap, effective genetic testing soon enough to prevent any real problems.

The real problem with marriage between close relatives is that the power imbalance in the family dynamic makes consent tricky. I have no idea what to do about that. I guess that since I don't have a hot twin sister or cousin I can just wait for somebody else to figure out how to solve the problem.

It just bothers me that the laundry list of horrible consequences included poly, but nobody stepped in to say "one of these things is not like the other" because they were afraid it would legitimize the idiotic arguments of the bigots.
 
2013-03-19 12:15:24 AM

TopoGigo: Cute.


Defenders of slavery often tried to corner abolitionists into justifying social change that went far beyond emancipation - they did this not because they wanted that change to happen, obviously, but because they reckoned (probably correctly) that those changes would have much lower support than the issues at hand, and framing the argument in that way would result in the status quo being maintained.

This is what prompted Lincoln, for instance, to say, "Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others."

The process repeated itself in the debates over suffrage, over desegregation, over interracial marriage... pretty much every civil rights issue as it came up. Conservatives attempted to corner liberals into arguing for change that was far more sweeping than the issue currently at hand. This gambit failed every time, obviously, because it was apparent that this was not an argument made  in good faith, but a slippery-slope fallacy in (rather poor) disguise.

Even actual polygamists in this day and age will distance themselves from people like that, because they realize what's going on - that this is being done not to win them any rights, but to deny rights to others - and they know that associating their cause with this kind of backhanded bigotry will only harm their own prospects. People like this aren't fooling anyone - neither the people they're purporting to argue "for" nor, obviously, the people they're trying to take rights away from will fall for it. You know how little children sometimes "hide" under a table in plain sight, thinking they're concealed when in fact they're clearly visible? That's basically what these people are doing - the only difference is little children at least have the excuse of being, well, little children.

Though I do concede it's possible for someone to make something resembling that argument without being a bigot - a teenager, perhaps, who is not yet familiar with matters of history and politics but whose heart is nonetheless in the right place. I'll give you that benefit of the doubt - for the moment. It will be how you respond that lets everyone know for certain what your true intentions are.
 
2013-03-19 12:21:07 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: TopoGigo: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: "Marriage shall be defined as a civil contract between two consenting, human adults. Any state wishing to write something different shall be bombed." ~28th Amendment to the US Constitution

FTFY, bigot.

Marriage equality is marriage equality.

Actually, 2 under the law is much easier. Insurance, taxes, visitation rights, child custody, powers of attorney and medical adviser are all geared around 2 party marriage.

The easiest solution is to not outlaw polygamy (Cue Old Man Waterfall), but to tell those interested in non-traditional marriage that the state will only recognize one union per any two individuals, but any additional spouses are not prohibited from family structure. Simply designate one spouse as the prime partner (or "Alpha Wife" if the title strikes your fancy) for legal and financial reasons. Problem solved.


Meh, multi-party contracts aren't that difficult. It would, of course, be nearly impossible to apply our current vanilla marriage rights to poly marriages, but they kind of suck for most people anyway. There's a reason divorce lawyers make so much money. I'd much prefer to abolish legal marriage as we have it today and replace it with a selection of contracts. You'd have to codify certain rights into law, like right of visitation, right of burial, right of inheritance, etc. Anybody could then just go to legalzoom.com and choose from a list of contracts. Divorce settlements would be strictly spelled out right in the contracts, modified by certain breaches. Your contract could include a fidelity clause, or spell out child support and custody, or inheritance, or whatever you're concerned with. Most people would choose from two or three basic contracts. This isn't something you could legislate from the bench, nor is it something you could trust any congress in my memory to do. If I had Bill Gates' money, I'd start an ALEC for the masses to draft legislation, then everybody could just write their representatives and tell them to support Bill X or not.

/My "tongue in cheek" font is broken, so please take the "bigot" crack accordingly.
 
2013-03-19 12:27:15 AM
Meh, I'm on the pro gay marriage side, but don't actually think it's about marriage.  It's about equal acceptance in culture and society, and marriage is just the label we give to culturally accepted unions.  It's a football.  I'll admit it.

Believing homosexuality is a sin, or abnormal, or a choice, or an abomination, or whatever term you choose, is simply bigotry at this point.  Sorry to say it.  The culture war on that question is already over at the generational level, just like it was on racial segregation.  There was no big cultural lightbulb moment or preponderance of scientific evidence where the racists suddenly realized the error of their ways and reformed.  They simply died off, and went to their graves just as bitter and bigoted as they were to begin with, decrying "political correctness" the whole way.  As though "correctness" in "politics" to "win majorities" of "votes" isn't itself just another representation of trends in popular opinion, if a transparently pandering one.

All the same players are following exactly the same playbooks.  It's the same politicians, the same geographical areas, the same vested interests, the same arguments.  Even the religious ones.  Sure, political parties and labels change, but some things stay exactly the same.  And just like before, the bigots will carry their convictions to the grave, decrying political correctness and clinging to whatever doomsday prophecies of societal and moral collapse will make them feel better on the way out.  Decades later, you'll still find some scattered bits of the lunatic fringe seize the mic and scream nutty things at political conventions, and get to watch the red-faced mainstream politicians in attendance trip over themselves trying to furiously disassociate themselves the debacle.

And once there is widespread acceptance and the generational bigotry has gone, the groups and institutions who were responsible for capitalizing on the hatred for political purposes will quietly and retroactively clean up the mess, hide the evidence, collectively decide to stuff the politically convenient canon absolutes of today back into the forgotten, dusty corners where the rest of their outdated and ignored prohibitions of bygone eras have been dumped, and move on as though nothing ever happened.   And humanity's collective desire to pretend they always are -- and always have been -- consistently in the right, will allow the whole thing to blow over with little to no hell to pay on either side, until we choose another group and do it all over again.
 
2013-03-19 12:33:21 AM
Biological Ali:
(snip)
Even actual polygamists in this day and age will distance themselves from people like that, because they realize what's going on - that this is being done not to win them any rights, but to deny rights to others - and they know that associating their cause with this kind of backhanded bigotry will only harm their own prospects.

(snip)

Look, I know. Some corollary of Poe's Law makes it impossible to tell the difference between a stupid opinion, a parody of a stupid opinion, or an actual opinion that sounds like a previously used stupid opinion. If I said that I didn't think it was fair that a male could be charged with rape for a drunken hook-up if he had a higher BAC than the female, you would assume I'm secretly saying that the Steubenville dickheads were A-OK guys, and that slut was asking for it. I'm not; I'm only saying what I actually said.

The problem is, we've allowed the bigots to insert polygamy into the list of dogs-and-cats-living-together apocalypse that will happen if we allow same-sex marriage. I absolutely understand why most people don't say anything about it. I'm just saying it's cowardly. What if tomorrow, Glenn Beck said on national TV "If we let the gays marry, what's next? Can I marry my llama? Can I f*ck my sister? Can I marry an 8 year old girl? What about a turtle, or a fish, or a redhead, or Nancy Grace? I'm just asking questions here." I'm saying that it would be a chickenshiat move to not stand up and say "Hey, f*cker, marrying a redhead is not the same as marrying Nancy Grace or a turtle."
 
2013-03-19 12:46:34 AM

TopoGigo: I'm saying that it would be a chickenshiat move to not stand up and say "Hey, f*cker, marrying a redhead is not the same as marrying Nancy Grace or a turtle."


If gay marriage proponents start arguing for polygamy now, it's not going to help polygamists - it's just going hurt the prospects for gay marriage. In fact, it will almost certainly set polygamy farther back, by virtue of stalling the civil rights process that's currently in motion. Same thing would have happened if desegregationists started arguing for gay rights in the fifties, or if abolitionists before the Civil War started arguing for interracial marriage.

All of which is to say that the people publicly making the case for gay marriage aren't the ones keeping polygamous marriages from being recognized - that honour goes to the people who currently oppose gay rights, along with the people who used to oppose it but now just barely tolerate it. In short, you're demanding answers and explanations from the wrong people here.
 
2013-03-19 12:58:54 AM

TopoGigo: It seems to me that society does have an interest in limiting inbreeding,


Let me stop you right there: marriage is not a requirement for breeding in the first place, so denying marriage to a couple based on childbearing options is already out.

Furthermore, as it pertains to passing on bad genes, we are hardly implementing laws where people stop passing on huntingtons among other things anyway.  So obviously society is unwilling to act on the interest of preventing retarded children.

Hell, it is even illegal to deny the service of alcohol to a pregnant woman.
 
2013-03-19 12:59:32 AM

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: I'm saying that it would be a chickenshiat move to not stand up and say "Hey, f*cker, marrying a redhead is not the same as marrying Nancy Grace or a turtle."

If gay marriage proponents start arguing for polygamy now, it's not going to help polygamists - it's just going hurt the prospects for gay marriage. In fact, it will almost certainly set polygamy farther back, by virtue of stalling the civil rights process that's currently in motion. Same thing would have happened if desegregationists started arguing for gay rights in the fifties, or if abolitionists before the Civil War started arguing for interracial marriage.

All of which is to say that the people publicly making the case for gay marriage aren't the ones keeping polygamous marriages from being recognized - that honour goes to the people who currently oppose gay rights, along with the people who used to oppose it but now just barely tolerate it. In short, you're demanding answers and explanations from the wrong people here.


I suppose you're right in the real world. I don't really even know why it bothers me so much. It's not like my wife is likely to let me add a 20 year old hottie to the marriage. It just strikes me as hypocritical is all. It seems almost as "fark you, I got (or am in the process of getting) mine" as when the black community overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8 in California.
 
2013-03-19 01:07:02 AM

TopoGigo: It seems almost as "fark you, I got (or am in the process of getting) mine" as when the black community overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8 in California.


The difference, of course, is that gay marriage proponents aren't proposing and voting for measures against polygamy - you're finding fault with them for not simultaneously arguing for a completely different issue while they state their own case. And it's not a selfishness thing either;as I mentioned earlier, even polygamists won't want gay marriage proponents to do what you're suggesting. Sure, it might be a touching gesture of solidarity or whatever, but I doubt they'll think it's worth setting both of their goals back by another several decades.
 
2013-03-19 01:11:11 AM

Smackledorfer: TopoGigo: It seems to me that society does have an interest in limiting inbreeding,

Let me stop you right there: marriage is not a requirement for breeding in the first place, so denying marriage to a couple based on childbearing options is already out.

Furthermore, as it pertains to passing on bad genes, we are hardly implementing laws where people stop passing on huntingtons among other things anyway.  So obviously society is unwilling to act on the interest of preventing retarded children.

Hell, it is even illegal to deny the service of alcohol to a pregnant woman.


I suppose that's true. I wonder, is it moral for society to try to prevent genetic defects like Huntington's? I know we're creeped out by the memory of the Nazis, but ignoring that, would it be? I kind of think it wouldn't, but I'm not entirely sure.

Ignoring the genetic problems, then, what do you do about the consent issue? There's a lot of potential for abuse there, but it wouldn't be a problem every time. My gut reaction would be to forbid marriage between relatives who lived together during childhood, but there's really not much logic to that either.
 
2013-03-19 01:20:43 AM

Biological Ali: you're finding fault with them for not simultaneously arguing for a completely different issue while they state their own case.


Not really. I'm finding fault with dozens of examples of almost this exact conversation I've heard:

Bubba the Bigot: So, if you homos can get married, what's to stop me from marryin' my dawg?

Fred the same-sex marriage proponent: Don't be ridiculous. Dogs can't legally consent.

Bubba: Well, how about my 10 year old neighbor?

Fred: Don't be ridiculous. Only adults can legally consent.

Bubba: Well, what about marryin' five broads?

Fred: Don't be ridiculous. That will never happen, and it isn't remotely comparable.

That right there is my problem. Fred could just say, "I don't give a f*ck about polygamy, take that up with polygamists." Or Fred could say nothing. But no, Fred has to agree with Bubba because he wants to win the argument. Nevermind that Bubba won't ever agree with Fred anyway.
 
2013-03-19 01:22:40 AM

TopoGigo: My "tongue in cheek" font is broken, so please take the "bigot" crack accordingly.


No worries. This IS the internet.

I have a pretty extensive ignore list, but I've decided that since the obnoxious clowns are almost all blocked, then anyone else is either snarky or believes differently. Either of those two options is worth reading and replying to.

Your idea intrigues me, but I'd be worried for the complexity issues. Lots of specialized circumstances can be brought up that may not be optimally covered by a generalized contract and require even MORE lawyers to resolve. I put my idea out there as an easy patch in the current system. When the rule is "2 consenting adults" for legal and financial decisions, nothing revolutionary happens and a couple of forms get updated from "wife" to "spouse/partner" (Heavens to betsy, I know). Anyone who wants to run their family like a democracy or a commune is certainly welcome to go for it, but the law requires one partner.

/The title of "Alpha Wife" will be awarded by winning a foxy boxing tournament. I refuse to negotiate on this last stipulation
 
2013-03-19 01:32:12 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: TopoGigo: My "tongue in cheek" font is broken, so please take the "bigot" crack accordingly.

No worries. This IS the internet.

I have a pretty extensive ignore list, but I've decided that since the obnoxious clowns are almost all blocked, then anyone else is either snarky or believes differently. Either of those two options is worth reading and replying to.


Your idea intrigues me, but I'd be worried for the complexity issues. Lots of specialized circumstances can be brought up that may not be optimally covered by a generalized contract and require even MORE lawyers to resolve. I put my idea out there as an easy patch in the current system. When the rule is "2 consenting adults" for legal and financial decisions, nothing revolutionary happens and a couple of forms get updated from "wife" to "spouse/partner" (Heavens to betsy, I know). Anyone who wants to run their family like a democracy or a commune is certainly welcome to go for it, but the law requires one partner.


Sure, you couldn't patch my idea in. It would take a top-down restructuring of marriage law. I really think that we're going to need to do that eventually anyway, though. I do think that any decent divorce lawyer could draw up twenty different contracts covering nearly all semi-common needs or wants, and people could just choose the one that works for them. As much as I love my wife, I wouldn't have picked a contract with a fidelity clause in it if I could choose not to. I'm not OK with a stupid mistake costing me custody of my children or a big part of my possessions. Lots of people would want that. Most people would want one in theirs, though, so they could just pick "Marriage contract for two version 3.1" Anything too weird would need a lawyer for a few hours, but BFD. A contract lawyer is a lot cheaper than a divorce.

/The title of "Alpha Wife" will be awarded by winning a foxy boxing tournament. I refuse to negotiate on this last stipulation

You'll be getting no argument from me on that.
 
2013-03-19 01:40:16 AM

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


Yes, we should go through all that trouble to completely revolutionize the process of marriage from top to bottom, rather than simply making it legal for any two consenting adults to go through the current marriage process unchanged.  That makes a lot of sense.

/This is truly one of the most annoying arguments out there
 
2013-03-19 01:52:35 AM

TopoGigo: That right there is my problem. Fred could just say, "I don't give a f*ck about polygamy, take that up with polygamists." Or Fred could say nothing. But no, Fred has to agree with Bubba because he wants to win the argument. Nevermind that Bubba won't ever agree with Fred anyway.


What you're suggesting won't help anybody precisely because a large number of the people counted as "supporting" (or at least not "opposing") gay marriage are really people who just tolerate it on the assumption that it all stops here, just like the white guys who were okay with interracial marriage because at least those gays won't be getting married.

The kind of waffling answer you suggested above will accomplish literally nothing for polygamists, and will without a doubt alienate many people who might have supported gay marriage. It would just be a very stupid thing for anybody involved to do - except, of course, people interested in maintaining the status quo, which is why they're almost always the ones who bring it up in the first place.

What you really need to do, in the end, is decide exactly what it is you want. Do you want actual political change, or are you content to merely see certain futile gestures being made because they'd make you personally feel happy? Because if it's the former, it will have to go through its own distinct process, just like previous movements ("distinct" being the key word - attempting to hijack a movement currently in progress will just doom them both).
 
2013-03-19 02:01:34 AM
63% of the people in NC still voted for the anti-gay marriage amendment so there's a long way to go.
 
2013-03-19 02:30:45 AM

Biological Ali: What you really need to do, in the end, is decide exactly what it is you want.


What I want? I want to be Dictator for Life, then I'd fix all this shiat. Since I live in the real world, though, I'll support same-sex marriage, and point out to my gay friends that they're being hypocrites. I'd remind them that "political realities" are what brought them Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and we all remember how much they loved that. What they choose to do with that is their own choice, I suppose. After all, I have no skin in the game, as it were. I'm happily married to an opposite-sex partner, and I'm unlikely to have the opportunity to be poly married even if I would want to.
 
2013-03-19 02:32:41 AM

TopoGigo: I'd remind them that "political realities" are what brought them Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and we all remember how much they loved that.


You realize that prior to that they couldn't legally serve in the military at all, right?
 
2013-03-19 02:55:13 AM

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: I'd remind them that "political realities" are what brought them Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and we all remember how much they loved that.

You realize that prior to that they couldn't legally serve in the military at all, right?


Most of my gay friends (who were too young to care at the time) don't think DADT was better than a ban. I don't have an opinion.
 
2013-03-19 02:58:37 AM

TopoGigo: What I want? I want to be Dictator for Life, then I'd fix all this shiat. Since I live in the real world, though, I'll support same-sex marriage, and point out to my gay friends that they're being hypocrites. I'd remind them that "political realities" are what brought them Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and we all remember how much they loved that. What they choose to do with that is their own choice, I suppose. After all, I have no skin in the game, as it were. I'm happily married to an opposite-sex partner, and I'm unlikely to have the opportunity to be poly married even if I would want to.


Also, you say you live in the "real world", but everything you've suggested thus far would only make the real world worse (or at the very least, not leave anybody better off). You use the term "hypocrite", but even that doesn't apply because as far as I know, gay rights proponents never demanded that civil rights activists derail the civil rights process by making arguments that would have been political suicide for both movements. And as far as I can tell, supporters of polygamy aren't making that demand of gay rights proponents even now, probably for the same reason.

It really does seem as though you just want to see empty gestures that give you personal satisfaction, irrespective of their real-world consequences (possibly explained by the fact that, as you say, you won't personally feel any of these consequences). Of course, you do have the right to say whatever you want to your gay friends, but if you keep making suggestions that would only work in some bizarro alternate reality, people are going to inevitably assume that you're either a bigot trying to poison the well, or just someone who's not very bright. I'll leave it to you to decide which is worse.
 
2013-03-19 03:01:58 AM

TopoGigo: Most of my gay friends (who were too young to care at the time) don't think DADT was better than a ban.


This just isn't possible, unless they had no clue whatsoever what DADT actually was.
 
2013-03-19 03:07:08 AM

karmachameleon: /This is truly one of the most annoying arguments out there


Bears repeating.

TopoGigo: I wonder, is it moral for society to try to prevent genetic defects like Huntington's?


I could honestly give two shiats about passing on my genes, so I tend not to see even remotely eye to eye with those who think having a child share theirs is some massive accomplishment.  As such, I don't see the penalty of losing a shot at a genetic child to be very burdensome and could see a society justifying various forms of eugenics.

That said, I've never had a deep conversation with someone on the other side of that fence who is capable of articulating the importance of their genes being passed on beyond "I want to", so I could be in the wrong here.

We already can test for Huntington's, so people know well before they would ever procreate whether they would pass on the bad genes. One generation of people choosing to adopt would eliminate it entirely.
 
2013-03-19 03:25:47 AM

Karac: sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.


Anyone who believes that homosexuality is not normal has never owned a male dog.  I've had dogs whose nuts I've had taken off and they STILL try to hump each other.


As the owner of a (currently) uncut pooch, he routinely tries to face-fark the much larger male dog downstairs. Sometimes he sneaks up during a nap and tries to buttsecks him. I can't deny - it's hilarious to see. The larger dog doesn't seem to mind unless he's trying to eat or whatever.
 
2013-03-19 03:45:55 AM

maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who.


The government... has no business regulating a government-issued contract?

Apparently the left now has their own version of "get your socialized medicine out of my medicare".

//I mean, I agree that the way marriage currently works, gay marriage should be legal.  But... come on, think before you write shiat down where people can read it, man.  The government is  exactly the entity that's responsible for managing this.
 
2013-03-19 04:14:09 AM

abb3w: Net favoring legal over illegal now +22; support disproportionate among Democrats, Liberals, Women, the young, the more heavily educated, the rich, the Northeast, and the religiously unaffiliated,

A more surprising finding is (technical) majority support in the South.


I read somewhere that support has spiked among African-Americans nationwide, possibly because Obama has come out in favour.

I have no idea if there's any truth to the claim... you've looked at the numbers... any indications?
 
2013-03-19 04:27:37 AM

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


That's the exact system we have now, dumbass.

All marriages ARE civil unions. Churches do not marry people. You can have any kind of religious joining ceremony you want... it has no legal standing. The state cannot force a church to perform any ceremony whatsoever.

The only thing you're actually proposing is that we cede the word "marriage" to churches that never owned it in the first place.
 
2013-03-19 04:36:08 AM

MrHappyRotter: fark prejudice against gays.  That issue is so over with.

What makes me madder than hell is the unrelenting hatred and ignorance these liberal media outlets have for color blind people.

Why in 2013 would any major news publication release graphs that are impossible to distinguish due to using red/green hues?

Simple.  Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.

IT HAS TO STOP.  IT HAS TO STOP NOW.


fark the colourblind.

Get better eyes. You've got the same rights to seeing red and green and distinguishing between them that I have, you just want special rights.
 
2013-03-19 09:09:42 AM

TopoGigo: The problem is, we've allowed the bigots to insert polygamy into the list of dogs-and-cats-living-together apocalypse that will happen if we allow same-sex marriage. I absolutely understand why most people don't say anything about it. I'm just saying it's cowardly. What if tomorrow, Glenn Beck said on national TV "If we let the gays marry, what's next? Can I marry my llama? Can I f*ck my sister? Can I marry an 8 year old girl? What about a turtle, or a fish, or a redhead, or Nancy Grace? I'm just asking questions here." I'm saying that it would be a chickenshiat move to not stand up and say "Hey, f*cker, marrying a redhead is not the same as marrying Nancy Grace or a turtle."


The most logical response to such questions is "Are you claiming that you are able to conceive of no rational justification for prohibiting marriage to prepubescent children/non-human animals?"
 
2013-03-19 10:03:17 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Why? Some of the most stable people I know weren't raised with both their biological parents.


Imprinting, bonding, shared traits, inherent protectionism...   Situational instances do not change the norm.
 
2013-03-19 10:07:08 AM

Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.


No, this is and example of "loaded question".
 
2013-03-19 10:10:44 AM

had98c: cameroncrazy1984: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Why? Some of the most stable people I know weren't raised with both their biological parents.

Not that I think you're gonna respond.

That question has nothing at all to do with marriage anyway. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of marriage is raising children. It's not.


Right, the purpose of marriage is to leave half your stuff to people you screw.
 
2013-03-19 11:19:17 AM

BunkoSquad: So we're about 3 years away from the right wing claiming they were the pioneers all along and blaming liberals for waiting so long to make it the law of the land.


The Circle of Civil Rights will be truly complete!
 
2013-03-19 01:40:56 PM
Most people don't care what gays do. Really. Marry and skip down the street. Do whatever.

That right there is insulting to entitled liberals. You are you only supposed to care, you are supposed to applaud everything they do. If you don't do that, you are not only a bad person, you have a mental condition. You are phobic. It's pc crazy at a whole new level.

Now, onward with the gay indoctrination. Which is gay quotas for job hiring, college admissions and everything else. Meanwhile, I will laugh as people try to marry three other people, animals, cars, trees, etc. And, bully and/or sue every church they can. Everything gays have said won't happen.
 
2013-03-19 03:03:03 PM

Jim_Callahan: maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who.

The government... has no business regulating a government-issued contract?

Apparently the left now has their own version of "get your socialized medicine out of my medicare".

//I mean, I agree that the way marriage currently works, gay marriage should be legal.  But... come on, think before you write shiat down where people can read it, man.  The government is  exactly the entity that's responsible for managing this.


You opinion is not historically correct, marriage was sanctioned by the families or a religious leader from ≈7000 bc until some where in the 19th century. It especially took over after the income tax was passed. I personally believe the less the government is involved in peoples private life the more freedom we have.
 
2013-03-19 04:19:01 PM
The Republican Party grabbed onto this issue with both hands but it grew to be larger than they had expected. Despite their frantic attempts to beat it back, support for gay marriage stiffened and then burst through the 50% barrier. Opposing over half the country has left the Republicans in a sticky position. Recent defections of elected official such as Rob Portman will likely cause their resolve on this issue to soften.
 
2013-03-19 04:27:13 PM

Deneb81: So support by democrats, liberals, and various groups of liberals democrats.


Various groups tending to lean more liberal and democrat. However, even controlling for party identification and/or political views, such groups tend more supporting. And, while they tend to lean more Democratic, other polls suggest blacks still tend less accepting than whites.

randomjsa: 63% of the people in NC still voted for the anti-gay marriage amendment so there's a long way to go.


61%, actually; though that's an insignificant difference. However, even in the South the young tend to be much more accepting, making it largely a matter of time. The NC Amendment seems likely to be the last passed by popular vote in a state lacking such an amendment, and (unless Federal courts get there beforehand) likely to be reversed circa 2025.

Z-clipped: I read somewhere that support has spiked among African-Americans nationwide, possibly because Obama has come out in favour.
I have no idea if there's any truth to the claim... you've looked at the numbers... any indications?


I dunno about spiked. There were news stories of a few polls showing a major drop right around then, but sample N were a bit small for confidence, and a few others were over longer timespans. Regardless, though this poll doesn't give a breakout by race, others indicate it at least looks to still be increasing, a bit behind acceptance among whites -- much as it has been all along. The gap between may be narrowing; I doubt Obama's announcement hurt.
 
2013-03-19 05:40:30 PM
There is one simple reason why the government is blocking this, and as usual, it's money.

Insurance companies are lobbying them to block it so that they can keep denying spousal/parental/etc benefits to a same-sex couples/families.
 
2013-03-19 11:08:20 PM
How about a happy medium of strengthening the responsibility toward a family unit with real consequences for breaking what is scientifically the best environment for a child, instead of subsidizing absentee parenthood? It is beneficial to the left to have people in need, looking for a substitute for the void. The nuclear family is where it's at.
 
2013-03-20 12:28:43 AM

George Walker Bush: How about a happy medium of strengthening the responsibility toward a family unit with real consequences for breaking what is scientifically the best environment for a child, instead of subsidizing absentee parenthood? It is beneficial to the left to have people in need, looking for a substitute for the void. The nuclear family is where it's at.


0/10
 
2013-03-20 03:50:09 AM

barneyfifesbullet: That right there is insulting to entitled liberals. You are you only supposed to care, you are supposed to applaud everything they do. If you don't do that, you are not only a bad person, you have a mental condition. You are phobic. It's pc crazy at a whole new level.


Yeah...not really.  But that was a nice strawman you constructed.
 
2013-03-21 04:32:41 PM

George Walker Bush: How about a happy medium of strengthening the responsibility toward a family unit with real consequences for breaking what is scientifically the best environment for a child, instead of subsidizing absentee parenthood? It is beneficial to the left to have people in need, looking for a substitute for the void. The nuclear family is where it's at.


barneyfifesbullet: Most people don't care what gays do. Really. Marry and skip down the street. Do whatever.

That right there is insulting to entitled liberals. You are you only supposed to care, you are supposed to applaud everything they do. If you don't do that, you are not only a bad person, you have a mental condition. You are phobic. It's pc crazy at a whole new level.

Now, onward with the gay indoctrination. Which is gay quotas for job hiring, college admissions and everything else. Meanwhile, I will laugh as people try to marry three other people, animals, cars, trees, etc. And, bully and/or sue every church they can. Everything gays have said won't happen.


~Deeerrrrpy derpy dooooooooo~
~Der-der-der-der-der-deeeerrrrpy doooooo~

It's people like these that make you wonder whether they post blatantly obvious idiocy because they actually believe it or because they're trolling.
 
Displayed 148 of 148 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report