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 25
    More: Cool, Americans, same-sex marriages, loyal opposition  
•       •       •

1299 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-18 05:51:31 PM  
5 votes:
"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 06:18:20 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:59:41 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:29:25 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:12:43 PM  
2 votes:

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


Color blindness is a choice!

Pray the gray away!

Heathen
2013-03-18 04:21:44 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:41:47 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:35:32 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-03-19 05:40:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:59:32 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:46:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:15:24 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-18 10:56:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:37:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:44:08 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:25:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:25:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:57:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:56:08 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:17:53 PM  
1 votes:
64% now also believe that gay marriage should be a national, not a state-by-state issue. Interesting.

/Fark DOMA
2013-03-18 06:13:31 PM  
1 votes:
"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 06:12:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:46:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:45:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:14:40 PM  
1 votes:
And the numbers increase every year.

And the same people opposing it hate Mexicans, blacks, women, and any religion that isn't Christian.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report