Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Is DOMA doomed? It's your big f'ing hubbub over something that will seem silly in 50 years thread, Day 2   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, DOMA, supreme courts, same-sex marriages, Theodore B. Olson, Paul Clement, American Law, Tammy Hollingsworth, United States Code  
•       •       •

4140 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 8:27 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-27 03:01:35 PM  

Teiritzamna: DeaH: And, yet, if the government wanted to make this change, I would support it. Again, I have no problem anytime the government does anything that further separates it from religion. But no one is proposing this. They want civil unions for some and marriage for others, so I oppose it.

Actually, many are proposing a separation of government and religion.  Marriage is at present a governmental act.  One that, sure, can be associated with a religious ceremony, if you so choose.  Thus, most supporters of marriage equality would rather we just ensure that the government act equally and allow any two consenting adults to marry, and let them sort out what religious ceremony (if any) they wish to engage in.  You are arguing, however, that government should get out of the marriage business, cede it entirely to religions, and then from scratch make up a new institution and equally apply that new state to those who seek it.

I guess my question is why should we make government do all of this, and at the same time actually strengthen the position of religions by allowing them to win on the lie that marriage is solely a religious institution, when it is far easier and more in keeping with the tenets of the constitution to have government just do what it already does equally and tell religious groups to suck it if they dont like it?


I guess, as a woman, I have no deep ties to the word marriage since it, historically, treated women as chattel to be given to the highest bidder. If the government wanted to give the term to the churches in order to adopt one conceived as more equal for all, I would support it.
 
2013-03-27 03:14:35 PM  

seadoo2006: Hahahahahaha ... I've got one ...

The only incest laws in Ohio deal with the parent/child relationship over the age of consent (16).

Which means, in no parsed words, that IN OHIO, you can marry your sister, your brother, or your cousin and have that marriage be recognized in ALL 50 STATES.

Take that GAY MARRIAGE!

[media.tumblr.com image 270x214]


Cool.  I didn't even know that. I married my cousin.  In Ohio.  We met in WV.

We're 2nd cousins by marriage and we didn't even know each other as kids.
But still we get a kick of calling each other cuz.
 
2013-03-27 03:48:40 PM  

CujoQuarrel: In 50 years heterosexuality will be banned.

And everyone will be fabulous !!!


Joe Haldeman already covered that prediction in 1974.
 
2013-03-27 04:00:39 PM  

Generation_D: Allow me to sum up the Right's legal argument:

"I said God said those f-ggots can't get married."


Where in the Bible does it say that?
 
2013-03-27 04:08:57 PM  

sakanagai: verbaltoxin: Right, but it's not a proper SCOTUS thread unless we mock Antonin Scalia for being the sh*t-heel troll that he is.

It sounded like he is trying to defer a ruling. During the child-rearing arguments, he suggested that there isn't enough evidence to determine the effects of same-sex parenting. Seems like an opening to kick the can down the road for another few years.


But that's a fallacious argument to begin with. The anti crowd are using the child-rearing and religious "arguments" because that's all they have got. It's a simple matter of whether DOMA violates the Constitution - all the other crap that the anti crowd are throwing in is a smokescreen because they have nothing else. It won't happen, but the liberal side of the court should just be blunt and say so.
 
2013-03-27 04:11:58 PM  

farm machine: Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.


No, we're not going to just shut up and say thank you.  Long after your corpse has rotted and you've been completely forgotten, one group of people or another, somewhere in the world, will still be fighting for their equal rights.  I thought maybe that would make you happy, the realization that you and your ilk have been on top for thousands if not millions of years, and it will yet take decades if not centuries to undo all your damage and set things right, but if the thought of the struggle continuing that much long bothers you instead, then feel free to lie on your deathbed crying bitter tears of failure, with the echoes of a thousand "fark yous" ringing in your ears.
 
2013-03-27 04:17:43 PM  

Farce-Side: farm machine: the GLBT community

I thought Fark all agreed on LGTBBQ (Lets Go To a Bar-B-Que)?


Since another Farker brought it to my attention, I've started using QUILTBAG.

But I love barbecue, so you can put me down for LGTBBQ also.
 
2013-03-27 04:39:36 PM  
The Supremes will punt...Hell, the folks adding to this thread can't even come up with a consensus for the definition of marriage yet we expect these 9 idiots that don't understand property rights, the Bill of Rights or what does or doesn't constitute a tax to make a cogent decision on the matter?  The Supremes just don't understand that we are living in a new age - an age where religious faith is quaint, where the killing of an unborn child is simply birth control, where guns routinely kill people, where the "government of the people" frequently passes inane, overreaching laws with less than a majority of the people supporting them, where people don't care that the government frequently passes inane, overreaching laws - but only when they aren't directly affected by the laws, where the Constitution is archaic, where voters have no idea what a candidate stands for but will vote for her anyway because she is "totally awesome", where we are enthralled by "reality television" in much the same way the gentry of the 19th Century was enthralled by the antics of the inmates locked-up in insane asylums, where lawsuits take the place of talking to your neighbor, where social media takes the place of talking to your neighbor, where video games let you experience the thrill of killing another human being over and over again, where fame is widely believed to be a worthy and achievable goal in life, where fame is (sadly) a marketable occupation, where schools concentrate on everything BUT reading, writing and arithmetic, where the world portrayed in the comedy "Idiocracy" truly has a chance of becoming a reality and where everyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they want in any numbers they want, whenever they want, because it doesn't hurt anyone else so it's no one else's business.  Yes...we live in a different world and the Supremes better start getting on board!
 
2013-03-27 04:50:03 PM  

MikeM: The Supremes will punt...Hell, the folks adding to this thread can't even come up with a consensus for the definition of marriage yet we expect these 9 idiots that don't understand property rights, the Bill of Rights or what does or doesn't constitute a tax to make a cogent decision on the matter?  The Supremes just don't understand that we are living in a new age - an age where religious faith is quaint, where the killing of an unborn child is simply birth control, where guns routinely kill people, where the "government of the people" frequently passes inane, overreaching laws with less than a majority of the people supporting them, where people don't care that the government frequently passes inane, overreaching laws - but only when they aren't directly affected by the laws, where the Constitution is archaic, where voters have no idea what a candidate stands for but will vote for her anyway because she is "totally awesome", where we are enthralled by "reality television" in much the same way the gentry of the 19th Century was enthralled by the antics of the inmates locked-up in insane asylums, where lawsuits take the place of talking to your neighbor, where social media takes the place of talking to your neighbor, where video games let you experience the thrill of killing another human being over and over again, where fame is widely believed to be a worthy and achievable goal in life, where fame is (sadly) a marketable occupation, where schools concentrate on everything BUT reading, writing and arithmetic, where the world portrayed in the comedy "Idiocracy" truly has a chance of becoming a reality and where everyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they want in any numbers they want, whenever they want, because it doesn't hurt anyone else so it's no one else's business.  Yes...we live in a different world and the Supremes better start getting on board!


The horror ... let's just kill everyone ... starting with you ... I'll even buy you the gun and give you the bullet.
 
2013-03-27 08:32:18 PM  

MrBallou: This is the line of reasoning that make me think we should just scrap the whole idea of the government giving special consideration to any type of marriage, including traditional one man/one woman style. It's the special legal (read MONETARY) benefits I'm talking about.


Absolutely.  But until that time, there is no rational basis for the state to decide who can be married and who can't.
 
2013-03-27 10:23:13 PM  

cattmandont: MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.


tada
done and done

but jesus and babies
 
2013-03-27 10:23:48 PM  

ciberido: Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.


Chapter, verse?
 
2013-03-27 10:25:26 PM  

ciberido: Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.


Also, more than a few "new testament christians" quote the old testament when they condemn homosexuality.
 
2013-03-28 12:26:33 AM  
Once the gay marriage thing is decided, time for single folks to demand equal benefits. It's not fair for anyone to pay a different tax rate because of marriage or the lack of it.
 
2013-03-28 12:45:17 AM  

MrBallou: "Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.


Wrong.

Mock26: It is time to get the government out of the marriage business.


Wrong.

VoodooTaco: Marriage is a religious sacrament.


Wrong.

cattmandont: let's remove all marriage rules from gummint.


Wrong.

VoodooTaco: I guess the Seven Sacrements are a largely a Roman Catholic thing, but here they are:


By that logic, crackers are also a fundamentally religious institution.  Won't someone think of the crackers?

ShonenBat: why not polygamy?


Because it's a fundamentally different question and its implementation carries numerous challenges that allowing gays to marry does not.

nekom: So much THIS. Let the church decide what "marriage" is and leave the government out of it.


Why should we let "the church" (as if there's only one, right?) decide the nature of something it has no valid claim upon?

The Muthaship: I've been saying this for a long time. Eliminate marriage as a legal construct.


If so, you've been an ignorant fool for doing so the entire time.  This argument is historically inaccurate nonsense.  Marriage has always been a civil matter as long as it has existed, and it sure as shiat predates Christianity or whatever other modern religion you might practice.  All of you idiots need to find a new angle if you want to argue against marriage equality.  This willfully ignorant pseudo-libertarian crap is for the birds.

The government has the power to marry people.  Churches do not.  Get the fark over it.
 
2013-03-28 05:13:21 AM  

MikeM: The Supremes will punt...Hell, the folks adding to this thread can't even come up with a consensus for the definition of marriage yet we expect these 9 idiots that don't understand property rights, the Bill of Rights or what does or doesn't constitute a tax to make a cogent decision on the matter?  The Supremes just don't understand that we are living in a new age - an age where religious faith is quaint, where the killing of an unborn child is simply birth control, where guns routinely kill people, where the "government of the people" frequently passes inane, overreaching laws with less than a majority of the people supporting them, where people don't care that the government frequently passes inane, overreaching laws - but only when they aren't directly affected by the laws, where the Constitution is archaic, where voters have no idea what a candidate stands for but will vote for her anyway because she is "totally awesome", where we are enthralled by "reality television" in much the same way the gentry of the 19th Century was enthralled by the antics of the inmates locked-up in insane asylums, where lawsuits take the place of talking to your neighbor, where social media takes the place of talking to your neighbor, where video games let you experience the thrill of killing another human being over and over again, where fame is widely believed to be a worthy and achievable goal in life, where fame is (sadly) a marketable occupation, where schools concentrate on everything BUT reading, writing and arithmetic, where the world portrayed in the comedy "Idiocracy" truly has a chance of becoming a reality and where everyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they want in any numbers they want, whenever they want, because it doesn't hurt anyone else so it's no one else's business.  Yes...we live in a different world and the Supremes better start getting on board!


Awwww... you sound mad.
 
2013-03-28 05:23:54 AM  

Mock26: ciberido: Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.

Chapter, verse?



Chapter, verse for WHAT exactly?

That "Paul had serious issues with ALL sex"?  Sheesh.  Where in the parts of the Bible he wrote does Paul NOT have serious issues with all sex?  Try  Thessalonians for a start.

And next time you want to ask a question, don't make it a guessing game.
 
2013-03-28 07:06:33 AM  

Z-clipped: MrBallou: "Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.

Wrong.

Mock26: It is time to get the government out of the marriage business.

Wrong.

VoodooTaco: Marriage is a religious sacrament.

Wrong.

cattmandont: let's remove all marriage rules from gummint.

Wrong.

VoodooTaco: I guess the Seven Sacrements are a largely a Roman Catholic thing, but here they are:

By that logic, crackers are also a fundamentally religious institution.  Won't someone think of the crackers?

ShonenBat: why not polygamy?

Because it's a fundamentally different question and its implementation carries numerous challenges that allowing gays to marry does not.

nekom: So much THIS. Let the church decide what "marriage" is and leave the government out of it.

Why should we let "the church" (as if there's only one, right?) decide the nature of something it has no valid claim upon?

The Muthaship: I've been saying this for a long time. Eliminate marriage as a legal construct.

If so, you've been an ignorant fool for doing so the entire time.  This argument is historically inaccurate nonsense.  Marriage has always been a civil matter as long as it has existed, and it sure as shiat predates Christianity or whatever other modern religion you might practice.  All of you idiots need to find a new angle if you want to argue against marriage equality.  This willfully ignorant pseudo-libertarian crap is for the birds.

The government has the power to marry people.  Churches do not.  Get the fark over it.


The Point................................. ...........you

The government is giving cash awards for being married to some people and not others. That's not fair.
 
2013-03-28 08:44:32 AM  

ciberido: Mock26: ciberido: Mock26: dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.

And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

While I agree that Christians can (and often are) hypocritical, there is a kind of loophole here that makes the "shrimp is ok but gays are evil" position less hypocritical than you might think: namely that homosexuality is (arguably) forbidden by both the New and the Old Testament.  Mixed fibers and shrimp are only forbidden by the Old Testament.  So Christians can argue (and some have) that they aren't worrying about the Old Testament at all when they condemn homosexuality---- it's the New Testament that they're using as a basis for their position.

The problem is Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and had serious issues with ALL sex.

Of course, that leads to the additional question of why (and whether!) it's acceptable to ignore the Old Testament but necessary to follow every rule in the New Testament, but that's a different argument.

Chapter, verse?


Chapter, verse for WHAT exactly?

That "Paul had serious issues with ALL sex"?  Sheesh.  Where in the parts of the Bible he wrote does Paul NOT have serious issues with all sex?  Try  Thessalonians for a start.

And next time you want to ask a question, don't make it a guessing game.


The chapter and verse where the new testament states that homosexuality is a sin.
 
2013-03-28 08:19:03 PM  

Mock26: The chapter and verse where the new testament states that homosexuality is a sin.


Google ""arsenokoites."
 
2013-03-28 10:18:00 PM  

ciberido: arsenokoites


As more than one farker has pointed out to me over the years, temple prostitution is not the same as homosexual sex.  And quite honestly, I am surprised that have not chimed in yet.  They are usually very eager to to speak up on this.
 
Displayed 21 of 221 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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