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.

(Opposing Views)   Newsflash to all homosexuals. Pat Robertson and Pastor Jim Garlow say that gays don't really want marriage   (opposingviews.com) divider line 245
    More: Unlikely, Pat Robertson, monogamy, gays and lesbians, gays  
•       •       •

6651 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 3:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 04:31:49 PM  

Ed Grubermann: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

 And even if this was true, so what? What's the problem with accepting homosexuals as normal?


"Because normal is what *I* am!"
 
2013-03-27 04:32:17 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Come on guys, y'all are preachers, so show a little decorum. Stop talking about sex in public.


Either sex in public or talking in public, whichever floats your boat, I guess.
 
2013-03-27 04:33:11 PM  

Ed Grubermann: FTFA: Pastor Jim Garlow claimed: "There isn't that much interest in marriage, there isn't that much interest in commitment and monogamy, it isn't there; it's attempting to force us to affirm a lifestyle, that's what's at stake here."

Have I not been pointing out that this is their primary concern for years now?


They don't like the competition.
 
2013-03-27 04:33:23 PM  

exick: "a few people [who] want to have their way doing of sex affirmed by everyone else."

Is that really a direct quote? It sounds like maybe the quote is supposed to read "their way of doing sex" which is hilarious because who talks about sex like that that's over the age of 8?

[God's] in charge of the world

So you're telling me all this shiat is on purpose? Does this guy have a supervisor I can talk to about how badly he's farking up his job?


At least he didn't refer to it as The Sex.
 
2013-03-27 04:35:38 PM  
Marriage rates for homosexuals in The Netherlands would support that claim.
 
2013-03-27 04:36:33 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Lutrasimilis: the same basic drive as the heterosexuals

You mean standard or automatic transmissions?


All stick.
 
2013-03-27 04:39:56 PM  
They are actually right, most gay couples are going to discover when they split how bad divorce sucks. Keeping your own separate legal identities has advantages. However they should have the same right to make stupid mistakes us straights do and pay just as high a price for making them.

Go ahead gays, get married and suffer like the rest of us.

/yeah, I'm a little bitter
 
2013-03-27 04:40:04 PM  

Lutrasimilis: I May Be Crazy But...: Lutrasimilis: the same basic drive as the heterosexuals

You mean standard or automatic transmissions?

All stick.


Not the lesbians.
 
2013-03-27 04:42:16 PM  
Guess I have to dust this off from an old Yahoo post.  Here goes:

In 1747, Benjamin Franklin "knew" that heat was a colorless, odorless fluid.
Until dis-proven by Louis Pasteur, everyone "knew" that rats were spontaneously generated by rags on the floor.
Until dis-proven as quackery, Craniology was an accurate science everyone "knew" to be the best way to match someone's physical characteristics with their perfect profession.
In the 1950s, doctors "knew" that smoking posed no health threats.

And the Bible stories are 2000 years old? What did they "know" at the time?  It seems they "knew" Jesus turned water into wine, they "knew" angels could come down from heaven to talk to people, they "knew" plagues of locusts decimated their crops when God was angry, and they "knew" homosexuals were sinners and an abomination in the eyes of God.  So they also "knew" gay marriage was out of the question.

Imagine what we'll know tomorrow.

IMO, this has less to do with the "sanctity of marriage" and more to do with the business element.  Married couples get tax breaks and spouses can share insurance benefits.
 
2013-03-27 04:42:25 PM  

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


I can certainly respect that as a personal goal. Do the rest of the homosexuals feel the same way?
 
2013-03-27 04:45:29 PM  
Many of my gay acquaintances don't want to get married, either.   They like the promiscuous lifestyle.
 
2013-03-27 04:45:34 PM  
Some GLBT folks really don't want to get married and also don't think other GLBT folks should get married - for example, some gay men who identify as "Radical Faeries."  They think it's just copying heterosexuality, and that homosexuality should be something special and different.  They, uh, also tend to live on communes and have made-up religions.  Some only choose to live their lives this way, some disapprove of all other gay men living their lives in a more mainstream way and think it's a betrayal to legalize same-sex marriage.

So there are some out there.  It's mind-blowingly ridiculous to call them a majority, however.
 
2013-03-27 04:52:42 PM  

gonegirl: Some GLBT folks really don't want to get married and also don't think other GLBT folks should get married - for example, some gay men who identify as "Radical Faeries."


What a radical faerie may look like

farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-27 04:52:43 PM  

Test Tickles: So, we only get married to have children?
Well based on that logic nobody over 55 should be allowed to marry.


And what about those of us who had a kid without the wedding?

/Godless slut... I know
 
2013-03-27 04:57:16 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Lutrasimilis: I May Be Crazy But...: Lutrasimilis: the same basic drive as the heterosexuals

You mean standard or automatic transmissions?

All stick.

Not the lesbians.


Because strap-on transmissions are very hard to find.
 
2013-03-27 04:58:11 PM  

serpent_sky: I love how they try to boil it down to whether or not two men or two women can have children.

By that logic, infertile people should not be allowed to marry, because infertile people do not have children. Or older people who have lost a spouse, or just met the right person after menopause can't marry because post-menopausal women cannot have children.  I don't think those arguments would fly, so why should they for gay couples?


Counterpoint:  Elizabeth conceived and delivered John the Baptist despite she and her husband being "of advanced years" and she being barren.   (Surprised more gay-bashers don't bring that bit of scripture up more often.  It's an obvious rebuttal to the obvious rebuttal.)

FWIW, I couldn't care less who marries whom.  The more love and less hate in the world, the better off we all are.  I have my fingers crossed that the courts will not stand on the wrong side of history.
 
2013-03-27 04:58:17 PM  

giftedmadness: Many of my gay acquaintances don't want to get married, either.   They like the promiscuous lifestyle.


Just like straight people, then?
 
2013-03-27 04:58:54 PM  
FatherChaos: ... and they "knew" homosexuals were sinners and an abomination in the eyes of God.  So they also "knew" gay marriage was out of the question.

Actually, if you remove everything written by Paul (quite possibly the first gay homophobe) and everything that's widely understood to have been mistranslated, the Bible's either neutral on the subject or even pro-equality, depending on how you look at it. The Christians (the loudmothed Christians who just can't shut up about penis-goes-where, before anybody jumps on me for OMG BROAD BRUSH) just use it as a scapegoat; the vast majority have never read it, they just really really love to hate and/or are so deep in the closet they're buttfarking Mr Tumnus.
 
2013-03-27 05:02:36 PM  

QueenMamaBee: /Godless slut... I know


How YOU doin'?
 
2013-03-27 05:03:24 PM  
wanting the right to get married =/= wanting to get married
 
2013-03-27 05:03:42 PM  

puckrock2000: "Two women do not have children."

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 190x266]

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 183x275]

Apparently didn't get the memo.


*sigh*

I'm all in favor of artificially assisted reproduction as needed, and gay marriage, and women regardless of orientation making kids if they want. Not that most of them give a crap what I think.

But I just find that particular argument somewhat self-defeating, since it only goes to show that you do, at present, still need a male involved somewhere along the line to form babby. (Blah blah blah natural order herp derp.) Even if you don't actually have to do the nasty anymore.

Lesbians don't reproduce via parthenogenesis.


Yet.
 
2013-03-27 05:03:56 PM  
Okay, Fark it. That's it. "Marriage" needs to be separate from a "Domestic Partnership Contract."

The state has no say in who marries, and marriage has no legal meaning. It is strictly a religious institution. Each religious institution can choose who can marry in their church.

"Domestic Partnership Contract" is what is issued by the state, and is a legally binding contract. As long as the partners are adults able to legally enter a contract, anyone can become Domestic Partners. No religious institution has any influence.

Law types needs to work out the pesky legal details of three or more spouse domestic units, but as long as everyone is adult and legally able to enter the contract, it's nobody's damn business but theirs how babby family unit is formed.
 
2013-03-27 05:05:18 PM  

exick: "a few people [who] want to have their way wang doing dong of sex affirmed by everyone else."

Is that really a direct quote? It sounds like maybe the quote is supposed to read "their way of doing sex" which is hilarious because who talks about sex like that that's over the age of 8?


/ftfy
 
2013-03-27 05:05:48 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: FatherChaos: ... and they "knew" homosexuals were sinners and an abomination in the eyes of God.  So they also "knew" gay marriage was out of the question.

Actually, if you remove everything written by Paul (quite possibly the first gay homophobe) and everything that's widely understood to have been mistranslated, the Bible's either neutral on the subject or even pro-equality, depending on how you look at it. The Christians (the loudmothed Christians who just can't shut up about penis-goes-where, before anybody jumps on me for OMG BROAD BRUSH) just use it as a scapegoat; the vast majority have never read it, they just really really love to hate and/or are so deep in the closet they're buttfarking Mr Tumnus.


My usual response to my wingnut releatives is that they already chose to ignore parts of the bible already - why aren't they choosing to ignore a few throw away lines in two random books out of sixty-six?  They then go on blabbering about how they don't ignore anything, love Jesus, and eventually their head explodes.   By this time I've started by second beer.
 
2013-03-27 05:06:18 PM  

giftedmadness: Many of my gay acquaintances don't want to get married, either.   They like the promiscuous lifestyle.


Meh. I've known plenty of married people who were pretty promiscuous.

Most with the knowledge, and occasionally the cooperation, of their spouses. ("Without" gets pretty messy pretty fast.)
 
2013-03-27 05:07:34 PM  

namegoeshere: Okay, Fark it. That's it. "Marriage" needs to be separate from a "Domestic Partnership Contract."


No. That's the worst possible "Solution" and people who recommend it are almost as stupid as the homophobes.
 
2013-03-27 05:08:24 PM  

tillerman35: serpent_sky: I love how they try to boil it down to whether or not two men or two women can have children.

By that logic, infertile people should not be allowed to marry, because infertile people do not have children. Or older people who have lost a spouse, or just met the right person after menopause can't marry because post-menopausal women cannot have children.  I don't think those arguments would fly, so why should they for gay couples?

Counterpoint:  Elizabeth conceived and delivered John the Baptist despite she and her husband being "of advanced years" and she being barren.   (Surprised more gay-bashers don't bring that bit of scripture up more often.  It's an obvious rebuttal to the obvious rebuttal.)

FWIW, I couldn't care less who marries whom.  The more love and less hate in the world, the better off we all are.  I have my fingers crossed that the courts will not stand on the wrong side of history.


Don't forget Sarah and Abraham...issac was born when they both were in their later years.
 
2013-03-27 05:08:32 PM  
MY FAITH REQUIRES THAT EVERYONE FOLLOW IT!!! NOW GET CRACKING AND STOP OPPRESSING ME!!!!!!
 
2013-03-27 05:08:36 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: namegoeshere: Okay, Fark it. That's it. "Marriage" needs to be separate from a "Domestic Partnership Contract."

No. That's the worst possible "Solution" and people who recommend it are almost as stupid as the homophobes.


Stupid? Nah. Just oblivious to human nature.

Kinda like my grandmother used to say, "Communism would be a paradise, if it worked. But it never will."
 
2013-03-27 05:09:19 PM  

namegoeshere: The state has no say in who marries, and marriage has no legal meaning. It is strictly a religious institution. Each religious institution can choose who can marry in their church.


Ship captains and judges have been marrying people for hundreds of years and atheists have been getting married without all the pesky religious ritual for decades.  And yet - its only when the gheys want to get married that the word "marriage" now has magical special meaning and only belongs to religious sects.

To you I say - fark off.  Full civil marriage equality or bust.
 
2013-03-27 05:09:42 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: namegoeshere: Okay, Fark it. That's it. "Marriage" needs to be separate from a "Domestic Partnership Contract."

No. That's the worst possible "Solution" and people who recommend it are almost as stupid as the homophobes.


Why?
 
2013-03-27 05:10:47 PM  
Sure give people what they think they want, (Marriage) then wait for the reality to set in.Divorce in 3..2..1..
 
2013-03-27 05:11:23 PM  

namegoeshere: Okay, Fark it. That's it. "Marriage" needs to be separate from a "Domestic Partnership Contract."

The state has no say in who marries, and marriage has no legal meaning. It is strictly a religious institution. Each religious institution can choose who can marry in their church.

"Domestic Partnership Contract" is what is issued by the state, and is a legally binding contract. As long as the partners are adults able to legally enter a contract, anyone can become Domestic Partners. No religious institution has any influence.

Law types needs to work out the pesky legal details of three or more spouse domestic units, but as long as everyone is adult and legally able to enter the contract, it's nobody's damn business but theirs how babby family unit is formed.


Unacceptable. I may not be religious, but I'm damned sure going to MARRY my fiancee in a week and a half. It ain't a farking business arrangement.

If a church wants to change the name of what they do, they can go right ahead, but they don't get to inflict their stupid on me.
 
2013-03-27 05:12:38 PM  
FTFA: "God is not a homophobe, God is almighty, He's in charge of the world and this is the way he made it."

God made the world with homosexuals and all? Then why won't he let them do as they want (because he made them want it)? Is god a dick?
 
2013-03-27 05:13:44 PM  

jigger: FirstNationalBastard: Religion is a learned behavior.

It's a lifestyle choice.


Sometimes it's a mental illness.
 
2013-03-27 05:13:58 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I hope Pat lives to be 300 - long enough to see the Christianity he preaches either die entirely or be ignored in favor of a more hippy-dippy Christianity (how's THAT for irony?). I hope his 300-year-old brain remains as healthy as it is now, so that he sees all this happen. I hope he keeps biatching about it, so much that on the last episode of The 700 Club, he asks "Why have you forsaken me?" and the answer is a resounding "BECAUSE YOU'RE A PRICK AND THE GOD YOU WORSHIP IS EVEN WORSE."


Even better: Pat dies and goes to heaven, and discovers that he's the only one who got in. Now he has to spend eternity cooped up with a bored and psychotic god.
 
2013-03-27 05:14:19 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: gonegirl: Some GLBT folks really don't want to get married and also don't think other GLBT folks should get married - for example, some gay men who identify as "Radical Faeries."

What a radical faerie may look like

[farm6.staticflickr.com image 303x400]


...Just to clarify, the fact that I'm going to fap to that doesn't mean I'm gay, right?

/Not that it matters
//too late now
 
2013-03-27 05:14:25 PM  

gingerjet: namegoeshere: The state has no say in who marries, and marriage has no legal meaning. It is strictly a religious institution. Each religious institution can choose who can marry in their church.

Ship captains and judges have been marrying people for hundreds of years and atheists have been getting married without all the pesky religious ritual for decades.  And yet - its only when the gheys want to get married that the word "marriage" now has magical special meaning and only belongs to religious sects.

To you I say - fark off.  Full civil marriage equality or bust.


Did you read the rest of it? Because it's very equal. I support gay marriage, BTW. But it will never be recognised in certain places. Removing the legalities from marriage for everyone, straight or gay, eliminates the need for it to be. If a pair (or more) want to be married, great. Fine. Everyone's welcome to be. It just has no legal recognition. But no religious institution has any say in who establishes a legal family unit.
 
2013-03-27 05:14:47 PM  

namegoeshere: Okay, Fark it. That's it. "Marriage" needs to be separate from a "Domestic Partnership Contract."

The state has no say in who marries, and marriage has no legal meaning. It is strictly a religious institution. Each religious institution can choose who can marry in their church.

"Domestic Partnership Contract" is what is issued by the state, and is a legally binding contract. As long as the partners are adults able to legally enter a contract, anyone can become Domestic Partners. No religious institution has any influence.

Law types needs to work out the pesky legal details of three or more spouse domestic units, but as long as everyone is adult and legally able to enter the contract, it's nobody's damn business but theirs how babby family unit is formed.


This.  Every time I hear someone refer to the "biblical definition" of marriage while debating the law, I like to mention the first part of the first sentence of the First Amendment.  I think I want to break the habit of saying I'm "married" since we didn't get married in a church.
 
2013-03-27 05:16:46 PM  
WHAT THE FARK!!!
 
2013-03-27 05:18:42 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: namegoeshere: Okay, Fark it. That's it. "Marriage" needs to be separate from a "Domestic Partnership Contract."

The state has no say in who marries, and marriage has no legal meaning. It is strictly a religious institution. Each religious institution can choose who can marry in their church.

"Domestic Partnership Contract" is what is issued by the state, and is a legally binding contract. As long as the partners are adults able to legally enter a contract, anyone can become Domestic Partners. No religious institution has any influence.

Law types needs to work out the pesky legal details of three or more spouse domestic units, but as long as everyone is adult and legally able to enter the contract, it's nobody's damn business but theirs how babby family unit is formed.

Unacceptable. I may not be religious, but I'm damned sure going to MARRY my fiancee in a week and a half. It ain't a farking business arrangement.

If a church wants to change the name of what they do, they can go right ahead, but they don't get to inflict their stupid on me.


And that's great. I support you 100%. I just think the whole "sanctity of marriage" crap, when used to deny legal rights, is bullshiat. Separating the religious "marriage" from the establishment of a domestic partnership FOR EVERYONE eliminates the argument in the political arena. Bill O, and these folks, wouldn't have a say in who marries outside of their individual church.
 
2013-03-27 05:19:53 PM  

Killer Cars: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

When you make spaghetti, do you use butter on the noodles after they've cooked, or just put salt in the boiling water? I think people generally do one or other other, but not both.


I put olive oil in the water, to keep the noodles from sticking together, and salt to make the water boil harder...
 
2013-03-27 05:22:01 PM  

namegoeshere: Why?


Many reasons, but the one I prefer is that you're giving in to the wants of the bigots; by backing off and simply changing the definitions to agree with them, you're letting them win. Besides, aside from the potential venue of the wedding, nothing about marriage is religious anyway. They can change their word for it if they so wish.
 
2013-03-27 05:22:20 PM  

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


It says a lot about the Internet these days when only the trolls here are speaking the truth.
 
2013-03-27 05:23:28 PM  
Can't he just die already?
 
2013-03-27 05:27:47 PM  
I was under the impression they wanted to marry for legal reasons, like health insurance and stuff like that. Spouses have certain rights and privileges. I could be wrong, can't honestly say I give a hoot if you get married or not, it's your life.
 
2013-03-27 05:28:39 PM  

Mouser: It says a lot about the Internet these days when only the trolls here are speaking the truth.


I intend on proposing to my girlfriend the day gay marriage is legalised federally. Now what?
 
2013-03-27 05:28:43 PM  

Mixolydian Master: Killer Cars: letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.

When you make spaghetti, do you use butter on the noodles after they've cooked, or just put salt in the boiling water? I think people generally do one or other other, but not both.

I put olive oil in the water, to keep the noodles from sticking together, and salt to make the water boil harder...


Pat Robertson does the same thing with puppies.
 
2013-03-27 05:29:39 PM  

Uncle Tractor: FTFA: "God is not a homophobe, God is almighty, He's in charge of the world and this is the way he made it."

God made the world with homosexuals and all? Then why won't he let them do as they want (because he made them want it)? Is god a dick?


The thought would be that 'Free will' is what allows people to either follow or not follow the teachings of God.

The Old Testament is full of examples of God punishing the Jews when they decided to act counter to his wishes...e.g. captured by the Egyptians, captured by the philistines, slaughter of all the adults for worshipping the golden calf...etc.

To answer your final question, the thought is not that God is a dick, rather he gives people the chance to do right. Heck in theory God devised methods upon which sinners could be cleansed of their sins...offering and what not.

My read of the bible (old testament and the big 4 gospels of the New Testament) is that Jesus wouldn't have cared about gay marriage and instead would have cared more about starving people and the corrosive effect of money.
 
2013-03-27 05:35:21 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: namegoeshere: Why?

Many reasons, but the one I prefer is that you're giving in to the wants of the bigots; by backing off and simply changing the definitions to agree with them, you're letting them win. Besides, aside from the potential venue of the wedding, nothing about marriage is religious anyway. They can change their word for it if they so wish.


How is that letting them win? Many churches marry same sex couples. They will continue to do so. But being "married" in the religious sense, for gay or straight, would not enter you into the legal contract of what is now "marriage." That would be a separate, legally binding contract.

I'm not super attached to the terms "marriage" vs "domestic partnership." If you have better ones, great. Bring them on. My point was basically to separate the legal institution from the religious one, thus removing the religious argument from the equasion. You (we, people wanting marriage equality, whomever) are never, ever, ever in a million years going to convince the hardcore fundies that gay marriage is anything but sinful. And as much as I hate it, there are large chunks of the country where those who make the rules are all of that ilk. Separating the religious contract from the legal contract makes that irrelevant. The religious institutions who support marriage equality are free to marry whomever they want, and the fundies are free to keep on not doing that. But neither would have any say into who legally forms a family unit. That would be a separate, universally recognised contract.
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report