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 05:37:41 PM  
Fluorescent Testicle:

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.


Reverse that. The state marries people. The churches create Religious Unions. That would make more sense anyway. The church already has a bunch of rules about what it means to be bound before god. The state doesn't recognize that. I would think the church would want a term which means "We are bound according to the strict rules of the church" vs "We were drunk in Vegas and were joined together by Elvis."
 
2013-03-27 05:39:31 PM  

namegoeshere: 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.


If some preacher is worried that someone might think he approves of all marriages because he once presided over a wedding, then HE can change. He can call what he does something else (I suggest "God sanctioned bumping uglies") but it ain't on me to change because he's got his panties twisted up about a couple dudes marrying.

What a church says about your marriage don't mean a damn unless you get a marriage license. (I've got a couple of very goodf friends that got gay ,married in Texas that way, even!) So let's stop pretending otherwise. You get a marriage license and someone to sign it - you're married. No church has a say unless that's who THE MARRIED COUPLE chooses to have sign it.
 
2013-03-27 05:42:21 PM  

namegoeshere: My point was basically to separate the legal institution from the religious one


It's already separate. There's even different rules about how the wedding invitations are done up between church and non-church weddings.
 
2013-03-27 05:42:39 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: I'm damned sure going to MARRY my fiancee in a week and a half. It ain't a farking business arrangement.


Congrats on the marriage, BTW. But from 20 years the other side of that, yes, it absolutely is a business arrangement. You are forming a legal (hopefully where you are) partnership for your life. I love my husband all the way, but I could have loved him just as much if we had never combined our retirement funds.

If more people thought more about the business side of forming a family unit and less about "but I LOVE him (her) that's all that matters..." then we'd have a lot fewer angry divorced peole.
 
2013-03-27 05:47:38 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: namegoeshere: My point was basically to separate the legal institution from the religious one

It's already separate. There's even different rules about how the wedding invitations are done up between church and non-church weddings.

I May Be Crazy But...: namegoeshere: 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.

If some preacher is worried that someone might think he approves of all marriages because he once presided over a wedding, then HE can change. He can call what he does something else (I suggest "God sanctioned bumping uglies") but it ain't on me to change because he's got his panties twisted up about a couple dudes marrying.

What a church says about your marriage don't mean a damn unless you get a marriage license. (I've got a couple of very goodf friends that got gay ,married in Texas that way, even!) So let's stop pretending otherwise. You get a marriage license and someone to sign it - you're married. No church has a say unless that's who THE MARRIED COUPLE chooses to have sign it.


But that't the thing - they're not legally married in Texas. They should be allowed to be, even if there is not one single religious institution in Texas who will marry them.
 
2013-03-27 05:47:41 PM  

namegoeshere: I May Be Crazy But...: I'm damned sure going to MARRY my fiancee in a week and a half. It ain't a farking business arrangement.

Congrats on the marriage, BTW. But from 20 years the other side of that, yes, it absolutely is a business arrangement. You are forming a legal (hopefully where you are) partnership for your life. I love my husband all the way, but I could have loved him just as much if we had never combined our retirement funds.

If more people thought more about the business side of forming a family unit and less about "but I LOVE him (her) that's all that matters..." then we'd have a lot fewer angry divorced peole.


Nobody's tried to outlaw secular marriage between heterosexuals yet, so I think she and I are safe on the legal front.

There's money involved in a marriage, but there's money involved in it when my drinkign buddies and I hang out, too. Neither is a business arrangement. To try to reduce it to one so that a bunch of god-botherers will chill out makes the whole thing a farce.
 
2013-03-27 05:48:14 PM  
Okay... quote fail...
 
2013-03-27 05:48:35 PM  
It wouldn't shock me if Pat Robertson an Jim Garlow married each other one day.. Just sayin
 
2013-03-27 05:48:52 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: 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.


The auto industry calls those CVTs
 
2013-03-27 05:49:35 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Didn't know who Jim Galow was, so I went over to Wikipedia:

He is a leader in the "pulpit freedom" movement, which insists that pastors should be free to carry out political advocacy from the pulpit in defiance of Internal Revenue Service regulations.


I agree with him, AS LONG AS SAID CHURCHES GIVE UP THEIR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.
 
2013-03-27 05:49:42 PM  
Before clicking I guessed it would be all about picking on those poor conservatives.

I guessed correctly.
 
2013-03-27 05:50:21 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: There's money involved in a marriage, but there's money involved in it when my drinkign buddies and I hang out, too. Neither is a business arrangement.


Just add hookers.
 
2013-03-27 05:51:17 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: namegoeshere: I May Be Crazy But...: I'm damned sure going to MARRY my fiancee in a week and a half. It ain't a farking business arrangement.

Congrats on the marriage, BTW. But from 20 years the other side of that, yes, it absolutely is a business arrangement. You are forming a legal (hopefully where you are) partnership for your life. I love my husband all the way, but I could have loved him just as much if we had never combined our retirement funds.

If more people thought more about the business side of forming a family unit and less about "but I LOVE him (her) that's all that matters..." then we'd have a lot fewer angry divorced peole.

Nobody's tried to outlaw secular marriage between heterosexuals yet, so I think she and I are safe on the legal front.

There's money involved in a marriage, but there's money involved in it when my drinkign buddies and I hang out, too. Neither is a business arrangement. To try to reduce it to one so that a bunch of god-botherers will chill out makes the whole thing a farce.


You're all pre-wedding starry eyed. Meet me back here in 20 years and see if you feel differently.

Also, do not read Go the Fark to Sleep until your kids are at least 2. You won't like it.
 
2013-03-27 05:52:01 PM  

jigger: mysticcat: My father-in-law is 85 and still uses the term "coloreds".

No, grandpa, not "colored people." That's racist. The correct term is "people of color."


I prefer "melanin enriched"

/is melanin challenged
 
2013-03-27 05:52:38 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: I May Be Crazy But...: There's money involved in a marriage, but there's money involved in it when my drinkign buddies and I hang out, too. Neither is a business arrangement.

Just add hookers.


I don't think my fiancee would appreciate it if I tried to add hookers to our relationship. Worth a try, though, I guess.
 
2013-03-27 05:52:41 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Didn't know who Jim Galow was, so I went over to Wikipedia:

He is a leader in the "pulpit freedom" movement, which insists that pastors should be free to carry out political advocacy from the pulpit in defiance of Internal Revenue Service regulations.

Send him to PMITA prison, I say.


Provided, of course, that it's right-wing wharrgarbl.

img99.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-27 05:56:35 PM  

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


Which is another way of saying "god is a dick"...

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.


The problem is that god is supposedly all-knowing. This means that he knew from the beginning how everything would turn out. IOW free will is an illusion and he's responsible for everything that goes wrong.

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.

Well, Jesus was a (mostly) liberal socialist, after all.
 
2013-03-27 05:56:53 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?


There is a small portion of the gay community that is defined entirely by their sexuality and without being gay and in your face about it, they are nothing.  Perez Hilton comes to mind.  But those are the exception, not the rule.
 
2013-03-27 05:59:10 PM  
There isn't that much interest in Pat Robertson. His 15 minutes of attention-whoring are over.
 
2013-03-27 05:59:11 PM  

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


The Other Junkee and I only have one child, but my SIL and BIL have two children; does that mean their marriage is twice as legitimate as ours since they have twice as many kids?
 
2013-03-27 06:00:48 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: The striking down of sodomy laws "affirmed the lifestyle."



I've always wondered: is sodomy between a man and woman illegal, or just man-on-man buttsecks?
 
2013-03-27 06:03:51 PM  
Yeah, geez, maybe they just want to be able to get Social Security benefits, inherit property as a spouse, and get on their spouse's employer's health care plan.  Or bring them into the country as your spouse for citizenship.

Many people still cite the "if you try to see them in the Emergency Room, you're not family and may get turned away"- which is bull, no hospital would do this nowadays, and even if they did because they had a homophobic family that hates you, well a simple legal doc could fix that.

But the other stuff- the real things here- can't be "fixed" by legal work.  You can't make up a contract to give your Social Security "survivor's benefit" to an unrecognized spouse, that's a "legal stranger" and you can't ask the govt to give someone money like that.

You can of course will them your assets, but there can be an estate tax since they're not a legal spouse, and that can be a real problem if the estate lacks liquid assets, e.g. a home with a high real estate value, or farm, but little cash.  If there's an estate tax it may be an inheritance you'd have to sell off and move because there's no cash for taxes on that.  Whereas legal spouses pay no tax on inheritance.
 
2013-03-27 06:04:50 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: And that's why you were cut out of his will. ;-)


I think the homosexuality probably took care of that first.

/Happily married
//Other side of the pond
 
2013-03-27 06:04:59 PM  

Wadded Beef: That they, and other evangicals, clergyman, etc. like them can't or won't see the times changing (even when it's a giant semi at full speed and they're all standing in the middle of the highway) pretty much tells us the relevancy of religion.


Not every clergyman or clergywoman opposes gay marriages.  I know lots of rabbis who will marry a gay couple as long as they're committed to having a Jewish home and raising any and all children Jewish.
 
2013-03-27 06:06:10 PM  
Good thing Jesus was around to marry the cavemen.   If not, we wouldn't be here, as I'm sure they wouldn't have reproduced without getting married first.
 
2013-03-27 06:06:18 PM  

namegoeshere: You're all pre-wedding starry eyed. Meet me back here in 20 years and see if you feel differently.


You may be right. On the other hand, I can point to, for instance, my grandparents who after a lot longer than 20 years are still head over heels. My point is not that money has nothing to do with it, but that marriage is fundamentally different than a mortgage or starting a company to produce a new and better paint can shaker with your neighbor. You and others seem to want to make it that for convenience, but it's not.

On the theme of makign snide remarks about how I don't know what I'm talkign about, if all that's keeping you and your spouse together is the marriage license and filing your taxes jointly, then you should know that divorce is a thing these days, and taxes aren't really that bad.
 
2013-03-27 06:06:20 PM  

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

Which is another way of saying "god is a dick"...

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.

The problem is that god is supposedly all-knowing. This means that he knew from the beginning how everything would turn out. IOW free will is an illusion and he's responsible for everything that goes wrong.

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.

Well, Jesus was a (mostly) liberal socialist, after all.


I don't know if i would call old testament God a dick, but he was certainly a jealous God.
 
2013-03-27 06:17:30 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.


I've been arguing this exact point for years.
 
2013-03-27 06:19:04 PM  
If being wrong was a bad gif on the internet, Pat Robertson would have been the entirety of Angelfire, Geocities and MySpace combined. Westboro would be 4chan.
 
2013-03-27 06:20:55 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: namegoeshere: You're all pre-wedding starry eyed. Meet me back here in 20 years and see if you feel differently.

You may be right. On the other hand, I can point to, for instance, my grandparents who after a lot longer than 20 years are still head over heels. My point is not that money has nothing to do with it, but that marriage is fundamentally different than a mortgage or starting a company to produce a new and better paint can shaker with your neighbor. You and others seem to want to make it that for convenience, but it's not.

On the theme of makign snide remarks about how I don't know what I'm talkign about, if all that's keeping you and your spouse together is the marriage license and filing your taxes jointly, then you should know that divorce is a thing these days, and taxes aren't really that bad.



Yeah, the part where I said I loved my husband all the way meant that we're headed for divorce...

I would say our tone here was quite mutual. You have also contributed your share of snide. We both are a bit hot under the collar over this topic and although I suspect that we are not all that far apart opinion-wise, it appears we're not going to be able to communicate civilly today. I'm in no mood for a biatch fight for the sake of a biatch fight, so I'll say good luck with the marriage however you define it, let's save the political/religious/financial discussion for another time.
 
2013-03-27 06:22:02 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Well, fark me from the grave, Jerry:


Falwell told MSNBC's Tucker Carlson that if he were a lawyer, he too would argue for civil rights for LGBT people. "I may not agree with the lifestyle, but that has nothing to do with the civil rights of that part of our constituency," Falwell said. When Carlson countered that conservatives "are always arguing against 'special rights' for gays," Falwell said that equal access to housing, civil marriage, and employment are basic rights, not special rights. "Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value. It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on


Wow.  Maybe they put him on Thorazine or something.
 
2013-03-27 06:28:18 PM  

namegoeshere: I'm in no mood for a biatch fight for the sake of a biatch fight, so I'll say good luck with the marriage however you define it,


I define it as "Lots of biatch fighting".
 
2013-03-27 06:35:40 PM  

namegoeshere: 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.


This is either intentionally disingenuous or woefully ignorant. In good faith and with all due respect, I assume it's the latter. Specifically, the situation you propose  already exists.
The religious institution is the noun "wedlock" or the verb "wed": religion  currently has the utmost discretion to wed whomever they wish or deny weddings to whomever they wish. Catholics won't wed divorced people. Orthodox Jews won't wed gentiles. Mormons won't wed non-Mormons.  Very few places will wed atheists.
The legal contract is called "marriage" and has the verb "marry". If you do not sign a state marriage license, you are not married, regardless of the ceremony you had. In fact, there's even a legal doctrine called a putative marriage, in which two people go to a church and have a wedding and  believe they are married... but, they actually aren't. The doctrine allows for  a few of the rights and privileges of marriage, due to their reasonable and unintentional mistake, but the law is quite clear: even putative spouses are not actually married.

So, essentially what you're proposing is that we redefine the term "marriage" to mean "wedlock" and create a new term "domestic partnership" to mean "marriage". And why should we do this? Why should we abandon the term marriage, when our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. were all married? Because people like Pat Robertson are filled with hate and bigotry? That's quite possibly the  worst reason to ever do this.

Additionally, it would violate substantive due process. See Sweatt v. Painter.

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.

See above. That separation already has been done, and is the law. And yet those hardcore fundies are still complaining. As you note, they'll never, ever, ever stop complaining, at least until all gay people are dead or locked up... so why should we give in by even an inch?
 
2013-03-27 06:38:56 PM  
If Robertson actually feels that letting other people live there lives, with no change in his own needed, at all, is him being "forced" to do anything then he should just wander off and die, already...
 
2013-03-27 06:40:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Specifically, the situation you propose already exists.


No it doesn't. Not for everyone. Same sex couples can not legally marry in most of the country. The only onesopposing this are the religious fundamentalists. Their voice needs to be taken out of the equasion.
 
2013-03-27 07:01:12 PM  
If they knew what was good for them they wouldn't, that's for sure.
 
2013-03-27 07:01:44 PM  

namegoeshere: Theaetetus: Specifically, the situation you propose already exists.

No it doesn't. Not for everyone. Same sex couples can not legally marry in most of the country. The only onesopposing this are the religious fundamentalists. Their voice needs to be taken out of the equasion.


I retract what I said about good faith and due respect. Now, I think you're being disingenuous.

The situation you're proposing is that we separate the religious and legal institutions. Here's a quote from you:
My point was basically to separate the legal institution from the religious one, thus removing the religious argument from the equasion [sic].
As I pointed out,that situation currently exists. The legal institution - marriage - is separate from the religious institution - wedlock.

You've now responded by changing your argument, noting that gay people cannot legally marry. Although true, your new point has nothing do with  your previously proposed "solution" of separating the legal institution and the religious institution.

Your solution is really nothing more than a "we can't let gay people have access to marriage because they would sully the term, so I'll cleverly propose that we rename 'marriage' for everyone (but us good heterosexual folks will still have  real marriages)" troll. And your attempt to deflect from that is transparent.
 
2013-03-27 07:03:51 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?


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

The answer is either 'There is no God' or 'Freewill'.  Take your pick.
 
2013-03-27 07:10:45 PM  
Theaetetus:

Your solution is really nothing more than a "we can't let gay people have access to marriage because they would sully the term, so I'll cleverly propose that we rename 'marriage' for everyone (but us good heterosexual folks will still have  real marriages)" troll. And your attempt to deflect from that is transparent.

Oh fark you long and hard on that one there. I support gay marriage. My church performs gay marriage, and would continue to do so. Many churches support and perform gay marriage and would continue to do so.  I think it would be farking great if same sex marriage was universally accepted. It's not. It's not going to be. So bag the whole farking institution then. Fark it.

If you want to disagree with me on religious vs civil marriage, fine. But don't you farking DARE put that "good heterosexuals real marriage" bullshiat on me. fark you.
 
2013-03-27 07:14:14 PM  

namegoeshere: Theaetetus:

Your solution is really nothing more than a "we can't let gay people have access to marriage because they would sully the term, so I'll cleverly propose that we rename 'marriage' for everyone (but us good heterosexual folks will still have  real marriages)" troll. And your attempt to deflect from that is transparent.

Oh fark you long and hard on that one there. I support gay marriage. My church performs gay marriage, and would continue to do so. Many churches support and perform gay marriage and would continue to do so.  I think it would be farking great if same sex marriage was universally accepted. It's not. It's not going to be. So bag the whole farking institution then. Fark it.

If you want to disagree with me on religious vs civil marriage, fine. But don't you farking DARE put that "good heterosexuals real marriage" bullshiat on me. fark you.


You support same sex "domestic partnerships", while saying that religious institutions should have sole domain over the term "marriage". All your fake indignation and outrage is not going to change that fact.
 
2013-03-27 07:19:48 PM  
Two men do not have children, two women do not have children

And yet, it is an article of their faith, one that they believe implicitly, that ONE woman can have a child.
 
2013-03-27 07:19:56 PM  
Robertson has been a hypocrite since the days of his ardent support for dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.  He's going to hell faster than a bandwagon of Farkers.
 
2013-03-27 07:21:55 PM  

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


And another clueless twit joins the fray.
 
2013-03-27 07:22:12 PM  

Theaetetus: namegoeshere: Theaetetus:

Your solution is really nothing more than a "we can't let gay people have access to marriage because they would sully the term, so I'll cleverly propose that we rename 'marriage' for everyone (but us good heterosexual folks will still have  real marriages)" troll. And your attempt to deflect from that is transparent.

Oh fark you long and hard on that one there. I support gay marriage. My church performs gay marriage, and would continue to do so. Many churches support and perform gay marriage and would continue to do so.  I think it would be farking great if same sex marriage was universally accepted. It's not. It's not going to be. So bag the whole farking institution then. Fark it.

If you want to disagree with me on religious vs civil marriage, fine. But don't you farking DARE put that "good heterosexuals real marriage" bullshiat on me. fark you.

You support same sex "domestic partnerships", while saying that religious institutions should have sole domain over the term "marriage". All your fake indignation and outrage is not going to change that fact.


Keep reading. You missed it the first time. I don't give a flying rats ass who uses the term "marriage." farking flip the damn terms, who gives a shiat. It is a farking shiny thing distracting from the fact that forming a legal family unit between adults should not be the same thing at all as a religious ceremony. The legal contract should be 100% secular. You can say that it is but it is not because it is not open to all who wish it because of no reason other than religious disagreement.

And you dick my outrage is quite real.
 
2013-03-27 07:23:06 PM  
And if they want to keep people from having gay sex, why not let them marry?
 
2013-03-27 07:28:54 PM  
namegoeshere about the title of marriage versus civil union:

The reason a civil union or any such contract with another name won't work is that marriages have been tested and upheld as legal protections throughout Common Law in 49 of the 50 states, on the US Federal level, and even going back to our Common Law sources (the UK).

Only Louisiana is a Canon Law state (a remnant of the Napoleonic Code but also what you find in the majority of Europe). Canon Law doesn't bother with the Common Law approach to jurisprudence, so a new law can actually replace something and hold up in court.

Note also that it doesn't matter what marriage means to individual religions: we're talking about a civil contract with the same name.

For the rest of the USA and therefore on the Federal level, courts perform the legal tests that solidify (okay, encrust) legal precedence. Marriage has been tested a lot and never loses: a marriage in Arkansas or Alaska is legal in all the other states and nations of the world.

Nothing beats a marriage for inheriting legal privileges. When two people marry, the state rewards them as if they just had a late bar mitzvah. Discounts on insurance, priorities for mortgages, even coupons. THERE IS MONEY IN THAT DEAL! You put a ring on it and the whole world backs off.

If I die, my wife gets my crap before my mother would get anything. (She'd probably sell my vinyl collection wicked fast because she's scared of my turntable but I'd be dead and she'd need to pay the rent.) She gets no questions about visiting me in the hospital (before and even after I'm dead). We get a sweet, scha-weeet tax discount for being married -- from the IRS and from our state. I just need to stay alive... what's this bottle of poison doing here?

Civil unions are a new construct, and they keep failing legal tests. DOMA was created explicitly to dismiss Hawaiian civil unions as getting any Federal legal precedent.

Now, let me tie this together:
1) Homosexuality is not illegal in the United States. Thus the practices of homosexuals no longer make them criminals as they had until recently.
2) Thus homosexuals get equal protection under the law.
3) The Fourteenth Amendment does not allow for partial citizenship: each person gets equal protection under the law.
4) Previous legal tests for marriage restrictions BETWEEN CITIZENS have been dismissed. In particular, miscegenation laws are illegal and got tossed in all states as a recent of a 1965 Supreme Court decision.

The "well, we'd rather see kids have parents of different sexes" argument and "I think the ghey is icky and I found something in the Bible that backs up my opinion" argument fail these tests. Saying that a civil union would be sufficient makes it separate, therefore unequal. Only marriage will do.
 
2013-03-27 07:30:59 PM  

FizixJunkee: 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.

I've been arguing this exact point for years.


And you're wrong to do so. "Marriage" is already a civil partnership, regardless of what the religious nutters say. Changing the name to spare their tender feelings just shows that we lack the balls to stand up for what is right.
 
2013-03-27 07:33:21 PM  
Well, when it comes to a Biblical knowledge of teh gay, I consult a pastor.

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel, or LeTrole." (1 Peter 2:18)
 
2013-03-27 07:35:53 PM  

pseydtonne: namegoeshere about the title of marriage versus civil union:

The reason a civil union or any such contract with another name won't work is that marriages have been tested and upheld as legal protections throughout Common Law in 49 of the 50 states, on the US Federal level, and even going back to our Common Law sources (the UK).

Only Louisiana is a Canon Law state (a remnant of the Napoleonic Code but also what you find in the majority of Europe). Canon Law doesn't bother with the Common Law approach to jurisprudence, so a new law can actually replace something and hold up in court.

Note also that it doesn't matter what marriage means to individual religions: we're talking about a civil contract with the same name.

For the rest of the USA and therefore on the Federal level, courts perform the legal tests that solidify (okay, encrust) legal precedence. Marriage has been tested a lot and never loses: a marriage in Arkansas or Alaska is legal in all the other states and nations of the world.

Nothing beats a marriage for inheriting legal privileges. When two people marry, the state rewards them as if they just had a late bar mitzvah. Discounts on insurance, priorities for mortgages, even coupons. THERE IS MONEY IN THAT DEAL! You put a ring on it and the whole world backs off.

If I die, my wife gets my crap before my mother would get anything. (She'd probably sell my vinyl collection wicked fast because she's scared of my turntable but I'd be dead and she'd need to pay the rent.) She gets no questions about visiting me in the hospital (before and even after I'm dead). We get a sweet, scha-weeet tax discount for being married -- from the IRS and from our state. I just need to stay alive... what's this bottle of poison doing here?

Civil unions are a new construct, and they keep failing legal tests. DOMA was created explicitly to dismiss Hawaiian civil unions as getting any Federal legal precedent.

Now, let me tie this together:
1) Homosexuality is not illegal in the ...


Thank you very much for the calm, reasoned response. I hope very much that marriage equality becomes universal in the US, but I am not optimistic that it will in this generation. There are still too many religious leaders pulling the strings in our politics. My post that has caused such angry bees today was actually a spur of the moment thing for me, because I am farking frustrated at the whole thing.  If we can't all have a legal marriage, then fark legal marriage - we'll go strictly to a  contract system.
 
2013-03-27 07:40:42 PM  

namegoeshere: Theaetetus: namegoeshere: Theaetetus:

Your solution is really nothing more than a "we can't let gay people have access to marriage because they would sully the term, so I'll cleverly propose that we rename 'marriage' for everyone (but us good heterosexual folks will still have  real marriages)" troll. And your attempt to deflect from that is transparent.

Oh fark you long and hard on that one there. I support gay marriage. My church performs gay marriage, and would continue to do so. Many churches support and perform gay marriage and would continue to do so.  I think it would be farking great if same sex marriage was universally accepted. It's not. It's not going to be. So bag the whole farking institution then. Fark it.

If you want to disagree with me on religious vs civil marriage, fine. But don't you farking DARE put that "good heterosexuals real marriage" bullshiat on me. fark you.

You support same sex "domestic partnerships", while saying that religious institutions should have sole domain over the term "marriage". All your fake indignation and outrage is not going to change that fact.

Keep reading. You missed it the first time. I don't give a flying rats ass who uses the term "marriage." farking flip the damn terms, who gives a shiat.


You do, because when I proposed we leave the term "marriage" to mean "marriage" and the term "wedlock" to mean "wedlock" - you know, the current situation - you got angry and defensive. If you don't give a shiat, then why are you arguing so hard that we abandon the term "marriage"?

It is a farking shiny thing distracting from the fact that forming a legal family unit between adults should not be the same thing at all as a religious ceremony. The legal contract should be 100% secular. You can say that it is but it is not because it is not open to all who wish it because of no reason other than religious disagreement.

It is 100% secular, and yes, it's not open to all because of religious disagreement. That there's a bunch of bigotry doesn't mean that suddenly marriage is religious and Sarah Palin is president. As I pointed out to you, repeatedly, marriage is an exclusively legal institution, and people can have whatever the fark ceremony they want in a church and they are  not married. They only are married if they visit the town hall and sign the state document.

And you dick my outrage is quite real.

Likewise, but in my case, it's actually consistent with my words and actions, since I'm not professing to be pro-same sex marriage while simultaneously arguing that marriage should be taken away. You can't claim that the words don't matter, while being outraged that we're not letting you redefine the words.
 
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