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  
•       •       •

6646 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 07:41:32 PM  

namegoeshere: 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.


As it is in, for example, France and Germany. You can do, or not do, as you wish in a church, synagogue, temple, ashram or derelict slaughterhouse, but if you want the state benefits that accrue from being married, you have to have a civil wedding.

Incidentally, I don't think they do bizarre dances over defining "marry" and "wed" differently.
 
2013-03-27 07:43:03 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.


The people opposing same-sex marriage are already fighting against same-sex civil unions. Or haven't you been paying attention?
 
2013-03-27 07:45:14 PM  

Theaetetus: You do, because when I proposed we leave the term "marriage" to mean "marriage" and the term "wedlock" to mean "wedlock" ...


You'd do better to drop that nonsense. "Marriage", "wedlock" and "matrimony" are exact synonyms, and attempting to define them differently devalues anything of value you may be trying to offer to the discussion.
 
2013-03-27 07:47:04 PM  
pseydtonne said some stuff about marriage as a Common Law crusty ball, then namegoeshere said:

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.


Thank you for the reply. I know this question has been itching at people and I've been rewriting my explanation all over town. I wanted to give a civil (groan) answer.

I think it's going to be a slower process than I had hoped because it'll go back to the states (when it shouldn't but Prop 8 was only a California law). However it looks like DOMA will die for failing Equal Protection clauses, so a state with gay marriage will also be grating a marriage to suit Social Security and the IRS. That's a start.
 
2013-03-27 07:47:23 PM  

namegoeshere: If we can't all have a legal marriage, then fark legal marriage - we'll go strictly to a  contract system.


Seriously, wtf do you think atheists do now? Have you never heard of a Justice of the Peace performing a marriage? This  is a goddamn contract system already. So, why the hell do you keep saying "gosh, I guess we'll just have to abolish the term marriage for everyone" unless it's exactly what I said earlier - you dowant churches to be able to discriminate on 'marriage'?
 
2013-03-27 07:49:26 PM  

orbister: Theaetetus: You do, because when I proposed we leave the term "marriage" to mean "marriage" and the term "wedlock" to mean "wedlock" ...

You'd do better to drop that nonsense. "Marriage", "wedlock" and "matrimony" are exact synonyms, and attempting to define them differently devalues anything of value you may be trying to offer to the discussion.


No, they aren't. Go find me a "wedlock license". Find me a statute that defines a privilege granted to "wed people". Address the whole "putative marriage" doctrine in which a couple is  wed but is not married. I'll wait.
 
2013-03-27 07:50:41 PM  

orbister: As it is in, for example, France and Germany. You can do, or not do, as you wish in a church, synagogue, temple, ashram or derelict slaughterhouse,



Aaaah. Traveling to the south of France for a destination derelict slaughterhouse wedding. Now you've gone and made me cry.
 
2013-03-27 07:53:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Address the whole "putative marriage" doctrine


Is that where you marry a puta?
 
2013-03-27 07:55:00 PM  
I wonder if this is like the labor statistics on those unemployed (or under employed) folks who've simply given up on looking for a new job.

I know that personally, I've become so disenfranchised with the possibility of ever having the legal right to marriage that I've given up on it, given up on the search for the right person.  At some point, a lot of us are past the age of finding that special someone -- for us, it's too little, too late.

That certainly is not to be interpreted as I don't want marriage equality for homosexuals, I want it more than anything, it's just that I really don't see myself ever being in a position to exercise that right anymore.  Either way, Pat Robertson is wrong (not that it's anything new for him) and I sincerely hope that in my lifetime, gay marriage is federally recognized and legal recognized in the entirety of the United States.
 
2013-03-27 07:58:06 PM  

Theaetetus: No, they aren't. Go find me a "wedlock license". Find me a statute that defines a privilege granted to "wed people".


That's the point of synonyms. You don't need a wedlock license if you have a marriage licence. You don't need permission to wed people if you have permission to join them in matrimony.

Ridiculous attempts to create new and different definitions reduces everything else you write to freeman-on-the-land style whaargaarbl. It's useful when reading a thread to be able to skip over the rubbish, but that is not exactly getting your point, whatever it is, across.
 
2013-03-27 08:04:22 PM  

orbister: Theaetetus: No, they aren't. Go find me a "wedlock license". Find me a statute that defines a privilege granted to "wed people".

That's the point of synonyms. You don't need a wedlock license if you have a marriage licence. You don't need permission to wed people if you have permission to join them in matrimony.


1) There's no such thing as a wedlock license.
2) There is not a single statute in the entire United States Code that gives privileges to people who have been wed. You don't get immunity from being forced to testify against your wedding partner. You don't get to bring your wedding partner into the country automatically. You don't get to file taxes jointly with your wedding partner. You don't get to pass on property free from probate to someone you've merely been in a wedding with. All of these require a  different institution: marriage.
3) You completely failed to address the putative marriage doctrine. Snipped it right out of the post you were replying to. Not even the tiniest mention.

So, that was an utter failure. Want to try again?
 
2013-03-27 08:05:10 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: God is not a homophobe, God is almighty, He's in charge of the world and this is the way he made it

Exactly, he made everyone the way they are and that includes gay people being gay. Great to see we could come to agreement, now could you please stop being a homophobe and listen to your god already.


that's way stretching it. God may have made homosexuals but that does not mean he approve them marrying. Besides isn't it semantics at the end of the day? A gay couple has all the rights a hetero couple has from the eyes of the law. If certain specific laws such as visitation or material distribution are not fair to gay couples, then those issues should be tackled from a standpoint if human rights and equality laws not marriage laws.
 
2013-03-27 08:06:32 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Besides isn't it semantics at the end of the day?


Semantics are important. Otherwise, people on both sides wouldn't be fighting over the word.
 
2013-03-27 08:20:19 PM  
Never had any idea so many gays were on fark.
 
2013-03-27 08:21:20 PM  
I know one lesbian couple who are expecting a baby and desperately want to get married, so your argument is invalid.  I don't care how many "actually want" marriage or not.  Some do, and they should be free to do so.  Opponents' arguments are little more than third grade name calling and logical fallacies.
 
2013-03-27 08:23:19 PM  

Mouser: 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.


It says a lot about you when you agree with people saying bullshiat to continue denying American citizens the same rights and freedoms everyone else enjoy because of religious and bigoted idiocy.

When you and your kind die off, the world will be a little bit better of a place.
 
2013-03-27 08:24:33 PM  

Radak: mysticcat: The just want fabulous weddings?

My father-in-law is 85 and still uses the term "coloreds".  That's about like Pat Robertson's views on gay marriage.

My grandfather was like that.  I used to ask him, "what color were they?"


My friend used to say ... "You white people... you turn blue when you're cold, green when you're gonna puke, red when you're angry, pink when you blush and purple when I'm choking you. But I'm colored? OK!"
 
2013-03-27 08:33:44 PM  
What makes these two think that what they want applies to all gays?

dnrtfa
 
2013-03-27 08:35:43 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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.


No God. If there was one, he's a worse monster than any human that's ever lived.
 
2013-03-27 08:50:11 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: No God. If there was one, he's a worse monster than any human that's ever lived.


I tell people that if there is a god, he serves no useful purpose and, in fact, is a key contributor to human suffering.   What does god do?  I don't see any miracles happening.  "He inspires."  So farking what.  So does Beethoven's 9th symphony.  To claim that god is responsible for Beethoven's work is to subtract from man's greatness.  Fark that.  Man creates wonderful things and horrible things.  We don't need a petty, selfish, childish god to steal the glory of our good things.  Nor do we need a bad guy with a pitchfork as a scapegoat for our mistakes.

To put it simply.  God is obsolete.
 
2013-03-27 09:04:44 PM  

OgreMagi: God is obsolete.


That's why Microsoft is working on God 2.1. It's still in Beta testing.
 
2013-03-27 09:06:39 PM  

Theaetetus: 1) There's no such thing as a wedlock license.


Of course not. There doesn't have to be, since there are marriage licences and marriage is the same things as wedlock.

2) There is not a single statute in the entire United States Code that gives privileges to people who have been wed.

There doesn't have to be, since "married" means precisely the same as "wed".

3) You completely failed to address the putative marriage doctrine. Snipped it right out of the post you were replying to. Not even the tiniest mention.

Because it's completely irrelevant. It deals with people who think they are married, but aren't. Which is exactly the same as thinking you are wedded to someone, but aren't. Or that you are joined in holy matrimony with someone, but aren't.

The supposed distinction between "married" and "wed" is something you have pulled out of your arse.
 
2013-03-27 09:07:51 PM  

OgreMagi: Keizer_Ghidorah: No God. If there was one, he's a worse monster than any human that's ever lived.

I tell people that if there is a god, he serves no useful purpose and, in fact, is a key contributor to human suffering.   What does god do?  I don't see any miracles happening.  "He inspires."  So farking what.  So does Beethoven's 9th symphony.  To claim that god is responsible for Beethoven's work is to subtract from man's greatness.  Fark that.  Man creates wonderful things and horrible things.  We don't need a petty, selfish, childish god to steal the glory of our good things.  Nor do we need a bad guy with a pitchfork as a scapegoat for our mistakes.

To put it simply.  God is obsolete.


All gods are. Humans created them to answer things that they couldn't. Lightning and thunder were two god-brothers fighting over a woman, Zeus throwing thunderbolts because he's grumpy, or a gigantic bird flying over and launching them from its wings. The seasons were caused by the goddess of nature's daughter being in the underworld for a few months. Disease was the gods being assholes or punishing for whatever reason. We've answered all of the questions and more with our intelligence and observation.

If people want or need extra-ordinary beings that see all and know all and control all in order to comfort themselves because their lives suck or they're afraid of death, they're welcome to it. But when they try to use it to control or deceive others, justify their attacks on others, and demand others listen to and follow them, that's when religion needs to be smacked back into its place. Especially when it tells people to treat other people as less than human because they don't think and act the way it demands people think and act.
 
2013-03-27 09:09:24 PM  

orbister: Theaetetus: 1) There's no such thing as a wedlock license.

Of course not. There doesn't have to be, since there are marriage licences and marriage is the same things as wedlock.

2) There is not a single statute in the entire United States Code that gives privileges to people who have been wed.

There doesn't have to be, since "married" means precisely the same as "wed".

3) You completely failed to address the putative marriage doctrine. Snipped it right out of the post you were replying to. Not even the tiniest mention.

Because it's completely irrelevant. It deals with people who think they are married, but aren't. Which is exactly the same as thinking you are wedded to someone, but aren't. Or that you are joined in holy matrimony with someone, but aren't.

The supposed distinction between "married" and "wed" is something you have pulled out of your arse.


How about this: we simply allow gays to marry and stop biatching about what happens to a word.
 
2013-03-27 09:21:13 PM  

orbister: Theaetetus: 1) There's no such thing as a wedlock license.

Of course not. There doesn't have to be, since there are marriage licences and marriage is the same things as wedlock.

2) There is not a single statute in the entire United States Code that gives privileges to people who have been wed.

There doesn't have to be, since "married" means precisely the same as "wed".

3) You completely failed to address the putative marriage doctrine. Snipped it right out of the post you were replying to. Not even the tiniest mention.

Because it's completely irrelevant. It deals with people who think they are married, but aren't. Which is exactly the same as thinking you are wedded to someone, but aren't...
The supposed distinction between "married" and "wed" is something you have pulled out of your arse.


Oh, I'm sorry, that's another fail. The putative marriage doctrine involves people who  have been wed, but have  not been married, proving explicitly that "married" and "wed" are distinct, since one cannot be A and NOT A at the same time.

That's 0 for 4. Care to make it 0 for 5? Just keep digging your hole, I'm sure you'll hit another pile of fail.
 
2013-03-27 09:21:33 PM  

PsiChick: and finally only the purple people, with mystical powers over the forces of the universe, remained.


...and then they were devoured by the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater?
 
2013-03-27 09:26:34 PM  

danceswithcrows: PsiChick: and finally only the purple people, with mystical powers over the forces of the universe, remained.

...and then they were devoured by the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater?


Nah. He only wanted to sing in a rock n' roll band.
 
2013-03-27 09:45:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: danceswithcrows: PsiChick: and finally only the purple people, with mystical powers over the forces of the universe, remained.

...and then they were devoured by the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater?

Nah. He only wanted to sing in a rock n' roll band.


...Damnit, Keizer.

/Nice one.
 
2013-03-27 09:55:08 PM  
"They say it's homophobia racism to believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God black people don't really like pickled pigs feet, they just pretend to to freak out whitey."

ftfPat Robertson
 
2013-03-27 09:55:31 PM  
WhyKnot:

I don't know if i would call old testament God a dick, but he was certainly a jealous God.

Any god that is so insecure that he needs exclusive rights on a fawning populace, a supposedly omnipotent god, insecure to the point of killing anyone who doesn't worship him, is by definition a dick (and unworthy of worship).
 
2013-03-27 09:57:47 PM  
. Pat Robertson and Pastor Jim Garlow ,


Please shoot yourself in the face.


Sincerely,
Me.
 
2013-03-27 09:59:20 PM  
"There isn't that much interest in marriage, there isn't that much interest in commitment and monogamy, it isn't there"

well he's right about that ... wait, he's talking about gay people?  i thought he was just talking about society in general.
 
2013-03-27 10:00:17 PM  
Call me when I can marry my cousin's pet goat.
 
2013-03-27 10:02:29 PM  
Theaetetus:

Be forewarned, fellow Farkers,  Theaetetus is a lawyer.  Maybe just a patent lawyer, but nonetheless appears to have a desire to refine his debating skills here on Fark.  And he does very well at that (except for the notable shreekiness near the end of dying threads when his debaters don't know when to quit and let him win[1]).

But here, he's completely right (as opposed to being mostly right or making a really good case up until [1] above occurs) .  I got "married" some 15 years ago to a person quite recognizably not of my "race"[2].  After obtaining the state authorized license, we went to the courthouse and had a judge marry us.  All official, no Jerry Robertson or Pat Falwell delegates required.

[1] Tone it down a bit, you negate any win by debating the remaining idiots or people you've resorted or responded to wrt name calling
[2] We quite successfully propogated, so I suspect we are actually of the same race after all.  OK, species.
 
2013-03-28 01:22:38 AM  

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


Well, no, bekaws them folks in Bibel times had kids when they wuz old all the time, cuz the Lord would magic 'em so the wimmen could have young'uns when they wuz well over yer prime breedin' season, cuz if it's in the Holy Word of God what King James had dun up it's true, son.
 
2013-03-28 02:48:39 AM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-03-28 06:04:01 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: Psychopusher: Newsflash to Pat Robertson: Your spiralling descent into irrelevance pleases me.  Do make more such statements.  Flailing your arms in righteous panic and decreeing "BECAUSE GOD" on matters of no direct concern to you and yours will only hasten gravity's inevitable pull on your sad, deluded carcass.  History will cast a wearied look upon your legacy and shake its head at the nonsense humans used to busy itself with.

In other words, shut up and die already.


Don't be mean to ol' Pat Robertson.  He's just trying to look out for the poor ducks.
 
2013-03-28 06:05:27 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: How about this: we simply allow gays to marry and stop biatching about what happens to a word.


Well absolutely. I can't even begin to imagine what the benefits could be of letting them wed but not marry, or marry but not wed, or whatever the hell is being suggested.
 
2013-03-28 06:07:19 AM  

Theaetetus: Oh, I'm sorry, that's another fail. The putative marriage doctrine involves people who  have been wed, but have  not been married, proving explicitly that "married" and "wed" are distinct, since one cannot be A and NOT A at the same time.


Only in your head.
 
2013-03-28 06:52:57 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Is this one of those things like where Pat Robertson says he doesn't want to be punched in the head but sometimes it seems like he does.

/dnrtfa


Some folk'll never eat a skunk, but then again some folk'll,
Like Cletus, the slack-jawed yokel.
 
2013-03-28 07:27:38 AM  

WhyKnot: I don't know if i would call old testament God a dick, but he was certainly a jealous God.


There are very many things I'd call the OT god. "Dick" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Say, any psychologists in the thread who'd like to give the OT God a diagnosis? "Paranoid schizophrenic," maybe?
 
2013-03-28 07:29:09 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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.


I choose "No God." Not sure there is "Free Will" either.
 
2013-03-28 10:37:56 AM  
Homosexuals pretending to be heterosexuals. Well, I'll be.
 
2013-03-28 03:34:39 PM  

orbister: Keizer_Ghidorah: How about this: we simply allow gays to marry and stop biatching about what happens to a word.

Well absolutely. I can't even begin to imagine what the benefits could be of letting them wed but not marry, or marry but not wed, or whatever the hell is being suggested.


I don't know either, because you're ranting about stupidity and deflecting from the central point.
 
2013-03-28 05:27:12 PM  

sodomizer: Homosexuals pretending to be heterosexuals. Well, I'll be.


So, the GOP?
 
Displayed 45 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 »






Report