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  
•       •       •

6647 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
 
2013-03-27 02:29:34 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-27 02:30:27 PM  
There's not enough facepalm pictures on the internet for this.
 
2013-03-27 02:35:35 PM  
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?
 
2013-03-27 02:36:26 PM  
"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?
 
2013-03-27 02:38:01 PM  
The striking down of sodomy laws "affirmed the lifestyle." If Jesus returned tomorrow he wouldn't give these two the time of day.
 
2013-03-27 02:40:05 PM  
I have several friends who would be very interested in this revelation.
 
2013-03-27 02:43:29 PM  
That's OK - Pat and Jim don't really want any followers.

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."

// bonus if it's a heavenly voice that speaks that truth
 
2013-03-27 02:57:30 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Pat, Jim, I'm sorry my dears, but you are up for elimination. The time has come. For you to HURR DERP for. your. life!
 
2013-03-27 02:58:33 PM  
Keep talking old man. You're just making Christians and all the other idiots look stupider by the day.
 
2013-03-27 03:05:53 PM  
Which is why, as a good Christian, I say we should hunt them down and force them to marry.

Sure, they will protest "No! I don't want to get married!" But too bad, such is their fate.
 
2013-03-27 03:07:12 PM  

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?"
 
2013-03-27 03:19:20 PM  
700 Club host Pat Robertson agreed and added: "The foundation of our society since the founding of our great Republic is under attack by a few people [who] want to have their way doing of sex affirmed by everyone else."

Pat has no sense of irony, does he?
 
2013-03-27 03:40:25 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?"


Everyone knows the real colored people are people who have tattoos.

/marriage is an archaic institution anyway, and no one should want to be in an institution. But anyone should have the right to be committed.
 
2013-03-27 03:44:05 PM  

propasaurus: 700 Club host Pat Robertson agreed and added: "The foundation of our society since the founding of our great Republic is under attack by a few people [who] want to have their way doing of sex affirmed by everyone else."

Pat has no sense of irony, does he?


Fixt
 
2013-03-27 03:52:54 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: The striking down of sodomy laws "affirmed the lifestyle." If Jesus returned tomorrow he wouldn't give these two the time of day.


Agreed.  I also think that were this Jesus to return tomorrow his first order of business would be to go after the money men, the people who have bought and paid to make everything in this world to their liking; the lobbyists, the corporatists, the politicians etc who have farked us all over royally.
 
2013-03-27 03:53:18 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-27 03:53:21 PM  
Gay marriage leads to gay divorce!
 
2013-03-27 03:53:41 PM  
Well I'm glad to see this got cleared up and in short time too. Nothing to see here folks, you can go home.
 
2013-03-27 03:54:07 PM  
Meh, Pat just wants the warm bowel-bath that comes with the ghey sex...
 
2013-03-27 03:54:09 PM  
Well that just confirms they don't know what they're talking about and they lie.
 
2013-03-27 03:54:28 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-27 03:55:27 PM  
"doing sex"
 
2013-03-27 03:55:36 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?"


Purple.

You see, long ago God made man in His Holy Image (and women too, ahem), and made them all the many colors of the rainbow. But the orange people, who had no Jersey Shore, wandered away to find better tanning salons, and the blue people went up into outer space, save one who mentored five teenagers to become Power Rangers and fight the evil Rita Repulsa. The green people slowly died off as they were mistaken for trees and cut down, and finally only the purple people, with mystical powers over the forces of the universe, remained. Thus we now await the coming of the Great Purple Leader, who shall bring us out of dark times into salvation.
 
2013-03-27 03:55:58 PM  
So, we only get married to have children?
Well based on that logic nobody over 55 should be allowed to marry.
 
2013-03-27 03:56:32 PM  

thismomentinblackhistory: The striking down of sodomy laws "affirmed the lifestyle." If Jesus returned tomorrow he wouldn't give these two the time of day.


Jesus want apespit at the merchants outside the temple in his day. I'm sure he'd spare the time to plant one of his sandals deep up Robertson's asscrack.
 
2013-03-27 03:57:54 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.


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.
 
2013-03-27 03:58:35 PM  

Dr Dreidel: That's OK - Pat and Jim don't really want any followers.

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."

// bonus if it's a heavenly voice that speaks that truth



I love you but not in a Supreme Court decision way.
 
2013-03-27 03:58:52 PM  
So the fundies have changed talking points to "Gays want to punish Christianity".
 
2013-03-27 03:59:00 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-27 03:59:22 PM  
lazytraders.com
 
2013-03-27 03:59:33 PM  

PsiChick: 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?"

Purple.

You see, long ago God made man in His Holy Image (and women too, ahem), and made them all the many colors of the rainbow. But the orange people, who had no Jersey Shore, wandered away to find better tanning salons, and the blue people went up into outer space, save one who mentored five teenagers to become Power Rangers and fight the evil Rita Repulsa. The green people slowly died off as they were mistaken for trees and cut down, and finally only the purple people, with mystical powers over the forces of the universe, remained. Thus we now await the coming of the Great Purple Leader, who shall bring us out of dark times into salvation.


So Bob Jones University is protecting the world from Thanos and/or Sinestro?
 
2013-03-27 03:59:42 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: 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.


Any pastor/minister/imam can carry out political advocacy from the pulpit all damned day long.  He just doesn't get the special tax-exempt status.  If you have a storefront church that isn't set up to make heaps of money, though, you'd be paying virtually no taxes anyway, so go for it.

Preacherman just wants to have his cake and eat it.
 
2013-03-27 04:00:34 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-27 04:00:46 PM  

WorldCitizen: Well that just confirms they don't know what they're talking about and they lie

are both gay and in denial.

/FTFY.
//Willing to bet money on it.
 
2013-03-27 04:01:00 PM  
Whoa, wait a second, you mean Pat Robertson isn't gay?
 
2013-03-27 04:01:21 PM  

SnarfVader: There's not enough facepalm pictures on the internet for this.


Agreed. I'm glad these experts have weighed in now.
 
2013-03-27 04:01:25 PM  
What is more sad? That they actually believe this to be true, or they that know it isn't true and say it anyway?
 
2013-03-27 04:02:01 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?


That's kind of how some of the SC questioning went...


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gay-marriage-case-justices-focus -tr ade-laughs-fertility-220612049--election.html


"The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults," Cooper said.

Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, pressed Cooper on that argument, asking him why then the government could not bar couples who are both over the age of 55 from marrying, on the assumption that they are infertile.

Cooper replied that it would violate the Constitution to ban older people from marrying.


That's right - the guy arguing that gays shouldn't be able to marry because they can't procreate believes it would be unconstitutional to ban older people from marrying due to their inability to procreate.
 
2013-03-27 04:02:04 PM  
What is this? Religious people using dishonesty to push their propaganda?

What a surprise ... they never* do this.

* and by 'never' I mean always
 
2013-03-27 04:02:43 PM  

Evil Mackerel: Whoa, wait a second, you mean Pat Robertson isn't gay?


He is, he is just afraid of commitment and this has been a good deflection up to now. If it becomes legal for him to marry, he'll be fresh out of excuses.
 
2013-03-27 04:02:46 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.


This just a rewording of what Robertson has already said.  You used to be so much better at this.  :tsk tsk:

4/10
 
2013-03-27 04:02:57 PM  
Religion is a learned behavior.
 
2013-03-27 04:03:52 PM  
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?
 
2013-03-27 04:03:55 PM  
Well if they're not going to marry anyway, then everything will be fine even after you legalize gay marriage, right?
 
2013-03-27 04:04:08 PM  
We should not allow heterosexual people to marry until one of them proves they are menstruating.
Or in some cases, not menstruating for a little while.
 
2013-03-27 04:04:20 PM  
There are more straight people having butt sex than there are gay people in the world. So stop that tired argument that gays are trying to use marriage to "legitimize sodomy."
 
2013-03-27 04:04:44 PM  
It's hard to believe that old f*ck-face troll still has an audience. This country will be a much better place when they all go the way of the dinosaurs.
 
2013-03-27 04:05:19 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: thismomentinblackhistory: The striking down of sodomy laws "affirmed the lifestyle." If Jesus returned tomorrow he wouldn't give these two the time of day.

Agreed.  I also think that were this Jesus to return tomorrow his first order of business would be to go after the money men, the people who have bought and paid to make everything in this world to their liking; the lobbyists, the corporatists, the politicians etc who have farked us all over royally.


If Jesus returned tomorrow his first order of business would be to stand on a street corner shouting absurd end-of-the-world prophecies with the rest of the paranoid schizophrenics.
 
2013-03-27 04:06:58 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.


That is the party line, yes.

Of course, that might have something to do with the lack of option and the culture which surrounds it. We're not an alien species...we have the same basic drive as the heterosexuals, but the option to follow their lead was denied by law.
 
2013-03-27 04:06:58 PM  
"Two women do not have children."

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

Apparently didn't get the memo.
 
2013-03-27 04:07:13 PM  

Two16: 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.

This just a rewording of what Robertson has already said.  You used to be so much better at this.  :tsk tsk:

4/10


Ummm ... 99.999% of his posts are "Atheism is a religion". He has never been good at this.

He doesn't have an original or logical thought in his head. He is a simpleton who parrots stupid people.
 
2013-03-27 04:07:34 PM  
I'll stick with the opinions of those who are relevant to my interests. It's what Jesus would do, right?
 
2013-03-27 04:08:00 PM  

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."
 
2013-03-27 04:08:23 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.

 And even if this was true, so what? What's the problem with accepting homosexuals as normal?
 
2013-03-27 04:08:56 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Religion is a learned behavior.


... that prohibits any more learning.
 
2013-03-27 04:08:56 PM  
illegitimate personal contacts for a purportedly magical jew who was executed 2000 years ago at the behest of his own people...
doesn't carry a great deal of weight with me
 
2013-03-27 04:09:36 PM  

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


Correction, no women over 55 should be allowed to marry.
 
2013-03-27 04:09:44 PM  

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.


I visited my parents this weekend and my dad used the term ni*ger.  I said, "dad, you had good buddies in Vietnam that were black."  He says.."yep."

/head scratching CSB
 
2013-03-27 04:09:57 PM  

PsiChick: 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?"

Purple.


Eggplant
www.sabotagetimes.com
 
2013-03-27 04:10:24 PM  

Farking Canuck: Two16: 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.

This just a rewording of what Robertson has already said.  You used to be so much better at this.  :tsk tsk:

4/10

Ummm ... 99.999% of his posts are "Atheism is a religion". He has never been good at this.

He doesn't have an original or logical thought in his head. He is a simpleton who parrots stupid people.



thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2013-03-27 04:10:34 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-27 04:10:35 PM  

GAT_00: I have several friends who would be very interested in this revelation.


Are they gay friends? Do think they get along with your black friends? Is one black? Did you get  a 2fer?
 
2013-03-27 04:10:37 PM  
Ok Pat, we get it; blacks were happier when they were slaves, child labor helped build life skills for the poor, and women were happier when they didn't have to worry about who to vote for.

Move along now, you're needed in the dustbin of history.
 
2013-03-27 04:11:00 PM  

cc_rider: It's hard to believe that old f*ck-face troll still has an audience. This country will be a much better place when they all go the way of the dinosaurs.


The only people left watching it cannot figure out how to change the channel.
 
2013-03-27 04:11:25 PM  

blatz514: 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.

I visited my parents this weekend and my dad used the term ni*ger.  I said, "dad, you had good buddies in Vietnam that were black."  He says.."yep."

/head scratching CSB


Chris Rock has something to say about this.
 
2013-03-27 04:11:55 PM  
And of course the "straight evangelical leaders" have been such paragons of fidelity. . . .
 
2013-03-27 04:12:05 PM  

blatz514: 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.

I visited my parents this weekend and my dad used the term ni*ger.  I said, "dad, you had good buddies in Vietnam that were black."  He says.."yep."

/head scratching CSB


Is your dad black?
 
2013-03-27 04:12:18 PM  
Feh, Pat Roberton.  Guessing someone has a nice piece of schadenfreude heading Pat's way when he kicks the bucket.
 
2013-03-27 04:12:42 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Religion is a learned behavior.


It's a lifestyle choice.
 
2013-03-27 04:12:44 PM  

Lutrasimilis: We're not an alien species...


Then why do you keep anally probing me?
 
2013-03-27 04:12:52 PM  

umad: blatz514: 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.

I visited my parents this weekend and my dad used the term ni*ger.  I said, "dad, you had good buddies in Vietnam that were black."  He says.."yep."

/head scratching CSB

Chris Rock has something to say about this.


Could you link it?  I don't know if I heard his take.
 
2013-03-27 04:13:25 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?


Cuz gheys are teh icky so shutup. That's why.
 
2013-03-27 04:13:48 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-27 04:14:23 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Lutrasimilis: We're not an alien species...

Then why do you keep anally probing me?



You didn't say "no", did you?
 
2013-03-27 04:15:33 PM  
Well, to be perfectly honest, most straight women don't want marriage either.  They just want the big party day, with the poufy dress, and all the shower party gifts.
 
2013-03-27 04:15:51 PM  

Lutrasimilis: the same basic drive as the heterosexuals


You mean standard or automatic transmissions?
 
2013-03-27 04:16:05 PM  

blatz514: I visited my parents this weekend and my dad used the term ni*ger. I said, "dad, you had good buddies in Vietnam that were black." He says.."yep."

/head scratching CSB


Perhaps he doesn't consider it to be a racist term.
 
2013-03-27 04:16:22 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?


No kidding! I've always said you were on the cutting edge of social de-evolution
 
2013-03-27 04:16:30 PM  

blatz514: Could you link it? I don't know if I heard his take.


Not while I'm at work. It should be pretty easy to find though if you google his name and the magic n-word.
 
2013-03-27 04:16:33 PM  
"God is not a homophobe, God is almighty, He's in charge of the world and this is the way he made it."

Someone should explain to these asshats that religious beliefs have no place in law.
 
2013-03-27 04:18:09 PM  

LucklessWonder: PsiChick: 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?"

Purple.

You see, long ago God made man in His Holy Image (and women too, ahem), and made them all the many colors of the rainbow. But the orange people, who had no Jersey Shore, wandered away to find better tanning salons, and the blue people went up into outer space, save one who mentored five teenagers to become Power Rangers and fight the evil Rita Repulsa. The green people slowly died off as they were mistaken for trees and cut down, and finally only the purple people, with mystical powers over the forces of the universe, remained. Thus we now await the coming of the Great Purple Leader, who shall bring us out of dark times into salvation.

So Bob Jones University is protecting the world from Thanos and/or Sinestro?


Pfft, the Purple People wouldn't bother with that. They will come in spaceships built by the blue people bearing the mighty sword Excalibur! They shall have no need of fools or bigots! THEY SHALL RULE!
 
2013-03-27 04:19:40 PM  
regardless if this is true or not denying them the option is wrong
 
2013-03-27 04:20:21 PM  
The smart ones don't
 
2013-03-27 04:20:35 PM  
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
 
2013-03-27 04:20:54 PM  

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

Someone should explain to these asshats that religious beliefs have no place in law modern times.


FTFY
 
2013-03-27 04:21:00 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.


I don't doubt that he is secretly hoping to get some PMITA, and doing that in prison just inflames his loins even more.
 
2013-03-27 04:21:03 PM  
Subby: "Newsflash to all homosexuals. Pat Robertson and Pastor Jim Garlow say that gays don't really want marriage"

Awesome, let's give it to 'em just to piss 'em off, then!

/or at least, let's tell Robertson and Garlow that's why we're doing it
 
2013-03-27 04:21:22 PM  

PsiChick: Pfft, the Purple People wouldn't bother with that. They will come in spaceships built by the blue people bearing the mighty sword Excalibur! They shall have no need of fools or bigots! THEY SHALL RULE!


Just make the Purple People sit in rocking chairs. Defeats them every time.
 
2013-03-27 04:21:34 PM  

Rwa2play: Feh, Pat Roberton.  Guessing someone has a nice piece of schadenfreude heading Pat's way when he kicks the bucket.


Ew. Necrophilia with a German sausage.
 
2013-03-27 04:22:18 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?"


And that's why you were cut out of his will. ;-)
 
2013-03-27 04:22:59 PM  

jigger: blatz514: 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.

I visited my parents this weekend and my dad used the term ni*ger.  I said, "dad, you had good buddies in Vietnam that were black."  He says.."yep."

/head scratching CSB

Is your dad black?


Ha!  Should have mentioned "grew up in the middle of nowhere Wisconsin."   Not a lot of black dudes there back in the 50's-70's.
 
2013-03-27 04:25:10 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.


Well, those pastors can carry out political advocacy from the pulpit.... they just need to pay taxes on the churches income then right?

But, I am guessing he wants to have his cake and eat it to.
 
2013-03-27 04:25:34 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: Rwa2play: Feh, Pat Roberton.  Guessing someone has a nice piece of schadenfreude heading Pat's way when he kicks the bucket.

Ew. Necrophilia with a German sausage.


What a waste of good sausage
 
2013-03-27 04:26:37 PM  
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
 
2013-03-27 04:26:56 PM  
"The foundation of our society since the founding of our great Republic is under attack exemplified by a few people [who] want to have their way doing of sex affirmed ignored by everyone else."

fixed.
 
2013-03-27 04:28:01 PM  
Pat is just acting.  He more or less has to say something inflammatory every day to make his bigoted, racist listener base get riled up enough to break out their checkbooks.
 
2013-03-27 04:28:02 PM  

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


HEFNER!!!  (Shakes fist at the sky)
 
2013-03-27 04:28:02 PM  

umad: blatz514: Could you link it? I don't know if I heard his take.

Not while I'm at work. It should be pretty easy to find though if you google his name and the magic n-word.


Lol, I'm thinking googling Chris Rock and the magic n-word would pop up a million results!  But thanks, I will do that when I get home from work.
 
2013-03-27 04:28:25 PM  

Ed Grubermann: PsiChick: Pfft, the Purple People wouldn't bother with that. They will come in spaceships built by the blue people bearing the mighty sword Excalibur! They shall have no need of fools or bigots! THEY SHALL RULE!

Just make the Purple People sit in rocking chairs. Defeats them every time.


wallpaperweb.org

Or just send these guys to eat them.
 
2013-03-27 04:31:33 PM  
Come on guys, y'all are preachers, so show a little decorum. Stop talking about sex in public.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 245 of 245 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report