thismomentinblackhistory: The striking down of sodomy laws "affirmed the lifestyle." If Jesus returned tomorrow he wouldn't give these two the time of day.
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.
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.
FirstNationalBastard: Religion is a learned behavior.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
namegoeshere: Okay, Fark it. That's it. "Marriage" needs to be separate from a "Domestic Partnership Contract."
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.
WorldCitizen: Well that just confirms they don't know what they're talking about and they lie
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.
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?"
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?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 27 2017 20:45:37
Runtime: 0.393 sec (392 ms)